Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:American Family Association: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MPWikiEdits (talk | contribs)
284 edits
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit
Line 105: Line 105:
:::::No way. The lead section must summarize the main points discussed in the article body. The SPLC finding is very important to the topic – critically so. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::No way. The lead section must summarize the main points discussed in the article body. The SPLC finding is very important to the topic – critically so. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::SPLC's listing is absolutely okay. It is the details on it in the lead that I am referring to above. –[[User:MPWikiEdits|<span style="color:DarkBlue"><b>MP</b></span><span style="color:#999900">Wiki</span><span style="color:Green">Edits</span>]] <small>([[User_talk:MPWikiEdits|questions?]])</small> 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::SPLC's listing is absolutely okay. It is the details on it in the lead that I am referring to above. –[[User:MPWikiEdits|<span style="color:DarkBlue"><b>MP</b></span><span style="color:#999900">Wiki</span><span style="color:Green">Edits</span>]] <small>([[User_talk:MPWikiEdits|questions?]])</small> 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::::The only detail in the lead related to the SPLC is the rather extraordinary reason why they are considered a hate group: for the "propagation of known falsehoods" and the use of "demonizing propaganda" against LGBT people". Those 15 words hardly seem excessive given the substantial coverage of that aspect of the subject. - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:28, 18 January 2018

Edit warring

A floating IP user has been repeatedly inserting the same edits, including changing sourced descriptors. I cannot count on them seeing notices on the talk page for any given IP. As such, I raise the notice here that they are clearly edit warring, that they are on the edge of violating our three-revert rule. All of the changes being made are problematic; the changes to describe someone as an "Islamist" is a violation of our WP:BLP policy. The user has already been told repeatedly to take their changes to this talk page, and has stated their intention not to comply, claiming that they are a source. I suggest that that user read our guide to reliable sources; clearly, "anonymous Internet user" does not rise to that level. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on this as well. If it continues, we can request page protection. - MrX 14:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I have now filed same. I was just giving a warning before doing so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on American Family Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on American Family Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Family Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical lead sentence

The third lead sentence of this article reads that the American Family Association (AFA) is listed as a hate group. First of all, why does this notorious truth need to be in the lead? Is it not present down in the "Hate group listing" section? As far as I am concerned, the lead should not be very critical of the article's subject. If this fact must be preserved in the lead, it should be showing less criticism. I just think that this sentence makes the AFA look obnoxious. It is not about "whitewashing" because I left the fact that the SPLC listed AFA as a hate group. Providing a reason in the lead makes those who read it believe that the AFA is a notorious organization. Any comments on this issue are welcome, provided that they are not harsh or critical of this topic. Thank you. –MPWikiEdits (questions?) 16:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not out goal to only given a positive view of the subjects of our articles. That a fact is somewhere else in the article does not preclude it from being in the lead; indeed, the goal of the lead is to summarize the content below. And the AFA does indeed have some notoriety.
As for your suggestion that comments that are critical of the topic are not welcome: they may not be welcomed by you, but that hardly seems a filter that is appropriate to the content discussion, where truths about the AFA that may be uncomfortable to you may be well within the topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing information about the lead in this article. I understand your reasoning, but why should the lead expound on SPLC's listing of AFA? It is completely acceptable to mention in the lead that the SPLC lists AFA as a hate group since that is a well-known truth, but why add detail about it in the lead when that is already provided in the section "Hate group listing" (which I linked above)? Sure, AFA has gained notoriety (which is fine to include in the lead) but why give more detail on that in the lead?
Regarding the comments that are welcome in this discussion, I meant that anyone who provides information here should be constructive. Comments that are not helpful in solving this issue are not acceptable in this discussion. –MPWikiEdits (questions?) 19:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :::See WP:LEAD. I also have a problem with the sentence in that it simply isn't enough. If the lead summarises the article and the article has so much criticism, perhaps it should include more than just the SPLC mention. I don't see anything above that isn't appropriate.. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)If you wish to suggest some shorter version of it, feel free, but I don't think the level of detail included in the single sentence there is particularly deep, and if anything it softens the edges of their listed-as-a-hate-group status, as by being specific about the reasons for their listings it pushes away from a range of assumptions that may occur when one sees the hate group listing mentioned.
Meanwhile, launching into a discussion by announcing what is acceptable in a discussion comes across less as an attempt to grow a fertile discussion and more as an attempt to annouce yourself as the acceptability police, which is at best a distraction from the discussion, if not an outright discouragement of it. You may wish to reconsider that strategy in the future. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. I do not wish to tackle this problem further. I have already given my insight and still believe that the detail on SPLC's listing should be reserved to the section cited above. That is, in the lead, instead of


"AFA has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as of November 2010 for the 'propagation of known falsehoods' and the use of 'demonizing propaganda' against LGBT people."


I think it should read something like:


"AFA has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)."


with detail on that sentence to be left to the aforementioned section.
Feel free to give your last word before I close this discussion. I will not alter this lead sentence in the future. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to know.
As for the issue on my "discussion filter", I apologize. I just wanted commenters here to know that this is not a place to complain, but rather to provide useful information. If you think that my notice should not be written in future discussions, I can agree to that but I would see a discussion as unhelpful should such comments arise. Thanks for understanding and for your information. –MPWikiEdits (questions?) 20:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No way. The lead section must summarize the main points discussed in the article body. The SPLC finding is very important to the topic – critically so. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SPLC's listing is absolutely okay. It is the details on it in the lead that I am referring to above. –MPWikiEdits (questions?) 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only detail in the lead related to the SPLC is the rather extraordinary reason why they are considered a hate group: for the "propagation of known falsehoods" and the use of "demonizing propaganda" against LGBT people". Those 15 words hardly seem excessive given the substantial coverage of that aspect of the subject. - MrX 🖋 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F821185247