Talk:National Organization for Marriage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This article needs to have a link to an LGBT category

A group that exists to limit the rights of LGBT people needs to be linked to an LGBT category. --DCX (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Gathering Storm: Gays = Nazis, Churchill reference

'The Gathering Storm' is the title of the first chapter of 'The Second World War' written by Winston Churchill in 1948. Its central theme is the futility of appeasement and the need to stand up to hostile forces, namely the German Nazis. It is important to mention the origin of the phrase "The Gathering Storm" and how it relates to LGBT people.--DCX (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Except the Churchill usage is not the origin of the phrase. It had long been being used in religious and war contexts as this search of pre-20th century uses will show. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Is that what NOM's useage is based on? a book from 1856? I have only heard it of in reference to Churchill's work. When I google "a Gathering Storm" in Google books, the first entry is the Churchill book, "THE GATHERING STORM depicts the rise of Hitler and the indifference of the leaders of the European democracies to the clouds of the gathering storm." --DCX (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My only assumption is that it is based on language - a gathering storm means trouble is visibly coming. If you go to Google news at the moment, you'll find there's a gathering storm over the vatican's cover up, a gathering storm in relationship to protests in Bangkok. It's common terminology. Linking it to Churchill here would be WP:OR ---Nat Gertler (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Churchill was my only reference, but now that I see that it's a cliche. --DCX (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

education fund

We've got a bit of a problem discussing the NOM Education Fund, because at this point we don't have any reliable third-party source discussing what it does. The NOM source is problematic to trust, and not just for usual WP:SPS reasons - it's hard to explain how The Firefighters' Defense Fund has anything to do with marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point about not using self published material as a source, but I believe there are certain cases when it is acceptable. Please advise your thoughts and feel free to edit anything as you see fit.--DCX (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: [...] 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". There is reasonably doubts as to authenticity of this claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, understood.--DCX (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The organization is primarily funded by conservative religious groups

Thats stretch a generalization, a bit dodgy and probably doesn't belong in a lead. - Schrandit (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC) (also, what needs updating?)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

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

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

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

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

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

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

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

NOM is an organization which exists solely to deny LGBT people rights; how much more verification do you need? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that comment of yours citable Exploding boy? I would support removal of the cat, it is a bit POV, like saying because the group says they like black that means they dislike white. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not that it should need to be; everybody knows what they stand for. However, you need look no further than the first sentence of our own article: "The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is an American non-profit organization that seeks to prevent the legal recognition and acceptance of same-sex marriage." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because they support traditional forms of marriage does not mean they are opposed to lesbian gay and bisexual rights. You can assert it does but that is only a point of view. I would delete this cat its awful pov labeling.Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Go on then cite me your comment ,

NOM is an organization which exists solely to deny LGBT people rights Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What part of "prevent the legal recognition and acceptance of same-sex marriage" is unclear? Also, please indent consistently for ease of reading. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you cant understand which are my posts there is no chance of a discussion. You have not cited your comment, can you do it? If you cant you should remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply asking you to follow the standard talk page process. If you can't do that then there's no chance of a reasonable discussion. I have given two citations already, both of which are extant in our article. But if you need still more clarity, then here you go: NOM was "Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage."[1] Exploding Boy (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That cite does not support your comment and again if you can not cite it you should remove it, it is actually very opinionated and you will never be able to cite it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how that quotation doesn't support what I said? And also, why do you think I should remove the comment from a talk page? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The category is very dodgy. It depends on subjective definitions of rights and which group they belong to/benifit. I would favor removing it. - Schrandit (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Dodgy" is certainly subjective, but I don't think this case is unclear at all. The category is "LGBT rights opposition," and NOM, by its own description, opposes the right of LGBT people to marry. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to cite it or delete it, you should not accuse orgsanisations of point of view claims that you can not provide a citation for. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's get a couple of things straight. First, I don't know what you're referring to in the above comment: the category or my comment on this page. If the former, I didn't add the category and I have no intention of deleting it: I oppose its deletion. It is entirely accurate and neutral. NOM, by its own description, does not simply "support traditional forms of marriage," as someone claimed above. It actively opposes extending the right of marriage to gay people. If the latter, I have provided now three citations for what I posted on this page; you have failed to explain how they don't support what I said. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there - per WP:CAT categories are supposed to be uncontroversial. - Schrandit (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean that editors can simply invent a controversy where one doesn't exist in order to prevent a category they don't like being placed on an article where it belongs. In other words, it isn't editors' opinions that count: in order to preclude this article from being included in this category, editors would have to show that NOM does not oppose rights for LGBT people. The fact, of course, is that NOM opposes a specific right for LGBT people: marriage. This is the entire reason they were created, and it says so on their own "About Us" page. This category unambiguously applies to them. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The cat has again been removed per consensus on the cat's Talk page. In addition, I note the cat is intended by the soapboxers to point out the issue vis-a-vis the same-sex marriage issue, but even that is moot as that cat already exists here. Hence the removed cat serves no purpose other than to soapbox. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that several users dispute that there was any such consensus on the Category talk:LGBT rights opposition page, and there certainly was no such consensus here. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You dispute it. You are mistaken. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, in this very section you are the one and only editor agreeing with you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion doesn't appear to support what you claim, but let's keep it to one page. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Gallagher's (ie. NOM's) Demonstrable Lies!

Hey, I was wondering if we could add a section highlighting and analyzing the instances in which Gallagher has demonstrably lied, with a smile on her face, citing she and NOM's own actions and words to the contrary? As a rep. for NOM, Gallagher lied on national TV, twice, that I know of. And, I can only imagine that this was in an attempt to soften its appearance, depending on whom she is speaking to (her audience), because when she debated at Yale in front of very liberal students she claimed not to have any "moral" animus against Gay people, yet Jeremy Hooper at GoodAsYou.Org disclosed several instances when appearing before right-wingers that she does take a harsh moral stance against the Gay community, even declaring that heterosexual supporters of marriage equality are committing a sin! But, I digress... Those two instance I was speaking of occur on CNN:

When Gallagher was debating a Gay rights advocate named Toby (if i recall correctly), she empirically LIED and stated that sub-second class "Civil Unions" are fine by her (and, by default, NOM). That is a LIE! She was quoted at a Gay rights group in NOM as stating that Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships "erode the [special] status" of marriage; while, at the time of taping, NOM was engaged in an anti-gay campaign against Washington state's new "everything but marriage" law in order to defeat Civil Unions. Toby stated just that, to which Maggie responded accusing Toby of LYING (which, itself, was a lie on her part)! Gallagher, of course, opposes all legal rights and benefits for gay people, according to her own writings. Several weeks ago i read an article written by Gallagher herself, stating her vehement opposition to Civil Unions and any such status: she recounted how, after a lecture, a woman asked her why she doesn't start each discussion with the "PC thing" and come out in favor of Civil Unions. She reflected on that and, instead of giving the answer she gave that woman, she goes on to state that, had she had the forethought, she would have whipped out her birth certificate and said tat that is what makes her a free citizen, though (if Gay people get their way), "I may or may nit die free"! If you are familiar with her various statements over the year, Gallagher really is quite ruthless!

More recently, on another CNN debate, this time with Evan Wolfson of Freedom TO marry, he quite correctly stated that Gallagher and NOM really don't care about the peoples' right to vote on marriage, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting for a Federal marriage Amendment (which NOM has been endorsing for years), to which Gallagher responded that Wolfson was simply putting words into her mouth and she doesn't believe that at all. This, of course, was another lie on her part, because NOM has been trying to get a FMA passed foir quite some time, and that WOULD have taken away the peoples' right to "vote", just as Wolfson declared.

So, you see, NOM very CLEARLY has this pattern of lying to the public in order to make it seem more mainstream than what it really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.40 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The policy issue with what you want to do is WP:NOR. If you have reliable (as per WP:RS), secondary (as per WP:SECONDARY) sources that say "NOM lies all the time", we can summarize and organize what those sources say, but synthesis is, as painful as that may be sometimes, not our bailiwick. Our job is not to document the truth, our job is to summarize the world as it is documented by others. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you take the Wiki policies to extremes that are unreasonable. For example, oen can quote Gallagher's positions, such as on CNN where she claimed to be "okay" with Civil Unions (which is all over youtube), give Toby's reaction, and then cite sources that show that NOM clearly opposes and was acting in opposition to Civil Unions in Washington state at the time of that broadcast, and that later on Gallagher admitted that CUs "erode the status" of Marriage. All of these citations are easily verifiable on-line. You are clearly operating under untenable perimeters in an effort to seemingly restrict information and knowledge via citation and commentary, rather than making it far more widely known!

Alleged campaign violations?

I read yesterday that they were found to have violated California's campaign disclosure(?) laws on several counts. If it's not alleged anymore, should it really still be said in that manner in the article? http://www.lagunabeachindependent.com/news/2010-06-18/Front_Page/Gay_Activist_Wins_Against_Mormon_Church.html Or did I read wrong? 68.227.169.133 (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You read wrong. That wasn't NOM that was found in violation; it was the LDS church. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Soon to be relocated

The sources on the statement that the headquarters are soon to be relocated are a year old now, so either the headquarters has been relocated (in which case the statement should be changed) or it has not and the sources were in error (in which case the claim should be eliminated.) The NOM website still lists the Princeton address. There is a DC address that they have used, but the suite appears to be shared by many organizations, which makes it dubious that it's a functioning headquarters. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

This article has had an {{unbalanced}} tag for nearly a year, but I'm not sure what the areas of concern are. There was some discussion in the archives from that period, but it petered out without any particular resolution. Can anyone articulate what is considered unbalanced in the article? If not, can we remove the tag? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No one. I am removing it. --Destinero (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gathering Storm

The case did not go to trial; it was appealed from a pretrial motion grant. If you think this fact is too insignificant to include we can discuss this, but the original reversion seemed like it was based on your belief that the case went to trial. (I'm not personally acquainted with the case, but I am personally acquainted with the law of civil procedure.) :) Teaforthetillerman (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC) To be clear, I don't think this is a big deal, just didn't want to revert your reversion without explaining here. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but saying it did not go to trial introduces more confusion than clarity, and explaining what did happen doesn't really add to the information relevant to "Gathering Storm" (and the case has its own page, so there is a place for relevant data here). What the court ruled is of interest, what the court did not have a chance to rule is less so. I've killed the whole settlement sentence, pared some things down a bit, although I did clarify that it was argued as an objection to inseminating the unmarried, not the lesbian, which would seem to have relevance to how it applies to the NOM ad. --05:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The tricky thing about that is that no court never determined whether the actual objection was to inseminating an unmarried person (which might have been ok under the civil rights act--the CASC didn't reach that question) or to inseminating a lesbian. The plaintiff's case depended on the objecting being to inseminating a lesbian, rather than to inseminating an unmarried person. Whether the objection was to inseminating an unmarried person (as the defendants claimed) or a lesbian (as the plaintiff claimed) was never determined, since the case never went to trial. I mean, the whole section probably doesn't matter at all (we should probably reduce it to "The HRC argued that the ad exaggerated the cases to which it referred" or something), but I wanted it to be legally precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaforthetillerman (talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right that I kerfuffled the unmarried objection (and for that matter the m=number of doctors, as I got too focused on the later part of the situation); I have edited. However, we should have more than just that the HRC objected, which makes it sound like a he-said/she-said situation, when we have facts that clarify the relevant claims; that neither the NJ nor CA situation involved gay marriage is significant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sorry we crossed edits there. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

NOMexposed section

This is a good paragraph, but one quibble I'm not sure how to handle (in addition to the changes I already made: "The site contains profiles of NOM leaders and prominent supporters, details of NOM's ties..." Several of the ties detailed are (admittedly, I think) speculative or potential ties. For example: "NOM also may receive substantial funding from..." "NOM seems to be attempting to hide..." etc.

Is it appropriate/neutral to say "details of ties..." or "details of ties and potential ties..."?

I am also trying to think of a better word than "ties," but haven't come up with one yet. (Ties seems strong for many of these relationships, which are much more tenuous.)

Thanks in advance. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

We should probably try to reflect the language used in (presumably neutral) RSes. In this case, that's pretty much the Newsweek article (the Washington Independent piece mostly just reprints the NOMExposed press release — that's OK to help establish notability, but not so useful for a neutral presentation). The Newsweek piece says that the site "details NOM supporters like the Mormon and Catholic churches, as well as Opus Dei. It also posts items about organizations and individuals that have publicly expressed antigay rhetoric and activity and their relationship to NOM." (Incidentally, that's why I used "Mormon" instead of LDS, since it was the term used both in Newsweek and on the site.) But we just used "supporters" to refer to individuals rather than organizations, so repeating that term isn't ideal. Hmm.

Would "connections" be better than "ties"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "links"? I'm unsure. All these words, with this phrasing, have become scare-language (to my ears), but that may be inevitable; I can't think of anything markedly better. The Newsweek phrasing, though more awkward, does seem more carefully neutral (although "antigay" is ambiguous). Teaforthetillerman (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Links" sounds OK to me. It's probably worth noting that NOM doesn't dispute the existence of these ties/connections/links. In their response, Brian Brown is quoted as saying, "Gee, they've discovered that NOM is a coalition of people of diverse religious views who believe gay marriage will hurt marriage as a social institution. They didn't need a whole website to ‘expose’ that; I could have told them." It's true that NOMExposed is trying to portray these ties/links/connections in the worst possible light, while NOM wants to portray them in the best light. But NOM isn't saying that the connections don't exist, or even particularly downplaying them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Links" seems reasonable enough to me too. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems

This article contains very little information about NOM other than the criticisms of NOM by its opponents. While the criticisms certainly belong in the article, they should not be the entire article. It is difficult to imagine a more unbalanced article than this one. It would almost be better to start over from scratch than to have the article read the way it currently does. If the article remains, it should be renamed to reflect that the article is not about NOM in a broad sense, but is focused on controversies and criticisms. I am trying to assume good faith here...

184.74.22.161 (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It actually contains a large portion of what NOM does that gets coverage, which are the "controversies and criticisms". When they get involved in these suits over releasing their donor lists, that tends to get coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Anon, can you provide some examples of the sort of material you think is lacking, preferably with supporting reliable sources? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, but I think it's inevitable when most mainstream media sources cover only criticism of the organization. At that point it's essentially uncorrectable; Wikipedia's standards essentially mean it will never be fairer than the NYT. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For example, the Providence Journal article cited for the first-amendment case in Rhode Island is a horribly written and pretty biased article, but it's from the closest thing to a neutral mainstream source that's covering the suit. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I added that section, so I'd like to say from the start that I'm open to criticism of it. I have one constructive (I hope) suggestion, while I made a nod to the grounds of the lawsuit ("free speech") I think it would be better (and fairer) if we included a quote from the lawsuit (or a press release, but the lawsuit would be better for the same reason I quoted the judge's critical comments from the decision itself, say) that in a sentence or two summarized the what the lawsuit was trying to accomplish and why it was important. I'm probably not the best person to pick out that, but a primary source would be entirely acceptable there. What do you think? Also, if NOM has published any reactions to the judge's statement, those should be included, I expect we should see something in the form of a formal filing (that is, NOM refiling the case as per the judge's request) in the next few days. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry certainly wasn't criticizing your presentation there. I spent awhile right after you added the paragraph looking around for neutral sources or even press releases to cite and couldn't find any. The ProJo article and blog coverage are awful; most don't even present it as a challenge to the constitutionality of the regulations, but as an attempt to evade or get a special exception to the regulations. It's bizarre. i was just waiting to see if better mainstream media coverage appeared rather than try to wrestle something neutral out of what's currently available. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that it is a request to get an immediate exception for NOM, even if it is on the grounds that it would likely be eventually found unconstitutional. That's because what NOM has filed is for a preliminary injunction against enforcing the law on them, and while they do make some general constitutional claims about the law, they also make claims that the law as written specifically does not apply to them (in claiming that they are not a Political Action Committee - "If the Court does not enter declaratory judgment that Rhode Island's PAC definition does not apply to NOM, then NOM challenges the definition."). --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in this sense essentially every challenge to the constitutionality of speech restrictions by someone with standing is a request for an exception (everyone asks for a preliminary injunction). It's still an atypical way of characterizing the challenge that misleads about the nature of the complaint. To the extent they're arguing they don't fall under the definition of the law, they're not seeking an exception, just a clarification that they don't fall within the definition (which, if they don't, they're definitionally not arguing for an exception to the law). Teaforthetillerman (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries about what you said, I think you hear me being critical of my contributions myself, I wasn't bothered by anything you said, While I hope we see something in the next few days when NOM refiles (as I presume they'll do), I think it's quite possible we don't, then it's really a question of either cutting out this whole section or doing what we can to shore up what we have (something probably better done from the legal filings), I think. I kinda prefer the latter, but... whatever folks think is fine. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if a NOM supporter or ally (who also understands Wikipedia's rules and regulations) could give a more specific critique of the article. Unless the anon returns with more specific criticisms and engages in discussion here with regular page editors, this amounts to a drive-by tagging, and should probably be reversed. (We should, however, wait a few days to give the anon a chance to return and reply.)

On the more general criticism, I suppose that the article could do a better job articulating NOM's standpoint, using their website, published materials and interviews with Brown and Gallagher as sources. If nobody else volunteers, I'll try to put something together over the next few weeks. If nothing else, it would be a good exercise in writing for the opponent. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're apt to run into a basic problem, in that you're assuming NOM has a standpoint, as though they existed to support a concrete set of personal beliefs and live by them. They're a business, set up to bring in money which they are to use to stop gay marriage in the United States. They make statements not because they that argument is their actual standpoint, but because they serve that goal; their arguments are not always consistent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nat, I have to say that your cynical comments above are off base. Maggie Gallagher would not be doing what she's doing if she didn't strongly believe in it. I believe that her sincerity comes through in her writing and her public speaking, but I know her personally, and for you to question whether she and NOM really believe what they say they believe is just totally off the mark. Also, I'd be interested to see any instance where you could point out that NOM's arguments were inconsistent.184.74.22.161 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

184.74.22.161, please remain WP:CIVIL. Further, your statement, "I know her personally" may present a WP:COI/WP:OR concern. There are also WP:SPA concerns as I look at your edit history, and perhaps even WP:SOCK since your first edit ever was to say, "Thanks very much for the diatribe". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling: First of all, "Thanks very much for the diatribe" was NOT my "first edit ever" on this discussion page--not by a long shot. Please check your facts before making accusations of WP:SOCK. Second of all, I believe that my comments to Nat were civil, albeit pointed. If Nat feels differently, he can let me know, and we'll work it out. Third, regarding WP:SPA, my editing history reflects my interests in New York State politics, U.S. politics, abortion issues, LGBT issues, and Christianity. Not sure what the single purpose would be; let me know when you come up with one. Fourth, please advise as to any edit I've made that you believe violates WP:OR, and I will address your concerns specifically. Fifth, regarding WP:COI, I have reviewed the appropriate policy and believe I am in compliance. I do not work for the National Organization for Marriage. Thanks.184.74.22.161 (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I stand by what I said originally. Your response twisted what I said to justify your actions, thereby confirming to me I was right on target. For example, I said your first edit ever was so and so, and it was. You said your first edit ever on this Talk page was not so and so. Correct, but I was not talking about this Talk page. Your other points are similarly nonresponsive. I know you are new so all I am suggesting is that you be respectful of other editors and of Wiki policy. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My first edit ever--on this page, on this feed, or on any other page on Wikipedia--was NOT "Thanks for the diatribe," so you are still incorrect. As far as I can recall, I only made a comment like that on the LGBT Parenting talk page during the course of a lengthy discussion in which I had previously made a number of contributions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting). I did not twist what you said, I merely pointed out that you were incorrect. You were. Case closed. My other points are directly responsive to the panoply of accusations you just tried to make. I will certainly be respectful of other editors and of Wiki policy, and I would ask that you please respect me by refraining from making accusations that don't have a factual basis. If you make such accusations, you can expect me to contradict you factually. Thank you.184.74.22.161 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I have made an embarrassing mistake, and a dumb one. Sorry. Given that, I withdraw everything I said and will strike it all out. Please forgive and perhaps strikeout all your responses. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgiven! No problem. I have stricken my responses, and I appreciate your apology very much. Thank you.184.74.22.161 (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree that NOM and its representatives contradict themselves on a semi-regular basis, but it should still be possible to construct a summary of the positions the organization has maintained throughout its short life (e.g. man+woman good, man+man bad, woman+woman bad). Nonetheless, it would be helpful to have those positions articulated here, and to that end I've left a message on the anon's talk page encouraging him or her to come back to this page and engage in the discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Josiah, you asked for more details from a NOM supporter on what was wrong with the article. Thank you for your question. I think it would be easier to say what is right with the article. With that said, specific problems include: (a) the fact that the lede is extremely brief and could be expanded to include some information on the scope and impact of NOM's activities, which--regardless of one's position on the marriage issue--have been significant; (b) the fact that the section on Proposition 8 devotes only one sentence to NOM's involvement, and then immediately moves on to Fred Karger's lawsuits; (c) the fact that the "Gathering Storm" section immediately invokes the HRC's perspective on the ad and proceeds to set forth all of the problems with it from a pro-same-sex-marriage perspective; and (d) the fact that the entire tone of the article is dripping with contempt. The POV is hard to deny; Nat Gertler's comments above make it pretty obvious. I will say that the sections on the Doug Hoffman campaign and the Maine campaign are decent.184.74.22.161 (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(a), (b) and (c) are specific enough that I can be pretty certain I'd support the changes you'd recommend presuming they can be reliably sourced. I'm quite hesitant to author something myself, because I'm concerned that my own POV might get in the way of doing a decent job of it. (I am not arguing with (d), by the way, I omit it only because it's not specific enough to know that I'd agree with how the assessment translates into specific article changes.) --j⚛e decker^talk 21:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What the heck, I took a stab at addressing some of the concerns I hear in (c). I should tell you that I had a very difficult time finding any secondary coverage of the advertisement that wasn't from a source likely to draw bias allegations. I've added an introduction to the section that actually explains the ad campaign, and then moved the "response" sort of material to follow the section of the article that attempts to describe the ad and discuss the events the ad alludes to. I haven't attempted to edit those specific paragraphs. Comments on my attempt would be welcome, even if critical. Thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe. I think the article is improved. It still has a ways to go, though. I am working on adding more substance about the organization's activities.184.74.22.161 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

2M4M controversy

Trying to think how to improve the advertising section; maybe need to add more on their other campaigns if it's been covered anywhere. In the meantime--is the 2M4M section noteworthy? The only two sources I see are blog entries at dailykos and TPM. It's funny, but looks like it never made news in any print or neutral source. In any case, it's not clear to me there was a "controversy," at least from the cites, so we should probably change the heading, if not remove the subsection(s). Teaforthetillerman (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

2M4M did get attention in significant online sources - not just dailykos and TPM, but also Gawker and The Atlantic's Daily Dish. It is worthy of at least some inclusion, which doesn't mean it might not be due some trimming. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think Gawker or DD would make something worth inclusion, either, but in that case we should probably at least add those cites. This look to me like all they said on it, though: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/2m4m.html and http://gawker.com/5207286/marriage+defending-crusaders-are-2m4m Teaforthetillerman (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Daily Dish is published by a respectable source (The Atlantic), and has a far higher readership than many print sources which would be considered appropriate. In this day and age, we can't shrug off publications simply because they're electronic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, as seen on the video embedded here, the topic was also mentioned on MSNBC. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, I certainly didn't mean to write off online sources as such. It's obviously a subjective area, but I see a big difference between impartial online news sources on one end and pure editorial blogging on the other (with blogs/sources often acting somewhere in between on the spectrum). In this case, it looks much more like editorial blogging to me: 3-4 political commentators put up posts essentially saying "lulz." No one made a news-story out of it. But again, I know this is subjective. (A mention by, say, Bill O'Reilly's show and Maggie Gallagher's blog of something embarrassing to HRC wouldn't seem noteworthy to me, either.) Teaforthetillerman (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's well more than "3 or 4"; that many have been cited but those are examples among the biggest blogs in the biz, and those aren't the gay-specific blogs like Towleroad, Joe.My.God, or Box Turtle Bulletin. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions on what the heading should be? Is there evidence of a controversy? Teaforthetillerman (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Churchill

Some good effort, Joe, but I think that one person speculating about the source of the title of the "Gathering Storm" is a bit of a stretch for sufficient relevancy for a whole paragraph, particularly since it's such a dubious claim ("gathering storm" being common terminology, in common use now and well predating Churchill - this was discussed a bit back in Archive 2 of the Talk page for this article.) I also think that the YouTube of the ad should be an external link, rather than a reference, as it does not prove any of the information in the sentence it's connected to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, Nat. I was concerned about the reference, I think if there is a literary allusion in the title that it's interesting, but I'm happy to lose the Churchill thing. I waffled on the EL, too, the one thing it does demonstrate is the title, which is pretty trivial. EL it is. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, feel free to hack at it if I've mucked things up.  :) Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a "hate group"

Despite edits here to the contrary and mentions in articles about the SPLC hate group list NOM was not designated as a hate group by them. SPLC made a list of 18 "anti-gay" groups, of which 13 were designated as hate groups, but NOM was among the 5 not so designated. See the SPLC list, and note that there is not an asterisk by the "National Organization for Marriage" entry. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, you are correct. I apologize. But let's leave in the tertiary source and remove the primary one per WP:RS. I'll let you do that, if you don't mind. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to remove the primary source - primary sources are acceptable as sources for material about themselves -- see Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. As it is being used to verify that the SPLC did make that statement of their opinion, it's appropriate use of source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but we are talking about NOM, not SPLC. Further, the tertiary source contains not only the information we need for support, but also a link to the SPLC for those interested in looking further. An encyclopedia is build on mainstream sources, not primary sources, except in certain circumstances. This is not one of those circumstances. Please reconsider. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

The material being sourced here is about SPLC; if we were saying "NOM is an anti-gay group", then the SPLC source would be inappropriate, but for saying "SPLC believes NOM to be an anti-gay group", then an SPLC source is appropriate, as it is a statement about what the SPLC believes. People and groups are considered reliable sources about their own opinions. Additionally, much of the tertiary material to be found is fuzzy and confused about NOM, and would make inappropriate sourcing simply for reasons of inaccuracy. It is not the only source being used; it is, however, the clearest one. The Washington Post source currently cited does not make it clear what was said about NOM, and in fact leaves the impression that they were listed as a hate group; if anything, that source should be deleted, but it does support the fact that the SPLC list was of mainstream interest. The Iowa Independent source that I deleted didn't even mention NOM. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

NOM radio interview

The NOM leader will be interviewed on Monday, Nov 29, 2010, on WOR (AM), Steve Malzberg, 4-6pm local time. She will be discussing being labeled as anti-gay by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I believe this will be directly relevant to this article, and it will be directly from the horse's mouth. The interview will be available thereafter as an audio file.

1. To what extent could such interviews be used for encyclopedic purposes?
2. To what extent could such files be preserved for use here if we decided to use the interview? I have not looked at the site to see how long it stores audio files? I'll suppose WP:COPYVIO will be of concern.
3. What citation would we use for an audio file?
4. What else am I missing?

I expect her to be an expert on herself. This being the NOM page, I expect it may be useful in some way. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's "her", then we're not talking about the NOM leader, as both the President and the Chairman of the Board are himses. My best guess is that you're talking about Maggie Gallagher, who is a former president of NOM, but no longer holds that position. (Possibly you're talking about Jennifer Roback Morse, head of a subproject of NOM.)

1. I cannot quickly pull up a guideline directly addressing interviews, but generally speaking they are a poor source of facts, as even when the transmitter is a reliable source, they aren't verifying all claims as they go along. So it's very much a "primary source", citable for claims as claims and opinions as opinions, but weaker for facts.
2. The audio files cannot be preserved here; they are not in the public domain, and are unlikely to be released under a convenient license. We can use fairly brief quotations for discussion of content under fair use laws. (However, you may want to check whether The Wayback Machine backs up the WOR file site; if so, that would be a more convenient link, as that is likely to remain in place much longer.)
3. What you're actually citing is not the file, but the show source, of which the file is a recording. So the text would be the same as citing any radio show or TV show, with the link being to the audio file.
4. You may be missing that Gallagher (if it's her) stating her opinion does not make it the opinion of NOM, so you'll have to be careful about that statement. You may also be missing that the entire SPLC section of this is currently two sentences, of which one sentence is already a rebuttal to the claim. I'm not saying that there can't be any expansion, but there would need to be some balance; you cannot have a huge heaping rebuttal to one sentence in the article. (Here in talk, we do that all the time!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding the interview to this page has to wait till it is broadcast per WP:CRYSTAL, becasue we do not know what is going to be said in the interview. A broadcast announcment is not a reliable source to say they do not like the designation of a anti-gay group. 23:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)~~

Hmm. I suppose I'll try to listen to see who it is. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I heard it starting about 4:36pm local time. It was Maggie Gallagher. Basically, she said labeling groups as hate groups is the step needed before shutting them down for hate crimes. Or maybe the host said that. It should be on podcast soon. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That would seem to be irrelevant to this article, as NOM was not labeled as a "hate group"... nor, for that matter, is Gallagher a known expert on hate groups or the law. (The SPLC is not a government entity; its labeling cannot be needed to shut down an organization for "hate crimes".) --23:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. But, at least I let people know about it. It's just onr more source to add to the mix. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

IP addy issue

An IP address having 4 edits is bordering on edit warring and just left an uncivil comment. Will people please take a look? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about 66.33.227.119, they added a reliably sourced label. You reverted it, falsely claiming it was vandalism. Moreover, their comment is not the least bit uncivil, but your false accusation of vandalism certainly is. Dylan Flaherty 01:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. When I revert vandalism I say rv v for revert vandalism. Just look at my contribs. I only said rv here for revert. I did not say rv v, and I do not now view it as vandalism. As to his uncivil comment, he was shouting at me to LEAVE IT, or whatever. The substantive problem is WP:SOAPBOX. Right at the very top in the lead paragraph he labels the group as anti-gay as if they were. The SPLC says they are, and that's different. I totally get the SPLC thing should be in the article, but not in the way he did it. And his edits done as they are sounds like they come from a WP:SOCK. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nat Gertler just set it right and removed the IP addy's addition. If the IP addy is reading this, please comment here and achieve consensus, else WP:3RR may be a concern. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the removal of sourced material like this is not okay. Do we have to go through the same fight for each and every group labeled by the SPLC as a hate group or anti-gay group? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As much as I respect the SPLC, it is neither a scientific body stating a finding nor a legal body stating a ruling, but an advocacy group stating their judgment. It should not be treated like incontrovertible fact any more than the claims made by NOM about the effects of same-sex marriage should be stated as fact. Should it be stated in the article as the SPLC judgment about NOM? It should be, and it is; but we shouldn't confuse that with a statement of fact, much less one central enough to be part of the first sentence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that the SPLC is generally considered the leading source for academics on the issue of hate groups ion the US. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They didn't judge the SPLC to be a hate group, so I don't see how that has any significance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They were judged by the SPLC to be a anti-gay group, as was in the removed edit. As for sources about the reliablility, see [2][3][4][5]. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Those go to their expertise on hate groups, and might be making a case if we were to be claiming that NOM is not a hate group, as SPLC have not judged them to be one. As it is, their claim of NOM being an anti-gay group says little more than what is already established in the opening - that NOM campaigns against SSM. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but it underlines their reliability. As for anti-gay versus anti-SSM, I think thye former is a wider stance and therefore notable to add. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Being reliable on one topic does not make them reliable on other topics. And the anti-gay claim is not wider than that. Read the SPLC article - the only way in which they come close to painting NOM as anti-gay beyond the legal recognition of couples is by reporting the comments of one bus driver whom they note that NOM then distanced themselves from. --03:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you lying? http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners explain clearly: "NOM’s first public campaign was in 2008, supporting California’s Proposition 8, which sought to invalidate same-sex marriage in that state. It was widely mocked, including in a parody by satirist Stephen Colbert, for the “Gathering Storm” video ad it produced at the time. Set to somber music and a dark and stormy background, the ad had actors expressing fears that gay activism would “take away” their rights, change their lifestyle, and force homosexuality on their kids." This hate propaganda was debunked in Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial. --Destinero (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "lying", Destinero - it seems clear to me that that SPLC is talking about gay activism for SSM in there, as it is within a context of discussing a campaign over SSM. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nat will probably not want my support on this, but he is correct.184.74.22.161 (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Gallagher's attack on SPLC

Editor 184.74.22.161, claiming he was "reinsert[ing] portion of gallagher comment, which directly relates to NOM", readded "NOM Chair Maggie Gallagher called the SPLC's action an “absurd distraction” and a “very sad” move for “a once-great civil rights organization.” This is commenting on the making of a list, makes no mention of NOM's place on it; about the only part of that which can be said to be about NOM is the claim that it was a distraction. Given that (and given that we already have Brown's addressing the actual claim about NOM, and that that takes as much space as the SPLC claim), we should axe this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I did claim I was "reinsert[ing] portion of gallagher comment"

(which I was) and that it "directly relates to NOM" (which I believe it does--she is identified in the article as being with NOM and is clearly speaking on NOM's behalf). However, I believe Nat is right that Brown's comment is sufficient for now. If the section gets expanded to include more information on the SPLC's statements, perhaps we can consider re-adding it.184.74.22.161 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As you agree that the Brown comment is sufficient, could you please remove your addition? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On Top source

An editor has repeatedly removed this source. No excuse for the removal has been given more than "on top" magazine doesn't seem like a reliable encyclopedia source...; as seeming like an encyclopedia source is not an actual requirement for WP:RS, it is unclear what the objection is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nat, I removed it because I don't think it's reliable.184.74.22.161 (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the magazine identifies itself as a "gay advocacy" website. Here is some of what the magazine says about itself: "On the street and in the trenches of your gayborhood, On Top Magazine brings you the gay ghetto like no one else." I am not going after it because it's a gay publication; if it were the Advocate, that would be a different story. It just seems to be a stretch in terms of reputability as a neutral news source. On the other hand, I certainly don't hold myself out as an expert on this publication, so I am open to new information.184.74.22.161 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You've given nothing more than your emotional reaction to publication that I suspect is not aimed at you. You've shown no reason to deny its reliability. ("Neutral" is not a requirement of reliable sources on Wikipedia; if it were, every publication with an editorial page would be barred... as would the "Catholic News Service" that you've recently used as a source.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How many times have liberal editors taken issue with conservative sources that I may cite to?!?! Hmmm... As I mentioned above, I wouldn't take issue with a serious, reliable publication such as the Advocate that has a strong POV. I am just skeptical about whether this "On Top" magazine is such a publication. Emotions don't have anything to do with it.184.74.22.161 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You may claim that "Emotions don't have anything to do with it", but when given chance after chance to explain your deletion of the source, you've put up no relevant facts. "It doesn't seem" isn't a fact, it's an emotional reaction. "It just seems to be". "I am just skeptical about", "I don't think it's". No facts to back things up, just a statement about what's going on in your head. Lacking any policy-based reason to reject the source on a statement that currently needs a citation, I am restoring the citation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what IP meant to say was that On Top doesn't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and fails WP:RS. From their about: '“It's a gay advocacy website,' ... It is a place on the net that feels comfortable. It entertains ... And it's gay fiction and opinion ..." He would've probably also said that if the material was notable it would've been published in a reliable source." Lionel (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Put in some budget #s

We go into lots of (too much?) detail about specific parts of NOM's finances, but never got around to giving a sense of the size of the organization financially. I've included the 2009 tax info (from their web site) and tried to put a simple summary to it, I know I made at least a couple mistakes that I found in the process, if there's more, just correct me, no worries. --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Iowa disclosure allegation

Looks like it died. If there's no objection, I'll remove it. Lionel (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it died"? It could be argued that the allegation itself, and NOM's response (if any) to it, is noteworthy, as long as RSes have reported on it. (I'm not necessarily saying that the line has to be kept, I'm just asking for clarification on the proposed removal.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Louis Marinelli resignation

NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) removed the section on the resignation and public about-face of Louis Marinelli with the edit summary "remove WP:UNDUE section", at the same time as I was adding a sentence with additional material from an interview Marinelli did with KQED. I obviously disagree with the assertion that this material constitutes undue weight; Marinelli was a lead organizer behind one of NOM's highest-profile operations (the 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour), and his resignation and change of heart on the issue of same-sex civil marriage have been covered by multiple RSes. Furthermore, as a former NOM insider, his perspective on the organization's nature, structure and funding is both important and relevant to the article. Readers should be able to judge for themselves how much weight to give to Marinelli's characterizations of NOM; but they can't do that at all if his comments are removed from the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition to KQED, the resignation is getting coverage from sources as far apart as On Top Magazine and The Baptist Press. It's on the websites of the Chicago Tribune, the Village Voice, the Hartifod Courant, Politico, Huffpo. It seems to be receiving attention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And now Lawrence O'Donnell has done a segment on Marinelli's change of heart, and the Today show's tech website has chimed in on the Facebook angle. I think the case for inclusion is pretty undeniable now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And Newsweek's The Daily Beast]. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we can include it, but can we try to find better sources? Those are mostly odds-and-ends sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Beast (which now owns Newsweek), Politico, The Atlantic, KQED, Lawrence O'Donnell and the Today show are "odds-and-ends sources"? I'll admit that a few of the sources elsewhere in this article don't quite meet the strictest interpretation of WP:RS, but this section looks very well-sourced to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of them are either left-leaning or blog sources, and the Today source claims NOM is "anti-gay". I don't have a problem with including those sources as long as we have some mainstream sources to back them up. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Today show is about as mainstream as it gets. If they say NOM is "anti-gay", then that's how a mainstream source characterizes it. You can't dismiss a source just because you don't like what they say. I agree that these are mostly (though not exclusively) left-leaning sources (though Politico leans right, if anything, and The Atlantic is full of necons), but they all meet WP:RS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

ETA: Actually, the Today source doesn't say that NOM is "anti-gay"; they say that Marinelli made anti-gay blog postings and videos, and describes NOM as "the largest anti-gay marriage organization in the U.S.". All that is factual and verifiable; what's the problem? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-gay" is blatantly POV. No mainstream traditional marriage supporter is anti-gay people. They're anti-gay marriage and anti-gay lifestyle. Unless Marinelli wasn't posting regular NOM stuff, Today is way out of line. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We could go point-for-point over how to characterize Marinelli's blog posts and videos (according to Good As You, he tweeted that gays were an abomination, that homosexuality was deviant, and that "what they do is blantantly [sic] immoral. :)"), but that's really not relevant here. You may disagree with the Today writer's characterizations, but that doesn't make Today an unreliable source. As far as the article is concerned, that section is appropriately sourced. What changes to the article are you asking for? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• There's no requirement that reliable sources not have a point of view.
• The source doesn't describe them as being anti-gay people, it describes the as being anti-gay... and given that what you're describing "traditional marriage supporters" as being against is the part that makes gay people gay people instead of just indistinct people, yes, they're anti-the-gay. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Any chance we could just say "anti-gay marriage"? I suspect that end of the day Marinelli's resignation will not be terribly notable in the history of the organization but lets give it a few months and see how far he runs with it. - Haymaker (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not saying "anti-gay" (the only place that descriptor shows up in the body of the body of the article is in noting it as the SPLC's descriptor); the issue here is that an editor apparently wants to disqualify a major mainstream source because it happened to have detected NOM's Facebook page's anti-gayitude. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that it would be better if we found a traditional news source such as AP, CNN, a newspaper, Fox News, etc. Most, if not all, of these sources are magazines, TV shows, and blogs. And NOM is not anti-gay. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

??? CNN is nothing but TV shows. Fox News is nothing but TV shows. And the thought that Today, with over half a century as one of the US's most watched news shows, is not a "traditional news source" caused me to laugh. (As for claiming that NOM isn't anti-gay, you may want to see if you can find a reliable source for that. Because all the reliable sources I find indicate that they exist to prevent gay folks from having equal rights, that they hold forth on special rights to discriminate against gays without holding forth for some general right to discriminate...) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Magazines and TV shows can certainly be reliable sources. And even some blogs (specifically, those published by news organizations) are acceptable: see WP:NEWSBLOG. And, once again, this article does not currently state that NOM is anti-gay. However, if a reliable source does characterize NOM as anti-gay, that claim could be included in the article, with proper attribution. For that matter, if a reliable source said "NOM is not anti-gay", that could go in the article too. But, as Nat suggests, I think that finding such a source is unlikely. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro.

I also think that the intro. should be rewritten, as it implies that NOM only care about "protecting the definition of marriage", however, the comments of Maggie Gallagher and NOM's actions have demonstrably shown that they want to prevent the legal recognition iof same-sex relationships, not just in terms of civil-marriage.

Regarding the opening lines, it seems to me that any entry purporting to be encyclopedic should always present first the side of the subject, using wherever possible their own words. Previous to the entries I made today, this entry had an accusatory introduction that is not fitting for an encyclopedic entry, regardless of how many third parties might agree with the accusation.Mwarner1 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopedia organized like that would not be very encyclopedic. Coke would be "the real thing", most convicted murderers would be "falsely convicted", various actresses would be several years younger than the facts reveal, and so forth. Noting that they are an organization that opposes same-sex marriage is not an accusation; it is a fact, it is not a fact that they hide, and we should not be hiding it either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Added: "Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures" -- that's NOM accusing themselves. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopedic entry about Coke would be incomplete without a reference to their slogan as "the real thing" and any opposing points of view. The previous entry was a third-party opinion, not fact about NOM: "prevent the legal recognition and acceptance of marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples". NOM's reasoning as to their views on civil unions does not necessarily translate into "prevent recognition and acceptance", and is anyway far too hefty a conversation for the intro. Best to keep that in the section about civil unions. As I mention below, perhaps the best approach for the intro is to include the entire quote, unedited: "The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level."Mwarner1 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Just thought that I'd note that the only reference to "the real thing" in our encyclopedic entry on Coke is in the title of an article used as reference. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

SPLC did not say "hate group"

As discussed above, the SPLC did include NOM on a list of anti-gay groups, but did not call them a hate group. For specific verification of this, you can go to this SPLC document, where they say "We analyzed in detail each of 18 organizations we cite as purveyors of anti-gay rhetoric, and determined that the activities of five of them – including the National Organization for Marriage – did not meet the above-stated hate-group criteria despite their opposition to same-sex marriage." (Just to be clear: this is being stated to support undoing of some recent edits... and possibly to stave off having to do more such undoing in the future. I'd rather be not-doing than undoing.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not made the change myself, but would it be helpful to put the quote above in the actual wikipedia article so that it is clear to readers that there was initial confusion about whether SPLC had named NOM a "hate group" or an "anti-LGBT" group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oligumzo (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Only if you have some reliable source commenting on the confusion; the confusion we're addressing here is simply that among some Wikipedia articles, which is hardly important enough to document. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal by NYyankees51

edit summary "We need to reduce undue weight, I fail to see how removal of the name of his twitter acount (its NomUpdates Twitter account,) and other deletion of small detail is removal of "undue weight". I may agree that the phrase "The defection was described by Human Rights Campaign's ..." is an opinion, which may tilt the weight, but the rest are facts, minor as they are, but still have POV-independent value. Therefore as a middle ground I suggest to delete only the mentioned opinion. Loggerjack (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the deletion is reasonable trimming. I only have two concerns: the deletion of "civil" from what Martinelli supports, as he is specific in the reference that he is supporting civil marriage equality; and in the "In a blog posting subsequent to his resignation," the wrong part got deleted; the "subsequent to his resignation" is vital context (it's a very different thing if he had said that months prior to his resignation), but attributing it to a blog post is not, particularly since we have a second source of him saying basically the same thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly: the colleague removed some detail which seem minor or "unbalanced" to him, but in fact they are reasonable clarifications of the statements in question. Also, attributing to his own blog post in a text about a person is an admissible reference per wikipedia citing rules. Loggerjack (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say his blog shouldn't be used as reference, it's fine to use it as reference. But we don't need to spend time in the main text stating where everything was said, so long as we document its source in the ref. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Loggerjack (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the revert per UNDUE. But the bigger issue is that hrcbackstory.org is the website of an organization, not an established news organ with a reputation for fact checking. This violates WP:SPS. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my revert seemed abrasive. By undue weight I meant that the whole thing receives too much coverage for a story which not much came of. I was just trying to reduce the amount of text it got. I wouldn't get all worked up if it's restored, but again, nothing really came of the story other than that the gay-marriage activists got a new blogger. Plus as per Lionel some of the sources are not the best. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Brown comment about Marinelli

I changed the following sentence into much shorter neutral prose:

• "NOM president Brian Brown downplayed Marinelli's role with the organization, saying, "Louis was a bus driver. It’s pretty hilarious, this idea that he was a top strategist for NOM. He was a part-time consultant."

I changed it to "NOM president Brian Brown publicly downplayed Marinelli's role with the organization..."

I see no need to give Brown the soapbox for falsehood. Marinelli was a contractor who had access to confidential information, not a mere bus driver. Marinelli oversaw a NOM web presence with 290,000 followers! What he wrote was very, very widely seen. Brown's petty comment is not worth printing on Wikipedia, only the fact that he tried to downplay the importance of Marinelli. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if you disagree with NOM's statements or find them contradictory, NOM should get equal weight to Marinelli. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you think is unequal about "NOM president Brian Brown publicly downplayed Marinelli's role with the organization"? It is a summary of Brown's statement. Brown is represented in the shorter version, but not his smokescreen words which are proven false by the NDA on file at talkingpointsmemo.com. Your version has Brown looking ridiculous, my version has Brown's position summarized. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored the shorter summary of Brown's misleading statement. It is clear that Marinelli was no simple bus driver, so Brown's statement cannot be correct. Bus drivers are not made to sign NDAs which say that the contractor has access to sensitive information. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiding that NOM is an anti-same-sex-marriage organization

One editor has recently and repeatedly made edits to cover up that NOM is anti-SSM group, placing NOM's self-promotional ad line into the opening sentence, claiming that depicting NOM as being anti-SSM is something done by their "opponents" (rather than as the depiction of a long string of neutral, reliable sources), trying to remove that they are supporting legislation to ban SSM, and so forth. We don't generally lead articles with a group or organization's self-description (although I would welcome it for my page -- Nat Gertler is "an awesome, sexy dude with a full head of hair who really deserves a second helping of brownies.") I've already reverted the material once, only to have the reversion undone by that editor; I encourage others to look at recent edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic entries should always begin by presenting, wherever possible, quotes by the subject, thus allowing them to speak for themselves. To rely entirely on third parties as the primary source of information subjects the entry to bias, spin, and the "unbalanced" label already attached to it. The place to discuss NOM's views on SSM is in the section entitled Civil Union Opposition, including quotes containing their explanation for their views, which I have added.Mwarner1 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I can think of no encyclopedia that begins by presenting quotes from the subject. It is certainly outside of the guide for this encyclopedia, seen at WP:LEDE. You may not like relying on "third parties", but it is one of the key tenets of Wikipedia that we rely on reliable sources, and it is made clear that articles should not be primarily based on what sources publish about themselves. This is not NOM's ad page, and should not be treated as NOM's ad page; this page does provide a link to the NOM website, if people want to see only how NOM casts themselves. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We are encouraged to remain neutral in our entries, including "as far as possible without bias, all significant views". That includes NOM's view. No, this is not NOM's ad page, but neither is it a place for all of NOM's opponents to be the only ones to describe NOM. The Wikipedia entry about communism begins by referencing Columbia Encyclopedia, which starts by referencing the work of Marx. It would be incomplete to write about communism without this. Likewise, an entry describing NOM's mission statement is absolutely relevant and appropriate as the opening statement. Opposing viewpoints are scattered throughout the article, as is expected in an entry. Why are you so determined to have a third party's disputed view as the opening line? The intro, as it reads now, contains both points of views, as required by the Wikipedia guidelines.Mwarner1 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

NOM's view is not being excluded. The opening statement should not describe NOM's mission statement, as this is not an article about the mission statement. This is an article about NOM, and the opening should describe NOM. A mission statement is a poor explanation of an organization. That they are against same-sex marriage is not just the view of their opponents, it is the view of reliable third-party sources... and it's the view of NOM themselves! ("Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage...") --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

By relying entirely on third parties to define NOM, yes, NOM's view is, in fact, being excluded from the opening line. That violates the principle set down in the WIkipedia guidelines. Ironically, the quote you include about "in response to the growing need" was taken from the selfsame page I am using. Perhaps the compromise is to include both sentences, complete and unedited. To wit: "The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level."Mwarner1 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No, NOM's view is not being excluded. They view themselves as opposing same-sex marriage as well; it's a fact no one seems to have difficulty with but you. If they want an ad page for their spin on how they want people to perceive them, they have it - it's their About page. We are not here to present their spin as fact, nor are we here to violate their copyright in doing so. We are not here to pretend that their belief that there was a "growing need" is a fact. There's nothing ironic in me noting their words on that page; I'm not trying to pretend that their being anti-SSM is at odds with any depiction but yours. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This thread started with your accusation that somehow information was being "hidden". That was never the case, and any viewer can see that the original text was retained and moved into a separate paragraph--still in the opening--to clearly illustrate that it represents an opposing point of view. The previous entry was a third-party opinion, not fact about NOM: "prevent the legal recognition and acceptance of marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples". NOM's reasoning as to their views on civil unions does not necessarily translate into "prevent recognition and acceptance" (which is an opinion--or "spin" to use your word--without a reference), and is anyway far too hefty a conversation for the intro. Best to keep that in the section about civil unions (where in fact there is far better info). As I mention below, the best approach for the intro is to include the entire quote, unedited, which I have now done. This should satisfy your suggestion that the opening clearly indicate a summary of NOM's views, while meeting the requirement of presenting all significant views.Mwarner1 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your attempt to turn the beginning of this article into a NOM's self-description instead of a less-biased view has been deleted. Please achieve consensus before doing further major changes to the lede. If you have quibbles with the phrasing of their civil union objections, feel free to raise them. You had repeatedly removed references to their being anti-SSM or their actions being to prevent SSM, when those are facts - trying to cast such the belief that their opposition to SSM was merely the view of their opponents was hiding that fact. Presenting their self-description up front is not following WP:LEDE. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your attempts to define NOM purely by the inflammatory adjectives of their opponents violate Wikipedia's guidelines. **Let the readers judge for themselves.** As editors, our job is to present them with the facts, not inflammatory adjectives. Similarly, your assertion that something was being "hidden" is patently false. Please point out for everyone which piece of text was deleted from the previous, thereby hiding the information you claim was being repressed. In fact, the changes I have made conform to the Wikipedia guidelines and present all significant views, as required. Your characterization of the text as "ads" is untrue.

If you want to present inflammatory language like "prevent recognition and acceptance," then point to a reliable source. Otherwise it is just your personal opinion.Mwarner1 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

To rely entirely on third parties as the primary source of information subjects the entry to bias, spin, and the "unbalanced" label already attached to it.
— User:Mwarner1 21:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

This statement is entirely incorrect.

Per WP:V we... "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

A few examples of how reliable sources define NOM...

• "...the most notable anti-gay-marriage group in the land..." - National Organization for Marriage Calls Prop. 8 Trial 'Disturbing,' Lawyers 'Egomaniacal', The Atlantic, link.
• "...the National Organization for Marriage in California, which opposes same-sex marriage." - Does gay marriage still matter in U.S. politics?, New York Times, link.
• "...the National Organization for Marriage, a religious conservative organization devoted to opposing civil marriage for gays and lesbians..." - Four candidates confirmed for religious conservative forum, The American Independent News Network, link.
• "...A shadowy group run by religious fundamentalists is bankrolling a pitched crusade against same-sex marriage in New York." - National Organization for Marriage crusading against gay nuptials in NY, New York Daily News, link.

We report NOM's view of itself per the weight accorded it as a primary source about itself. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nat, for this to work, you have to at least make an effort to be reasonable. You began this thread with the accusation of information being repressed, yet were unable to identify anything that was "hidden". You've used the most vociferous opponents' opinion quotes in an attempt to excuse your obvious bias against this group and what it represents, and as a result have turned this entry into a personal blog entry. You pretend that terms used in sound bites like, "shadowy group run by religious fundamentalists" somehow qualify as a "published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". You've proposed no mutually-agreeable, neutral language, preferring instead to find the most vitriolic language possible, even if it doesn't have a source or comes from opinion columns. What do you fear so badly that you cannot settle for anything less than the most demonizing entry you can create?Mwarner1 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't find "mutually-agreeable, neutral language...". We find sources and report what they say. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mwarner1, but the only quotes I have used in this discussion have come from NOM, the only sources I have added to the article during this discussion have been Reuters and the Providence Journal. I have at times restored material from damaging wholesale edits by you; it was not generally material that I had introduced into the article. You don't seem to be following who you're addressing. The quote you're complaining about from the NY Daily News was not posted by me. However, if you're questioning whether the Daily News is a "published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", well, you're discussing one of the top-ten circulation daily papers in the country, with 10 Pulitzer Prizes on its record. It's a paper which is known to be both showy and accurate. "The most demonizing entry that I can create"? Well, you're not very aware of the history of this page, or the many edits that I have done, many of which are in removing or calming material that might be considered "demonizing". You're new to this article and appear to be new to Wikipedia, so I'm going to suggest that you review the various things in the welcome message now on your talk page. I'm also going to suggest you take a careful look at WP:CONSENSUS. Calm down, learn the way Wikipedia works, and learn to work with others better here, and you may find that you can be effective in improving Wikipedia. I hope that works out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course NOM was formed to fight SSM! The only other thing from which to 'defend' marriage is divorce. The NOM does not speak with a clear, unified voice against divorce, IMHO the much greater threat to marriage. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If the editor really wants to switch Wikipedia to a place where WP:PRIMARY sources are preferred over WP:RS reliable third-party sources, then that is a change of policy well beyond the scale of what could or should be handled on the talk page of this (or any) article. I recommend WP:PUMP, where one will find (in the Policy section) an already extant discussion of the appropriateness of building articles around primary sources. That seems to be a place where ideas to change policy get rolling (I'm still confused about how a link to my page shows "obvious bias", but I'm tempted to use that to replace the user link in my signature...) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Name

I think the article should cover how and why this organization has deliberately chosen a name for itself that is not just misleading, but that runs completely counter to what the organization's actual purpose is. 178.76.162.16 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source showing that they did so deliberately, and why they did so, please put it forth. Wikipedia is for verifiable information. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the National Organization for Marriage#Photo manipulation subsection be included in the article?

Involved users

• No per WP:UNDUE. The "controversy" is not notable and has only been covered in left-wing blogs and TV. NOM's blog post doesn't matter. The issue has not been covered in mainstream media. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• What is not notable about the widely seen TV show with Rachel Maddow? That was a weak reason and this is a weak RfC. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• See below. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• It has not only been covered by "left-wing blogs and TV"; it has been covered by respected news source The Advocate, and it has been covered by NOM themselves on their blog, which is hardly left-wing. (Also, let us note that the first editor commenting is the one who called the request for comment; this is not exterior input. And I'm an editor who restored the section once after repeated deletion by that editor.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

  "The Advocate is an American LGBT-interest magazine." NOM is a primary source and doesn't establish notability. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Exactly. The Advocate is neither a blog nor a TV show, not that there's anything wrong with TV shows. The Advocate is a reliable source. That it has a focused interest does not make it illegitimate; most publications have some focused interest, and in this case it's an interest which is relevant to the article. Being a reliable source does not require that source to be bereft of a viewpoint; otherwise, every publication with an editorial page would be disallowed. And, as you suggest, the material was covered on MSNBC, on the Rachel Maddow program, a significant show. (And "notability" is the test for the subject of an article, not for material therein.) --Nat Gertler (talk)
    • You're right about The Advocate. However, we can't cover everything Maddow covers. Maddow's TV program is equivalent to a blog, a well-run and widely viewed blog, but still a blog. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
      • No, it is not the equivalent of a blog, at least not a personal one. It is not a self-published source, but is rather put forth by a sizable news organization. Nor should the fact that it is covering something be used as some excuse to disallow it, as the photographic reuse is being covered by a variety of other sources, such as the Polk Award-winning Talking Points Memo. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Not at all a blog. It is "a news and opinion television program". Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. The photo manipulation was widely seen on TV with Rachel Maddow commenting about it. A notable gaffe by NOM; its presence in the article is supported by WP:NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Rachel Maddow is a commentator; it is her job to comment on things. We can't cover everything she comments on. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• The on-air attention by Maddow defuses your earlier argument that mainstream media did not air the story. Your argument introduced a "not reliably sourced" element, and Maddow flattens that. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• As I said above, Maddow's TV program is equivalent to a blog, a well-run and widely viewed blog, but still a blog. Mainstream media would be Brian Williams, Bob Schieffer, Shepard Smith, etc. etc. etc. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Repeating the word "blog" does not strengthen your argument against Rachel Maddow's primetime TV news program. Anyway you slice it, a widely viewed bit of media is notable, no matter what you call it. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• No These kinds of minor marketing faux pas happen all the time. In this particular case it has been blown way out of proportion by advocacy media outlets. I mean, look at the section. It is gigantic. The amount of space devoted to this trivial incident and the picture overwhelms and swamps not just the section, but the entire article. We do not want the reader to think that this is the defining moment in history of the organization. The section is way overboard. Total overkill. Remove per WP:UNDUE. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If you want to address the size of the photograph then that is a separate question from deleting the whole section (as evidenced by your deleting the image without deleting the section). However, the text of it is under 150 words; hard to see as "way overbroad" and "total overkill". --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Allow me to note for the record what just happened: an editor argued against the section (timestamp - 19:43), then went to the article and reinserted the image which was not at the time part of the article (19:45), then reedited his comments here to include the size of the section specifically with the picture as an argument for removing it (19:50). --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks to me like he reinserted it while the RfC was going on to avoid an edit war...isn't that the correct thing to do? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Not if he's going to then immediately use his own insertion as an excuse to claim the whole thing must be destroyed, no. (How would it look if I reinserted every attack against NOM that I ever deleted, and then called for the article to be deleted as an attack page?) It's not like he came in here and argued "well, it's really big, but it could be quite smaller if we delete the image as I had before". No, it's "total overkill" based on the size and there's no reflection on how the size might be adjusted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I self reverted because it's under discussion. Bottom line it looked horrible before the RFC, and it looks horrible now. Let's just chalk this up to AGF and get back to talking about how horrible that sections looks. We're supposed to be editing with FA in mind. No way that section passes a FA review. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

So can we assume that you'd be just fine with it in the state that you repeatedly edited it into, without the image? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved users

• No per UNDUE. The use is just a general implication of support, rather than a specific claim. Now, if a pattern of copyright violation is found, that might be worth mentioning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (Response from involved editor) NOM has faced similar accusations before, involving both use of non-real NOM supporters and apparent failure to follow licensing requirements. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Still undue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
      • The section already details a pattern of failure to follow licensing, describing the series of collages/montages. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Nat, that's not a reliable source. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
          • It is a reliable source that an accusation was made, as it's the source of the accusation, which is all I was putting forth. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. The above observation that this is a pattern for NOM should suggest, contrary to the spirit of this RfC, that more documentation should be provided, rather than none. It is perfectly acceptable to provide information about things that actually happened in order to characterize an organization. For instance, the ACORN article documents relevant controversies. Divergentgrad (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, this is clearly not a flat Earth case; neither is the controversy given an overshadowing presence in the article. Certainly the NOM article shouldn't go without mentioning a controversy that NOM itself acknowledged. Divergentgrad (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, the advocacy blog used to buttress the information in that paragraph does not meet WP:RS. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Advocate source in that section supports all the significant information, and is a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Over" numbers

A couple of different edits today have described amounts as being "over $xxx", where xxx is some round number. This is a problematic format; if one says "over $100,000", the amount could be $100,001, or it could be 20 gajillion dollars. When we have the precise figure, it is best to simply give it, but WP:numbers does allow for rounding ("Large round numbers are generally assumed to be approximations; only where the approximation could be misleading is it necessary to qualify with words such as about.") --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah! In general, I figure that the reader can only take so much detail before tuning out. Some of the financials are known to the penny! One problem I have with quoting exact numbers in this article is that a lot of them come from the 2009 Form 990 which gives out the top three executive salary figures and the address of the treasurer. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we are not supposed to use such personally revealing sources directly. Rather, we let the secondary sources quote them, and thus we introduce approximations and even mistakes. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A fine concern, but a rounded number (say, 2 or 3 significant digits) for simplicity is acceptable. The "over" terminology obfuscates. Sourcing is a separate question. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am okay with rounding numbers to the second or third significant digit and eliminating the word "over" or the term "more than". Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

An inaccurate claim of consensus

An editor has deleted the "Photo manipulation" section, claiming that there is WP:consensus on the talk page. I am unsure what talk page he is referring to; it is clearly not this one where clearly no such consensus has been reached. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Right! No consensus. I think the cited text should stay. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have asked arbitrator User:Jclemens for guidance. See here. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And he replied "I'd say it stays." (with further explanation, but that's the key point.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe he was expressing his opinion regarding the content. My question was a policy question of what happens when there is no consensus. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Asked for clarification. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It should stay. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Grassroots support challenged

I composed a paragraph about NOM claiming grassroots support even though its funding is about 75% from five large donors. The paragraph was removed by NYyankees51 as needing better sourcing. Here's what I wrote, followed by the sources:

NOM has said that it has a wide base of grassroots support, but the majority of its funding is from a very few large anonymous donors. In NOM's IRS filing for 2009, three donations of $2.4 million, $1.2 million and $1.1 million made up 68% of NOM's contributions and grants income of a little over $7.1 million, and just five donations made up 75%. In 2010, Jesse Zwick, then a reporter for the Washington Independent, said he uncovered a 2009 donation to NOM—$1.43 million from the Knights of Columbus—that reporter Luke Johnson later said was apparently not reported to the IRS by NOM.

• Johnson, Luke (January 6, 2011). "Despite 'grassroots' claim, most of National Organization for Marriage funding comes from few sources". Washington Independent.
• Zwick, Jesse (September 20, 2010). "In wake of ballot initiatives, questions about the National Organization for Marriage's funding". The American Independent. Washington DC.

The news sources are affiliated with the American Independent News Network, known for investigative reporting. These sources are reliable. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreement; restored. Deleting editor is free to query WP:RSN. AV3000 (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Gathering Storm" external link

There have been a couple of recent deletions of an external link to the "Gathering Storm" ad on youtube, with the most recent being argued that it's an ad and promotional, but not encyclopedic. That might be a strong point if it weren't for the fact that the ad is discussed extensively within this article. Were it a print ad that was being discussed to that degree, we would likely include a reproduction of that ad as an illustration. Linking to an external source for a video of such a thing is appropriate, at least where we're not linking to a copyright violation... and given that it's posted on NOM's own YouTube account, we don't have that concern (nor some of the related RS concerns.) This link should be restored. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly so. AV3000 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you if this article were called Gathering Storm (advertisement), but it is not. That notional article would have the video linked and at least one non-free fair use screen capture in it. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We spend eight paragraphs discussing the ad; it's hard to see how the ad itself is not of sufficient relevance to the readers of the article to link to. Or are you of the opinion that we should delete discussion of the ad? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion of the ad should be greatly trimmed. The ad is not as important as all that to the main topic of NOM. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have trimmed the section per WP:UNDUE. I think the advertisement has been reduced to proper weight relative to the topic. If another editor wishes to compose an article solely about the "Gathering Storm" advertisement, the material I removed could be brought there. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Canadian consternation

I don't have time to get more links at the moment, but NOM is getting some attention from beyond US borders, standing accused of using quotes from Canadians out of context on their website. There may be more here to be said. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"They have been the most homophobic of any groups I've had to deal with and the most hate-filled groups and they continue to attack us, no matter what the issue is." Pyrotechnic! Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Huntsman

An editor has repeatedly added the statement that John Huntsman chose not to sign the NOM presidential pledge. However, neither of the sources that he uses to support that indicate that Huntsman was offered the opportunity to sign that pledge. One source says that he does not support the amendment the pledge would support, the other states that he announced that he won't do pledges, so it seems likely that he would choose not to sign the pledge if offered... but I see no source which says that he was offered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

intro edit problems

An editor or editors have repeatedly inserted edits in the introduction which have problem on a POV basis and on a factual basis:

• the claim that NOM exists "to uphold the civil definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman" overlooks that they take much the same actions even where and when that is not the civil definition
• the statement that "NOM has worked to pass California Proposition 8 to reinstitute the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman in California" blurs over the fact that NOM entered the battle when that was already the definition and did not need to be reinstituted

I'm not sure why editors have a problem with the statement that NOM exists to fight same-sex marriage. It reflects how they're described in just about every reliable source, and even they describe themselves as "Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage". These edits should be reverted (again). --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC) (Corrected to add missing word to make sentence make sense --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC) )

We cannot allow NOM proponents to change the group's mission into something that does not say they oppose gay marriage. The supposed mission to support heterosexual marriage is a crock; they do not actually put much effort into saving marriages. For example, they do not exert significantly in the area of divorce. All of their significant activity is spent opposing gay marriage. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The National Organization for Marriage is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization founded in 2007 for the purpose of working against the legalization of same-sex marriage and comparable relationships...", Same-sex marriage: a reference handbook, by David E. Newton
• "NOM, 'a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it,' opposes same-sex marriage.", Same-Sex Marriage: Granting Equal Rights Or Damaging the Status of Marriage?, by Tricia Andryszewski. Andryszewski puts the stated NOM mission in quotes, then supplies the actual mission in her own voice.
• "These anti-gay activists included the National Organization for Marriage...", Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage, by Tracy Baim.

These sources show that NOM is primarily in opposition to gay marriage, not primarily formed to "protect" heterosexual marriage, though they say otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The NPOV language that I inserted causes the paragraph to read as follows:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is an American nonprofit political organization established in 2007 to uphold the civil definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to work against legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States. NOM has worked to pass California Proposition 8 to reinstitute the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman in California, has opposed civil union legislation, and has taken the position that faith-based adoption agencies ought to be at liberty to decline to place children with same-sex couples. NOM's current president is Brian S. Brown.

There is nothing remotely inaccurate or POV about this language. What WAS POV--and fairly blatantly so--was the existing lede before I edited it. That lede referred to NOM entirely in terms of what NOM opposes, rather than what it supports. The latest version clearly states that NOM opposes SSM, but also includes a mention of what NOM supports--namely, an opposite-sex definition of marriage. Nobody should have any issues with this language--unless, of course, they are trying to use this page as a left-wing hatchet job rather than an encyclopedia article.

The tone and content of the rest of the article are blatantly POV, and it is easy to see why, given the knee-jerk response that have been made these perfectly reasonable edits to the lede.67.248.31.193 (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"That lede referred to NOM entirely in terms of what NOM opposes, rather than what it supports." That's because NOM exists to oppose. That's not my supposition, that is from their own statement, that they were founded "in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage". As mentioned earlier, your edits are simply factually incorrect. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. NOM exists to oppose gay marriage. Everything else is a smokescreen. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's your spin, and it's inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Nothing I added was factually incorrect, either. That's just absurd. I am tagging for NPOV problems.67.248.31.193 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If we can move on from just broad claims and get to the facts: doing a Google News archives search and finding in the first batches of displayed results those that include a description of NOM in the same sentence as NOM's name, we find:

• "the National Organization for Marriage in California, which opposes same-sex marriage." New York Times
• "the National Organization for Marriage and other anti-gay marriage groups" Fox News
• "the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage" USA Today
• "the National Organization for Marriage, an advocacy group for traditional marriage." Christian Science Monitor
• " the National Organization for Marriage, which waged a radio campaign against the Vermont measure" Seattle Times
• "the National Organization for Marriage, a backer of Proposition 8 and other measures to forbid same-sex marriage nationwide." New York Times
• "the National Organization for Marriage, based in Princeton, N.J." Orlando Sentinel
• "the National Organization for Marriage, a group devoted to stopping same-sex marriage." Concord Monitor
• "groups including the anti-gay American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)." Dallas Voice
• "the National Organization for Marriage, a group set up expressly to fight the movement toward gay marriage" New York Times
• "the National Organization for Marriage, which is fighting efforts to advance same-sex marriage" New York Times
• "the National Organization for Marriage, which opposed the effort" Baltimore Sun
• "The National Organization for Marriage, a major backer of national gay-marriage bans" Christian Science Monitor
• "the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, which campaigns for same-sex marriage bans around the country." Gay & Lesbian Times
• " the National Organization for Marriage, a group that opposes same-sex marriage" The Independent
• "the National Organization for Marriage — which opposes same-sex marriage " New York Times
• "the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a tax-exempt nonprofit trying to thwart the legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the US" Gayapolis

Those are the descriptors from the first four pages of results, and the only one that comes at all close to the descriptor that the IP editor is seeking to add is the first Christian Science Monitor one... and even they had changed their descriptor by the time of the second, more recent one. NOM themselves say that they were founded to oppose same-sx marriage, the reliable sources say that they are same-sex marriage opponents. It's inappropriate to try to spin some separate version of the organization rather than what they are. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nat, I agree with everything you've said in this section. It is neither biased nor unbalanced POV to describe NOM entirely in terms of its opposition to the legalization of same sex marriages in the United States, provided that the consensus view amongst reliable third party sources is that opposing same sex marriage is the only significant undertaking the group makes. So far, all of the sources cited in this article indicate that this is so.

"Broader" language is neither more accurate nor is it appropriate unless we have verifiable evidence that the organization does in fact have a broader scope. I created the section "Please provide non-NPOV examples" below, in part specifically to ask for this evidence. So far, no editor has presented any.

Suggesting that NOM's purpose is to "uphold", "advocate for" or in any other way contribute positively to supporting "marriage as the union of one man and one woman" is an unclear, biased and deliberately misleading statement. NOM is politically motivated to describe itself in these terms and to encourage its supporters to describe it in these terms because it knows this language plays better with the American public than does the admission that all of the group's actions are, in fact, specifically targeted to one purpose and one purpose only: denying marriage rights to same sex couples. This type of language is chosen specifically to give the impression that NOM does something positive and supportive with respect to marriage. But they don't. They only work to deny marriage to one specific group of people. This type of language is also chosen to give the impression that marriages between one man and one woman in the United States are somehow under threat from the faction which NOM opposes. But they are not. Groups which are fighting in favour of granting marriage rights to same-sex couples are not seeking to take anything away from opposite-sex couples or to harm their marriages in any way. And NOM is not working in opposition to any other forces.

Suggesting that NOM's purpose is to "uphold", "advocate for" or in any other way contribute positively to supporting "traditional marriage" is an unclear, biased and deliberately misleading statement for all of the reasons given above, plus one more: There is no common definition of "traditional marriage". In some societies, same-sex marriages have been accepted for a long time. In others, "traditional" marriages were polygamous. In some societies (including the United States), marriage rights were "traditionally" denied to mixed-ethnicity couples and to slaves. The word "traditional", in the context of marriage, is a politically charged word which is used specifically to give the impression that same-sex marriages are somehow inherently less valid than other marriages. The word has no non-biased meaning. Bowrain13 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide non-NPOV examples

I have examined this article as well as the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view article and found the following:

• Wikipedia NPOV Policy asks us to "Avoid stating opinions as facts." In my reading of the article, this element of the policy has been followed throughout. The information presented as fact is well-sourced and looks to me to be verifiable fact. Where opinions are mentioned in the article, they are identified as such and attributed to the individual(s) or group(s) who hold them, and the opposing view points are also presented and attributed. Anyone who can spot specific instances of material presented as fact in the article which is not verifiable, please respond with the specifics including the exact problematic assertions and any available evidence that the sources cited are unreliable.

• Wikipedia NPOV Policy asks us to "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." In my reading of the article, this element of the policy has been followed throughout. Anyone who can spot specific instances of material presented as fact in the article which, even though it may have come from a reliable source, is nevertheless seriously contested by another reliable source, please respond with specifics including the exact problematic assertions and references to any available reliable sources which contradict these assertions.

• Wikipedia NPOV Policy asks us to "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." In my reading of the article, this element of the policy has been followed throughout. However, the primary disagreement over the article's content appears to be centred on arguments which advocate the presentation of verifiable fact as fact versus those which advocate the presentation of verifiable fact as mere opinion. Wikipedia's NPOV Policy is clear on which approach to take. If an assertion is verifiable fact it should be presented as verifiable fact. Furthermore, the Policy states, "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view."

On the "Marriage Talking Points" page of its website, NOM includes the following request of its supporters: "Language to avoid at all costs: 'Ban same-sex marriage.' Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against 'redefining marriage' or in favor or 'marriage as the union of husband and wife' NEVER 'banning same-sex marriage.'" But nowhere does NOM suggest that they are not proponents of banning same sex language. And every action which the organization takes and every comment it makes "against redefining marriage" or "in favor of marriage as the union of husband and wife" is specifically targeted to effect a ban on same sex marriage.

By its own admission, NOM was founded "in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures" and the majority of current reliable and notable sources on the topic clearly agree that this is the organization's raison d'être. Anyone who has evidence that NOM was in fact founded for a different or additional reason, or that the organization does in fact engage in significant efforts directed towards a different purpose, please respond with specifics including well-sourced assertions which disagree with the otherwise uncontested position.

• Wikipedia NPOV Policy asks us to "Prefer non-judgmental language." In my reading of the article, I found three places where I think the article's adherence to this element of the policy can be improved. Specifically:

• "NOM has said that it has a wide base of grassroots support, but the majority of its funding is from a very few large anonymous donors." (Emphasis mine.)

It's a small word but, on such an emotionally charged topic, I think we need to be sensitive to the fact that the "but" in the middle of this sentence in one sense implies that NOM's claim of a wide base of grassroots support is a falsehood. And we don't have any evidence that it is. An organization can have both a wide base of grassroots support and a few large anonymous donors who contribute the majority of its funding. Perhaps this section could be edited to read: "NOM has said that it has a wide base of grassroots support." Then follow up with some elaboration on this point (maybe something about the organization's email voters' database?) and cite the source for this information. Full stop. Then, in a new sentence, continue with, "Investigations into the organization's finances have revealed that the majority of its funding comes from a very few large anonymous donors." Then continue with the sourced information in support of this statement which currently follows. These two items are not unrelated, but they're not mutually exclusive either. We should aim to avoid any insinuation that they are.

• NOM was involved in the successful Proposition 8 campaign in California in 2008, as well as a similar successful campaign in Maine one year later.

As a non-American, I find this type of language confusing. Whenever such a vote comes up, both the establishment news media and the social media community constantly report on who "supports Prop X" and who is "against Prop X" and the general subject matter of the Proposition is discussed, but no one explicitly states the exact wording of the Proposition. With Proposition 8, it was clear that the Proposition referenced same-sex marriage in some way, but not at all clear whether a vote in support of the Proposition indicated support or opposition to SSM. One had to do some digging to unearth this information.

The sentence as it currently stands in this article says nothing except that NOM was involved in some way in two similar political campaigns, one in California and one in Maine, and it leaves the word "successful" undefined and therefore open to a sense of POV bias. Perhaps this section could be edited to state explicity and clearly what NOM campaigned in favour of. Something like: "In 2008, NOM campaigned in support of California Proposition 8, a proposed amendment to add a new provision to the Constitution of California stating that 'only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'" Or, (since this information is repeated later in the article) the intro to the section could simply replace the problematic sentence and the one following it with, "NOM has campaigned in favour of banning same-sex marriage in California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia." And leave the details for the existing paragraphs which follow.

• NOM president Brown publicly downplayed Marinelli's role with the organization

This sentence implies that Brown's statements re: Marinelli's former position with NOM are not entirely honest. We don't have any evidence that this is so. What we have is two people who make contradictory claims. In the absence of evidence which verifies one claim over the other as fact, NPOV demands that we not take sides and simply present and attribute the two views.

Anyone who can spot additional instances of judgemental language in the article, please respond with specifics.

• Wikipedia NPOV Policy asks us to "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." In my reading of the article, as far as I can tell, this element of the policy has been followed in most sections. The majority of the article is simply factual information about what NOM has done and said and what has been said by others about NOM. Where NOM spokespersons have disagreed with criticisms made against the organization, their position has been included and attributed in the article.

The one area of this article which I think can be improved with respect to relative prominence is the section on advertising campaigns. This section of the article is well-sourced, however, more detail is given on criticisms of the campaigns than on the campaigns themselves.

Wikipedia's NPOV Policy states: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Advertising campaigns are key to NOM's efforts to fulfill it's mission. Therefore inclusion of this section of the article is appropriate. However, I think NPOV could be better served by re-writing this section so that it includes solely details of the organization's major ad campaigns, presented in NPOV language. The criticisms of those campaigns would better fit in the "Criticism and opposition" section of the article.

Anyone who can spot additional instances in which undue weight is given to one viewpoint or aspect, please respond with specifics.

Overall, I think the authors of this article should be commended for doing a good job of presenting a neutral point of view on a highly politically and emotionally charged subject.

Bowrain13 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, but would suggest that the statement "NOM has campaigned in favour of banning same-sex marriage in California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia" is not quite complete. In most of those places, NOM has taken a position that same-sex marriage should remain illegal, while in others (specifically California) it has campaigned to have the legalization of same-sex marriage repealed: surely some mention needs to be made that the National Organization for Marriage fought to have valid marriages invalidated? - Outerlimits (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

With that suggestion I was aiming for a simple and clear summary of NOM's lobbying activities which would lead into the details of those activities which follow. One could break it down into "NOM has campaigned to repeal the right of same-sex couples to marry in (states A, B, & C) and to enshrine legislation preventing same-sex couples from acquiring the right to marry in (states X, Y, & Z)" but my first suggestion is simpler and covers both activities.

I think commentary on the group's obviously propagandistic name choice is outside the scope of the article. Bowrain13 (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the alternate still needs a touch of honing: "NOM has campaigned to repeal the right of same-sex couples to marry in (states A, B, & C), and to invalidate those same-sex marriages that had already occurred there and to enshrine legislation preventing same-sex couples from acquiring the right to marry in (states X, Y, & Z)". Or perhaps "NOM has campaigned in favour of prohibiting same-sex marriage in California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia, and for invalidating all same-sex marriages that have already taken place." That way we don't have to sort out places where marriages occurred (California) vs. places where laws were passed legalizing marriage equality but were prevented from taking effect (Maine). The invalidation of valid marriages is the source of the irony in the name National Organization for Marriage. I concur that any commentary on the irony of the name that finds its way into the article needs to be properly attributed and provided with adequate citation. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)