Jump to content

Talk:You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International/Archive 1

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

Page Protection Request

I have requested a Page Protection due to heated editing when another user who is removing cited material and putting in his POV. Lets have the discussion here... Dinkytown talk 22:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mikey... First you *are* removing cited material, such as the stated budget as shown here. You did not explain why you removed this. Also, under "High school assemblies" you removed the the amount that YCRBYCHI charges per show. There are other examples, but first before we move on; are you willing to concede that you were removed such material? Dinkytown talk 22:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Page protection removed on 11/24 with no response or debate on the subject. Dinkytown Italic texttalk 18:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

neutral/international pov

I think the section about the documentary series (My War: The Testimony of Bradlee Dean Documentary) needs to be looked at. It's written like an advertisement and the US are refered to as "our country". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxl-82 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pequot High incident is marked as having a dead link, so I've found another article that might be used to take its place. I have never edited Wikipedia and I didn't want to screw it up, so I'm putting the info here until I learn a bit more.

Birkey, Andy (September 30, 2009) "Bachmann to raise funds for controversial Christian punk ministry" The Minnesota Independent. Retrieved on May 27, 2011 from http://minnesotaindependent.com/45902/michele-bachmann-to-fundraise-for-controversial-ministry

The relevant information is a few paragraphs down, under the heading "Complaints around the Midwest". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.74.37 (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. However I removed the sentence about Pine River, as it doesn't seem to be present even in the original source (accessible at http://web.archive.org/web/20100108021419/http://wcco.com/local/high.school.assembly.2.367553.html). It does say "WCCO was told the assembly Friday morning did not have the same issues as the one in Pequot Lakes.", but that is not the same as "all comments were positive". —Soap— 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading use of citations

The introduction section contains a sentence which reads: "They have received numerous letters of recommendation from school personnel and students nationwide". To bolster this assertation, the following sources are cited as reference.

The first of the sources in question is to the groups very own premotional website, which would make it a primary source. The second source makes abosulutely no mention of the group receiving any endorsements, but does mention the negative responses they received from Pequot Lakes High School. Finally the third souce is from the SLPC which makes brief mention of Bradlee Dean's controversial comments regarding the LGBT community, but again zero mention of the group receiving any positive comments. To re-cap, we have a dubious primary souce, and 2 third party sources that do not substantiate the claim. So, I will be removing it.--192.91.173.36 (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sons of Liberty radio program

After doing a bit of digging, I found that the information contained in the section pertaining to the Sons of Liberty radio show is no longer correct. As of May 25, 2011 the show was dumped from AM1280 The Patriot. The general manager of The Patriot said Dean and co-host sidekick "did a 6-minute-long spiel in which they mocked black people, which I took offense to. For a minister to do that made no sense." In the same broadcast Dean also likened President Obama to Osama bin Laden. It also appears that Clear Channel Communications is backing out of deal to carry his show after the indcident. Sources:

--192.91.147.35 (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing

The article has been receiving good edits recently, but an editor reverted back to the April version.[1] Since a number of sources were deleted, and some POV language was restored, I reverted that revert. The editor said "The edits which have been made are referenced to a reporter who was notified for slander on the organization." May I ask who that reporter is?   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but would like more than just the name. "[N]otified for slander" is unclear, but if the reporter, or a court agreed that the article in question constituted slander, we have a problem with this source. More information please? Uberhill 22:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the following disclaimers, which were posted on the organization's website: 1. http://youcanruninternational.com/news/affirming-our-stance-on-homosexuality.html 2. http://youcanruninternational.com/news/letter-to-the-press.html 3. http://youcanruninternational.com/news/bradlee-dean-debunks-homosexual-protest-of-target.html The organization has articles written on them by people who have actually SEEN their assembly program, such as the Weekly Standard and the American View. I would appreciate some editing help to make this article neutral. As it currently sits, the article is written mostly from the point of view from the MN Independent, which consistently writes reports in a negative view of the organization. I appreciate your help in advance to make this fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teardrop22 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Are either of these considered reliable sources? Regardless, link [2] suggests the former might not enjoy being quoted in WP. Putting aside the intended levity of the former sentence, if Teardrop22 has some links to relevant articles, I think it would be worthwhile to have them provided here on the talk page. Cheers JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. i am not good at the ropes of Wiki yet, so I don't want to mess anything up. Here is the link to the Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/192bvsew.asp and the American View article: http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=596. I also know Focus 5 in MN went with them to a school and did a report a while back as well. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teardrop22 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because the head of the ministry has accused Andy Birkey of The Minnesota Independent of slander does not disqualify the articles by that reporter. We can use those youcanruninternational.com links to give Dean's POV on th matter, though we can't use it as a source for anything about other living people. theamericanview.com looks like a blog, and so would not qualify as a reliable source for this article. The Weekly Standard is a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
That seems very reasonable.
Teardrop22, perhaps you'd consider pasting your recommended addition(s) her on the talk page. It would be great if you could do your best to follow Will Beback's recommendations, above. If you do, I suspect getting WP:CONSENSUS should be straightforward. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I apologize that I do not know much about the ropes of Wikipedia. Patchyreynolds fleshed out the article with the Weekly Standard's comments. Thanks again. (Teardrop22) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teardrop22 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Pertaining to this statement made in the High School Assemblies section: (A "gold-plated conspiracy theorist," Dean also maintains that the moon landing was faked and that O.J. Simpson might have been framed for his wife's murder.[24]) When reading the article by the Weekly Standard, this comment had nothing to do with the actual assembly program content, but rather a side conversation between the writer and Bradlee Dean. Shouldn't that statement be removed or put elsewhere? [[User:Teardrop22|Teardrop22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.217.114 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The comment was detached from anything relevant at the moment. The Ebel article contains some very interesting stuff about conspiracy theory being the spine of YCRBYCH's approach to youth evangelism, which might argue for its inclusion as the entry develops. For now, though, it should indeed be struck. Thanks for the catch. ThtrWrtr (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Documentary sources

I'm uncomfortable with the section on Bradlee's documentary depending, as it currently does, on two sources: 1) a press release by the ministry, and 2) a "review" by his own Christian broadcasting group. How do folks feel about these as reliable sources? Thoughts? ThtrWrtr (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The tone is promotional and there's too much space devoted to a topic without alternative views. It could be covered in a sentence or two, focused on the facts.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Prior to seeing this, I pulled the section on sight due to poor referencing and obviously promotional wording. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When reading the review, it was not put out by the ministry itself, it was put out on a valid news source. Pulling the section entirely is not the best solution. It is entirely factual, not promotional, but rather positive. The rest of the article in my opinion and the opinion of wiki headquarters whom I spoke to about this article does its best to demote the organization as much as possible. The facts presented in the review merely put a balance to the rest of the reports written about the organization, and the documentary itself answers questions that were written by the media on their assemblies. I don't see what's wrong with that. Therefore I am placing it back up. Teardrop22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.172.2 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your thoughts on this, Teardrop22. I have a few of my own in response. There are two central issued here: the treatment of the doc, and the site's treatment of YCRBYCHI. First, I agree that there's no reason to completely excise mention of the documentary from the entry, though I also agree that the current wording is too long and promotional. Second, the source you use is not, as you contend, a "valid news source" in this case. Rather, the organization is publicizing a film put out by one of the groups it streams on its own site. Clearly, there's a promotional interest at play there. As well, GCN is not a news organization in the traditional sense of the term, depending , as it does, upon second-stratum writers that may then be briefly reframed to fall into the party line. Can you find, for example, any balanced mention of the many protests lodged against YCRBYCHI on their site? GCN's job is instead to trumpet and sell the film. That's it. As to the rest of the article, well, I wrote almost all of the recent material, so I'll speak to that. I in no way believe the article demotes YCRBYCHI unless the organization feels publicly degraded by their own action. The ministry told young women they would become "leftovers" for future husbands if they engaged in non-marital sex. How is it derogatory to note this or to say that these messages were reserved only for the girls? Yes, the entry notes that the ministry has been accused of cynically tailoring its assemblies to score drug and abstinence funds, but it also notes that they have cut their rates for poor school and have slept in their cars to make gigs work. Readers adjudicate from both of these to for their own opinion. Finally, because the documentary does not particularly further and old arguments or present ones different from material from school assemblies, it's more of a video re-cap/edited re-representation of these shows; there's thus no reason to again list elements of the ministry's views
How do folks feel about something along the lines of "YCRBYCH released 'My War,' a five-part documentary filmed during portions of these school assemblies. In it Dean recounts his own struggles prior to his conversion to Christianity and again lays out the ministry's positions on various political, cultural, and theological matters." ThtrWrtr (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This sounds like a reasonable approach. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why was my recent talk not posted? Teardrop22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teardrop22 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

or removed??? Teardrop22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teardrop22 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reference it was removed, perhaps something went awry in the posting process? Try again please? Also: Please sign your posts with Uberhill 19:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC) ? Thanks much.

Thanks Uberhill. It was quite lengthy. Do you know how I could find what I wrote? Thanks Teardrop22 (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it is not in the History, you'll have to type it in again. Sorry.. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JoeSperrazza. I will do so - it gives an explanation why the Documentary section should not be removed. I will retype my explanation shortly. Teardrop22 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! If you're not familiar with WP:BRD, it is worth a read. Restoring the content again without WP:CONSENSUS will be edit warring. Best wishes, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, may I ask why bloodofox's revert of my original entry is acceptable? I will post an explanation shortly on the history of this page and its content. I have no vested interest in the documentary. I had posted my explanation before I put the Documentary section back up. I apologize that it did not post. I had no intention of being rude and putting it back up without reasonable explanation. Thanks for your patience with me everyone. Teardrop22 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Teardrop22, It was acceptable as there was not talk page WP:CONSENSUS for your edit, verbatim. There is a growing consensus to include a reference, as per this earlier comment (see earlier in this thread):
How do folks feel about something along the lines of "YCRBYCH released 'My War,' a five-part documentary filmed during portions of these school assemblies. In it Dean recounts his own struggles prior to his conversion to Christianity and again lays out the ministry's positions on various political, cultural, and theological matters." ThtrWrtr (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Here are my concerns with the article as a whole. 1. Many of the sources link to the MN Independent. When reading the articles written by the MN Independent, I could find nowhere that Mr. Birkey attended an assembly program and actually saw the things mentioned in this article. I am not denying that there is definitely controversy around the organization, however, I see the same few schools mentioned over and over again in the media reports who had problems with the assembly program. The Weekly Standard wrote a lengthly article after a week-long tour with the group, which shows that he had time to get a fair assessment of the motives of the organization, as well as the response from the school assemblies he actually saw with his own eyes. He did not see any of the "controversy" and uproar while at the assembly programs. He did, however, report that the students flocked Dean and the crew for autographs. The MN Independent seems to have a motive of maliciousness toward the organization, as I have not seen one comment made by them in a "balanced" perspective. For example, when WCCO originally reported on YCRBYCHI's assembly at Pequot Lakes, they mentioned that the group traveled to neighboring town Pine River, who knew about the assembly at Pequot Lakes, decided to go with the assembly anyway, and commented that the YCRBYCHI staff was very respectful. Here is a website I found that has the original WCCO report: http://aestheteka.forumwise.com/aestheteka-ntopic1586.html. Also, Ref. #12 explains the Pine River assembly program: McCormack, Diane (May 23, 2007). "'Junkyard Prophet' band performs". Pine River Journal. However, the MN Independent article failed to mention anything about the Pine River assembly program, which tells me they have a malicious motive in their reporting on Dean and YCRBYCHI. Additionally, YCRBYCHI's website has addressed the articles written by the MN Independent numerous times, explaining that they are deliberately twisting the facts. Here are some that I found: http://youcanruninternational.com/news/affirming-our-stance-on-homosexuality.html http://youcanruninternational.com/news/letter-to-the-press.html There are also many blogs written by Dean as well.

3. The My War Documentary, from what I read on the GCN article, addresses many of the controversial articles written about the schools who had problems with YCRBYCHI and actually gives live footage of those instances as they have recorded those assembly programs. I thought that would be a great way for the readers of the wiki articles to know what happened and come up with their own conclusions. The Documentary section included that there was both protest and support. The GCN article was written under "US News", their independent media outlet, and therefore is completely valid, and was authored by someone who is not a part of the organization. My section in the wiki page does not say "buy this awesome DVD!" in any manner, but quoted what someone else observed about the documentary, just like the rest of the references.

When thinking through things after reading much on the organization from 2 perspectives (the media reports referenced and the group's own website), I had to ask the question, "If there is so many horrifying statements put out by the organization in their assemblies, how did they get away with doing over 300 assembly programs?" And then looking at the referrals on their website by school personnel, there are way more positive comments than the negative ones written by the media who failed to mention positive feedback in most cases. That posed an even bigger question mark in my mind that something isn't right.

I am not advocating that we turn this page into a promo page for the organization, but I do believe we should see the good in everything, and the Documentary section showed both sides of the sword per say. I appreciate your input. Teardrop22 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Teardrop22 poses a good point, and obviously put a lot of thought into this. I think we should look into this further. Fields1 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Fields1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree. Dolores61907 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Dolores61907 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dolores61907 and Fields1, thanks for your input. I'll respond to Teardrop22's points, which I appreciate, later tonight. Though all are, of course, quite welcome to contribute to this open project, just out of curiosity, are you both new to WP as of today? ThtrWrtr (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

ThtrWrtr, thanks for looking into my findings. I look forward to what you come up with. Teardrop22 (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Teardrop 22 (andDolores61907/Fields1),

As to your points: 1) Birkey, as with most journalists, was writing in the third person, meaning that, unlike "The Weekly Standard" writer, he does not directly insert himself into the story. (e.g., "I watched as Junkyard Prophet took the stage.") He appears to have been at some events and interviewed participants/observers at others. The latter tactic, of course, does not make the article less authentic or truthful. Many fine journalists wrote, say, award-winning pieces on 9/11 based on interviews. 2) As you note, the Independent is only one of several papers that have written on this. There are multiple news sources that have made mention of the controversies that have followed the group. 3) You rather misrepresent the example of Pequot Lakes and then Pine River. What the sources *actually* say is that the second principal was so concerned about what he'd heard from the previous assembly that he pulled the band aside, expressed concerns, made requests (one assumes, for alterations) and that _then_ there were no problems. Also, in reporting on a plane crash it is not incumbent on the journalist to make note of a succeeding flight that didn't burst into flames. This is the same reason that Mel Gibson can have one hundred respectful traffic stops we don't know about, and then make the news with a Jager-fueled rant. If you're looking for a reason why the ministry could have a bunch of praising letters AND a bunch of controversies look no further. 4) Yes, Birkey has made YCRBYCHI a special focus of his as a journalist, This does not necessarily mean he has a "motive of maliciousness" toward the group. He might, as with Woodward and Bernstein in regard to Richard Nixon, simply know a good story when he saw it. In any case, Birkey won 1st Place in Ongoing Reporting from the MN chapter of Society of Professional Journalists in 2010 for his work on the ministry. His peers appear to accept it as high caliber work. Is it any wonder that a WP entry would draw upon award-winning journalism from an acknowledged expert on the group? 5) Yes, The Weekly Standard article limned the group in a slight different way. (The writer still detailed some issues that might concern many parents.) He also didn't look into things that drew Birkey's attention. WS noted that the boys and girls were split up, the latter to go off and discuss "virtue;" MI noted that part of these virtue lessons included being told they would be giving a future husband "leftovers" if they had had pre-marital sex. They observed the same assembly event, but asked different questions of different depth and specificity. 6) GCN, as the network that benefits financially from streaming the Sons of Liberty show, is not an impartial source to adjudicate its own group. For example, I searched on the site, but couldn't find any mention of the the ministry being kicked off of Wal-Mart's property for misrepresenting itself. Doesn't mean we can't necessarily use them as a source, just that we have to highlight for the reader that it is a source with possible bias issues. 7) Dean's stated issues with the reporting of the Independent seems to be that he feels it quotes him out of context. Well, in response the MI reprinted both back to back: http://minnesotaindependent.com/59761/bradlee-dean-says-minnesota-independent-twisted-his-words . Dean's press release doesn't appear to hold water, inasmuch as even when taken in lengthier quotes it still may be taken as incendiary. Now, Dean might regret his phrasing or wich he'd drawn different parallells, but that's a different matter.

All of this is to say that I don't believe the article, as it currently stands, is slanted against the group nor does it depend on poor sources. Cheers. --ThtrWrtr (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

References and Citations

Are blogs acceptable to use as a source? I believe that is incorrect. Can someone please verify? Teardrop22 (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLOGS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete vandalism revert

I was trying to revert these two edits: [3], [4], and apparently the second revert timed out or otherwise was lost. Sorry that the vandalism was left in the article (albeit briefly), and glad another editor caught it and reverted it. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured something accidentally went wrong, no worries. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sons of Liberty Radio

The Sons of Liberty Radio program is now airing on AM 1280 The Patriot. There is not too much information about it online so I am not sure what would be the best way to update this article. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teardrop22 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A Message of Truth

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've read and listend to some of the music from Junkyard Prophet and I want to send them and their supporters a simple message. Two quotes from the greatest man to ever walk this earth.

1) A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 2) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Both are messages from Christ. I leave this for one reason. Christ taught love, compassion, acceptance. He said to love others, and to let Him judge them. Please think about this with future messages. It is all too common we let hatred skew our views and the message. Remember Him and His message, love. Moonstar 20:37, 14 March 2012 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.41.5 (talk)

Hate group

Do we need an RfC here, too? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. Care to initiate one? --Scientiom (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but the next one's yours. Check out the instructions at WP:RFC: it's really not hard.

POV addition to the lead

User:Scientiom has added a sentence to the lead, which is unnecessary and POV. It is unnecessary, because the same thing is stated in a much better way in the preceding paragraph. It is POV in that it puts criticisms in wikipedia's voice. The body of the article said A Tennessee principal also had to apologize to students in 2004 "for any controversy or heartache the assembly generated." The lead now says which have caused heartache among students. That's not the same thing at all. The phrase "captive" audience" is also a loaded term and POV - it was obviously used by a critic, and is totally inappropriate for the lead. The "mislead" bit is also someone's opinion (and spelt incorrectly, by the way). StAnselm (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever agreed with StAnselm before on issues relating to these articles (:p), but I absolutely agree with his objection. He's certainly correct that the way it is currently stated in the lead puts it in Wikpedia's voice, and it is totally out of context from how it is phrased in the body. The lead version is very misleading and violates NPOV. However, the "captive audience" reference in the body is an actual quote from a reliable source. I should also mention that the words "had to" which are used two times in the body content (see below) should also be removed. "Had to" is POV. Just remove those two words from each sentence and it'll be totally accurate and not change the meaning of the sourced facts. Just change it to "...later called an assembly..." and "...also apologized to students..."
"A Wisconsin principal, whose school was visited in 2003, later had to call a second assembly to apologize to the students for allowing YCRBYCHI a forum for "brainwashing" a "captive audience."[5] A Tennessee principal also had to apologize to students in 2004 "for any controversy or heartache the assembly generated."[4]"
In any case, the content is not even lead-worthy IMO, even if it were properly written. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Hate group

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should the lead include a sentence stating that YCRBYCH has been designated as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, as far as I can tell, only the ADL and SPLC are in the business of classifying organizations as hate groups. They have somewhat different criteria, though there's also overlap. I'm also not sure what the FRC has to do with this. Could you explain? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, lol. I copy and pasted from the other RfC regarding basically the same thing. What I mean is, according to Wikipedia, the KKK is "widely" regarded as a hate group. Whereas, this organisation and others is just so by the SPLC. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that makes more sense. I would suggest that we're not saying it's a hate group in Wikipedia's voice, just reporting the rather notable fact that the SPLC designates it as such. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Undo weight is the main problem with including it in the lead. SPLC is different in that its definition of a hate group doesn't necessarily include violence or the advocation of violence. So when the reader sees that this organisation and others is regarded as a hate group in the lead, they think of the KKK and modern day Nazi parties. Whereas if it's in the main body, it is clear that the SPLC is alone in this opinion, as opposed to the lead because the lead just gives an overview anyway. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I think it does include advocating violence. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
If it does, then it should be in the article. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Since you asked:
On a May 15 radio show, the ministry’s front man, Bradlee Dean, applauded the call of some Muslims for violence against gay people. “Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America,” Dean said. “This just shows you … they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians… . They know homosexuality is an abomination.”
I think that supporting the execution of gays qualifies, don't you? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Since you asked, probably not. That is, this is a capital punishment debate, albeit for a different "crime" than normal. But capital punishment supporters in America are not normally criticized for "advocating violence". StAnselm (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow.
Capital offenses in America are for high crimes such as treason and murder. To suggest that killing people for having consensual sex with other adults is comparable to executing murderers is wildly implausible! I'm sorry, but if that's the basis of your thinking then your ability to contribute neutrally and competently is suspect. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess on the other side of the coin, I would suggest you haven't done the hard work in working out why someone would honestly believe in capital punishment for gays. And the unwillingness to try to understand their position would equally raise questions about your own neutrality. StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, however, it was an off the cuff remark so I can't change my vote. That quote should be in the article though. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that's relevant, but I've answered your question so I'm not sure there's anything for me to add here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include a bare statement. Adding the reasons would be undue weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include a brief sentence that says as much. Also support expanding the lead by a paragraph or so. Gobōnobo + c 11:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly include This is a very controversial organization and the SPLC alerts the reader of this immediately. EdwinHJ | Talk 15:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly include. This is probably the most notable thing about this "Christian" group. Definitely needs to be stated up front that they are a hate group and why they are labeled like this.Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include - It is vital to the understanding of YCRBYCHI to know that it is considered a hate group. Not including this in the lead could cause misunderstanding. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 16:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Include - It's a distinguishing characteristic of the organization which they have earned through their associations with other hate groups, as well as through their own activities. The SPLC has well-establish credibility in making these hate group designations, as recognized by their association with other civil rights groups, the FBI and broad media coverage. – MrX 16:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Include but only as part of broader "reception" text - The Lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. The article includes quite a bit of material about criticisms of the group, including the SPLC designation. It is okay for the lead to summarize all that, including the hate group designation. But the lead should not single-out the SPLC designation specifically, to the exclusion of all other reception/criticism information. Likewise, any praise or support of the group (in the body) should be summarized in the lead. --Noleander (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2012 (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.

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edited Statement by Bradlee Dean as Highlighted in Rachel Maddow's Show

Here is a letter from YCR/Bradlee Dean's attorney to media outlets who had previously posted Maddow's edited statement, all of which have corrected the statement and put it in context on their articles. Wiki must follow by the same laws:

Bradlee Dean and You Can Run International concerning the false and defamatory statements published in ThinkProgress on July 27th, 2011 have retained our law firm. The article, “Bradlee Dean Never Calls for the Persecution of Gays, Except all the Time” falsely states that Bradlee Dean and has expressed agreement with an extreme Muslim position that calls for the execution of homosexuals. In your article you give a quote from Bradlee Dean’s radio broadcast to support your false and defamatory claims. This quote must be given in its entirety if you choose to use it in your article; you will find the text below.

“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination. And I continually reach out to the homosexual communities on this radio show, and I warn them, which one’s love? Here you have Obama condemning it behind the backs of the homosexuals but to their faces he’s promoting it. Because he’s the one that said that he would never, no matter which way the winds go, Obama said he is not going to condemn or go against the Muslim nation. He’s also the guy that said we are no longer a Christian nation, we’re a Muslim nation … The homosexuals, they need to listen… I say this to my gay friends out there, the ones that continuously nitpick everything I say in their defense and for t heir eternal destination, Hollywood is promoting immorality and God of the Heavens in Jesus’ name is warning you to flee from the wrath to come, yet you have Muslims calling for your execution.”

Neither Bradlee Dean nor You Can Run International have ever called for the execution of homosexuals nor have they in any way expressed agreement with the statement that homosexuals should be executed. Bradlee Dean and You Can Run International have sued Rachel Maddow and MSNBC for creating this false claim by deliberately deleting portions of a statement made by Bradlee Dean to make it appear that he was in agreement with this extreme Muslim position. Furthermore, your coverage of this lawsuit in the article is false as you fail to mention the second report done by Rachel Maddow highlighting Bradlee Dean. This second report done in August of 2011 is the subject of the lawsuit and should be acknowledged in your report. The reporter should understand and know the facts about this case before reporting. If you contend that you have facts to support your false and defamatory claim, please produce those facts. If you have no facts supporting your false statement, then promptly remove the statement from your webpage or promptly make the corrections needed in order for this article correct and truthful.

Any further publication will be with full knowledge that the statements and claims are false and with a reckless disregard of the truth and will result in further legal action.

Very truly yours, PATRICK T. TIERNEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.172.2 (talk) 14:09, October 3, 2012‎

In the future, could you please type four tildes at the end of your comments ~~~~ when posting to talk pages, so we know who you are?
As far as I know, no laws have been broken. What concerns me is that the quote in the letter (above) is missing some context as indicated by the ellipses, or do those ellipses mean something else? It seems a little self serving. Perhaps you could find the entire transcript and we can decide what should be included in this article. – MrX 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The information posted here complies with verified quotes from reliable sources WP:RS. While a letter like this certainly looks imposing (and it's supposed to of course), I'm unpersuaded that the changes demanded are appropriate under existing Wiki policies. This letter by itself does not constitute a reliable source. If the poster of this letter is indeed who they say they are, then they are violating Wiki policy by editing a page about their client without consensus. If legal action is at issue, the matter doesn't belong here, but should be directed to a Wiki Administrator. These edits should be reverted if consensus can be reached. Uberhill 19:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
What is the WP:Reliable source we're proposing to use and how are we proposing to use it? Insomesia (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this letter should play little role in framing the article, primarily for three (among many) reasons. First, as previously noted, the block quote itself is incomplete. It seems unreasonable to ask for fuller inclusion of a quote and then provide an edited quote as justification for this. Second, neither WP policies or libel standards appear to be being violated. The letter from Dean's lawyer reflects their wishes to frame the statement in a different way, not a matter of law. Lastly, the job of WP editors is to distill longer quotations down to more digestible chunks that fairly and succinctly outline the importance of the quote to the subject. The real question it seems we need to ask on the talk page is if the shorter quote misrepresents the controversy around Dean. ThtrWrtr (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Peacock tag

There's a peacock tag at the top of the article, dating back from last month. Is anyone still pursuing this or shall we remove the tag already? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made some edits to remove some of the glowing effusions about the org and its founder, but I thought that more might be needed. I would say the tag could be removed. – MrX 19:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll remove it for now. If the peacock comes back, we can always deal with it then. I'd prefer to simply BRD the unwanted effusions instead of tagging again, but whatever works. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

IP 208.84.172.2's reversion to IP 69.46.217.114's edits and assertion of NPOV

IP 208.84.172.2 has reverted to a version of the article edited by IP 69.46.217.114 that

1. Omits sourced content:

"The group's connections to Tom Emmer were highlighted on The Rachel Maddow Show; during the episode, Rachel Maddow was critical of statements that Dean made on WWTC about the execution of homosexuals in Muslim countries. The statement, in part, was "Muslims are calling for the execution of homosexuals in America. They themselves are holding up the laws that are even in the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians..."
and replaces it with:
"The group's connections to Tom Emmer were highlighted on The Rachel Maddow Show; during the episode, Rachel Maddow was critical of statements that Dean made on WWTC about Muslims calling for the execution of homosexuals in America."

2. includes unsourced statements of support: "Although the organization has received referrals and testimonials from school administrators, they have also drawn some controversy for using assemblies for religious purposes, misleading school administrators about the nature of the program, and proselytizing its views on abortion and homosexuality."

3. and include criticism of SPLC by Dean: "In response, Dean called the SPLC the real hate group, alleging SPLC's founder Morris Dees did legal work for the KKK in the 1960s, and that the SPLC continues to align itself with communist organizations." sourced by World Net Daily which is not a reliable source. The relevance of Dean's criticism seems to come from a false equivalence.

I would like to invite IP 208.84.172.2 (COI?) and IP 69.46.217.114 (COI?) here to explain these edits. – MrX 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I would be happy to explain each point:

1. There are several things wrong about this point. First, you can see the facts are not correct in that Dean was not speaking of executions of homosexuals in Muslim countries by his statement, "Muslims are calling for the execution of homosexuals in America." Second, Maddow also put Dean's disclaimer on her first coverage in which he said, "We have never and will never call for the execution of homosexuals."

Another portion of information missing here is that Maddow reported on Dean again in May 2011, the second time stating the same piece, "Muslims are calling for the execution of homosexuals in America. They themselves are holding up the laws that are even in the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians..." However, she pulled down Dean's disclaimer stating "We have never and will never call for the execution of homosexuals." Instead, she finished Dean's quote adding her own words that "Christians weren't doing enough to kill the gays." This is why the lawsuit was initiated. Not because of the first report, but because of the second.

See here: http://www.mrctv.org/blog/christian-radio-host-suing-rachel-maddow

2. This Wiki page maintained the statement that the org. did indeed have referrals from many high school administrators for a long time, only to balance the fact that they draw criticism at times for their religious views being propagated in the public arena. Deleting the positive and leaving only the negative does not give a proper perspective. I believe it may have been patchyreynolds who recognized this unbalanced POV a while ago.

3. On Tony Perkins Wiki page, it mentions FRC was labeled a hate group, but it also mentions Perkin's response:

In 2010, the Family Research Council—under Perkins' leadership—was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center which characterized the group as "a fount of anti-gay propaganda".[27][28] Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as a political attack on the FRC by a "liberal organization" and as part of "the left's smear campaign of conservatives"

Since this page is about Dean, it must include Dean's response to the SPLC.

by: 208.84.172.2 =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.172.2 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I did add the additional information about Maddow's second report and the disclaimer. I would appreciate your help on the other two points. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.172.2 (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem including the interview with appropriate context, as long as there are inline citations to support those portions of the interview from reliable sources. WND is generally not a reliable source for factual information, but cold be used for opinion, as long as the opinion is relevant to the article and attributed to WND or it journalist(s). A letter from a lawyer would not be a reliable source, unless it were published by a third party reliable news organization.
Similarly press releases or the news wire services that distribute press releases are generally not reliable sources if they are self serving to the subject of the article. The MRC TV blog post from danjoseph does not seem to be reliable either.
With regard to point two, please tell us in what source, section and paragraph that the statements of endorsement exist. I may have missed them when I first read the source articles. The fact that those statements have been in this article for a long time (without sources), do not establish a reason for keeping them. A central tenet of Wikipedia is that any unsourced content may be removed.
Point three is also addressed with reliable sources (mainstream newspapers, journals, magazines, books, news blogs, etc.). Again, WND is not generally considered a reliable source. I recommend that you try to find 2-3 sources for any content like this that you want to add. This has become unwritten standard for articles such as these that are very contentious. You edits will also tend to have a little more weight if you register for an account and edit other articles so as to establish that you are not an WP:SPA. – MrX 02:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to follow up a bit on the comments about WND, I once made the mistake of stating in a similar discussion on another article that WND was not a reliable source for anything other than their own opinions. I was quickly corrected by another, more experienced, editor who contended, IIRC, that WND was not RS for their own opinions since they had been shown in the past to silently modify earlier articles to delete or change the meaning of things previously published. I can't personally vouch for the accuracy of the statement, but even if it is not true, opinions expressed in WND are generally seen in WP as pretty fringe, so it's questionable whether using anything published there would have encyclopedic value. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Substantial removal of sourced content

Two IP editors and a newly registered editor have recently made edits in which substantial, sourced portions of the article were removed because they believe the article and sources are biased. I'm opening this thread so they we discuss the specific content issues and proposed edits to address the issues. - MrX 22:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Biased Article

This article is the equivalent of posting every negative thing someone has ever said about President Obama on his page. It is not fair to put in every negative article ever posted about an organization. Let's pare this down to a short synopsis and rebuild. As it is this is very unfair way to present things. Yes the material is cited, but it is not in any way balanced. A person could post many cited links about any political/religious organization or person. That does not excuse posting multiple ones that paint in negative light as compared to a couple that say positive things. Let's just fix this and make it fair to both sides. It is a religious/political org, and the methods have drawn controversy. No need to go in depth on every criticism ever raised, especially if the same isn't being done for every bit of praise ever given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbwhitham (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Tbwhitham (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC) tbwhitham

All we can do is write an article that reflects the notable coverage given by our reliable sources. You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International has drawn negative attention to themselves by their own social activism. They have taken it upon themselves to try to define morality based on their own beliefs and motives. Their leader has made statements that many, many people consider outrageous and hateful.
In my opinion, the article gives too much weight to their philosophy and the operational details of their business. So, if we want to start removing biased information, perhaps we should start with their mission statement. Then I would be receptive to paring down the article, because I actually agree that it is overly detailed. - MrX 23:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's take the philosophy debate out of this. Wouldn't saying they are controversial be enough? You can still link everything to that. But typing it all out in text to go along with the citation is too much. This is not supposed to be a forum for political discussion. It would be rather misleading of someone to go out and find every article written about the organization and post it wouldn't it. It is not up to you or I to determine the validity of the mission statement though. Are you on board to pare it down to the bare minimum and keep the links if they want to hear about the controversy. That sound's fair. As of right now this article just cites the same points over and over.
Tbwhitham (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)tbwhitham
[Please indent your posts by typing colons (:) before your posts]
No, I don't support paring the article down to a bare minimum, and I don't accept the premise that someone has gone out and found every article written about the organization and posted it. Encyclopedias are supposed to inform, and convey information in a neutral, dispassionate fashion. I would support a somewhat shorter article that covers the notable aspects of this organization. We need to talk about specifics though. I have suggested removing the mission statement (see WP:MISSION). What specific edits do you think are warranted. - MrX 23:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And that is why this article is failing. There are quite a few more instances of negative attributions to the organization than positive ones. It even mentions the Southern Poverty Center called it a hate group twice. Seems like overkill to me. Also I think the mission statement tells what the groups goal is. I don't get why the article has to say in text that the group is anti-gay multiple times and tell that specific story. Ex. I have a gay aunt. If someone was harassing her about it and I wanted to tell someone about it I would say ______ is harassing my aunt. I would not cite every example in my story. I would use them to back up the claim if necessary. Hence why it should mention the group has come under fire for abortion and gay marriage positions and then cite that multiple times. The article does not need to mention every single claim and then cite it. It is an overly verbose and biased way to do things (it gives the impression the impression this group is almost Westboro Baptist Church bad).:

Tbwhitham (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)tbwhitham

Fine, but I've given you policy based reason for not including a mission statement. You have not given any specifics to support your argument, or to make that argument actionable. It's hard to make progress from generalizations. - MrX 23:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
"It even mentions the Southern Poverty Center called it a hate group twice." That is a specific example. But I sense that we are getting frustrated with one another. I'll take one of the mentions of this out (because it is repetitive) and we can start again tomorrow. Does it save past edits? i.e. someone goes through and changes and then we change it again. Sorry if that question doesn't make sense.

Tbwhitham (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC) tbwhitham

I think you need to take more measured steps until you understand Wikipedia policies a little better. What you called redundant was what we call a WP:LEDE. Not only that, but you removed content that was included in the lede based on WP:CONSENSUS (scroll up to read where this consensus was established). At this time, you should revert your edits. - MrX 00:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International/Archive_1&oldid=1142783717"