Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

64.16.15.2 Makes Wacky Edits

Anyone see how 64.16.15.2 keeps making wacky edits? He/she insists on misspellings, bad grammar, etc. Here's one example: When people, not just me, try to correct "Dr, D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries" by changing "Dr," to "Dr.", he goes back, several times now, and changes it back to "Dr,". Am I missing something here? --SafeLibraries 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to his credit, (Or her) he did fix a spelling mistake in his last edit :/. But the one thing I don't get, he clearly seems to be editing to insert the ADF's personal definition of everything into the article, (I assume to make it more pro-ADF, there's so many editors making the same edit over and over, WP:AGF seems a bit wasted here) yet removes the links to two of the court cases the ADF was involved in, and won't stop deleting the link to the Day of Truth website? Homestarmy 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See, I'm not the only one who notices this. --SafeLibraries 19:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, he changed the , back to a ., maybe he's reading this? Homestarmy 21:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

The sections on Programs and Litigation read like ADF press releases. This is not surprising, given that both sections are comprised of text taken directly from ADF's website and thus inherently POV. This is laziness at best and copyright violation at worst. There were similar issues in the introductory paragraph, and I have attempted to fix a few of them.MarritzN 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We've had problems with this article because some people come in and delete what we had and replace it with the things on ADF's webpage, so if you want to re-write it to not be just copying and pasting, go ahead. Homestarmy 16:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

ADF response to Cupertino section posted

ADF has posted an official response to the Cupertino discussion on its website, entitled The facts regarding Williams v. Vidmar --JamesGW 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

POV-check Tag Added to One Section

This section called "ADF ethics questioned" is seriously flawed.

1) It goes on and on and on about something being labeled as "banned" but was not actually "banned" in reality, although it was restricted.

2) It does this for a single instance of a claimed ethics violation.

3) Similar cases of labeling things as "banned" do not get such treatment in other articles. For example, in American Library Association, so-called "Banned Books Week" is not even mentioned, even though "Banned Books Week" is 25 years old, is pumped into every public library in the USA, and almost none of the books claimed to be banned has actually been banned. "Banned Books Week" is a total and complete fabrication designed to convince the public that no books should be kept away from children, no matter what the law says or no matter what common sense says or no matter how highly sexualized the book may be. But nobody on the ALA page has, like here for the ADF, a huge section about the nitty gritty details of exactly how and why the ALA is unethical. In fact it doesn't even register at all. The question of ethics is not even raised.

I suggest this section be removed in its entirety for the reasons of lack of consistency with similar treatment in other articles, and for the reasons stated above. --SafeLibraries 01:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

--DavidShankBone 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC):If you want to remove it, I won't stop you, the motivations for it to be in the article seem questionable anyway. Homestarmy 01:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I'll give it a little more time for others to provide input as well. Thanks. --SafeLibraries 11:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

SafeLibraries, your line of reasoning certainly differs from mine and I can see why we don't see eye-to-eye on this article. Let me respond to each of your points so you can see how I look at this.

First of all, the claim that the Declaration was banned comes directly from the ADF. It was the title of their press release. I quote: "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom". That was both malicious and false. Not only was it not banned, it was not restricted. Where did you get the idea it was restricted? In the end the ADF agreed the original school policy was correct and in need of no changes. That comes directly from the statement agreed on by both sides when the ADF elected to drop the case.

Second, yes this is only a single incident, but thanks to the ADF publicity machine it was a very widely disseminated and highly publicized incident. Try googling "Declaration of Independence Banned" and you can see the impact of what the ADF did.

Third, I am not impressed by your argument that since nobody is complaining about the American Library Association's "complete and total fabrications", there should not be any mention in this article of any ethics lapses on the part of the ADF. Ethically, isn't this argument the equivalent of the shoplifting teen who pleads with the store security officer that he should go free because he knows some other kids who shoplifts all the time and never gets caught? What would happen if the store security guy though about it and agreed "good point!" and let the kid go? If the ALA is telling malicious lies, or lies that stoke unwarranted over-reaction, I say go put the truth on the ALA page, instead of preventing it from being put on this page. Both organizations (and the shoplifting kid) will be better off in the long run if we hold them accountable for their actions.

My final point is actually a request. You may find the actions of the ADF in this case to be ethically acceptable. Please consider that not everyone may look at the same facts and reach the same conclusion. If you delete the negatives and only allow positives to be said about the ADF, you deprive others of the opportunity to judge for themselves. -- technopilgrim 13:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Technopilgrim, guess what. I actually agree with you! So the entire set of information regarding this incident maybe should not be forgotten. I say it is worth a sentence, and definitely not a separate section. Let's be honest -- this section on this single incident is a significant portion of the article as it exists now. Certainly that cannot be encyclopedic. I am suggesting, therefore, that all that writing is not encyclopedic. A sentence or two, yes, but not that huge thing. And I agree that the [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46476 info should be added to the ALA page about the Banned Books Week hoax], perhaps with a single citation to get the reader started. But certainly I will not write a big. long, separately labeled section about how unethical the ALA is. Which brings up another point.

The claim that this ADF incident is unethical is in itself POV. Perhaps hyperbole at a minimum might be better, but to say it's unethical is overreaching. Look, people like one of the Kennedy family have been saying if the world does not stop polluting the world will end in 10 years. And that was over 20 years ago. Yet no one is saying he is unethical, at least for that. Claims that the ADF is unethical are POV and are not encyclopedic.

By the way, I never implied the ADF is ethical; as you can see, I am merely reacting to the obvious bias, POV, and nonwikiness of the huge section on this single incident as it currently exists. It's like taking an article on Jesse Jackson then making the most significant section about how unethical he was to father a secret child -- providing gory detail as to exact how, what, and who said what and when. That would be nonencyclopedic. Similarly, this huge section you defend is similarly nonencylopedic.

Now I'm going to think up a replacement and post it here soon. Perhaps you'll approve. --SafeLibraries 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WOW! I am now reading the link to the case [1] and I find the facts there differ from the facts here! In fact I now question the truthfulness of the information in this section that I am calling into question. For example, "With the assistance of the Alliance Defense Fund, Williams alleged that the school had violated his rights when principal Patricia Vidmar began to screen the handouts that he intended to give to his fifth-grade class during lessons on the history of the United States." .... "The handouts included quotations from the Declaration of Independence...." So the facts show only quotations were questioned, not the whole thing as this section suggests. Further, "Unfortunately for the school district, the Associated Press incorrectly reported that Williams was alleging that he was being prevented from teaching the Declaration of Independence. Conservative websites and such commentators as Alan Keyes ([1]) played up the story as a blatant instance of hostility to religion. These interpretations were based on the Alliance Defense Fund press release." Well, well, now it appears the AP "incorrectly" reported. Is the AP to be considered unethical now?

So now I argue the material should be pulled for failure to be factual. I'm still working on the substitute section. --SafeLibraries 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. In the Litigation section I would add the following to replace the entire section called into question:

In November 2004, ADF filed a lawsuit (Williams v. Vidmar) on behalf of a Cupertino, California elementary school teacher against his school principal and school board members. The ADF issued a press release entitled "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom", a title that caused considerable controversy. In August 2005, the plaintiffs settled out of court. Per the official statement by both parties, no change was necessary to school policy. Several days later the plaintiff teacher resigned from the school district and left the state.

That is my opinion of what's factual, non POV, relevant, encyclopedic, and wiki-correct. Do you agree? Make the changes if you do - that would be appropriate under the circumstance. Let's see what others think. --SafeLibraries 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll make these changes soon if there are no further objections. --SafeLibraries 02:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to those changes I would like proponents of the change to state the following: 1. The Central Change sought: 2. The main stream citation used to add the language: 3. The reason this change is necessary and significant 4. Is there an argument you can think of to remove this addition, and if so, now is your time to get first chance to say why it is not valid.

--DavidShankBone 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, just read the above comments. I would only restate them to respond. --SafeLibraries 02:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then they fail to sway because you did not provide credible resources for citation. --DavidShankBone 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with the short version as it strikes me as not far different from what the ADF PR department would write if they had the chance (of course their first preference would be to completely delete the section). I think this is one of those articles where you have to let both sides take a good swing at conveying their perspective. Look, the main bulk of the article was originally derived from the ADF's own website. That is hardly an unbiased source, and the detail is quite extensive, but I'm not for trimming it down because it does give one side of the picture (and I enjoy the jazzy stuff about how the apprentice system develops green lawyers into Constitutional law wizards, etc., I think that's interesting).

But for readers to understand the whole picture about the ADF they need to know that from time to time, the ADF hits below the belt. Intentionally. It's how they play the game. Is ADF unethical? Well, a whole bunch of people in California think so. And readers need to understand why they think that way. But to really understand this incident (especially because it doesn't match the unabashedly enthusiastic tone of the rest of the article) the reader needs to hear the story in some detail.

If I thought the incident was the mistake of a junior partner, I'd agree with your general feeling -- everybody makes mistakes, it doesn't deserve a lot of space. But I don't believe this incident can be interpreted that way -- this was done intentionally, and willfully, just as the Cupertino parents assert. So the incident deserves a full recounting, at least in my opinion. As I said above, it's not bad to bring these things into the light of day, whether you are a fan or a critic of the ADF. -- technopilgrim 22:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem though with that train of thought, you say it was done intentionally "as the Cupertino parents assert", but what if their wrong? Yes, it was pretty silly for the ADF to mis-represent this, but I don't see how we can compleatly confirm that it was clearly intentional to lie on the ADF's part. Homestarmy 23:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If it was an unintentional mistake -- a screw up -- the ADF would have issued a correction, or at least pulled the defamatory press release from their website. Their failure to do so is what really made it clear where the ADF was coming from, at least in the eyes of the Cupertino parents. It's not hard for me to understand their perspective. There are more links to the statements by the parents organization (which cut across political and religious lines), if you check out some of the links on the Cupertino, California page. Plus it's rather hard to believe that a smart bunch of guys like the ADF legal team, could have somehow accidentally never checked into the facts of the case until a week or two before the trial (when the ADF dropped the whole thing -- and why would they do that if there was a real substance to their case? -- certainly not because the school district had deeper pockets for legal fees you can be sure of that!). --- technopilgrim 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also possible that, since the ADF is pretty mixed up in all the wheelings and dealings of the United State's political structure, they felt pressured not to issue a correction, hoping the issue would go away. Of course, that's not ethical either, but the point is that the possibilities are numerous, and we can't just state "The ADF purposefully issued a false report" unequivocally. Homestarmy 21:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Let's take a poll.

Who is in favor of removing that giant, overwhelming section on a single incident of alleged ethics violations and replacing it with several sentences in the Legal section that recount the problem but without the nonwiki bloat and POV?

SafeLibraries.org says yes, make the change. What say you all? --SafeLibraries 04:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, no one is responding. Further, in history, I see the section has been cut out and restored, so clearly it is still problematic. So I'll soon use my proposed method of cutting out the section but including several sentences in the section for legal issues. This section on ethics being questioned clearly dominates the articles, is clearly POV, is clearly not encyclopedic, is an obviously a point of contention. So I will do as originally suggested above soon, then the POV-check tag can be removed. --SafeLibraries 00:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Agreed that it's a disproportionate, suggesting POV fork.

Please do not white-wash the ethics section in your proposed fashion. The silence you have received for your poll does not indicate a dissastisfaction with the article, but rather that your proposed changes do not deserve further comment than they already received above. DavidShankBone has rasised serious objections and you never responded to his requests. I also answered your objections point by point, to which you did not respond at all. Your proposed editing actions are entirely in keeping with what the ADF publicity department would put out, and directly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please respond why you think DavidShankBone's requests are unreasonable, and please confirm that you understand that it is the ADF that claimed the Declaration was banned. Read their press release. Your point that the Declaration wasn't really banned is exactly what needs to be made clear to the reader -- the ADF is quite willing to resort to slander from time to time, in keeping with their own brand of ethics. -- technopilgrim 01:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeouch! <sarcasm>Well I can see you're not biased.</sarcasm> Be that as it may, I'll try to respond to what you say. And I really am not whitewashing, just making it proportionate. Response coming soon. --SafeLibraries 02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the ethic section should stay. I added a link with extensive information on that case. http://www.eriposte.com/philosophy/fundamentalism/stevenscreek.htm#UPDATE081405 --John Siu 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That link appears to be a personal website, why is it in particular a reliable source? Homestarmy 12:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It did provide all the link to the source of where information come from, including tv company, newspaper etc. Without detail information on the lawsuit, the current "ADF ethics questioned", I have to agreed that its neutrality is questionable, lacking "the otherside of the story" from non-ADF source regarding reference material.--John Siu 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am not sure how to make this section more neutral without heavily quoting court docunment and present court exhibits. The only website found doing this is eriposte. However, regarding the suit, it only present exhibits (discription only, no photos), and lecking on other information, like in court argument, court transcript, etc. Things that actually happen in courtroom. Maybe a link for the whole court procceding, transcript will do some balance, but I have no idea how or where to find that.--John Siu 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Qustionable ethics section

Homestarmy brings up a point that probably should be resolved. Certainly we should not include the criticism unless someone can find a source for it. Does anyone have any? JoshuaZ 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about the evidence for deceptive practices by the ADF. Here's the website put up by parents at the school: www.stevenscreekparents.org. Here's some coverage from the Cupertino Courier, the local paper in town. The San Jose Mercury News ran articles with substantially the same information, but you need to be a subscriber to read them. Some wikipedian asked in their edit comment if this could just be an honest mistake. First note that the claim in the press release headline was extraordinary and highly inflammatory and should have been checked carefully. Second, an organization with integrity would correct its mistake as soon as it was known, but you can still find the bogus headline today on the ADF site. There really is no way you can consider this an honest mistake -- it's fully intentional. I think to have a complete understanding of the ADF's goals and how it operates, we need to show the full spectrum of their tactics. I personally consider this type of intentional deceptiveness to be unethical (especially for a group that claims a goal of promoting "Truth"), but perhaps others would consider it normal and acceptable behavior. --69.228.92.139

Well then, im not sure what way i've done it then, but I still prefer to give the ADF the benefit of the doubt. Of course, my opinion in this case doesn't really mean anything in terms of the article, but I do think that the section shouldn't just state "their deceptive practices", it needs to say who claims it, and I doubt any of those references have found proof positive that the ADF was indeed fully cooperating in a deceptive practice. The first link doesn't sound like a very good source, but the newspapers sound fine, and you can certainly mention how the information on the ADF page is still not conforming with how the newspapers write the story. Homestarmy

Take a look at the article now, I've added references which may allay some of your concerns (although probably not all). The most informative website I've found on this episode is the one put up by parents of the Stevens Creek Elementary School students [2] -- understandably they parent's have done the most legwork because it was their kids who went through the ordeal, it was their cash-strapped school district that had to foot the legal bills, and it was their community that got slimed in the worldwide press. I also added a link to the Cupertino Courier, the hometown paper which covered the aftermath effects on the community. I agree it's a good idea to substantiate who is claiming ADF was deceptive -- one good source is the press release put out by the parents' group which uses the term "proven falsehood".[3] And yes, the parents are willing to make a statement that this could no way have happened unintentionally -- see the reporting from the Los Altos Crier, another local paper, their is a spokesman of the parents' group who asserts "You don't get to this place by accident. It had to be deliberate and planned."[4] I'll revise the article accordingly, being sure to state the source as the kids' parents. --69.228.92.139 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand, the reason I say that this information should be attributed to the sources rather than just stated as fact in the article is because it is in the source's opinion that it is a proven fact, the only way to really prove it as a fact would be to somehow raid the ADF offices and find proof. I'm not saying your sources are horrible and shouldn't be used, (Though I might personally find their assertions to be rather baseless, and I suspect the first one might not qualify as extremely authoritative) i'm simply saying the article shouldn't say "The ADF engaged in a proven falsehood", but rather, "So and so sources have attributed the ADF's actions as unethical, labelling their claims as "Proven falsehoods"" or something to that equivalent, though it sounds like you may already have the idea. Homestarmy 02:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have dropped "deceptive" from the text & have followed your recommendation to use verbatim quotes from attributed sources. Thanks for your suggestions. I've added an inline quote from the parents group that expresses their opinion of the ADF -- the reader can decide for himself what to make of these irate parents. The Williams vs. Widmar case is an important one in understanding the whole picture of the ADF and I think the article is much more balanced now that we have a critical outside view of the organization to counter-balance ADF's own view of itself (this article started out almost entirely consisting of stuff taken from the ADF website -- hardly a source of unbiased information!). Bit by bit, edit by edit, we can hope we are getting closer to the truth (the one without the capital "T"). --69.228.92.139 04:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind horribly if we remove the first sentence, it's the part that is basically saying "The ADF has engaged in ebil!" Homestarmy 04:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a lead sentence to tie together the paragraphs that follow. I've changed the lead sentence from:

"The ADF has occasionally resorted to questionable ethical behavior in its quest to tilt the cultural landscape towards a right-wing Christian worldview."

to:

"The ADF has been accused of resorting to questionable ethical behavior in its quest to tilt the cultural landscape towards a right-wing Christian worldview."

If you've got a better way to introduce the paragraphs that follow, go for it. The journalist in me insists on having a summary statement of some sort to prep the reader for what's coming. This is especially important for something complex like this where the background has to be given first before the ADF role can be understood.

--69.228.92.139 05:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"in a quest to tilt the cultural landscape towards a right-wing Christian worldview." Does anyone think this part seems quite slanted? It seems to me this needs to be at least cited as something coming directly from the ADF. If no one objects, I'll remove it soon. Cs92 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I was reading this article, and it really seems the section on the ADF belongs more in an article about the ADF specifically than in this article. 24.9.100.255 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How in the world can anyone suggest that the ADF's ethics have not been questioned? Somebody please put the section back in, and consider adding something about their campaign against US pending legislation H.R.1592 and S.1105. - http://www.news-herald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18642425&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=21849&rfi=6

Referencing and NPOV

Hey guys, I went ahead and tagged the article in several places with {{fact}} and in one particular paragraph with {{POV-statement}}. Since this article is of some controversy, lets work on getting those references. I also would like to start a vote on whether or not the following paragraph needs to be removed:

Bloggers, pundits, and especially talk radio shows across the nation picked up the story en masse, especially as it broke over the Thanksgiving holiday, a time traditionally associated with Pilgrims and patriotism.[neutrality disputed] The timing of the press release also resulted in, intentionally or not, the school district being unable to respond for at least four days, as it was shut down for the holiday.

Remove. Also, a consensus on how long we leave the vote open. I have messaged those who have shown interest in this talk page. Thanks. Keylay31^hablame 08:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove. Bloggers and pundits and talk radio does not impress me as particularly encyclopedic. And the timing of when bloggers and pundits did things is even more tenuous. Regarding the timing of the press release preventing the school from responding, I find that to be very unencyclopedic. I think that's just standard operating practice, and it would be bias to use it against the ADF when organizations on the other end of the political spectrum are somehow exempt from biased wiki pages. For example, the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom waited until the last day of sign up for a course to present me with documentation claiming I could not be in the class. The deadline expired. Only then did I realize the documentation was a rouse specifically designed to keep me out--from an "Office for Intellectual Freedom" course, from the "equal access" of kids to porn people, no less. My access was blocked. Be that as it may, the point here is that such a dishonest tactical manoeuver is just not encyclopedic enough to appear on the ALA's wiki page, so I see no reason why similar behavior is worthy of being on the ADF page. Further, the ADF did not act dishonestly, as did the ALA, so there is even less of a reason to have this here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove I was never sure whether or not these sentences were actually trying to convey something neutral or not, but unless someone can give a good argument to keep these sentences, removing them seems like the best option for now. Homestarmy 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove for reasons stated. --Zz414 00:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Done. Keylay31^hablame 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I added these hyperlinks as they should help show what ADF is about (or claims to be about):

• The ACLU vs America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values, by the Alliance Defense Fund, Alan Sears, and Craig Osten, 2005. ISBN 0-8054-4045-3; 978-0-8054-4045-4 (sample chapter)
• The ACLU Never Forgets Its Pro-Communist Roots by Alan Sears Asteriks 16:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

These hyper links are just links to ADF authors slamming the the ACLU! If people want to know what the organization is about they can go to the organizations web page and examine it themselves, but there is no reason why wikipedia should be used as a promotion platform for Alan Sears new book or for there reports or white papers. This is a seriously slanted and inappropriate approach for an encyclopedic article on an organization! What ADF intern is editing this page? 68.125.197.101 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And why does LandevenC have a problem with a fact sheet on ADF presented by People for the American Way that does not attack the ADF? Other groups like the ACLU are not so shielded on wiki articles. Note the ACLU's article has an entire section of external links to orgs that criticize their mission and platforms. 68.125.197.101 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear 68.125.197.101, you have only a dozen edits under your belt, all on this page. Your attitude is one of you are right and those who don't agree "have a problem." Listen, just be cool, take a little time to become familiar with wikipedia and working with other editors. No one appreciates anyone else stepping all over them. You will be more successful in your editting if you work with the community, not despite it. As it is, I'm a little tired of dealing with newbies (or sock puppeteers) who think wiki articles are their chance to promote their own points of view on the world. So forgive me, but I'll let others give you further guidance. And my stopping reverting your POV edits is only for time reasons, not because I agree with you. Indeed, you just pushed your POV and didn't even give people a chance to agree with you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the currently-edited version, which doesn't contain the pro-ADF self-promotion or the anti-ADF screed, is appropriate. Additionally, putting ADF's involvement in various events in "scare quotes" is POV bad light and unnecessary. Likewise, inclusion of an article by an ADF attorney slamming the ACLU is POV promotion and unnecessary. While this article may have its faults in other ways, those edits help keep this piece in better shape than the most recent spat of edits. --Zz414 02:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Referencing and NPOV 2

I've added several references and tried to remove some of the POV from both sides. For instance, when ADF talks about "traditional family," it's not just opposing same-sex marriage and includes things like adoption, but I don't know that everyone would call what they're defending "traditional family," so I just called it "family values," which may depend on your perspective whether it's truly a "value" or not. These are hard to define, so I'm doing the best to find NPOV terms. Additionally, I think it's silly to have so much cut-and-paste promotional information from their Web site regurgitated here in shameless self-promotion; at the same time, I think it's silly to have a significant portion of the article dedicated to a single event slammed by liberal groups like Media Matters and let it dominate a portion of the article. I don't have an easy answer, but it's a start. --Zz414 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "family values" is a neutral term at all. In fact it's campaign language conservatives use to paint liberals as being against families. Maybe "socially conservative family values" would be a better term? I also have a problem with the way you removed all the qualifiers form the word "Christian." This also makes it not neutral because it aligns all Christians with the ADF incorrectly. Maybe "socially conservative Christians" is a least a valid compromise. Netbenefit 15:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The term you propose also doesn't really describe what exactly the ADF is defending, and begs the question as to what socially liberal family values are. Perhaps just directly quoting the ADF would be better? Homestarmy 17:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "socially conservative family values" is a better term--it's more neutral, and it's more accurate to what ADF is actually defending (using ADF's term of "traditional family" intends to make other families a pejorative). As for "socially conservative Christians," I suppose in some senses that's right, but some of the organizations aren't even explicitly Christian anyway (like the Heritage Foundation, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, or FIRE), or aren't as "socially conservative" (like InterVaristy Christian Fellowship or the National Religion Broadcasters). I think making "Christian" and "socially conservative" separated, because that's more accurate to describing the organizations--and some could be both. I'll make the change to "socially conservative family values" and "socially conservative and Christian organizations." --Zz414 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any better source you have than a PFAW link for donors? I ask only because it's a little POV to have a link to an objective fact take you to a site with the pejorative "right wing organizations" emblazoned across the top. And are those donors significant to the article? None of them have Wiki links. --Zz414 17:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's not being factually disputed it should not matter where it's coming from. PFAW's choice to label them a "right-wing" organization isn't repeated in the article and doesn't effect the front end experience. I think you're being too picky, but there is nothing wrong with sourcing it multiple times if you find it stated somewhere else. The numerous source sites that take readers directly back to promotional pages of the ADF are at least no better. The major donors are ligit organizational information; if the foundations don't have wiki links we should make stub pages for them before deciding that the information should not be included. Netbenefit 18:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound antagonistic--I was just asking. And there's at least a difference between sites taking a reader back to the very page the article's about versus other organizations. --Zz414 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I didn't think you sounded antagonizing. I got a short article up for the DeVos foundation. Apparently they are huge! Netbenefit 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

TWO video

Check out this video and see if any of it should go into the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI4-eDG3Bb0

Other than being an opposing viewpoint in itself, it also sheds light on aspects of the Day of Truth, for instance that it actually promotes reparative therapy (which I didn't even know, I just thought it was a "gays are going to hell" thing, not a "pray away the gay" thing), as well as presenting not just TWO's (obviously biased) viewpoint, but also the more neutral objections of major health and medical organizations.Rglong 07:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about there being reparative therapy either, but who precisely are these people who made this YouTube video, they don't seem to really explain who they are, or more importantly, anything about them that makes them exceptionally notable or reliable. Homestarmy 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The video is slick. I am jealous and wish I could produce such an excellent video. However, it is entirely inappropriate in a Wikipedia article on the ADF. As admitted, it is "obviously biased." I know of no wiki policy that would allow this "obviously biased" video, well done as it is, to be included on an encyclopedic page about the ADF or about the Day of Truth. Since your aim is the statements of the major medical organizations, use them directly if they fit within this article, not as buried in an "obvious biased" video. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I know exactly what TWO is, they are Truth Wins Out, an organization fighting against the so-called "ex-gay" movement and its misinformation. I didn't mean we should use them as a source, but their facts are indeed accurate. Come to think of it, I have actually seen that Day of Truth video in one of my LGBT Studies classes, because I recognized those kids and the stuff they were saying, and they do indeed refer to themselves as "former homosexuals" and claim homosexuality can be cured. So basically all this requires is for someone to peruse the Day of Truth website or watch their video and then cite it.

My aim wasn't so much the statements from the major medical organizations (believe me, I have no interest in, nor feel any obligation to, cite medical data to defend my sexual orientation from bigots) as it was the fact that they are affiliated with the ex-gay movement, which I think objectively and factually puts them in a different religious category, apart from, say, the Catholic Church which maintains that people are born gay and it can't be changed, but it is still a sin, etc. (although a link to what science does have to say about sexual orientation would also be helpful)Rglong 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I do not understand fully, and if I do, the video still suffers from wiki policy issues. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's pretty obvious just by sorting through their site that they are connected to exodus international and ex-gay "therapy." And it's clear that the "Day of Truth" is aimed at advancing that goal. This is factual information relevant to the program that currently isn't represented. MAybe Rglong could take the point on fixing that? Netbenefit 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the point is that there are a few different ways anti-gay Christians and organizations express themselves. Some people of course just hate gays and think they should be killed. The Catholic church officially (according to doctrine) thinks people are born gay, but that it is still a disorder and that gay people should live celibate lives. Certain other groups, including many conservative Protestant groups, believe being gay is a "choice" or "addiction" and can be "cured".

So the ADF, according to the material they disseminate, specifically their video, believes that being gay can be "cured" and promote the so-called "ex-gay" movement, which claims to be able to turn gay people straight.

Kind of a big deal actually. It puts the ADF in line with such organizations as Focus on the Family and Exodus International - and it puts them directly opposed to all reputable scientific knowledge and organizations.

So forget the Youtube video, if someone can find ADF's "Day of Truth" video, you can directly quote it and include in the article their promotion of conversion therapy.Rglong 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure the significance of this argument (e.g., whether it's a widely-held criticism or not, a YouTube video notwithstanding), but can't someone find an article or something by TWO (or, better yet, a mainstream newspaper feature) that indicates their criticisms, and then include a line in the article that says something like, "Homosexual rights organizations, such as Truth Wins Out, contend that the 'Day of Silence' advocates gay reparative therapy." That would alleviate some of the POV concerns with this video, and it would also go to a more legitimate source than an isolated YouTube video. I really don't know the extent of this, but I do know that ADF regularly cites Focus on the Family and Exodus International as allied organizations, so I don't know how "kind of a big deal" it is to show it when ADF itself admits it: [5]. As for "all reputable scientific knowledge and organizations," well, that's getting into some pretty significant POV issues of whether it's truly "all" or how to define "reputable." Just a couple of thoughts. --Zz414 21:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Equitable treatment to the ACLU

This is to continue discussion of the external links included. I'm suggesting that since ADF bills itself as the anti-ACLU comparing them to make sure they are treated equally is legit. To that end we either need to include links to criticism of the ADF (PFAW and TWO for example) or remove links to criticism of the ACLU from that article. Who thinks what about what? I'm going with option one unless there is a compelling reason not too. I'm suggesting standards include a rquirement not to link to just the homepage but to specific sections over criticism. This also balances out the link to ADF program sites. Netbenefit 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's legitimate, but it should be about as proportional as the ACLU's page. They have 5 ACLU-related links, and 2 that criticize. I think picking the top critic of ADF may be an appropriate "Criticism of ADF" link, but it shouldn't be disproportionate. --Zz414 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The obvious candidate would be anything that the ACLU has done in response to ADF. I'll check there website later and see if I can find something of actual merit.Netbenefit 21:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs much work.

This needs sourcing and less POV, and needs wikifying too. JoshuaZ 04:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we just replaced the ADF standard self-description thing, how does it look now? Homestarmy 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We're getting there. I'm not sure there is such a thing as the "United States liberal agenda." BarkingDoc

Well in my experience it is a blanket sort of catch phrase for the sort of thing their attacking :). Perhaps something like "parts of the agenda of the Liberal left in United States politics" would work better? Homestarmy 01:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Took another stab there. I do think that since the group only takes action on behalf of Christian groups, we don't need to imply that they stand for religious freedom in general. Looks good-- excellent merging! BarkingDoc

They are a pretty small group when compared to more famous organizations such as the Thomas more law center or the ACLU, perhaps they can't really be blamed for their limited focus. Homestarmy 01:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the annual budget of the ADF is $22M, so I disagree with the characterization that they are "pretty small" when compared with the ACLU. The ACLU budget is $50M annually if all chapters are combined.[6][7] The ADF's charter is to match and coounterbalance the ACLU -- they are making excellent progress financially towards that goal given the ADF was founded 13 years ago, while the ACLU was founded 86 years ago. 69.228.92.139 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, maybe the ADF just hasn't had as much time to gain the organization structure of the ACLU, but I don't see the ADF in the news very often :/. Homestarmy 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the right terms to use. I haven't been able to discover any truly "neutral" terms for those factions; there is always a superficial push and pull going on about how each group wants to define the other, but I think those terms are standard enough to not be significantly controversial at this point. BarkingDoc

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are inherently POV terms and designed as such. "Anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion" is more accurate and more neutral, IMO.207.69.137.35 18:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Im fairly certain both of those terms are Pro-life biased. At least with pro-life and pro-choice the positive sounding connotations for each might just cancel eachother out. Homestarmy 18:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-abortion" is not by any means accurate or neutral!! It is the word pro-lifers use to demonize pro-choicers. Nobody is "pro" abortion, like they think it's a wonderful thing or something (abortions rock, let's go get one, then we'll head off to the mall...?!?). Pro-choicers are literally that: pro-choice. They believe it is not up to the government or Christianity to decide whether someone should have an abortion. That is NOT the same thing as being in "favor" of abortions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rglong (talk •

I think "pro-abortion" is the accurate term to use. Compare to slavery for instance. Those who owned slaves could be called "pro-slavery," while those who didn't own slaves, but thought others should be allowed to own slaves would also be called "pro-slavery." They were in favor of slavery. By your definition of the term, those people were "pro-choice" regarding slavery. They didn't necessarily like slavery, but they thought that it should be the individual's choice. Would you feel that is an accurate comparison? Abortion advocates use "pro-choice" as an invented term to avoid using the word abortion. "pro-life" is a similarly invented term to avoid the use of "anti." I don't have a huge problem with using either set of terms.Dogrun81 20:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm old enough to remember, and young enough to remember, but too tired to look up references.

With abortion illegal in every state there really wasn't a huge amount of clamor about "choice". "The Pill" was released in 1960, and the US was still somewhat clamoring over the release thirteen years later when Rowe v. Wade was decided. The "Pro-Choice" movement had already formed - knowing that the name mattered, while those who opposed abortion had already won and dissolved. When the movement started to re-form it was "Anti-Abortion." I think that both "Pro-Choice" and "Anti-Abortion" are accurate terms describing the viewpoints of the members. I remember a talk show from the '70's where an "Anti-abortion" advocate lamented at length that it wasn't fair for the other side to have both positive terms (Pro and Choice) while she was stuck with two negative terms (Anti and Abortion). It was shortly after that that "Pro-Life" became the popular term.

For what it's worth, although "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" may not be the most descriptive and accurate terms, they are the terms accepted and understood by all. I agree with the comments above that they are the terms to use.

contribs) 07:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Intelligent Design

Considering the only case the ADF appears to of been involved with was the Kitzmiller case in 2005, and their search results seem to indicate that this is their only internet-published involvement with ID, ([8]) does the ADF really count as a part of the Intelligent Design movement? That really seems like an increadibly minor contribution, and they don't appear to of done anything ID related outside of some involvement with Kitzmiller. Homestarmy 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If nobody is willing to support the idea that they are an active part of the intelligent design movement, i'll be removing the category on the article page soon, I just don't understand how they can be part of the movement when they don't really seem to be doing anything currently. Homestarmy 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Feloniousmonk, i'm not fool enough to edit war with someone like you, but surely you could of at least acknowladged this talk page section, started back in july, before you reverted me? Homestarmy 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Butting in here, I'm not sure if they should be in the category. On the one hand they have been only involved in one case related to that. One the other hand, it is the only major ID case that has occurred. JoshuaZ 23:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

SCOTUS cases

The section currently titled "Supreme Court Victories" needs to be revamped to reflect all notable cases brought by this group before SCOTUS or else removed. dcandeto (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems the culprit is, yet again, the whitewashing anon who just cannot seem to resist blanking most of the article and replacing it with stuff lifted directly off of the ADF website. Homestarmy (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just followed a link here from another article, and didn't bother reading the history. Shame on me. dcandeto (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

ADF's Supreme Court Victories page lists no explicit involvement in any of the cases beyond amicus curiae briefs in two of them. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia explicitly mentions that Rosenberger and his co-litigants was represented by the Center for Individual Rights, and none of the other three articles wikilinked make any metnion of ADF participation. The ADF appear to be claiming "victories" for cases that they had little to do with. I would suggest that they be removed unless and until independent citation is provided demonstrating that they played a substantial part in them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've since seen (reasonably anecdotal) claims that they funded many of these cases through other organisations. Is there any WP:V/WP:RS information to back this assertion up? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "Truth"

Obviously it's in quotes most of the time. But for the most part the use of the word truth in a style consistent with ADF's usage is a big POV! A guide should be created for how "truth" is going to be used. I thought italics were the most equitable soultion as the Day of Truth should most technically be represented as the Day of Truth but someone didn't like that options. Suggestions?Netbenefit 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not just describe it and let the name stand? The ACLU, for instance, calls itself a "civil liberties" organization, when ADF and its allies that it actually fights against civil liberties. I'm not saying that its own use of terms is meant to communicate a certain agenda, but that doesn't mean that Wiki has to comment upon that agenda with "[quotes]" and demean it. --Zz414 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the first use in the article, saying the ADF defends the "...right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy...", adding the italics on Truth is a POV, while simple capitalization is in agreement with the source document as well as making a distinction between truth (things that are fact) and Truth (beliefs that are held). Italics seem to imply excessive weight to the word. Manofthesea (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

How is the final link in this article related to the actual artical, none of the stuff on that page seems to offer anything helpful to understanding the ADF. Homestarmy 16:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's ok to bully and intimidate gay students in schools, that's up to you, but please don't claim to be a Christian while doing it. Jesus Christ did not condone bullying anyone, and he said nothing against homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorNeubius (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence about violence and Day of Truth

Removed the section that said "In many instances The Day of Truth has also resulted in violence. In a Public High School in south Georgia four major activists for the Day of Silence were harassed and beaten because of their involvement."

"In many instances" appears to be quite loaded since a Google search for "day of truth violence" didn't turn up any news articles about violence associated with the Day of Truth.

Well basically the whole purpose of the "Day of Truth" is to oppose the protest against bullying and harassment of gay students, so it could easily be argued that the Day of Truth and its supporters are condoning violence and harassment and expressing their belief that bullying gay students is acceptable. Apparently bullying and harassment are "traditional values"- AuthorNeubius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.133.255 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "silenced" :
  • [http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3838 ADF: ADF attorneys seek justice for high school student silenced on Day of Truth - Alliance Defense Fund - Defending Our First Liberty<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • .
• "ADFresponse" :
  • http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/ReligiousFreedom/Default.aspx?cid=4020 "The facts regarding Williams v. Vidmar", retrieved April 11, 2007
  • .

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Two thirds of citations are to ADF/Day Of Truth's own websites

I've just been doing some ref-cleanuping, and noticed that 16 of the 24 citations were to the ADF website or its Day of Truth campaign. This seems excessive. I would suggest that better third party sourcing is needed. An article should not rely so heavily on self-description. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

The Day of Truth is homophobia not by a singular POV, but it is objectively pretty clear-cut. It is in direct opposition to the Day of Silence, right? And the Day of Silence specifically protests against harassment and bullying against LGBT students. And so if an effort actively opposes efforts to stop harassment and bullying of LGBT people and help sanction it, then its effect is only homophobic. Objectively speaking as per the criteria of homophobia, this is one of the clearest-cut examples of homophobia I could possibly imagine. And as a matter of POV, it takes a great deal of chutzpah too. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Day of Silence does not have this category assigned to it. The category's assignation here is POV without it being used consistently, rather than as a smear. Further, your language just used further evidences it's being used as a smear as your language is POV by ignoring any opposition. Wikipedia is encyclopedic, not soapboxic. I'll keep an open mind on the category, but as used and explained now it's soapboxic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The ACLU is not so labeled, neither is the Southern Poverty Law Center. I smell POV smear here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you're commenting at Category talk:Homophobia, I'll respond there. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

The cat is inappropriate for this article. User Hrafn says (in history comments) it is because more than half of this article deals with the issue. True, but I say it is not because the issue is only a part of what the ADF addresses, what this article says is different from what the ADF actually does, and the category itself says, emphasis in original:

"This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being homophobic or for being opposed to homophobia. It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances."

The ADF is not "particularly noted for being homophobic." Actually, it is "particularly noted" for other reasons. Further, it is not "widely known for their homophobic stances." Actually, if it is widely known at all, it is for taking on issues of a religious nature.

I strongly suggest removal of the cat. The cat should be applied honestly and fairly within the rules of Wikipedia. It should not be applied as a label to besmirch the organization by those who have made this wiki page spend half of its space on that single topic which is so prone to soapboxing.

The article is clearly way out of alignment with reality, and the cat should reflect reality, not the article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the rant. Now kindly provide reliable sources that back up your claims. The article as it stands clearly supports the category. If you want the article changed, you need WP:RSs for your claim that "it is 'particularly noted' for other reasons." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think considering it an organization associated with homophobia is at all controversial. The Day of Truth, the frequent and consistent litigation against state-sponsored domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples, the frequent taking on of cases between same-sex couples where one "got religion" and wants sole custody and a restraining order (guess which side the ADF is on) I think merits this organization as legitimately homophobic. Does it do other things? Yeah, sure. But Muqtada al-Sadr, Mike Savage and Catholic Family News do other things as well and they're in this category. The ADF's own website confirms its homophobic opinion positioning. Clearly they want to be known as a homophobic institution; should we deny them that? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, your "rant" comment is not wiki friendly and you reveal yourself as a zealot.

Kari, good answer. Okay, I'll drop/withdraw my objection unless someone convinces me otherwise. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Its positions are completely compatible and unequivocally would fall under Wikipedia's very own definition of homophobia. It would be hypocritical to NOT categorize it with homophobia. 98.168.204.179 (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

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

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

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

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

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

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

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Funding

I reverted this edit [9]. It is informative and within the purpose of an encylopedia article on an organization to list funding sources (presumably properly cited). There's no POV or undue weight to including them. Westbender (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This item

It receives funding from the Bill and Berniece Grewcock Foundation, Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and Bradley Foundation.

appears to contradict Posner. Both of them claim to list "major donors." PFAW seems to predate Posner, making Posner the most current of the two. Posner seems more reliable than PFAW. We should use Posner in lieu of PFAW. Lionel (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither PFAW nor Posner appears particularly NPOV to me, nor is the timing of the last edit to PFAW's page clear. The BBB doesn't have information on ADF's donors, it appears as if ADF goes to some effort to conceal them. I couldn't get information out of public access to CharityNavigator, either. So I can see where the paragraph is fairly problematic, short of actually ordering the ADF annual report from the state of New Jersey or whatever. Alternatively, we could weasel by including both sources, attributing them and letting the reader make sense of how to reconcile them.

It is, in my experience, a rather unusual practice for a non-profit to not publish it's annual report, but I sure can't find one on-line, if anyone else can, I'd love to see a link. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

GuideStar has three year's of 990 forms.[10] (Free registration required) They list expenses but not donors.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the PFAW link is gone now. Good, it reads better and the ref is superior.

Will Beback, I know you have a lot of experience here. I got the sense from reading the PFAW-supported funding sentence in the context it appeared that the sentence was included as a means to broadcast PFAW's advocacy efforts in opposition to ADF. I am certain such a use violates at least one Wiki policy. Can you provide guidance on that, if it's not moot?

Further, I don't see organizations generally having their sources of funding spelled out in Wiki articles. Now there's a whole subsection called "Funding". Like the American Library Association article does not say some of its funding comes from the Playboy Foundation and from George Soros. Obviously listing the ALA's funding source as Playboy and Soros would be intended to give the POV view that the ALA is a radical leftist organization. So the ALA page does not include such information, and appropriately so. I would think the same principle applies here. What do you think?

I was also not impressed that PFAW met the requirements of WP:RS as used in this context. Being a WP:DEADLINK is not a fatal flaw, but not having other refs to make the claim is an indication to me of a potential for WP:UNDUE. Does that sound right?

Any other comments? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the ALA article has to do with this, but listing funding sources doesn't result in a POV unless only certain sources are listed to provide an incomplete picture. Westbender (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Westbender, but forgive me for waiting to hear responses from Will Beback. He has significant experience here whereas you have only 8 total edits. Everyone starts out a one point or another, so that's no problem, so forgive me if I do not give your comments the same weight as I might give Will Beback's. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

PFAW is a partisan source. I wouldn't use it as an ordinary source for this article.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will Beback. Now that raises the next question. If the material was added having PFAW as a source, and PFAW is a partisan source not appropriate for this article, should we keep the whole point of the PFAW ref in the article, even without the PFAW ref, namely the listing of organizations funding the ADF? I just don't see that in other articles and it appears it is being used for political purposes, those of PFAW's. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with listing funding sources if we can get reliable sources, but I don't have a strong opinion on that question myself. The Posner piece seems more RS than I thought before, so I withdraw my objection to it, I agree that PFAW isn't reliable enough, the risk of picking and choosing specific sources to make a point in a partisan environment is too large to take that at face value. Now, off to dinner, this time for reals. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

References