Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutrality dispute

It seems to me that stringing together strong adjectives in our best Wikivoice, such as ADF is one of the most organized and influential Christian legal interest groups in the country based on its budget, caseload, large network of allied attorneys, and connections to powerful political figures. without even bothering to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is a bad thing to do. Elizium23 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

In order to get to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV you first have to demonstrate a bias, which you have not done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Most organized", "influential", "powerful" are not merely non-neutral but they're unmeasurable. They're not quantifiable. They're relative. Most organized by what metric? Influential in what measurable ways? See WP:PEACOCK. Elizium23 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:POV is about bias. WP:PEACOCK is MoS and is entirely unrelated, are you changing this from a POV challenge to a MoS challenge? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23: the edit you did was not a NPOV edit. If you feel those characterizations are not appropriately SOURCED in the article, then add "Citation Needed" flags after each specific claim and then someone can show which sources already in the article support those characterizations. If that is how RS's characterize the organization, then that's what we say. If none say anything like that, than we shouldn't make those characterizations. Best would be a section with something like lots of "X scholar characterized ADF as Y" and then we can summarize that in the lead. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I will remind you that you also removed "and founded by a number of influential conservative Christian men" You appear to only be addressing the first part of your edit, which is disingenuous as I clearly cited the second part in my edit summary when reverting you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, I removed those peacock terms as well. Since when is it OK to write, unattributed, about "influential conservative Christian men" in Wikipedia's voice? If Wikipedia described President Joe Biden as a "handsome influential liberal Catholic cishet man" would that be OK? Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317 your removal of the POV tag as part of an edit-war is disruptive. Restore it and participate in this discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

My comment is above. It didn't all fit in the edit summary. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Unaware of this discussion, I removed a couple of vague, slightly peacocky adjectives this morning, but left the substance intact. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23:Its appropriate when the source says "Alliance Defending Freedom is a nonprofit law firm founded in 1994 by six notable conservative Christian men" WP:PEACOCK only justifies the removal of "influential" but you removed the whole description, why? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see where "most organized" comes from at all. And the source for "most influential" actually says that it has ...arguably become the most influential...; excluding that "arguably" obviously changes the meaning. Honestly I would suggest just changing it to largest from the NYT source (....has emerged as the largest legal force of the religious right...) It still gets the important part across (ie. why should the reader care about this group) but it's a lot more unambiguous. Perhaps "largest and most influential" if we can find more sources for influential, since I don't think it's inherently a tone issue to describe a group as influential. But I think we need to rewrite it rather than removing it, since the lead does have to answer the core question of "why does this group matter - what makes them notable?" --Aquillion (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Opening clarification re sports and bathrooms

@Sideswipe9th: To be clear, I haven't seen any source suggesting ADF's position is that transgender individuals cannot use bathrooms or play sports at all. The opening is misleading in that regard. I corrected it to clarify the position.

This isn't using ADF's point of view uncritically, but using mainstream terminology that is generally agreed on by all parties. (The distinction between sex and gender is mainstream in transgender rights activism.) 73.213.210.100 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The language used in the lead reflects the language used in the article body, which in turn reflects the language used by our sources. The body states The organization has litigated against transgender employment protections, access to bathrooms, and participation in sports for transgender people. citing NBC News, which uses similar language. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Criminalising gay acts/gays

NorthBySouthBaranof, if there is in your opinion no real difference between criminalising specific sexual acts and criminalising 'gayness' or 'gay people' - why did you replace my change? My text was based on precisely what the SPLC (hardly an apologist for ADF) says: "Alliance Defending Freedom … has: Supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. …"

I appreciate that there is an almost negligible moral - and little practical - difference between the two, but changed the text in the interests of accuracy, since this is how the sources used describe the proposed law changes. Also because otherwise it suggests something inherently impossible - taking people to court simply on some vague notion of them being gay. To me your text does not read like a straightforward, neutral, factual account. I reiterate, my interest is in factual accuracy, I have zero sympathy with ADF's aims in this or other respects, but we are writing a WP article, not campaigning against these law changes. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

POV statements

It is important to note that the cited source for the child custody case in the UK never says that the father is gay. It says that ADF argued in favor of the mother's custody and that the father has a same-sex partner. Elizium23 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that we have no way of knowing whether the man with a same-sex partner is gay? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Could be bisexual, or probably lots of other variations most people, including me, are unfamiliar with. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you confusing gay and homosexual? heterosexual–homosexual is a continuum, Gay-straight is a dichotomy with both homosexuals and bisexuals being on the "gay" side. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, I was not aware of that definition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying; the law says a man may marry another man, while the law is silent on whether those men must be attracted/attractive to each other or sexually involved. WP:OR to declare same-sex partners as gay and a WP:BLP problem as well. Elizium23 (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, you really do come from a different age. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

One or both of the two people in pairings who couldn't get married if ADF had its way might be asexual, non-binary, transgender, gay/lesbian, bisexual or still self-questioning. (And yes, it makes pre-nuptial counseling more complicated for the clergy; I speak from experience.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"focused on restricting rights and protections for LGBTQ people"?

That ADF opposes LGBTQ rights is indisputable and that this is one of their most controversial policy areas/legal practices, but "focused on" in the opening sentence does not seem proportionate. We are implying not only that they do oppose gay rights, but that restricting those rights is their primary area of activity. Even the source used doesn't claim this. Pincrete (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we need a colon ":" after "focused on" or a different word to make the reader understand that their policy goals are concurrent and equally weighted? ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the constant negative framing and the insistence on framing these issues from one WP:POV. The judgementalism and partisanship displayed by editors who force their political framing this way is shining through in this article, especially in light of recent edits and expansions. It's reprehensible that POV is pushed, and pushed, and pushed more by those who continually return to the most liberal progressive sources they can get their hands on and claim that all the RS are framing it that way. It is laughable and Wikipedia is a laughingstock to everyone who doesn't share your socio-political viewpoints. Elizium23 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Neutral point of view" does not mean we treat all points of view equally; rather, NPOV means that we weight viewpoints based upon their prevalence in reliable sources. The point of view that it should be legal to fire transgender people merely because they are transgender is, indeed, a minority view in reliable sources; similarly, the point of view that homosexuality should be a criminal offense is a minority view in reliable sources. I'm sorry that you are sad that we have, as a society, moved beyond imprisoning consenting adults for loving other consenting adults. I know that you want to use government power to impose and enforce your particular personal views of morality upon those of us who do not share them; we will continue to resist any such attempt, and to accurately describe such people and such groups as "homophobic" or as being in favor of "restricting rights and protections for LGBTQ people." How else would you describe a group which argued before the Supreme Court that "same-sex sodomy is a distinct public health problem" and therefore should be a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it also means that you prejudge reliability of sources by your ideological litmus tests, and by selective review of them you come to foregone conclusions that all the reliable world agrees with your viewpoints as you wish to force them into the public square like this. Now I've been accused of personally attacking people and I have no idea who I've attacked, but you've gotten quite personal and unambiguously attacked me now too, so this is a quite unproductive discussion, isn't it? Elizium23 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

By its own statements, the ADF believes - and actively attempts to have its beliefs enforced as law - that I should be declared a felon and put in prison because the love of my life is another man, that I should be unable to declare my love for that man in marriage, and that it should be legal and indeed encouraged to fire me, evict me, and otherwise treat me as a pariah for no other reason than that the love of my love is another man. That Wikipedia accurately describes these beliefs and actions as "restricting rights and protections for LGBTQ people" is not going to change. If you want to pretend that "freedom" means the "freedom" to put gay people in prison because your mythological sky being says so, then Conservapedia is thataway ----> and you're welcome to use it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't doubt that this is a policy of ADF, nor that it is among the more controversial and emotive of their policies. It is simply a WEIGHT and accuracy question as to whether 'focused on' is apt. Among all the 'Christian' beliefs which they seek to enshrine in law/religious rights which they seek to defend (depending on one's perspective) - is opposing gay rights really their focus? It is certainly a significant belief of theirs, but compared to abortion law/ religious expression -especially in public life and education/ tax status for religious organisations, etc., is opposing gay rights really their raison d'etre, and do most sources say it is? Pincrete (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume there is room in this article to place the group's opposition to same-sex marriage etc within the group's wider focus? I have added detail I trust helps do this. Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Uncritically quoting the organization's self-description, using meaningless catchphrases such as "sanctity of life" doesn't seem helpful. We already discuss that the organization is anti-abortion, which is the accepted NPOV descriptive term on Wikipedia. "Pro-life," as with "pro-choice" are deprecated euphemisms. (Does ADF oppose capital punishment? No? So much for thr "sanctity of life," they endorse premeditated murder by the state.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof. I see your point about using the full phrase but I think it would be valid to included the bit about them providing 'legal services to protect religious freedom' - that is clearly the bulk of what they do as a quick check of the current cases they are fighting makes clear. Regards Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Clearly their focus is not on religious freedom in general but on an extremely narrow definition of Christian religious practice. They won't even hire non-Christians or ones whose doctrinal authority they disagree with. They're as much a religious freedom organization as the Taliban is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Horse Eye's Back, perhaps you failed to notice Holt v Hobbs (2015) in which ADF filed an amicus brief to support the religious rights of a Muslim prisoner? I'm not aware of the Taliban ever acting in support of the religious rights of Christians. That aside, I'm sure we agree that we should be guided by the evidence from sources rather than by our personal views. Regards Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

They file amicus briefs in a lot of cases, amicus briefs are as much about getting your views in front of the court as they are about a given case. Its completely insignificant and doesn't speak at all to the issues raised. BTW the Taliban does ironically claim to protect the rights of religious minorities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This is all a bit off-topic as to whether the main focus of ADF's activity is opposing gay rights, which is how the text reads at present, especially with this topic in 'pole' position. Pincrete (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You make a great point. However, Wikipedia has long abandoned its stance as a neutral encyclopedia of facts and taken a hard-left position on nearly everything. It’s quite sad, as a once very active editor, to open an article and see such strongly biased wording as is sprinkled throughout this article, and regular editors defending it on this talk page. It is sad, but I am glad I gave up on this misinformation site long ago. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 03:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC) – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 03:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That ADF opposes matters such as gay marriage, and helps recriminalization in some countries (for example), are clearly notable matters and should be included. My concerns were twofold, firstly that we should be as specific as possible about what LGB(QT) matters ADF opposes and secondly that I question whether LGB(QT) issues are at the top of their agenda, or what they are mainly known for, relative to abortion law and possibly church-state relations. Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Last paragraph in lead

As I read it, too many specifics are packed into the lead's last paragraph, especially one sentence of it, making it awkward. We don't need to mention every specific ADF policy in the lead, which is supposed be a general overview of the article. The ADF's general hostility to LGBTQ rights should be mentioned, but without the laundry list of specific policy positions which would be better left to the body of the article. Goodtablemanners (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I do think it would be better if shortened. I'd like to see something like "ADF has taken numerous anti-LGBTQ legal positions, including example 1 and example 2. Of the existing examples, I'm not overly picky, but I'd suggest "opposition to same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination protections in employment". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you removed the substance of the anti-transgender rights cases brought by ADF-- who are driving the nation-wide litigation campaign to restrict trans peoples' rights. Sentence improved, yes, but at the cost of removing all the specifics other than anti-discrimination policies. I'll come back to it, just noting that it would be preferable to consider which examples were kept in, and which were deleted. Eikko (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Associated people

Alliance Defending Freedom#Associated people is getting long. Any interest in developing some inclusion criteria for the list? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO almost everything in that section is OR or undue, I would challenge the inclusion of the list rather than develop some criteria for a list that shouldn't exist in the first place. If someone's association was significant then it should be in the history section instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed.if no one objects, maybe we remove it and copy it here for review. Could be some names should be incorporated into the body text. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The ones with secondary coverage are Tony Abbott, Amy Coney Barrett, Lisa Biron, David A. French, Josh Hawley, Mike Johnson, Michael J. Juneau, Mike Pence, Allison Jones Rushing, Jeff Sessions, and Doug Wardlow in most of which the ADF only gets a passing mention. I would note that as currently constructed the list seems to mostly duplicate Category:Alliance Defending Freedom people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Lisa Biron in list of people associated

Regarding the reinstatement of Lisa Biron on the list of 'Associated people'. Sorry, I'm no friend of ADF, but frankly this looks like a bad case of "guilt by association". One of the two sources used doesn't mention ADF, simply details the fairly odious crimes of this child-sexual-abuser. The other source. at the end of an article about her crimes and sentence, says simply that 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." No indication of the nature or depth of the "worked with" - simply some routine legal work AFA we know.

If a cleaner at ADF does a bank robbery, are we going to list them as 'associated with' ADF? If we cannot come up with sources indicating the extent of the link, shouldn't this just go? Pincrete (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has defended the inclusion of Biron. There is a single WP:RS "associating" her with ADF, but it is vague to the point of being pointless. I'm afraid to me the inclusion reeks of "ADF being guilty by associating with a sex offender" - though to what degree or how she is linked to them is not known. The implication is that ADF should have somehow spotted her offensive behaviour, even though neighbours and her local police didn't. It fails WP:WEIGHT if nothing else dus to the paucity of coverage. Pincrete (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry P. I meant to reply and point you toward the discussion above. We're thinking to remove most of the list. Biron is one of the few associated with the group by a secondary source. Cutting down via that inclusion criterion seems like the best first step, but we could certainly consider additional criteria. I worry about "guilt by association" as a disqualifier unless we are careful to disqualify the "credit by association" list items as well. Does that make sense? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Either debit or credit should be a reasonable degree of definable connection IMO - otherwise they are both fairly pointless. Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the list entries include the specific association that links the person to this group: I think that is a good way to do this; Biron's does not. Barr's likely goes too far because his link is: "William Barr, ... ADF Award recipient in 2021" - if we list all award recipients, that will likely be an excessively long list. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree in that without knowing how Biron links to ADF, her entry here is pointless. Since the press coverage seems so thin, the likelihood is that her link is very tenuous. Pincrete (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Alliance defending freedom

There is so much I love about Wikipedia- and I have donated. But how discouraging it was today to read such a biased description of their work on your page. You must know all the good work they do regarding human rights- trying to keep people from being executed for their faith for example-so to begin your description the way you do makes me feel like you are only honest about those who agree with your political bent. I knew Wikipedia was left, but I expect honesty from you, not bias. Guess I was being naive to think you would be objective in your reporting. The point is that we who believe in the scriptural view of morality have a right also- a right to our conscience and our perspective on right and wrong. I suppose caring about a conservative’s view of your reporting would be alot to ask. I had thought your ready info was so valuable, and it is in so many ways. But please reconsider describing an organization based on your own judgement of them- objectivity in reporting. 2603:6080:B700:D28A:1074:80C6:BB37:3146 (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi anonymous 2603,

You are of course just as entitled to work on editing this article from a neutral point of view as the rest of us! For example, I don't know what prevention of executions you are referring to, but that would certainly be worth including here in my opinion. Yakásimba (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is based on reliable sources, and we just depict them as they depict them. If you have reliable sources talking about those things you think they do, bring them. If you don't, maybe you should reconsider your opinion about ADF. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/30/christian-hate-group-funding-us-anti-lgbtq-anti-abortion-organizations

“Alliance Defending Freedom is a recognized anti-LGBTQ hate group working to build a movement of far-right legal groups to force a dangerous, unpopular agenda on Americans,” said Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, a progressive organization which researches the finances and activities of special interest groups.

The Alliance Defending Freedom’s goal is to strip Americans of their rights and undermine democracy

“From ADF’s involvement with a supreme court case contesting critical LGBTQ rights to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding ADF has granted to anti-democratic organizations, ADF’s goal is to strip Americans of their rights and undermine democracy.” 69.145.60.142 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cherrell410 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The text is the opinion of Kyle Herrig of Accountable.US and could only be rendered in the article as Herrig's opinion. Whether the organisation has sufficient WP:WEIGHT to 'deserve' to have the opinion included is something I don't know, as I'm not a U.S. person. I just thought I'd explain how things worked here. Pincrete (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed "Disputed" template from See also section

The link to Christian nationalism had a dispute template that I removed. The template gives the impression that ADF is not associated with Christian nationalism which the SPLC has specially stated the opposite. ADL is a Christian nationalist organization and it allies with and works with other Christian nationalist groups. Further, the aims and goals of the ADF are identical to the well-known ideas of Christian nationalism. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Quite frankly, this should be stated in the lead, and not left to a tangential link at the bottom. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 01:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere in the source AFAI can see is it claimed that ADL is a Christian nationalist organization. The international arm does collaborate with some non-US orgs that are overtly ChrNat. However I think that is academic anyhow - ADF's aims are identified as sufficiently close to ChrNat ones for this to be a legitimate "See also" IMO. Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This article isn't one I'm editing, but this may be a useful source

Texas Judge Orders Airline Lawyers to Take Training From Far-Right Hate Group Doug Weller talk 09:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Making assertions that are opinion - or based upon biased opinion by a biased third party

Example: This --> "...within public schools and in government, outlaw abortion and curtail the rights of LGBTQ people. Could be this --> "...within public schools and in government, and outlaw abortion." An organization defending freedom is by definition one that is NOT seeking to curtail the 'rights' of ANYyone. This false statement about LGBTQ people's rights is nothing more than an opinion and assertion (not backed by facts) from a biased, and possibly racist, Southern Poverty Law Center whom you cite as the source for this slander. Wikipedia is often really good. But please stay away from leftist opinions - especially from radical organizations that only advocate for certain persons rights and freedoms. You're better than to allow that as part of these sources of information which are supposed to be fact(s) that is/are apolitical. Thanks. 160.3.207.21 (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

An organization defending freedom is by definition one that is NOT seeking to curtail the 'rights' of ANYyone. Well, I agree with that statement. But, it is well cited that is what they want to do. We don't control how they named themselves. You might notice that many organizations and numerous bills passed by both sides of the isle in Congress have names that are quite the opposite of what they are doing. So, we go by what reliable sources document, not by names groups give themselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"An organization defending freedom is by definition one that is NOT seeking to curtail the 'rights' of ANYyone"

Hmm let's see:

• They have financially supported attempts to keep homosexual acts as a crime in a number of countries.
• They have opposed the right for same sex couples to have marriages or even civil unions.
• They have supported the mandatory sterilisation of transgender people.

Of course they are trying to curtail the rights of LGBT people. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

And the conclusion is that their name is misleading and has misled the IP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

SPLC “hate group” designation is leftist opinion, and should be deleted. 2600:1700:FE70:4200:C16B:29B5:6BC0:BA90 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The view that they are a hate group is attributed to the SPLC, which is per Wikipedia policy. It would only be poor form if the page was stating 'ADF is a hate group' without clarifying the origin of said view. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Recriminalization vs Retention of Criminalization

This article states that the ADF was trying to recriminalize sodomy in 2003, while according to a different article by the same source (SPLC) the ADF was defending continued criminalization.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/24/alliance-defending-freedom-through-years

Looking at Lawrence v Texas also confirms this, as the appeal to the Supreme Court was made by Lawrence, not Texas. Therefore "Criminalization" is a more accurate word for what the ADF defended than "recriminalization". Owlblocks (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Employee oath

The following sentence in the article links to a sort of 'faith statement' on ADF's own website: "While the ADF states that it works to promote freedom of religion, it is a fundamentalist Christian organization, and employees must profess "adherence to the inspired, infallible, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God in Scripture."

Needless to say the page on the ADF website doesn't describe itself as 'fundamentalist', doesn't mention employees in any context - and more specifically not any religious oath they must profess and the statement of faith quoted is pretty much what any mainstream Christian organisation would profess as its 'base-line' (the truth of the Bible). The sentence quoted is anyway little more than the pre-amble to ADF endorsing the Credo - the basic statement of faith common to almost all 'mainstream/traditional' branches of Christianity since the 4th century ("I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, … etc). Saying that ADF believes this stuff is about as revelatory as saying that a Muslim believes in Allah and the Koran.

Additionally the implication made by effectively saying "While it claims to be a defender of religious freedom, it actually believes in and enforces a narrow definition of that freedom", while it may be a valid criticism of ADF, is clearly WP:OR when sourced to its own website. The stuff about an employees' oath appears to be pure invention.

What, if any of this is saveable if better sourced?

References

Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed some sections

Hi,

Want to expand on why I removed the following sections:

While the ADF states that it works to promote freedom of religion, it is a fundamentalist Christian organization, and employees must profess "adherence to the inspired, infallible, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God in Scripture."^{[ failed verification ]} Its stated mission is to "keep the door open for the gospel" by bringing United States law in line with Christian beliefs. ADF nevertheless maintains the position that it is "not a political organization."

- The only source for this is the tax return, which does not support the claims. Additionally, the way it's currently structured is WP:SYNTH.

One of ADF's goals is for Christianity to be incorporated into the US legal system, based on the organization leaders' interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

- Unsourced. Pinkslimo (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarify they've been described as a hate group?

The ADF has been described as a hate group by NBC News, the Southern Poverty Law Center, politicalresearch.org, citizensforethics.org, democracyforward.org, and many, many more. A paragraph on "controversies" might be useful. 2003:EC:D71B:409A:BD9C:2427:17D8:9200 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Why? Is there anything controversial about the description, except that they do not like it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

SPLC does not meet the wikipedia:NPOV guidelines, but are still limited to as "labeled". Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@LellyhatesanimalsNo point in replying to a 6 month old thread. In any case, it is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. But it should always be attributed. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of also getting involved in this "old news" post - who is it that considers the SPLC "generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States"? This piece from WaPo casts a fairly critical eye over that, particularly with reference to the ADF (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/11/08/feature/is-the-southern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/). And, perhaps more predictably, the NYP (https://nypost.com/2023/06/08/southern-poverty-law-center-should-include-itself-on-its-hate-list/). But the status and reliability of the "hate groups" list is certainly a matter of non-trivial ongoing public controversy, which should (I think) give Wikipedia editors pause before pasting "designated a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center" all over articles, even attributed. Hank Stamper (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SPLC. Those entries are the result of consensus from WP:RSN board. That noticeboard is the proper place for the discussion you posted here. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

As long as it does not change the overall neutralistic narrative of Wikipedia. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a "overall neutralistic narrative" I think you need to read WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but due to the ongoing controversy, as Mr. Stamper said, to ensure the neutrality of Wikipedia, editors need to investigate any kind of bias that is put on the overall article of the SPLC before doing anything to them right away. In my opinion, not a reliable neutralistic sources only if an organisations "disagrees with SPLC". But the overall quality of the SPLC-related works remains fine, but only if they are encountering serious hate groups. The rest are history. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there are many more biases in the Wikipedia article excluding SPLC or the ADF, including what I remember is the Croatian cases. Good thing is, It's already dead. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Did the Guardian just copy the this article's intro?

Article from March 13, 2023: Trump-appointed judge limits information on medication abortion lawsuit | US news | The Guardian

"The lawsuit was brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which seeks to limit rights for LGBTQ+ people, expand Christian practices in public schools and outlaw abortion."

Wikipedia article revision as of March 1, 2023:

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group that works to curtail rights for LGBTQ people; expand Christian practices within public schools and in government; and outlaw abortion.

Not sure what to feel about Guardian editors borrowing from wikipedia... Pinkslimo (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

They are allowed to copy text if they follow these rules.[1] But this small a piece of text, assuming it was copied, is really minor. O3000, Ret. (talk) O3000, Ret.

I am not concerned about copyright issues. The problem is that Wikipedia would not work if the sources we are supposed to be citing turn out to be relying on us. This leads to Citogenesis (https://xkcd.com/978). Plus, the sentence borrowed was basically the summary of the entire subject (in some sense, the **essence** of this article), not some minor detail easily fact-checkable. A future Wiki contributor might unwittingly cite this Guardian article as a source. Pinkslimo (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, @Pinkslimo. I'm not at all concerned about copyright. (And to be completely honest, I'm a little flattered, and glad that working on wikipedia does what it's supposed to do: make information more accessible.)

You're right, though, that it's a bit concerning. Not just Guardian either-- I saw quite a few news articles about Johnson being elected Speaker that made me think the journalists had read wikipedia. I hope that they at least checked out the underlying references!

At least this is a well-referenced page, and that particular statement is very general, so easy to back up elsewhere... But, yeah, it's well-referenced based on established news sources... like the Guardian. Hmm. Yakásimba (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"supporting ... traditional opposite-sex marriages"

In the opening sentence, the ADF is described as "mainly known for litigations supporting public religious practices, traditional opposite-sex marriages, and outlawing abortion.[7][8]" That language doesn't seem very straight forward and doesn't seem to be well supported by the accompanying citations. I think it would be more accurate to say "supporting public religious practices, opposing same-sex marriages, and outlawing abortion."

I think "supporting ... traditional opposite-sex marriages" straightforwardly reads as though there was a legal force threatening to ban or limit "traditional opposite-sex marriage" and the ADF was fighting to oppose it, or something more along those lines. It seems like the term "supporting ... traditional opposite-sex marriages" is being used euphemistically here to refer to something else, ie. ADF's opposition to same-sex marriages.

In the [7] citation, similar language about ADF working "for traditional marriage" is used, but they also repeatedly frame things in terms of opposition to same-sex marriage. The [8] citation just mentions the ADF getting involved "in cases designed to recognize same-sex marriage".

I think it is clearer to talk about the ADF opposing same-sex marriage instead of using language about them 'supporting traditional marriage' as a way to imply that they are against non-traditional forms of marriage or expansion as to what is recognized as marriage. This feels like beating around the bush. I am new to Wikipedia though and I don't really know how things like this are handled for politically controversial topics, so please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding something or being unfair here. Team-Humananity (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The strange phrasing was added today, in a rather tendentious edit here. I have reverted. The same user has made further changes to the article, which probably could do with scrutiny also, but I don't have the time. Bishonen | tålk 14:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC).

Now looking at it, I agree that the original phrasing of my edit was unnecessarily euphemistic, and using "opposing same-sex marriages" is much clearer. I can change the wording to "supporting public religious practices, opposing same-sex marriages, and outlawing abortion" as suggested. My main issue with the current wording is that "expand Christian practices within public schools and in government" is not supported by sources (the inline sources consist of a tax return and an article called "Alliance Defense Fund Promotes Religious Freedom") or the rest of the article. The word "expand" makes it appear the group is actively promoting such practices, but a more accurate description should be that it advocates "allowing religious practices with fewer restrictions"Pinkslimo (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources aren't necessary in the lead (though often used on contentious topics), since the lead is a summary of the article. So the question is whether "expand Christian practices within public schools and in government" is an acceptable summary of the relevant sections of the body and whether those sections are properly cited. On a fairly cursory look, I would say it is a reasonable summary]], though ADF tends to speak of 'religious', rather than 'Christian'. Pincrete (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion that, since ADF tends to publicly speak of 'religious freedom' rather than Christian practices, we should use their terms.

It really depends which statements you're looking at. On their own website, their non-profit mission statement filed with the IRS, etc., it's very explicitly Christian. I lean towards using their own statements (not so much in public when they talk about legal strategies) that they want to spread the Gospel-- meaning, specifically, Christian gospel.

When they say "religious freedom" it's because that's the legal framework they can rely on to expand the rights of Christians to do religious things in secular/public spheres.

As reflected in the causes they actually litigate--I can't think of a case where they were protecting the rights of a member/org of any another religion. The cases they win and bills they write do sometimes have the secondary effect of changing the laws governing what other religious organizations can do. Thoughts?

Also -- if anyone locates cases where they're fighting for non-Christian religious freedom, please add / source / I'd be happy to write about it... Yakásimba (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I was recording, but not suggesting we 'echo' their terminology. I agree that they aren't exactly famous for defending the rights of non-christian religions! Pincrete (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

References

SPLC is activist propaganda

Regardless of what the noticeboard says about SPLC generally, the fact that this article seriously entertains the SPLC as a "reliable source" for this specific article tells me all I need to know about the editors' POV and/or judgment. This is like citing material from a tobacco company website in an article on lung cancer -- pure public relations in pursuit of an agenda. How can editors not see that it's a wholly inappropriate source for this article?

Please read ADF's response to being labeled by SPLC, in particular the quote from Nadine Strossen, former President of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Please note I'm not advocating that we softball any description of what ADF does generally. There are other sources that substantiate some subset of the things that SPLC claims, and that's all fine. I'm only claiming that all SPLC refs should be deleted as unreliable for this topic, and any claims sourced solely from SPLC should be removed, especially claims that are demonstrably false.

Please step outside yourself for a moment and realize how it looks to a wide swath of the population that Wikipedia includes SPLC as a prominent source on this article. It's like coming to an article on Israeli foreign policy expecting a factual description and getting a large chunk of Hamas POV. If your goal is to maintain high standards for encyclopedic content, do better. If it's to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia generally, then I guess you're doing just fine. 136.62.250.241 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Please read ADF's response to being labeled by SPLC"

And the ADF's response also strikes me as propaganda. I don't much trust the SPLC's classifications, but look at this quote from ADF's own website:

Ensuring the law respects God’s created order for marriage, the family, and human sexuality.

We advocate for laws and precedents that promote human flourishing by recognizing the important differences between men and women and honoring God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman.<meta />

<meta />

"God's design" has (or should have) nothing to do with what government does. There is no official religion for the United States. The First Amendment explicitly forbids it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that no one wants to go to the first part of the ADF Legal quoting an employee of the SPLC saying the SPLC is

"nothing but a scam", and progressives stating that the SPLC is "everything that is wrong with liberalism".

I would like to know of ANY Right leaning news sources that is allowed as RS, so I can research what their view of the SPLC is. Anyone have a list? 2603:8080:3E00:8D13:DD7B:DBD6:96B9:5284 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)