Talk:ACT for America

Whitehouse visit claim on March 21 2017

Who, when, where? Wikipietime (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Right Wing Watch is not a reliable source

Hi, I removed several statements from the article because they were supported solely by "Right Wing Watch" and not by a reliable secondary source. I also edited the article for tone, per WP:WTW and substituted neutral terms for loaded words such as "claim" and "insist". 72.201.104.140 (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to go through it again, it is still one big hate piece against conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.229.231 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming sources in March Against Sharia section

The sources shoild be mentioned, consodering that they are all newspapers, and When using newspapers, we ought to mention their names .Music314812813478 (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Music314812813478: As I said in my edit summary, the names of the newspapers are in the citations. It is unnecessary to include them in the text itself, and misleading as well because it implies that only these three newspapers have suggested that counter-protesters outnumbered demonstrators at the rallies. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? Funcrunch (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, here are more reliable sources stating that counter-protesters outnumbered demonstrators at the rallies in a number of cities: Chicago Tribune, Seattle Times, Mercury News, Washington Post, NPR. Funcrunch (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Islamophobia template

The template violates WP:Neutrality in all grounds. We should decide that it is Islamophobic, our job here is to present the data and let the readers decide for themselves.Music314812813478 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No, reliable sources describe it as such. We don't have to decide. And since they do, the template and category are appropriate. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the current political climate, I don't think there is a great and essential demand for us to side with what most current journalists say, it would be best to side with no one. CNN is especially notorious for its fakery and deception, with one of the people working for it admiting to a hidden camera that the Russia hacking narrative they promoted was a big "nothingburger" They are not scholars, after all. Besides, the group does not explicitly promote Islanophobic views and its messages contain no Islamophobia.

While they are officially reliable, we have to use prudence as even the most reliable of sources can say bollocks. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT only applies to scholarly consensus and not what "journalists" say.Music314812813478 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Besides, the group does not explicitly promote Islanophobic views and its messages contain no Islamophobia." According to you, yes? Or what reliable sources do you cite for this statement. And what gives you the right to decide that we should ignore sources that have been deemed reliable by the Wikipedia community? Funcrunch (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that Music314812813478 had "Islam is cancer" on their userpage. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Since another editor has removed the above statement from Music314812813478's page, here's a diff showing the userpage's previous appearance for the record. Funcrunch (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection

I do think the article very vulnerable to attacks or edits that may harm the neutrality of the article.Codyorb (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliably sourced descriptions

IAmTheRealOne, please explain why we should not adhere to reliable sources when we describe the organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Because they aren't reliable sources? If it's not clear why read WP:RS. 155.254.48.193 (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarify what you mean. I'm pretty sure that Newsweek and the Independent have been confirmed to be RS in RS noticeboard discussions. Buzzfeed News and the Post-Standard (Syracuse.com) have won and been nominated for multiple prestigious journalism awards. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

COI accounts

This Wikipedia article, as well as that of Brigitte Gabriel (founder of ACT!), has had serious problems with IP numbers and newly created accounts trying repeatedly to insert self-sourced content that reflects well on the organization and whitewash RS content that reflects poorly on the organization. There are good reasons to suspect that these accounts are associated with ACT! or Gabriel (as is usually the case when newly created accounts try to insert self-sourced drivel into articles). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Paid contributions NPOV concerns by NorthBySouthBaranof

@NorthBySouthBaranof: has edit warred to re-add {{paid contributions}} to this page despite its clear requirement that a discussion be started to discuss what issues the article has that need to be corrected to remove the NPOV warning it provides. I've elected to make this section for them so they can provide their rationale. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you happen to read the section directly above this one before posting this? Funcrunch (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: I did. However, {{paid contributions}} was not added until over two years after the section above was added. The template was also added by a completely different editor, @GSS:, who has a habit of adding this template to pages without adding what actually prompted the need for it in the first place to the talk page as required by the template documentation:

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.

(underscore emphasis added) The template is a notification that an editor believes there is a neutrality issue that needs to be corrected. Without knowing what issue there is to correct, it becomes impossible to remove the notification and leaves the article in a state that others cannot resolve because only the editor who added it knows why they added it. This is why the documentation says any editor may remove it. @NorthBySouthBaranof: edit warring to re-add it without also providing clarity on what is wrong is unhelpful. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Funcrunch, NorthBySouthBaranof, and GSS: Participation is not optional here if you intend to leave that template. Explain what issues remain to be resolved currently or remove the template if there are no further issues. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Article needs a major update

ACT has massively refocused and rebranded over the last 4 years, putting less of a focus on anti-Muslim stuff specifically, and more on being a far-right catchall organization. The article needs to be updated to reflect that. I will take the lead on this, but I am interested in people's thoughts on this before I put in the time. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 10:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@DeVos Max I agree to this. Also currently the article is very biased and one sided towards the negative, when the organization has had many positive accomplishments and supports many other causes. The lead sentence does not comply with WP:NPOV. Calling the organization Anti-muslim, right in the lead without also mentioning all the other tings they do, seems very negative and one sided, so I totally agree with you.

For example they support the police and also they support for stopping the influence of CRT .

I am going to make stab at rewriting the intro, but if anyone else has other suggestions, let's discuss here. Solemylove (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Solemylove I definitely think you've got the wrong idea of what needs to change here. ACT is a hate group and needs to be documented as such, but their hateful activities have spread beyond anti-muslim sentiment and need to be documented. I absolutely did not intend to encourage you to rewrite the article in a more favorable light. WP:NPOV doesn't mean not providing information that doesn't look good, it means representing things as they are, and ACT is very certainly a far-right hate group. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 06:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I am posting this on behalf of ACT for America.

ACT For America has always been anti RADICAL ISLAM  and NEVER against Muslims. We have worked side by side with Muslim reformers who were fighting along with us against radical extremists. We have always been an anti terrorism movement and not an anti people movement.

For 10 years in DC, we had a national conference and every single conference we had a Muslim Keynote speaker because we wanted to give voice to those who were speaking up against hatred and terrorism. Here is a VERY IMPORTANT LINK to a presentation my a Muslim who was a keynote speaker at ACT's national conference.

Raheel Raza was the speaker that year and it was shot by CSPAN. Here is the link. Please go to the 1 minute mark and listen to us standing side by side addressing the accusation of hate.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?414748-3/act-america-2016-conference-part-3

Here is another presentation Q and A session. Go to 55:10 and hear the question and the  answer.

https://cornerstonechapel.net/teaching/20220622/

Here is our policy right on our website: https://www.actforamerica.org/policy

Reporters don't even bother reading the obvious because they already had their minds made up. Here is few lines from our policy:

" ACT for America has never, and will never, tolerate any bias, discrimination, or violence against anyone, based on their religion, gender, race, or political persuasion.  Freedom to practice one's religion in peace is afforded to each of us by the U.S. Constitution and we will defend it vigorously."

"Anyone who traffics in prejudice, or advocates violence in any way towards anyone does not speak on behalf of ACT for America. Should our organization find out that such beliefs have been propagated by one of our members or anyone claiming to be associated with ACT for America, we will terminate any relationship with such person, group or entity, and disavow them."

ACT For America has terminated many chapter leaders who stepped out of line with their statements or action. One termination was so public, the Washington Post and many other publications wrote articles about it. Here is a link about that firing by the SPLC which shows that the reason Roy White was terminated was because of his lack of differentiating between Islam and radical Islam.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/04/11/his-firing-act-america-roy-white-continues-anti-muslim-campaign-new-group

Here is a excerpt from Roy White's statement posted on the SPLC website: "As you may or may nor realize, ACT for America promotes itself as a secular organization. It does not promote one religion over another and that’s ok,..."

As you can see ACT Headquarter, the official organization, has always been a secular organization devoted to protecting America against national security threats. ACT Terminated many chapter leaders who violated ACT's policy and lost a lot of chapter leaders who didn't like the organization's - non negotiable - anti hate or anti violent policy and ACT didn't care and stood firm.

ACT For America has many Muslim members as well as many LGBTQ members, people from all faith and all backgrounds who came together to work to protect America. For example:

ACT hired Scott Pressler, the national Gay Activist, as their Lead Activism Strategist. Scott Pressler is the person who organized ACT's "March for Human Rights, March against Sharia" rallies in 2017 to commemorate the one year anniversary of the bombing of the "Pulse, gay night club in Florida and also to shine a light on the treatment of gays under Islam such as in Iran and other Islamic countries.

Two gay men organized the rally in New York. One Imam organized the rally in Georgia. One Imam lead the rally in Seattle. Many Muslim reformist leaders spoke in at least 12 rallies across the nation including in Virginia Beach where an Iranian Muslim Leader spoke along with Scott Pressler.

The rallies were also a way to shine a light about the genital mutilation of girls and honor killings especially after the case in Detroit where a Muslim Doctor was responsible for the genital mutilation of 105 girls all between the ages of 7 and 14. We had victims of Genital Mutilation organize and head the rally in Austin for example.

The media ignored the "March for Human rights" part of the title and focused only on the "Sharia" aspect and instead of speaking about gay rights and girls rights, the media focused on defaming the organization with Anti Islam message completely ignoring every Iman, every Muslim leader, every Gay activist and every woman victim of such crimes who spoke at the events. Actforamerica (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@DeVos Max I did not initially realize of your intentions. I have no objection to incorporating negative aspects, as long as they are factual and presented in a balanced manner alongside the positive aspects of all that the organization does. The current wording of the introduction (given what I posted before was already reverted), immediately labels the organization as "anti-Muslim." This characterization fails to adhere to the NPOV policies and does not accurately reflect the organization's mission and actions.

It is crucial to exercise skepticism when consuming media reports. The media often manipulate facts to create attention-grabbing headlines. Consider the response posted above by a representative of the organization, which clearly states their lack of animosity towards Muslims and even highlights the presence of Muslim members and speakers within their organization. In light of these facts, it is misleading for the media to label them as anti-Muslim. The organization explicitly opposes terrorism and radical Islam, not Muslims as a whole. I believe it is necessary to revise the article by removing the term "anti-Muslim" and replacing it with something more accurate, such as "anti-terrorist" or "anti-radical Islam." Solemylove (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Solemylove, you cited this talk page as a reason to re-implement your preferred version, but it's clear that you do not have consensus. You cite media manipulation without evidence to discount the reliable sources used in the article. Because so much of this reliable coverage is focused on the group's anti-Muslim activities, it is the proposed removal of any discussion of that issue from the lead that is the real NPOV issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Intro Needs Revisions

This organization is inaccurately being labeled anti-muslim and ever since the threat of ISIS has gone away, they have changed focus to many other initiatives. Intro should be changed to "anti-terrorist" or "anti radical-islam." Here are some supporting articles:

ACT For America is Anything but a Hate group

ACT For America Not A Hate Group

Conservatives respond as SPLC calls them hate groups

Mariott will not cancel convention of what people say Anti Muslim Hate Group

Congressman Barletta offers support to ACT For America and Leandri

The SPLC is Again Faking Hate Crisis

Statement from ACT website.

Thanks.Solemylove (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Please also take note of the Fox News article, which states:

"In 2019, the SPLC fired its co-founder, Morris Dees, in the wake of claims of racial discrimination and sexual harassment that traced back decades. Amid this scandal, a former staffer came forward, claiming that the SPLC uses its "hate group" accusation to exaggerate hate in a fundraising scheme to "bilk" donors."

As you can see, there is even evidence that the Group is falsely accused. In my view, once one publication labels them as a hate group, others tend to follow suit. Additionally, when Wikipedia makes such claims, subsequent media coverage often assumes their accuracy, leading to more references to the organization as a hate group. Do you see the issue here? I have offered sufficient rebuttals, at the very least, to revise the introduction as I have. I haven't completely removed the reference to "anti-Muslim," but it's essential to acknowledge that while some media outlets label them as such, not all do, and the organization vehemently denies this characterization.

Take a look at this from LA Times Article:

"ACT denies being a hate group and instead says it is advocating to protect the U.S. from terrorists and their supporters."

The article states that a Muslim Advocate group called Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the organizations calling them anti-muslim. This cannot be considered reliable. Obviously, this labeling started some place and has spiraled out of control. It is time we fix it.

Solemylove (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Firefangledfeathers since they gave input in the previous discussion on the lead from above. Bridget (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

One more thing, Times Leader article has this verbiage "alleged hate group" and "critics have called it an anti-Muslim organization." So my suggestion is well supported by citations to revise it to something like "media have called them anti-Muslim organization" or that they are an "alleged hate group" and "ACT denies being a hate group " Solemylove (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be surprised if any group that was referred to as a hate group did not deny that characterization. FWIW. Funcrunch (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Funcrunch Not true, does KKK deny they are a hate group? but this is besides the point. There are no evidence at all that ACT are a Muslim hate group, other than the media alleging that they are. Could you produce one evidence of what ACT organization has done to be labeled that? On the other hand there are countless actions KKK has done that labels them as a hate group. Solemylove (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Active members of hate groups rarely, if ever, use the word "hate group" to describe their organizations. This is true of the KKK as well. Funcrunch (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Once more, this is not the central issue. In this instance, the organization has been wrongly accused of being a hate group or anti-Muslim. While some media outlets have labeled them as such, there are other media sources that have presented a different perspective. The organization itself identifies as anti-terrorist and/or anti-extremist when it comes to groups like ISIS and Hamas. Their opposition is directed towards such organizations, not Muslims as a whole. It's worth noting that they have even hosted Muslim speakers to address their group members.

Instead of countering my statements, if you have any evidence that they are anti-Muslim please point to it. It would be pertinent to provide specific statements or actions made by the organization that demonstrate an anti-Muslim stance. For example we know for a fact that a group such as KKK was behind killings and terror attacks, but what evidence is there that ACT has done any such acts or even made any anti-muslim statements? You cannot always believe all that the media says. Solemylove (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Committing "killings and terror attacks" is not a prerequisite for an organization being labeled a "hate group". Regarding anti-Muslim statements, there are already such statements in this article, with citations to reliable sources. Funcrunch (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Anything they have done has been in regards to Muslim extremists, not the general Muslims. Besides this organization is involved with a lot more these days. Their anti-extremists work was several yeas back when ISIS still existed. For example they support the police, oppose the Critical Race Theory (CRT) and provide support for stopping the influence of CRT .

I have also provided 7 citations that state they are not a hate group and they are not anti-muslim. Currently this article does not comply with WP:NPOV and is one-sided, misrepresenting the organization and ignoring the citations that state the opposite. To be neutral, my suggested edits need to be made. Solemylove (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the seven citations you listed above:

• The first two are opinion pieces

• The third is from Fox News which Wikipedia considers generally unreliable on political topics (see WP:RSPSOURCES)

• The fourth is paywalled; I can't read it

• The sixth is from The New American which Wikipedia considers "generally unreliable for factual reporting" (see WP:RSPSOURCES)

• The seventh is from ACT's own website

That just leaves the Times Leader article quoting two people who support ACT. Funcrunch (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the LA Times article, performing a Google search for the title and then accessing it will enable you to read the piece. The critical and pertinent segments include:

• "a self-described grass-roots security organization known as ACT for America." This allows us to consider how ACT characterizes itself.
• "Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy group, and the Southern Poverty Law Center both describe ACT as an extremist anti-Muslim hate group. Muslim Advocates wrote to Marriott’s chief executive, Arne Sorenson, urging the company to cancel the Oct. 2-3 gathering." It's worth noting that Muslim Advocates is a group with a specific perspective, which could be perceived as biased.
• "ACT denies being a hate group and instead says it is advocating to protect the U.S. from terrorists and their supporters." To adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guidelines, it is essential to include how ACT defines itself, rather than solely highlighting negative viewpoints.

In addition, the Times Leader article is considered reliable, even though it features quotes from two individuals who support ACT. This article presents an opposing viewpoint, demonstrating that not everyone characterizes ACT as a hate group. With the LA Times Leader article, we possess sufficient material to revise the introduction. Rather than categorically labeling them as "anti-Muslim," it would be more balanced to acknowledge that some media outlets have applied this label to ACT, and the organization vehemently disputes it. Solemylove (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Re "Google search", please just link to a non-paywalled version of the article you seek to include as a source.

It's fine to say that ACT refutes the characterization of the organizationas a hate group, but that's not all you put in your edit. Besides the inappropriate links to editorial pieces, you stated that "The media has inaccurately characterized it as an anti-Muslim group" (emphasis added by me). This is inappropriate to state in Wikivoice given the preponderance of reliable sources and current consensus on this talk page.

I'm going to step back so other editors can weigh in with their input. I suggest you do the same. Funcrunch (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Funcrunch I appreciate your feedback and you have a good point about the word "inaccurately" so that part can be revised.

Here are some more supporting articles:

hotellbusioness.com calls them "self-proclaimed anti-terrorist group" ... so this is an alternate verbiage that can be used.

cbs17.com has quotations from organization denying that they are anti-muslim, so using this as citation we can add this bit and state their own point of view. Quote: "Richard Roberts with ACT! for America said the rally is not about Islam but about radical Islamic groups."

WashingtonExaminer calls it an "anti-terrorist organization" (not "anti-muslim")

I would suggest new verbiage like this:

ACT for America, founded in 2007, is a U.S.-based advocacy group that has been called an anti-Muslim group, but the organization has refuted this and calls themselves an anti-terrorist organization.

Does anyone disagree with this ? Solemylove (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Funcrunch. The provided sources are too poor, especially when compared to those in the article, to warrant a change to the lead descriptor. I'm fine with saying in the body that the group denies being a hate group. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that some publications label them as anti-Muslim, others do not. It's noteworthy that some organizations branding them as anti-Muslim are their oppositions, like the Muslim Advocate group and the Southern Poverty Law Center. To adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policies (WP:DUE), it's essential to present both perspectives. Therefore, I support Solemylove's proposed revision, as it would encompass both sides of the argument. Shinadamina (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I would propose the following revised intro:

ACT for America, founded in 2017, is a US based advocacy group that stands against what it perceives as "the threat of radical Islam" to Americans.[5] While some media outlets have characterized it as an anti-Muslim organization[1][2][3][4], the organization has refuted this claim. Shinadamina (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Shinadamina Thanks for your input. Since no one else has opposed or commented, I would go ahead and make this edit. Solemylove (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)