Wikipedia

Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom/Archive 4

< Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Doug Weller in topic Christian advocacy group
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Lisa Biron

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Excluding Biron seems perverse.

  • Lisa Biron, N.H. lawyer with ties to conservative Christian group, arrested on child pornography charges - Biron has worked with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group of attorneys known for their work against gay marriage and Planned Parenthood, but according to the ADF she was never an employee.
  • Awaiting Child Porn Hearing in State Court, NH Lawyer Is Arrested by FBI Agents, Held Without Bail - Biron was also admitted in Massachusetts in 2008, the same year in which she became a New Hampshire lawyer. She is associated with a national Christian lawyers group known as the Alliance Defending Freedom and reportedly listed her favorite book as the Bible on a Facebook page that was recently taken down.
  • Anti-gay activist lawyer guilty of child pornography after videotaping daughter - Biron, who claimed on her Facebook page (which was taken down, according to the Concord Monitor) that the Bible was her favorite book, had worked with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), formerly the Alliance Defense Fund, in defending a Pentecostal church in Concord in a tax fight against the city.
  • N.H. lawyer held on sexual exploitation, porn charges - "she represented the Liberty Assembly of God church in Concord earlier this year in a tax dispute with the city, working alongside the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Arizona-based group of lawyers."
  • Anti-Equality Female Attorney Arrested on Underage Sex Charges - "The Concord Monitor reports that Biron is affiliated with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a self-described "servant ministry building an alliance to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family." The group's website has an entire section devoted to its fight against marriage equality and calls a federal judge's decision against California's Prop. 8 "a dangerous decision that could ultimately threaten your religious freedom and the democratic process."
  • Manchester lawyer facing federal child pornography charges arrested by FBI at courthouse - "Biron is associated with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group of lawyers who, according to their website, are committed to keeping “the door open for the spread of the Gospel” by advocating for “religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.” In Concord, she worked with the ADF in defending a Pentecostal Church on Mountain Road in its tax fight against the city."

I could go on. A lot of sources on Biron prominently mention the association, and there's a well known theme of outspoken Christian bigots turning out to be associated with child abuse. I agree that we should be careful to say that she was only associated with the group, but given the number of sources that say she was associated with the group, removing all mention looks like whitewashing - especially when the arguments against tend to original research, inserting a distance that does not exist in the sources themselves.

There should be a brief mention, because there are too many sources for there not to be. Guy (help!) 08:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. SPECIFICO talk 09:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, JzG, I have added it in, under the People section. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 14:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Guy, User:SPECIFICO, User:LakesideMiners, User:NorthBySouthBaranof, I disagree. None of the sources, unless I missed one, even describe what those "ties" were, how she was "associated", what the work was she did. I don't think removing her is whitewashing; I think adding her is setting a low bar. Drmies (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Isn't this one, among others, credibly explicit that she represented ADF in court? SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO, I read that, and that last paragraph is sufficiently non-specific that, for my taste, she should not be included. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@FDrmies: I've seen similar problems come up in many articles. We find ourselves doing editor OR as to what belongs in this sort of list -- most signficant achievements of a notable individual, most important tenets of a school of thought, etc. We really should have sources that make those evaluations and selections for us, so that we are not basing inclusion on our own judgments, however carefully exercised they may be. Also, in this case I'm aware that, in addition to the less than perfect verification, part of the reason for inclusion is just that, well, she rather seems the sort, doesn't she? But of course I didn't say that. You've got me more or less at neutral now. Thanks for raising the issue and challenging us. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Point 1: The question is whether under the People section there should be a list of all of the organization’s associated attorneys at have any article in the media. Their website says they have 3,100+ “allied attorneys” - https://www.adflegal.org/about-us
If they are all potential inclusions, that could make for a very long list and doesn’t really add anything to the content about the organization. It seems that it is WP:UNDUE to include that, as it is evident she was just working on one or more cases that they had in court.  :::See https://www.bostonherald.com/2012/11/21/nh-lawyer-held-on-sexual-exploitation-porn-charges/ According to court documents, she represented the Liberty Assembly of God church in Concord earlier this year in a tax dispute with the city, working alongside the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Arizona-based group of lawyers. This is consistent with the next article (footnote 56) which says she “worked with” them but was not an employee https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lisa-biron-nh-lawyer-with-ties-to-conservative-christian-group-arrested-on-child-pornography-charges/ Biron has worked with the Alliance Defending Freedom … but according to the ADF she was never an employee.
Point 2: Even if her name is kept, the article in footnote 55 doesn’t even mention ADF and should be removed: https://web.archive.org/web/20130609031109/http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/localstate/6498450-95/former-manchester-lawyer-sentenced-to-40-years-for-producing-child-pornography Ihaveadreamagain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to tag those in this discussion - Drmies, Guy, User:SPECIFICO, User:LakesideMiners, User:NorthBySouthBaranof Ihaveadreamagain (talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Ihaveadreamagain, why are we kicking this can yet again? There are sufficient sources for her inclusion that omission would be whitewashing, if you can find the same level of sourcing for others then just include them. Guy (help!) 22:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
JzG, I really do not agree with you. I'm not going to throw much of a fuss over it, but I do not think she should be included here, as tempting as it may seem. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't start this thread, I'm just weighing in since there was a discussion. Even so, people should address the issue and not deflect by objecting to discussion, as if once discussed a discussion is forbidden, JzG. Ihaveadreamagain 16:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
"has worked with" "associated with" are both so vague as to be almost meaningless. The only substantive connection that I have been able to find is that "In Concord, she worked with the ADF in defending a Pentecostal Church on Mountain Road in its tax fight against the city." According to SPLC, she is one of 1000s of lawyers 'linked to' ADF.
Guy above says that it would be whitewashing to remove her name, well you can only whitewash guilt - or at least accusations of guilt. What precisely is the guilt that ADF is accused of, either by WP or by the sources? That it did not monitor everything that every single person "associated with" it did in their private lives while outside the US on vacation? Did not check their personal computers at home to check whether they were 'prostituting' their own teenage children? I came across this by accident, and as a UK person have little but contempt for right-wing christians and see lawyers' associations championing their views as very sinister, but still I have rarely seen a more blatant attempt on WP to throw mud and hope some of it sticks. The old mantra as I recall is that sources are a necessary, but not sufficient reason for inclusion. So what on earth does it inform about ADF to know that an (extremely bizarre), lawyer/sex offender briefly had a tenuous professional relationship to ADF? I'm sorry, but this is about as low as it gets IMO - Smearopedia? Pincrete (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hidden edit notice

Latest comment: 3 years ago72 comments24 people in discussion

I am not sure this edit notice is valid - "Please do not remove "designated anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page." There is no policy based rationale for such a notice, and it seems to actually go directly against policy. Please review WP:ONUS, which states "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." Note that I am not seeking to remove that wording, but I think that editors who have concerns about it should be free to remove it pending a consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove it Buffs (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Considering that the issue has been discussed a number of times in the past (see the archives), I don't think that's good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about hidden comment in the lede

The lede section of this article contains the hidden comment "<!--Please do not remove "designated anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page.-->", Should this comment be kept, or removed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note: as a result of the ongoing discussion below, the hidden comment now reads "<!--Please do not remove "SPLC designated it an anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page. Please see the Archives for previous discussions.-->-->".
Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


  • Keep - The purpose of the comment appears to be to enforce the results of previous discussions on the LGBTQ subject, which are available in the archives, here and here. A new discussion on the talk page about removing the "hate group" sentence is justified considering that results of the old discussions. Removal of the warning comment is not warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove - I am not disputing that the SPLC designates the ADF as a hate group. I am in favor of removing a hidden edit that goes against WP:ONUS and WP:CCC. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per Mr Ernie Idealigic (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep we want as much as possible to avoid edit-warring over this. I don't see it as having anything to do with ONUS and as helping maintain WP:CCC. If anyone wants to change it, they should try to get a new consensus. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Strike, there's a better suggestion. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Doug Weller. StAnselm (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Remove. I originally !voted "keep" because I thought there had been an RfC on the matter, but now that I follow the links to the discussions, I see there wasn't. (Unlike, for example, Talk:Illinois Family Institute#RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?) So the comment gives the wrong impression - that is exactly the sort of comment we would include if the matter had been resolves via extensive discussion and/or RfC. There was (and still is) consensus to include the sentence, but we reserve comments for special cases. StAnselm (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove the word "designated" suggests some kind of authority, and the passive voice "has been" hides who is doing the "designating"′. This runs contrary to WP:LABEL and WP:WikiVoice. It would be appropriate to say that "according to the SPLC, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a hate group" or the like, in its own section. Whether or not this is lead-worthy would then be determined according to the usual criteria by WP:LEAD. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    We are only talking about the hidden edit notice, not the designation by the SPLC. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    Well the two are inextricably linked, and I think we should remove both. In particular, the word "designated" runs contrary to multiple Wikipedia policies. More on the SPLC's bias here; it even happens to relate to the ADF specifically. [1] Adoring nanny (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - These comments are not unusual. They just warn editors who may be unaware of previous discussion that any change will need to be discussed on talk. The alternative is an uninformed edit, a quick revert by an editor who's aware of prior consensus, followed by the same talk page discussion. What's the problem? The Donald Trump article has these hidden comments and even has a list of many similar standing consensus items on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    Arguably the special case is that we have editors on many articles falsely deprecating SPLC and using that to hide acknowledged facts about various people and organizations. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    Perhaps because they have a history of such controversy: Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Controversies_regarding_hate_group_and_extremist_designations Buffs (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    It's attributed. Not in Wiki-voice. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    No...it isn't. The statement even in this RfC is "Please do not remove 'designated anti-LGBTQ hate group' from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page" It mentions nothing about the SPLC. Instead of saying "That the SPLC views this group as _____" is a contentious issue that has been discussed in depth. Consensus is to keep that description and delete any mention of opposition" all it says is that, conclusively and without attribution that this is a hate group. That's just plain wrong. Buffs (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    Last line of the lead. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    The hidden text states "Please do not remove 'designated anti-LGBTQ hate group' from the lead..." It mentions nothing of the SPLC. Consensus does not reflect that everyone (or even a majority) feel that way. Buffs (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    Fixed it. The article content is what matters. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    If the article's content is what matters, why oppose the removal of this note? Buffs (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove (*EDIT* and replace with RexxxS's suggestions below) This is absurd that we even have to have this discussion. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Hidden text like this is not uncommon and saves a lot of editor time. It can be removed if consensus changes. That doesn't require an RfC. O3000 (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - it reflects long-standing consensus on this article, and should not be changed without a change in the consensus. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    Could you be so kind as to link to said consensus? I don't even see any discussion on the matter. Buffs (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The previous consensus discussions regarding the SLPC statement are already linked above, in my first comment. I believe that Orangemike is saying that the hidden comment reflects those consensus discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • How about you let OrangeMike respond instead of assuming what he means? Likewise, that there's been discussion about the SPLC is not in debate. That such a discussion a)requires a statement, b) mandates the inclusion of the phrase 'designated anti-LGBTQ hate group' WITHOUT any noted attribution, and c) that it cannot be removed without a demonstrated change of consensus based on the discussion of 3-4 people is absurd. Buffs (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • And how about you let me express my views -- including my views of what Orangemike said -- and not attempt to suppress them because you got the answer you needed, but you didn't like where it came from. Your second point is just silly. No one has claimed that the previous discussions "mandated" the hidden comment. What has been said, here -- by multiple editors -- is that the hidden comment serves to give notice that the issue of the SPLC/LGBTQ information has been discussed before, so the best course of action is to discuss it on the talk page to get a consensus and not simply to remove the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Your opinion has been noted ad nauseum. I didn't ask for your opinion. I'd like to hear OrangeMike's rather than your assumptions/opinions on his opinion. I've not attempted to "suppress" anything; (clearly) you can post where ever you want. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Buffs, looking at this talk page, it looks like you have left almost three times the amount of comments in these discussions compared to Beyond My Ken. I think you may want to be more careful with making accusations about other editors' conduct. I don't think WP:BLUDGEON applies here yet, and certainly not to Beyond My Ken. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
In this (RfC prior to this comment), I've made 11 remarks, BMK: 7. If we're talking about ALL the discussions, then BMK easily outshines me (check the archives). Buffs (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Request People here have demanded no one alter the current verbiage without their permission, but then change the statement in question in the RfC with no consensus either. I would request that these people undo such edits until such discussion has concluded. You're muddying the waters and making it FAR more difficult to reach consensus as you've changed the discussion. The fact that it needed to be changed at all should be some indication that it wasn't a good idea. Buffs (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Those additions have been in response to requests and comments here, and they are reasonable. That the comment needed to be tweaked simply means that it needed to be tweaked (just as almost every Wikipedia article needs a tweak now and then), it has no bearing on whether the comment was a "good idea" or not. My feeling is that the folks voting to delete the hidden comment are doing so in order that there be less of an impediment to removing the SPLC/LBGTQ information -- but I guarantee you if the information was removed without a consensus to do so, it would be immediately restored, and a consensus discussion would be started here, so what's the big deal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous consensus. The hidden comment serves a useful purpose. It reminds editors that they should start a discussion if they think there is reason to seek a new consensus. - MrX 🖋 02:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note This is explicitly prohibited: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Hidden_text#Inappropriate_uses_for_hidden_text
    "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit...When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus."
Buffs (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: The Manual of Style is not policy, and it is not mandatory. In fact every single page of the MoS says on it:
  • It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
Those exceptions are generally determined by WP:CONSENSUS, and this RfC is just that, a consensus discussion, so, yes, to answer the question in your edit summary, we are going to do this, because consensus is at the center of the Wikipedia ethos. So you'd best settle down and allow editors to come to a consensus and stop trying to de-rail this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to note that the page Buffs refers to doesn't conform to MOS:COMMENT in the main MOS which is the "central page". That says much the same thing but not quite:"Invisible comments are useful for alerting other editors to issues such as common mistakes that regularly occur in the article, a section title being the target of an incoming link, or pointing to a discussion that established a consensus relating to the article. They should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits, although where existing consensus is against making such an edit, they may usefully draw the editor's attention to that." Doug Weller talk 09:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. "They should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits" Kinda my point.
  2. You can't claim that "I don't have to follow the MoS because 'occasional exceptions may apply'" and at the same time claim "These comments are not unusual". Buffs (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no conflict between those statements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "occasional exceptions" ≠ common. Buffs (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - The point is not to stifle discussion, but to stifle edit-warring over well-sourced material supported by consensus. Consensus can change, but that requires discussion and not reversion. There is no policy which supports unilateral removal (the ADF is a political/legal advocacy group, not a living person, and the material is well-sourced anyway), so the text is a helpful reminder to new editors which hopefully will lead to less disruptive editing behavior by educating them before they have a chance to act. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    You only get 1 !vote, not two. Buffs (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Made a mistake. Struck...perhaps others should as well... Buffs (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove - Even though there seems to be enough reliably cited text about the two groups's conflict, I don't see consensus for the designation to be in the lead established in the second link per SunCrow in that discussion so hidden instructions on not to do so is inappropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Either keep the note or start an RfC on the actual visible content. This content has repeatedly been an issue, and prior discussions have resulted in its inclusion. The only point of removing the hidden note would be to then remove the actual content. If someone opposes keeping the content in the lead and thinks a community discussion would result in its removal, then I would suggest they boldly close this RfC and start an appropriate one. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I would be fine with the compromise suggested below by RexxS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Compromise: our guidance says that we shouldn't be using local consensus to write hidden text prohibiting an edit. That goes against the grain of CON and CCC. It is perfectly reasonable to draw an editors attention to previous local consensus though, so I suggest you replace the current text:
    Please do not remove "SPLC designated it an anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page. Please see the Archives for previous discussions.
    with:
    Before considering the removal of "SPLC designated it an anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead, please review the discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alliance_Defending_Freedom/Archive_2#Designation_as_a_hate_group and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alliance_Defending_Freedom/Archive_3#Sentence_in_lead_section.
    I deliberately use full urls because internal links don't work inside an html comment. The purpose of the hidden comment should only be to make editors aware of previous discussions and consensus. It's a misuse of hidden text to attempt to completely prohibit editing that doesn't conflict with our policies and guidelines. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    Much better, but not without problems. This aligns better with WP:HIDDEN § Inappropriate uses for hidden text, but the links are still not linking to established consensus. Politrukki (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support compromise suggested by RexxS. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support compromise. Good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I support either keeping the comments as it is, or the compromise suggested above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I like the idea of the compromise, but I can't support it in its present form: how can we ask people to look at the talk archives before considering removal? Perhaps just "before removing". StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep + add FAQ to this talk Page - I don't see the wording Please do not remove ... from the lead without first getting consensus as demanding, I see it as an informative request, and I like the goal of stopping edit wars and also having a link(s) to point to previous discussions on this topic, ideally to a persistent FAQ question at the top of this talk page (if the SEPARATE issue of this info being included is sufficiently completed to support a FAQ question). ---Avatar317(talk) 23:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove: Per the reasoning of Mr Ernie and Adoring nanny. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have placed neutral pointers to this RfC on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Specifico, it's a common and understandable notice, and doesn't even physically prevent anything. Any editor opposing the notice would therefore go to the talk page, as we'd clearly like here. ɱ (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, support the compromise change, also that very surprising fact—that a Christian group is designated as a hate group by the leading authority of such—should briefly explain why they are considered one, and likely that ADA disputes the designation. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    It is definitely contentious that they are a "leading authority" on the subject. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    One can find many issues to grind an axe over, but I have utmost faith in their judgement who are hate-mongers, racists and the like. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    WP:INDIVIDUALFAITHINSPLC is not a standard for inclusion. WP:N & WP:NPOV are. Buffs (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    If one can have faith in invisible sky men and axe grinding, then another can have faith in organizations dedicated to exposing bigots, hypocrites, and their sheep. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. If there's active consensus against removing something then you shouldn't remove it. In this case, editors need to be told that this is the case otherwise they may not realize. Not sure what's controversial here. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Because it conflicts with Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep or RexxS's compromise - This is about preventing disruption and frustration, which drives away editors and doesn't improve the article. The editing notice should indicate current consensus. It should also prompt good-faith editors to review the talk page history. Both notes serve this purpose. A FAQ is also a good idea. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    Here, in this situation, it's a note which tells editors that there is more to this than they might realize, and that if they make this edit without consensus, they'll get reverted. Making consensus opaque in a way that prompts disruptive editing is also inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, or RexxS's compromise These sorts of in-text comments are standard to try to keep disruptive editing down. Do they actually work? Eh I dunno, but they can't hurt, and will hopefully make people discuss the issue instead of edit war over it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Do not include per WP:CCC, WP:HIDDEN, and MOS:COMMENT. The proposal outright prohibits editing the article in certain way, which runs against these policies and guidelines. RexxS's proposal might be okay, but not in the absence of a clearly established consensus.
    As a side note, to avoid disruption, it would probably be a good idea to bolster the article content with one or two inline citations, using secondary reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, or RexxS's compromise, the note is clearly intended to minimise edit-warring and is a request, not an order. These are fairly standard for all kinds of 'cyclic' disputed texts. Perhaps this RfC will establish a concensus for the SPLC text, as well as the hidden note.Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

SPLC "Hate Group" Label

Latest comment: 3 years ago35 comments10 people in discussion

The comments and removal of language from a federal district court are baffling and nonsensical.

"Primary source, and probably not related." Please clarify. A judicial opinion, notably one from a federal circuit court, is a primary source. The language and the case itself is directly addressing SPLC's labeling of groups as hate groups, and the information I added to the article is direct quotations from that opinion.

If the fact that SPLC has placed this label on the organization in the article is relevant, then relevance cannot be an argument for excluding the way such label is interpreted by federal courts under the law.

I need an explanation for why this is removed, other than bias and attempted whitewashing. Please address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.168.187 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Bumping this again since you continue to request something on the talk page. You remove my edits but have failed to respond here. If I want to believe edits are being made in good faith, appropriate support is needed. Here are my complaints:

1. SPLC should not be in the lede of the article; it is an opinion of an organization with competing viewpoints. We know it is an opinion, as it has been labeled by a federal court as not "entirely subjective" and a list that does not "depend upon objective data or evidence." We know it is an organization with competing viewpoints because of statements made by one of the organization's own representatives that the list is politically-motivated to only cover right-leaning groups. Both of these are cited.

2. If the editors continue to insist on SPLC being included in the lede (which requires better explanation) choosing to do so without well-researched information that the classification by SPLC is both subjective and biased is misleading. Not including that information in the lede is disingenuous. Again, no good explanation has been provided except "the editors agree". If SPLC is relevant here, so are these details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.168.187 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that the editors' only consistent activity on this page are negative towards the organization. Those are to amplify the connection of Lisa Biron (someone who never worked for ADF) and to make sure SPLC's criticisms are given prominent placement. I'd request unbiased editors be included in this review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.168.187 (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Numerous editors have disagreed with your edit to the article by reverted it. I would be one of those if I see your edit again before someone else. You do not have a WP:Consensus to make that edit, so cotinuing to do so without consensus is WP:Disruptive editing. You have now restored your edit three times, the limit allowed by WP:Edit warring. If you reinsert it again, you will be reported to the Edit warring notice board, where you will likely be blocked from editing for a period of time. Please do not re-insert this WP:PoV material unless you have a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ken - rather than telling me I don't have consensus, explain why. My points 1 and 2 outlined above are quite clear. All I am told is I don't have consensus. Initially, it was because I engaged in self-research (which is not true; citing the direct language from a federal court opinion is not the type of primary source use Wikipedia discourages). Once I provided other sources, including an article published by Yahoo News, the entirety was removed without explanation. Rather than threatening me, why don't you back up your biased decision-making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.168.187 (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The article was not published by Yahoo News - it was originally published by Glenn Beck's Blaze Media, which is decidedly not a reliable source.
To address your point, I would invite you to look at the lede to the Southern Poverty Law Center article. As appropriate, we discuss criticism of the group: The SPLC's listings have also been the subject of criticism from others, who argue that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad, politically motivated, or unwarranted. There have also been accusations of misuse or unnecessarily extravagant use of funds by the organization, leading some employees to call the headquarters "Poverty Palace". Note what is missing: Any response from the SPLC or criticism of the criticism. It is perfectly appropriate to include criticism of a group in the lede of that group's article - it is not necessary to then include criticism of the critics from that group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
To be fair the sentence right before the criticism is effectively a rebuke of it. So basically a criticism of the critics. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
No, the sentence before it is an accurate, thoroughly-sourced description of one of the SPLC's major activities. It is followed, appropriately, by sourced criticisms of that activity. Are you suggesting that criticism of something should come before we explain what that something is? By that standard, we'd put the SPLC's hate group designation in the first sentence of this article, which would be rather UNDUE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Not arguing for any change, just stating that your premise above could be a little misleading. PackMecEng (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It is not neutral to include criticism without context. I concur with the IP's position. Buffs (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The article was indeed FIRST published by Blaze, but it was REPUBLISHED by Yahoo and other news sources. Likewise, the citation is only a source to the actual court's opinion. That doesn't invalidate the source. Buffs (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Of course it does. The Blaze is not a reliable source, and syndicating the exact same unreliable content under a different domain name doesn't magically make the content reliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's absurd. The source is the source. It doesn't get sanitized by a news aggregator. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur that "It is perfectly appropriate to include criticism of a group in the lede of that group's article - it is not necessary to then include criticism of the critics from that group." It is especially unnecessary to include 'counter-criticism'. It might be apt to put a denial or brief rebuttal of specific criticisms - but including "well our critics are worthless anyway and have been criticised on all sorts of unrelated matters" remarks is a formula for a muddled cycle of "he said", "she said". Do ADF deny doing the things that SPLC say they did .. or does it admit them, but simply think that they are not a hate group, because ......? Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
To the contrary, the court ruled that their "hate group" distinctions are arbitrary and subjective. If you want to add the criticism, that's fine by me but the "hate group" designation itself (without this context) is unnecessarily inflammatory. I've re-added that only with the citation of the actual court case.
As for the idea that republishing carries no weight, that's absurd. They have just as much of a a responsibility as the original publisher (FWIW, it wasn't published first by the Blaze). As mentioned, that doesn't invalidate the original source: the court's ruling. It DOES show where the person who added it got the opinion and the phraseology. Just because it originated with any specific source doesn't mean it's invalid (which is what you're claiming). The court case is listed there and the statement is accurate, though the phrasing is heavily borrowed from the listed source. Removing that source serves as plagiarism of the author without giving credit where credit is due. If you want to rephrase and only include the court ruling, that's fine too. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The court or a court? What appears to be sought is not a rebuttal of specific claims made by SPLC about ADF, but a discredit of SPLC - that is clearly off-topic especially when more text is devoted to discredit/rebuttal than to the original SPLC claims. Summaries of criticisms made against individuals or orgs are standard WP info in leads - it isn't necessary that those making the criticisms pass some evidentiary standard. I personally think the 'hate group' term is unhelpful, since it implies that 'hate' is the sole purpose, which is often not the case, but it now has become the standard term. This isn't a court of law, it is a summary of the + and - things said about individual Y or org X by RS and notable other orgs. Readers are actually sophisticated enough to understand that SPLC designating a group as a 'hate group' does not necessarily mean it has passed some absolute test as being an objective fact (whatever that would mean). I frequently read SPLC claims and come to my own conclusions as to whether I think that the designation is wholly justified.Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
It would probably be best for everyone arguing about the court's decision to read it in full here. It does not say what it is alleged to have said. It simply says that the SPLC's designation of a organization as a "hate group" is an opinion and not a fact per se. I don't think anyone ever thought otherwise. We usually says that "X group has been described [or designated] by the SPLC as a "hate group". We rely on the SPLC's long experience in investigating and studying these groups, and its well-documented criteria for making such designations. The claims are never made in Wikipedia's voice, and are always supported by references. Judge Amy Berman Jackson did not rule that the SPLC's opinion was "arbitrary" (the word does not appear in her ruling), and she does not denigrate the SPLC's criteria, merely say that it is irrelevant in the context of the plantiff's charges. She does however rule against the Center for Immigration Studies, a fact which seems to be overlooked whenever those of the right wish to use the case to smear the SPLC. In point of fact, the case was a victory for the SPLC, not a defeat, and articles which say otherwise, or that the court admonished the SPLC are simply spinning a loss the best they can.
In any case, a court case which does not involve the ADF is irrelevant to this article. It may have relevance to the SPLC article, but even there, care had best to taken to represent the court's ruling for what it actually says, and not for what the right-wing wants us to think it says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
"It would probably be best for everyone arguing about the court's decision to read it in full here" Well, that's unnecessarily inflammatory considering you DELETED the link that I posted in the article. Yes, I read the decision and it was an accurate synopsis. Dismissing my sourced contribution because it's "what the right-wing wants us to think it says" is absurd. Read the decision yourself. SPLC opinions are capricious and completely subjective. Buffs (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
No, Buffs, you attempted to post an OPINION piece by "the head of U.S. advocacy for Alliance Defending Freedom", whose only purpose was to smear the SPLC, I can tell from your posts here that you have not read the actual document. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
While it quotes the opinion of the ADF's legal team, it does not mean it's inaccurate. The source indeed clearly states what the court opinion says. To claim that we cannot use said source or the primary source is absurd. Buffs (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Everybody who has ever compared what scientific sources actually say with what creationists quoting them claim they say knows that one should never accept what a reputable source allegedly said, filtered through a disreputable source. Lying by omission, lying by accurately quoting a source while omitting relevant context is very easy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but the "court ruling" that some wish to use as an adjudicated source is titled "Memorandum opinion". Court rulings are not the be all and end all. Civil court outcomes are labeled opinions. So, a tiny part of an opinion about an opinion is scarcely of interest. And, we don't analyze court opinions ourselves. It is very dangerous to take an excerpt from a fifteen page decision as a source. We don't investigate or analyze. We use secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a fact, however, that Jackson granted the SPLC's request to dismiss the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It's also a fact that the criteria are completely subjective...a point worth noting in the article as the courts have also ruled. For purposes of this article, it is of little consequence whether the ultimate ruling was for or against the SPLC. "Losses" are often cited in legal circles for the rationales used. It isn't "dangerous" to cite a primary source, in fact, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Buffs (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
But, you see, we accept opinions (which by their nature are subjective) from experts, and the SPLC are experts at what they do, so the "subjectivity" thing is irrelevant to us. If Einstein or Hawking had offered their opinions about physics, we would report those opinions, because they were experts at physics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
You are accepting the "expert" opinion of SPLC and explicitly prohibiting the ADF's (also legal experts competent enough to win 9 out of 9 cases at the Supreme Court). Buffs (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
And Einstein refuted much of Newtonian physics -- which doesn't stop us from using Newton, because it is useful. O3000 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
We do not interpret court rulings. O3000 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Well...there's the cited interpretation among others. Buffs (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
You mean the one cited to an official of the AFD? Ain't gonna fly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
So criticism is ok, but a response from the organization isn't? Buffs (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. The SPLC is independent of the ADF. The ADF is not independent of itself. That a representative of an organization defends that organization is at the "water is wet" level of obvious and pointless. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations"... but that's what the SPLC info is based on. Buffs (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Quoting opinions by ADF executives would be undue for this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
If ADF were refuting the specific claims made by SDLP, by for example saying they hadn't aided attempts to criminalise homosexuality in Belize, then there would be a copper-bottom case for inclusion (in the body, if not the lead). This is not what the executive's opinion piece is even attempting to do - it is attempting to discredit SPLC's right to voice an opinion AT ALL, by citing (and substantially misquoting) comments on unrelated matters. What is being asked for instead of a summary of criticism from SPLC, is we then discredit SPLC's right to hold the views that they do - how about we then quote some European, or other US viewpoints that in turn discredit ADF's biblical interpretations and question ADF - and the viewpoints they exist to defend - theological basis. We could play that game all day, "he said", "she said", muddying rather than clarifying the core issues. SPLC say that ADF meets its definition of a hate group - largely because of its activities relating to 'gay' matters, I believe. It is customary to include that sort of info in a concise and attributed form, it is not given undue prominence at present IMO.Pincrete (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of my work

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

I have just clarified and expanded many parts of this article. I am going to revert it to my version, since the conflicting editor did not explain their reversion and deleted the work I just did rather than edit collaboratively (which I obviously welcome!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakásimba (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the edit which I reverted. I gave an edit reason "This (ie the version I reverted to) is clear and neutral". More specifically, Why has the SPLC having "criticized it (ADF) for providing "advice to anti-gay bigots in Belize" become "reported on its role in a legal battle over the the constitutionality of 10-year criminal sentences for same-sex sexual relations in Belize, which the ADF denies." SPLC doesn't report on ADF, it criticises them - forcefully. Your more recent edits actually go further and suggest that SPLC admires ADF.
What you call "clarifying and expanding" appears to be intentionally misrepresenting what SPLC have said. More words mostly obfuscating and whitewashing SPLCs criticisms. WP:BRD requires that when your edits are challenged - as they were by me - you should come to talk and establish consensus for their inclusion. The WP:ONUS is on you to get agreement for any subsatantial changes, not to revert my edits. When there is disagreement, we go back to earlier versions, not 'double-down on the changes as you have. Pincrete (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Didn't you revert my edits?
I'm happy to have words I write edited for clarity. I know I can be verbose.
I don't see what the misrepresentation is, though. Also, "advice to anti-gay bigots" doesn't meet neutrality, in my opinion... Yakásimba (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
btw who are the "high-profile politicans" you mention who aren't mentioned anywhere in the article body, only the lead and why do they matter?Pincrete (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
They matter because the organization is extremely influential in US politics... I'll add some names, but you can also see them in the list at the end, or just add a "who" next time. Or just remove that. Yakásimba (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
... but just to clarify: Amy Coney Barrett & Jeff Sessions are both affiliated. Yakásimba (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
We do not care how the ADF wants to be seen. We care incredibly little how it describes itself. We care about how reliable sources describe the organization and its activities. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I hope Yakásimba's changes can be discussed in detail rather than reverted wholesale, as the examples of their changes that Pincrete mentions above are pretty untypical. It certainly doesn't look to me as if they're here to promote the ADF. The bulk of their changes are quite different from the unfortunately wordy and less clear example you cite, Pincrete, where "criticized it for providing 'advice to anti-gay bigots in Belize'" became "reported on its role in a legal battle over the the constitutionality of 10-year criminal sentences for same-sex sexual relations in Belize, which the ADF denies". That wasn't good, but many changes were, in my estimation, and deserve better than being reverted wholesale, and indeed better than being called "More words mostly obfuscating and whitewashing SPLCs criticisms". And yes, Yakásimba should have taken to talk as soon as they were reverted, per BRD, but please cut a new user some slack on this kind of etiquette, and put them right in a friendly way. (Y had 4 edits before they started editing this article.) I don't see any sign that they're here to disrupt, and having one's entire contribution reverted as if it was vandalism must be pretty discouraging. Orangemike, I don't see them going by "how the AfD wants to be seen" — more often they clarify and sharpen criticism of the organization.

Examples of initial changes by Yakásimba that have clarified SPLC's criticisms, rather than obsfuscating them:

  • "equal access for an after school club, funding for student religious publications —> in Y's version "religious activity in schools" - clearer and shorter.
  • In the early 1990s, people from various denominations, primarily evangelical Christians, began to notice what they saw as progressive values supplanting traditional Judeo-Christian values in American society and what they considered to be threats to religious liberty. —> "In the early 1990s, evangelical Christians began working politically to prevent what they considered to be threats to religious liberty in American society. " I definitely think getting rid of "notice", which implies that what they noticed was objectively true, is an improvement. "Began working politically to prevent", is what actually happened, and does not claim knowledge of what was in their heads when they began working.
  • Concerning the "Christmas project" in the history section I think Yakásimba's version is much clearer. What does "resist what the organization called the "censorship of Christmas", as the original had it, actually mean? Y clarifes it, in a way that sharpens for the reader what ADF is really doing here: The ADF has worked to discourage non-Christian holidays from being celebrated at public schools, and to promote Christmas celebrations.

These are just a few examples out of many. Please, Pincrete and Orangemike, give Y some credit where it's due, and take their suggestions seriously. Bishonen | tålk 09:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC).

I didn't ever say that ALL the edits were negative, and those made AFTER I reverted were a mixture. I think that saying an org is defending religious freedom without mentioning that it is one specific kind of religuous freedom which is defended ie the "traditional Judeo-Christian" kind is misleading. AFAIK, ADF have never come to the rescue of the Nation of Islam, verbally or legally. They are defenders of specific strands of religious expression. I agree Yakásimba's text regarding Christmas is fuller, though the loss of ADF's term is also a pity. Have to go … … Pincrete (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Pincrete Several of the phrases you mention to were written by prior editors, and I didn't want to rewrite the whole thing. I agree that "traditional Judeo-Christian" (not my words) should be improved. It's also a good point that using their phrase, "religious freedom," misleads.
Fwiw I'm not here to defend the ADF! If it seems that way, it's due to lack of clarity. I'm trying to convey how influential they are, while avoiding too opinionated the tone (because it might discredit the page to some readers, not because I don't have opinions). Yakásimba (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm UK and wholly un-invested in ADF, beyond having come here for an WP:RfC and having kept the article on my watchlist ever since (and a UK scepticism about religion in politics and think-tanks in general). If I overreacted, I apologise, the norm is new editors trying to whitewash/neutralise the article and on the basis of the first few edits, that seemed to be the case here. BTW, the sources detailing AfD's involvement in Europe are very critical of ADF's 'secrecy' regarding its income etc in Europe. Not a word of this is in the article at present, merely that it now spends X million $$ here. Pincrete (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Pincrete: you probably know this is on my watchlist also. I agree with what Bish says above. If there are sources discussing the funding, they would be great. Meanwhile this The war on gender: An unholy east-west crusade recent source looks useful if anyone wants to use it. I'm not going to right now because I'm trying not to edit until I can get my life sorted for a cancer op next week. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Didn't know about you 'watching' this and frankly my own emotional energy investment doesn't go far beyond watching here. The sources discussing the secrecy of the funding in Europe are linked within those presently used to say that expenditure/activity has increased in Europe in recent years (OpenDemocracy). Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Honestly the easiest thing to do would just be to find additional sources for descriptors rather than just the SPLC. Some possible sources include [2] and [3] (More recently, the “radical gay agenda” still exists among the Religious Right to condemn all efforts to change or introduce legislation on LGBTQ issues. In addition to the Springs of Life Ministries, other groups—some now considered “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center—such as Focus on The Family and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality and religious groups like Abiding Truth Ministries and the American Family Association, perpetuate antigay rhetoric through false propaganda. The legal activist group Alliance Defending Freedom litigates on the basis of this approach.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Bare urls

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

LaetusStudiis, thanks for marking the bare URL issue. I fixed the bare url I saw, so I'm removing the cleanup tag. But if I missed some feel free to add the necessary cite info/let me know. Yakásimba (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should we use "the" in front of "ADF"? The article is currently mixed in usage. Sources differ in usage but are internally consistent. Any preferences? I lean slightly toward excluding "the", based mainly on the ease of removing all the "the"s remaining in the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Christian advocacy group

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

A human can be a Christian, an organization can advocate for Christianity. Claiming to be a "Christian Organization" should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkidMountTubularFrame (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? What is unclear about being a "American conservative Christian nonprofit advocacy group". Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a misunderstanding caused by lack of understanding on grammar. ‘Christian, when used as a noun, refers to humans. ‘Christian’ when used as an adjective can be applied to organisations that have a Christian ethos or purpose. 74.119.161.54 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It’s being used as an adjective. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alliance_Defending_Freedom/Archive_4&oldid=1134121908"