Talk:Straight, Incorporated

DYK nomination

Template:Did you know nominations/Straight, Incorporated

Items that need to be followed up on

Wes fager, before he passed away, did an absolutely wonderful job of researching information about straight. There were actually 2 straight companies, the straight foundation, inc and straight, inc. Apparently straight inc changed its name to straight foundation inc in 1985 and changed its business to a funding corp, and a new company was created with the old name to continue running the business. This was done to shield assets according to fager. he has a very well written page that has all of his research cited at http://www.thestraights.com/financial/st-fdn-piercing-veil.htm. Unfortunately many of the sources cited are not available online, and i need to actually check the citations before I include all of this. so, when time permits, i will be heading to the library and spending my day at the microfiche machine i guess... hopefully soon. There is a lot of very well documented questionable and possibly criminal behavior associated with straight, and i feel if we can check all the sources out it it should be included.

another item that needs to be followed up on: Straight,inc literature has stated straight did not receive any federal funding. HOWEVER, several non-wp:rs sources have claimed that straight received at least $100,000 in federal LEAA grants in it's first two years. There must be some sort of audit trail for that sort of thing in government documents somewhere...

an interesting document i have found, again, not from a source i would consider to be wp:rs, is here: http://survivingstraightinc.com/DocumentLibrary-allbranches/straighttax1.pdf

It is unfortunate that Mr. Fager is no longer with us. I now need to go and verify literally dozens of his sources. I am confident the sources will pan out, however, as so far every citation of his that I have checked has been legit. If anyone has the time and ability to help with this, pls leave a message on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.62.19 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Snertking (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Straight Foundation Inc. still exists. In 1995, they changed the name to Drug Free America Foundation, Inc.[2][3] The 1995 annual report shows the old name. (Primary but definitive sources, so they'd have to be used with care.) Perhaps this article should be somehow merged with this one: Drug Free America Foundation? AndroidCat (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

History

Straight, Inc. was a controversial drug rehabilitation center started in Saint Petersburg Florida by a local businessman and his wife, Melvin and Betty Sembler. Straight was spun off from an earlier Florida rehab program called The Seed, established in 1972. After a Congressional investigation of The Seed turned up evidence of brainwashing and cult-like mind control tactics, Congress cut The Seed’s funding. But a Florida Congressman named Bill Young persisted. He found advocates in local business couple Mel and Betty Sembler, and persuaded them to start a similar rehab center in St. Petersburg, which they called “Straight, Incorporated.”

Despite allegations of abuse from escaped members and pending lawsuits, over the next fifteen years Straight, Inc. won laudatory praise. Luminaries from Nancy Reagan to Princess Diana visited Straight branches and touted their successes (though by most estimates only about 25% of Straight “clients” ever completed the program). Straight went on to open affiliate branches all over the country, including Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Michigan and Georgia.

Soon enough, Straight’s tactics caught up to it in the courts, if not with its political cheerleaders. A college student won a false imprisonment claim of $220,000 in 1983, and another claim cost Straight, Inc. $721,000 in 1990. A Straight, Inc. spin-off called “Kids of North Jersey” settled a $4.5 million abuse claim in 2000. Straight chapters across the country began to shut down, culminating with the last branch in Atlanta closing in 1993.

But the Straight philosophy was far from finished. Many chapters and directors reopened new clinics that employed the same tactics under different names -- such as “KIDS,” “Growing Together,” and “SAFE,” the latter having been visited and praised by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, despite the fact that a Miami television station reported widespread Straight-like abuse at the facility in a 2000 expose.

Cult expert and intervention specialist Rick Ross says there’s an unfortunate market for “rehab” centers that take burdensome children off the hands of troubled parents. “It amazes me that despite the pattern of complaints and abuse allegations, Straight chapters can simply change their names and continue to operate,” he says.

As the bad publicity and lawsuit losses mounted throughout the 1990’s, the umbrella organization Straight, Inc. changed its name in 1996 to the Drug Free America Foundation, which thrives today under federal subsidies, including $400,000 in the year 2000 and $320,000 from the Small Business Administration.

Sept 24 2006 Rewrite

This is essentially a complete rewrite. I've kept some of the first paragraph, everything else is changed.

I removed the entire section on the phases, which was most of the article -- they didn't seem very relevent, and they were completely uncited. If someone finds a good way to put a summarized version of them in, that'd be great.

I had trouble keeping this NPOV -- the only sources I could find talk about its abuse towards its clients and mention various lawsuits. And none of them mention their own sources. Unfortunately, I think I left a fair amount of information out just because I couldn't lose the POV ...

LamilLerran 10:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Some things can simply not be viewed from a neutral point of view. Straight is one such thing. Every honest attempt at putting them in a neutral light has to trigger use of some adjectives. Like appalling, bigoted and illegal. But, as wikipedia goes, even Hitler surely was a nice guy after leaving his office and it would be against policy to simply write that he was a human monster. 87.78.178.85 11:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

speedy during Afd

Please do not interfere with WP process. speedy is for incontestably NN articles or obvious attack pages. This is supported by the source, and deletion has been and is being contested. The AfD should run its course. It would, however, help to have stronger sourcing. DGG 05:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported accusations

I have removed:

Allegations of Abuse

Why are these people's first-hand accounts being removed? It is understandable that some may need to be spell-checked, however, they can be placed under a section titled: personal accounts of abuse. I'm unsure of why this is happening, especially considering this place and others need to be shut down.

Several former patients have claimed that widespread abuse occurred at Straight, Inc. Shelby Cornwell has made several allegations:

• "[a] staff member passed out pictures of my father ... The staff member told the group that the man in the pictures was my boyfriend, asked the group how they felt about me 'f***ing an old man'"
• "I was in group when clients were 'marathoned.' This meant that the client was kept apart from group for several days, 3 was common. During that time, they were kept in the bathroom or a small, empty office and beaten, cursed, spat on, and denied food and sleep."
• "In St. Petersburg, FL, staff would turn the heat on in the middle of summer ... Many people vomited and passed out due to heat exhaustion."

Leigh Ann Bright also reports abuse: "They broke kids' bones and bloodied them up. They drove kids to attempt suicide. Brutality was part of their program. They called it 'tough love'".

Though these accusations are sourced, there is no way of knowing if they are accurate and IMHO we should not record accusations without greater reliability.

I have also removed:

"To date many of those responsible for the abuse inflicted upon former patients of Straight still go unpunished. Some, like the programs founding couple have even rewarded for their efforts in destroying the lives of thousands of teens in the US."

This is POV, pure and simple. Bridgeplayer 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was a victim of the abuse for 2 years and six months. I was held in the bathroom by myself for three to four days at a time and I was sat on regularly by five people at the same time. To be specific I was forced to lay on the floor flat on my back and arms out stretched. One person would sit on each arm another would sit on my chest another would sit on my left leg and the other on my right leg. This would continue until my body would fall asleep. Typically I would be sat on over an hour at a time. When the staff deemed it time for me to stand I would be picked up and told to stand on my own..........I could not. I was let go only to fall on the concrete floor.

I was also fed peanut butter and jelly and water for seven days in a row to alternate every other week for two months.

Fianlly I can attest to being beaten once a month until bloody in the Straight Inc.Intake room of the St. Petersburg Campus.

The mental pain and physical cruelty was a daily occurrence in Straight Inc. St. Petersburg. During this time Miller Newton and his wife operated the facility with a staff of kids. I am 44 year old now left the program when I was eighteen and still relive the nightmares once a month at a minium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.89.227 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My intake date was Dec 27, 1985. I hope that no one removes any accounts from those who still want to talk about there experience. Everyone who was in the 'Program' suffered, some more than others. I can still remember what it is like to feel guilty for reading the text on a cereal box. I know that sounds stupid, but it takes a significant amount of stress to break a person in that way. I think my experience was typical: sleep deprivation, spat-on, screamed-at, humiliated by public recounts of anything sexual that ever happened in my life, a total loss of all privacy and dignity, everyday forced to stand for hours in an intake room packed shoulder-to-shoulder, and when ill we were stacked 3-people-deep on a used mattress with no sanitation. This was the daily grind.

References

stubbing the article

I've stubbed this article (removed nearly all content) because the content completely fails to meet wikipedia's standards and needs a total rewrite. Among the issues are:

1. Copyright issues/plagiarism. Significant portions of the article are lifted from [4]. See WP:CP. Examples include: "Because participants were policed, punished, or rewarded by each other, a unique camaraderie exists towards the very individuals who inflicted the torment." "Given the 20 years required for the memories to resurface, and the additional sequelae of PTSD, only a fraction are beginning to seek and receive successful treatment for their trauma."
2. The article is completely biased and presents only one side of the story. By searching through news articles I found that while there were many allegations of abuse, the program was also praised by significant figures including two US presidents. This is absent from the article. The organization and its treatment method is described completely from the point of view of the critics. See WP:OR
3. The use of sources is very bad. Instead of mainstream news or academic sources, there are references to "Cannabis Culture" and to websites run by self-described survivors of the program. A great deal of information is completely unsourced. In certain cases - for instance the link to WCPO - the sources do not seem to actually say what the article indicates that they say.
4. Some very serious allegations are completely uncited. See WP:NPOV.

The extent to which this article violates wikipedia policy is shocking. This[5] post, as well as other posts on the article's talk page lead me to believe that the article's editors have a clear conflict of interest and an agenda. That's not acceptable. This is an encyclopedia and articles need to be well-researched, well-sourced and fair. This is not a place to propagate grievances. GabrielF (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

HELLO I copied and pasted my response from the other place - here it is. 1) I am most definitely NOT webdiva - just to clear that up at the outset. I do know who the person is though. I am the one who told webdiva that the entry had been removed, both of us thought it was someone playing games at first. Webdiva did an undo, and then when I got up this morning I saw another undo by Gabriel, so yes, undid. As I previously stated, we thought we were dealing with a person playing games. Webdiva has a website, so do I. I run a website called Surviving Straight Inc, http://survivingstraightinc.com/ - it is against Straight however you will notice in the document library and newspaper archives, both sides of the debate are represented, its an overwhelming pile of evidence, again, both sides. 2) I didnt write this entry. Eons ago, most likely at least a year ago, I made an edit, which is no longer on the entry. Unless I have forgotten other edits, I highly doubt I ever made more than a few....if memory serves it was something about PTSD being attributed to survivors from the Virginia program (a highly inaccurate stmt)...my edit was to change to ALL Straight branches (not just Virginia), something to that effect. Today I add 2 citations - you should have no trouble finding them in the history. 3) I agree, better and more complete citation is needed. I even saw things that should be rewritten. Again, I did NOT write this entry and rarely even look at this site. 4) Unfortunately so many people edit this thing I have no idea who has done the the majority of the writing and editing. 5) "Pro straight people" have a habit of trying to suppress the truth. Until Gabriel proved he/she submitted a complaint through the proper channels, you can imagine why I persisted in restoring the text today. Obviously people like me will not allow the truth to be suppressed. 6) As to the timing of the posts, the unsupported "hypothesis" that webdiva and I are one in the same (ironic given that the issue in question is so-called unsupported allegations), that this is supposedly "webdiva's organization" (there is no such "organization"), and that this an alleged an "axe to grind" (yet another unsupported allegation), let me share the FACTS. I thought I had a user id but I couldn't remember the password since its been so long since I used it - possibly a year or more. So, I created a new user id. Last Time I checked there was nothing wrong with that. Yes, I created it so that I could use the "undo" function. That was ME not webdiva. Again, different person. Another FACT - presently there are HUNDREDS of Straight Survivors on the internet in various online groups who share their experiences about Straight daily. Among those hundreds, there are certain activist survivors who independently work to expose the truth about Straight. Sometimes independent activists collaborate for specific projects. The documentary you may or may not have come across is one such collaboration. (They have legal permission to use the name, I own the trademark). Finally, and yes, I get upset and offended by statements such as "axe to grind" - a statement frequently made by uninformed people who jump to conclusions without researching the facts. So, forgive me but I have to say, THAT is an INSULT to many survivors who have PROVED, on countless occasions, those supposed "unsupported allegations." ok done venting. 7) Now, in the interest of having a fact based entry about Straight, Inc. (which I completely support) What do you suggest? (Blondie84 (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC))Blondie84 Blondie84 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)BLONDIE84

Something you need to get straight - we aren't interested in 'truth', we are interested in verification via independent reliable sources - anything else will be removed. Your best bet if you wish to contribute to this article is to add short sections which are sourced to reliable sources - there are many more editors that before now watching this article (and I'm one of them) so edits will be examined even more closely than before. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, when I speak of proof, truth etc I AM referring to DOCUMENTATION. Truth to me are things that can be verified through a variety of evidence. I already have that straight. I have a JD for crists sake - I know about evidence. I understand this is not a court of law, but it is all about proof just the same. If there is something I understand it is documentation and evidence, verification same thing.

However it seems we might be referring to different TYPES of sources. Exactly what do you want? What kind of sources? Newspaper Articles? - I have historic newspaper and magazine articles that actually covered Straight while it was open AND some that were written in recent years? Articles written by journalists? Scholarly reviews of Straight? http://survivingstraightinc.com/newspaper__magazine_articles_covering_straight_inc_1976-1993 http://survivingstraightinc.com/straight_articles_and_information

Do you NOT want original documentation? For example - There are countless documents on my website, that were generated by investigations of Straight while open - they were conducted by various independent agencies - I have reports they issued. I have letters written by various officials....its hard to explain but it is all original and independent. What I read earlier has lead me to believe this is NOT wanted...am I correct? Here is what I am talking about - http://survivingstraightinc.com/document_library

Would you consider THIS a valid citation? There are 579 online signatures and one public statement has been issued by a former executive staff member of Straight - all found on this link: http://survivingstraightinc.com/survivors_request_for_apology_1_apology_received

Also, just a word about my personal frustration - I AM hung up on evidence. I did NOT write that entry. It DOES need to be rewritten with citations. I have never once disagreed about that. Blondie84 (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Blondie84

Do you NOT want original documentation? - For what you want to use it for, no - we don't make use of original documentation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blondie84, just to be clear, you can read our policies at WP:V WP:RS and WP:OR. This last is a key policy - Wikipedia does not feature what it defines as Original research. So if you collect evidence, draw some conclusions, and want to publicise these conclusions by citing the original evidence, Wikipedia is not the place. On the other hand, if you give all the evidence to an investigative journalist at The Grauniad or The Thunderer, and they write a prizewinning expose, then you can refer to that as much as you like. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do I find the current version that was deleted? I just need it so I can see it so I can start rewriting and revising it. Im also still trying to make sense of your citation/sources policy and will have more questions. Thanks. Blondie84 (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Blondie84

You can see previous versions using the history tab on the article page. If you have questions about editing policy, do just ask. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Found it - I missed it the first time I looked in the history. Just a heads up, others survivors checked the page and started asking questions. I filled them in that its under review for poor citation and other issues and that its needs rewritten. I mention this because as I explained elsewhere, there are literally hundreds of survivors. As you can see by the edit history, survivors edit this thing all the time. This is a HUGE problem. Once I go through all the trouble of re-writing this to the satisfaction of wikipedia, with ample citations conforming to wikipedia policy, there is nothing to stop anyone from editing it, adding the type of content that led to this problem in the first place. After the rewrite is complete, is it possible to keep the edit function LOCKED, requiring edit request to be done in another way? If not, what do you suggest? 01:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Blondie84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondie84 (talk • contribs)

If the article is subject to problematic edits, then yes it is possible to lock it again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And I still recommend that you add small sections at a time to avoid problems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope its ok but this is gonna take longer than a week - I think it was stated the entry would be locked for 1 week. My mountain of Straight related work is slowing me down. I'm finishing one project this week and have a survivor reunion and Straight documentary film screening this coming weekend. After that I will be able to get back to this. Is that ok? Blondie84 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Blondie84

Also, the suggestion to add small sections at a time is a great one which will help me lot. But that might present one problem - if I do it in pieces it wont be "fair and balanced" until its complete, meaning if done in pieces it might not "comply" to Wikipedia standards until finished. I know I can put together both side of the issue with plenty of Wikipedia policy acceptable citations though by the time its done. Thoughts? Blondie84 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Blondie84

Unlocking is only going to be a problem if the article gets vandalised or the edit war starts up again. As to the other, I can only recommend that you be prepared to discuss your edits on the talkpage if someone reverts you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That page has a long history of being edited by countless Straight survivors, most of which are not even aware of the current issue. There are currently hundreds of Straight survivors who are active on internet groups so as soon as one sees the page as it is now and if its unlocked I bet it wont take long for people to put stuff back up with without citations. Looks at all the edits over the years.....I assure you its not done by one person or a small # of ppl....there are so many out there it is an uncontrollable situation if unlocked. Just so you know. Guess we'll have to see what happens and as I said, I will follow through asap like I said yesterday. Blondie84 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Blondie84

November 12 edits

The edits today are better than previous versions of this article, but there are still some serious issues:

1. Please don't delete sourced information about the organization's supporters while adding information about its critics.
2. Please see our reliable source policies. Wikipedia is NOT considered a reliable source for citations. You can cite the material that the wikipedia article cites, but you can't cite the article itself.
3. I'm concerned about the use of AlterNet as a source because it's an activist source - however, I'd like to hear other opinions on this as I'm not too familiar with the website. We can probably say something like: "According to the website AlterNet..." but I think there needs to be an attribution.
4. The text should clarify that Jeb Bush and others are on the advisory board of the successor organization, Drug Free America Foundation, not on the board of Straight, Inc. This also doesn't belong in the section "Allegations of abuse".
5. The St. Petersburg Times article cited (located at rickross.org) IS a good source, and the footnote should state explicitly that its from the St. Petersburg Times. See Template:Cite news for how to do this. However, it doesn't seem to say what the editor thinks it is saying - the US Senate does not grant licenses to drug treatment facilities for instance (nor does the Florida State Senate). GabrielF (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

1) Im confused - I added a huge paragraph about Straight SUPPORTERS not critics, I did NOT delete any information about the supporters, I revised to ADD to that information - hell I added a huge list of Straight supporters, high profile ones - supporters were Sembler, Zappalla, DuPont, Carlton Turner, Nancy Reagan, George Bush and others....I went out of my way to add a laundry list of high profile supporters. Didnt you see that? Heck I didnt even get to add hardly anything critical about Straight - I did add the citation about the 721,000 judgment against Straight in the lawsuit section. I saw a cite to another lawsuit and added one. That section needs alot of work because there are tons of lawsuits that made the papers - yes all lawsuit will have newspapers as citations. I also added a cite about that Senate Investigation.

2) I dont recall adding any information about the critics. I hadnt gotten that far.

3) I did edit the sentence that stated Straight had 10,000 graduates. I did to make the statement accurate - at the time that cited newspaper article was published, it was 10,000 - but that was several years before Straight closed - the final number is 12,000 and I added reliable citations to support the accuracy of that statement.

4) I added Straight's Origins sections to elaborate on how Straight got started - to be historically complete and accurate - what was there done by Gabriel while accurate is incomplete - more information was needed. The Semblers involvement in the Seed, The US Senate Investigation and findings, and the resulting controversy (documented in newspapers) was why Straight was started - these facts are well-documented by the citations I provided. All the facts need to be included - I was adding historically complete and accurate information. None are my opinions. All verifiable.

5) I didnt use any Alternet citations last night so I am very confused. But, please look further into Alternet - it has NEVER been a Straight Survivor Activist site - its completely independent - Alternet writers took an interest in the Straight story and wrote about it. I didnt add this as a source last night, maybe Gabriel did - I did not get to read and examine everything he did. I personally dont see anything wrong with citing legitimate journalists, as far as I know Alternet is legit.

6) I didnt write anything in the allegations of abuse section - didnt get that far, but I have a few thoughts. I hadnt gotten to the part about how Straight changed its name to Drug Free America Foundation yet - that is in the plan though - who Straight is now is relevant - Jeb can be included when I get to that part. I think a new section devoted to the name change history of Straight is in order - Straight Inc (1976) changed to Straight Foundation (1985) change to Drug Free America Foundation (1995). Once that history is laid out then I think adding Drug Free America names would fit nicely in that section. All name changes are easily verifiable from numerous sources.

7) Wikepedia sources can easily be replaced - my bad.

8) This part at the end - "he US Senate does not grant licenses" - again I am confused - I dont recall writing anything about that nor do I recall citing Rick Ross in anything last night. Where is this coming from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondie84 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

sources

Blondie, can you please provide some additional information about two sources that you added:

1. [6]
2. [7]

Are these blog entries or were they published elsewhere?

Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The first citation - http://thestraights.net/news/charlie-crist.htm - that was written by a man named Wesley Fager - he did years of research on Straight. He is now deceased. This is one of his articles that he wrote back in 2002. Its definitely not written by me. That man also wrote an online book called A Clockwork Straight based on years of research he did.

The 2nd one, #[8] Are these blog entries or were they published elsewhere? - this one was written by a lady named Kathy Moya. Again, this is not me.

I thought these would work as I thought I read online blogs were ok - if they are not ok, no big deal. I have plenty of other sources. (Blondie84 (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)) Blondie 84

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Gmarmstrong (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Drug Free America Foundation into Straight, Incorporated. As pointed out in on the DFAF talk page and the article itself, "Drug Free America Foundation" is simply a renaming of "Straight, Incorporated". They are the same organization, and the DFAF page as it stands now reads as promotional material that only serves to disassociate the organization from its own history. Gmarmstrong (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the top editors of the DFAF page. This includes Jojenn, although I would ask that you take a look at your talk page before chiming in.

@Ohiostandard, Rklawton, AndroidCat, Abductive, Gigs, Jamie7687, 65.35.165.158, and Jojenn: A merger proposal has been created for Drug Free America Foundation and Straight, Incorporated. Gmarmstrong (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging the top editors of the Straight, Incorporated page.

@GabrielF, Damien Linnane, Blondie84, Captmarti, JMPIII, Bridgeplayer, Orlady, ContributorSW, and Webdiva: A merger proposal has been created for Drug Free America Foundation and Straight, Incorporated. Gmarmstrong (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps the merge should go in the opposite direction, since the canonical name is now Drug Free America Foundation. I have not done a merge before, so please feel free to chime in with your opinion. On the other hand, I know there's at least some precedent of keeping the most notable/notorious name, as in the case of Blackwater (company). Gmarmstrong (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: For context, the DFAF article looked like this when I started editing it yesterday. I have since improved it significantly, but there's plenty of issues remaining. I am holding off on continuing the newly created history section until we settle this proposal. Until then, it has a brief description of Straight and its rebranding, and both articles link to each other in a way that's decent enough for the moment. At least personally, I have settled on Straight, Inc. being merged into DFAF, rather than the other way around. Gmarmstrong (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• If the nominator is willing to do the work a merge entails, I have no objection. Abductive (reasoning) 06:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Undecided Leadership is obviously the same, but I can't tell if this is one legal entity with a name change or two separate legal entities. If the latter, then we should not merge these articles. Rklawton (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• One legal entity with a name change in 1985, and another to the present name in 1995.[9] AndroidCat (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Modern-day" DFAF doesn't seem to acknowledge the connection on its own websites, but DFAF is the same entity as Straight, from everything I can find. GuideStar, for example, says this on the DFAF profile (I'm about to add this to the citations; requires a free account, annoyingly): "Formerly known as Straight Foundation, Inc."; "Ruling year 1978". See also these Florida Division of Corporations records. Gmarmstrong (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. If it's one legal entity that changed it's name it should definitely be merged. The merge should go in the opposite direction though; we should use the organisation's current name. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree about the direction, I had it mixed up when I proposed it. Gmarmstrong (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.