Talk:Liberty Counsel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Fact tag

" The firm has made a significant contribution to the free expression defense in religious establishment cases, as well as promoting religious tolerance and the tolerance of religion in the public square.[citation needed]"

removed this as it is POV.

(Elephant53 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Restored as Fact tag needs time to work. Perhaps there is a reliable source to make that statement. The Fact tag is designed to allow time for someone to find that source. If all such statements having Fact tags applied were treated as this one, a lot of potentially accurate information would be stripped from Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The fact tag was there for a month and half, and as written the claim is clearly POV. To be replaced, it needs to be written as something like "<notable editorialist> argues that ... <citation>" —EqualRights (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree. And that's a better approach than merely striking it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Death Panel

I do not understand why informing the fact that Liberty Council is the source of the term "Death Panel", which went wildly viral, has been reverted. Will whoever did the reversion please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.40.24 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Was the problem the nature of the link?

www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/11/765163/-Far-right-religious-group-behind-outrageous-health-care-lies

Which could be understandable, If so I'll find a more neutral link.

The statement that Liberty Council is the source of the Death Panel phrase, is a very interesting fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.40.24 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

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

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

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

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

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

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

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest persuing your goal of removing the cat through a CfD discussion. --Joe Decker (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I've attempted to improve article coverage with WP:V data making the placement in the category more clear. Hope that helps! --Joe Decker (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

SPLC

I removed the SPLC's "anti-gay crusade" characterization because it comes from a primary source and is not notable. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement is properly attributed and SPLC is clearly notable, being referenced repeatedly by mainstream news organizations [1] (and included in an FBI partnership [2]). Obtain consensus before removing. AV3000 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Hate group" label

The SPLC does not give evidence for Liberty Counsel being either anti-gay or a hate group. The SPLC further does not give evidence that the lobbyists it describes as an "ant-gay crusade" are either working togdther or part of a conspiracy. That said, someone not approving of gay marriage neither implies hate speech, hatred of gays, being anti-gay, or being part of a hate group. Furthermore, the labeling of one lobbyist group as a hate group by another lobbyist group (SPLC) that could, by its own standards, be labelled a hate group is dishonest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a billboard. Oct13 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We should not label the subject as a hate-group in Wikipedia's voice, but it is noteworthy fact that a major civil rights organization has made such a designation. See these sources: [3][4][5][6]. Also, the SPLC is not a lobbyist group.- MrX 19:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
After review, it appears that the reference to Liberty Counsel as a hate group is appropriate. The paragraph on LC being a hate group is located with the criticism section and clearly identified as a position held by SPLC. The SPLC's position is supported by a valid citation.
SPLS is notable enough within the area of human rights to be treated as reference within the context of this article. Tenason (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
SPLC is a self-publishing website. And the so-called "valid citation" is:
In 2009, J. Matt Barber, formerly with Concerned Women for America and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (see above for both), joined Liberty Counsel as director of cultural affairs (also becoming Liberty University’s associate dean for career and professional development). A year earlier, Barber had argued that given “medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality,” it should be considered “criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative.” The Counsel also has been active in battling same-sex marriage, saying it would destroy the “bedrock of society.” In 2005, the group’s blog said: “People who … support the radical homosexual agenda will not rest until marriage has become completely devalued. Children will suffer most from this debauchery.” A 2007 blog posting said same-sex marriage would “severely impact future generations.” Like other anti-gay groups, Liberty Counsel argues that hate crime laws are “actually ‘thought crimes’ laws that violate the right to freedom and of conscience” — an opinion rejected by the Supreme Court. In fact, the laws raise penalties for crimes already on the books — assault, murder and so on — that were motivated by hatred of people based on their sexual orientation. They do not, and could not under the Constitution, punish people for voicing opinions. Since 2006, Liberty Counsel has also run its “Change is Possible” campaign with Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays to protect people who say they’ve changed from gay to straight from “discrimination” by “intolerant homosexuals.”
No citations at all, merely hearsay. Where is the evidence to back up these claims? None!
Oct13 (talk)
Self-publishing websites are against Wikipedia guidelines. Oct13 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
There is long-standing consensus for using the SPLC's website as a reliable source. They have quite a bit of credibility in this area. They are a recognized authority on hate groups.- MrX 20:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. We use RS, and we generally don't allow personal OR in demanding or analyzing that content. We simply document that SPLC makes that claim. It's their POV. They consider it a fact, and others may not agree. So what? We don't care. We are more concerned with verifiability than truth, because, in matters of POV and opinion, one man's truth is another man's error, and Wikipedia's job is to document all of it.
Their claim that LC operates "an anti-gay crusade" is obviously true from the actions and purpose of LC. While LC will likely claim that as Christians they don't "hate" anyone, the rest of the world sees their actions as hateful, and SPLC lists them as a hate group. Wikipedia takes no position on the matter, but we just do our duty to document their POV. What LC does with that information is their own business, and they don't get to keep such information out of this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It should be stated as in the opinion of the SPLC. This is generally the note such a thing. I think this meets the request of the vast majority of the people who have commented on this thread so I will take it upon myself implement a solution accordingly. --23:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuediiX (talk • contribs)

Misrepresenting Truth

It might be appropriate to add a section under criticism about examples when LC has misrepresented the truth ie nature of the interaction of the pope with Kim Davis and 100,000 person gathering in Peru in support of Kim Davis. Tenason (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

We should probably avoid sources that are just focused on that incident; if it's discussed within the context of some larger coverage of the LC, then that shows weight. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it has not been covered very extensively in the mainstream media. Staver claimed that there was a "miscommunication with the Peruvian authorities who gave him the photo".- MrX 03:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks. I am not a wikipedian by trade.... So I am not sure exactly how the rules works. Tenason (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

COI editing?

I noticed that some changes were made to this article by two new SPAs. The edits have made the article less neutral using unreliable sources and by removing of some properly-sourced content critical of the subject. I'm opening this section so that these WP:BOLD edits can be discussed and any conflicts of interest can be properly disclosed.- MrX 20:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes this appears to be an organized effort to silence criticism of Liberty Counsel. But, in all fairness, SPLC edits articles on their site ( https://www.splcenter.org/ ). In the months that I have monitored this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Counsel) there have been a couple of times that a citation seemed valid when I first checked. When checking again the citation was no longer valid.
Just an FYI that the SPLC site is not static. It is evolving as this story evolves. Tenason (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a page to discuss this article, not the SPLC (I'm guessing you don't mean their site but their Wikipedia article, of course the SPLC edits stuff on their website. If you think there's COI editing at their article, discuss it there, not here. Doug Weller (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
no, I think Tenason's saying that pages on the SPLC's website that this page uses as references have been in flux. -Nat Gertler (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. That's a good thing of course, but does mean a need to check references from time to time. Doug Weller (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
There are at least two major media sources -- CBS ( http://www.cbsnews.com/news/law-firm-labeled-hate-group-leading-kim-davis-crusade/ ) and AP ( http://bigstory.ap.org/article/21afaa02e8ec4effae8baac4aba23a63/law-firm-labeled-hate-group-leading-kim-davis-crusade ) -- that reported on SPLC having designated Liberty Counsel a hate group. I would propose writing a section called Controversies and including a brief paragraph based on that reporting, as well as the demand for retraction that Liberty Counsel made in reply to the reports ( http://www.advocate.com/media/2015/10/21/liberty-counsel-demands-ap-retract-kim-davis-story-calling-it-hate-group ). I will check back in 24 hours or so to see what comments there are and then post the section. Frankaustx (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I would avoid such a change, not only for the usual reasons for avoiding "controversies" sections discussed at WP:CSECTION, but because we're dealing with a group that paints itself as in a struggle for the culture, and thus by their nature the situations they enter into are almost inherently controversies; the section would eat the whole article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, but what about the section on that page titled "Organizations and corporations?" It seems that perhaps a section on the specific topic of Hate Group Designation would fall under that concept. There are well-documented sources, and not from the critics themselves, about this issue. Frankaustx (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure about a '"Organizations and corporations"' section. Do you intend it to include the content from Affiliates and Subsidiaries?
I was the one who moved the hate group listing content into the Positions section because Criticisms sections should be avoided per the MOS. Typically, the structure of these types of articles would include a history section, with material presented chronologically. If we were to follow that, then I would support a structure of:
  1. Lead
  2. History
  3. Positions
  4. Subsidiaries
  5. Publications
We could then move Affiliates, Programs, Cases and and the SPLC hate group listing under History, in chronological order. The content should be weighted according to it's coverage in sources, which means that most of the content in History would be be controversial in nature. - MrX 12:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't saying that this article should have an "Organizations and corporations" section; he was referring to WP:CORG, which said that a controversy section may be appropriate for organizations. However, my point stands that this group is by its nature adversarial and most of what it does could be deemed involvement in controversy, making such a section inappropriately all-consuming. If there is a section of the SPLC designation, it 1) will need to have more information than what we have now to justify a section; and 2) should be titled something besides "Hate Group designation" - perhaps "SPLC designation", as the SPLC coverage has a longer history than just the hate group designation (they were calling them an anti-gay group years earlier.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm - That's what happens when you edit Wikipedia before your first cup of coffee.- MrX 17:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Mission statement

I don't think it should be included once, let alone twice. Although it's just an essay, Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements, echoed by Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Article writing.

The 'avoid essay makes a number of points and should be read in its entirety, I'll just add a bit: "Additionally, a full mission statement appearing in a Wikipedia article, especially if it is lengthy, is seen by some Wikipedia editors as a "red flag" for a possible conflict of interest. This is because editors directly involved with the company or organization are generally those most interested in promoting awareness of the mission statement.

Mission statements generally suffer from some fundamental problems that are incompatible with Wikipedia style guidelines:

Doug Weller talk 16:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's OK to include it in the infobox only, and only because it's short.- MrX 17:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Rowan County clerk and Liberty Counsel

There's some ongoing stuff about their relationship.[7][8] Doug Weller talk 18:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Copying from her article, although the sources above are later:

Kentucky Attorney General's finding that Davis violated state Open Records Act

In March 2016, the Campaign for Accountability (CfA), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group, made a request to Davis for access to public records under the Kentucky Open Records Act, seeking copies of retainer agreements and lawyer-client engagement agreements between Davis and Liberty Counsel, the religious advocacy organization that represented Davis in the marriage-license dispute.[1][2] Liberty Counsel, which responded to the request on Davis' behalf, refused to comply, arguing that the documents were preliminary and private records not subject to the Act.[1] CfA appealed to the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, which under Kentucky law has the authority to make binding rulings on the Open Records Act,[1] and resubmitted its request to Davis' office in April 2016.[2]

In May 2016, the Attorney General's Office sought to privately review the records at issue to determine if an exemption applied, but Liberty Counsel refused to make most of the documents available for a private review.[1][2] In an opinion issued on June 30, 2016, the Attorney General's Office determined that Davis had violated the Open Records Act, saying that her conduct had the effect of "intentionally frustrating the attorney general's review of an open records request" which "would subvert the General Assembly's intent behind providing review by the attorney general."[1][2] Davis and Liberty Counsel may challenge the AG's decision in Kentucky Circuit Court, but have not indicated whether they will do so.[1]

Doug Weller talk 18:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f John Cheves, Kim Davis violated Open Records Act, attorney general says, Lexington Herald-Leader (July 5, 2016).
  2. ^ a b c d Morgan Watkins, AG opinion: Kim Davis violated Open Records Act, Courier-Journal (Louisville, Ky.) (July 6, 2016).
I think it would be worthwhile to include this in some form.- MrX 20:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Recently deleted edits

An editor has been posting on my talk page in regard to a recent reversion of their edits, and I am responding here so that others can see.

The addition to the Positions section was:

The organization represents students in public school who want to share cards with a religious message,[1] give a religious message at graduation,[2][3] or hold Christian club meetings in public schools.[4]

References

  1. ^ "Group Sues Schools Over Religious Cards". Retrieved 2016-08-05.
  2. ^ [http://www.wnd.com/2009/06/100274/ "Graduating students defy ACLU"]. WND. Retrieved 2016-08-05. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  3. ^ "» Some Florida high school students stand up for their faith at a graduation ceremony". uninews.com. Retrieved 2016-08-05.
  4. ^ "Florida high school student challenges district policy on religious groups | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition". www.firstamendmentcenter.org. Retrieved 2016-08-05.

The main problem is that most of this is redundant. The Florida graduation case is already covered down in the Activities section, as is the fact that they have sued over religious group meetings at public schools (via Wigg v. Sioux Falls School District). The sharing cards item would be better covered in cases if covered at all, but without seeing any result, it's uncertain that this is significant enough to include, and if it is, in should be more correctly describe (from the Tribune article, it didn't look as though they were representing "students", plural, as only one student is mentioned, and even then, are they representing the student or the parent?)

The editor also claimed that "the sources are reliable", which is true in some cases but not the other. The Tribune, for example, is, but WND is not, as a look at its history on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard will show you. Uninews looks pretty dubious as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

We also need to avoid this being a list of cases article, which has nee a basic problem here. My edit summary earlier might not have been clear enough. A single mention of a lawsuit isn't enough, we need to include only cases with some in depth discussions in several media or other sources. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Liberty Counsel. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed mention of SPLC in lead

I just removed the sentence about Southern Poverty Law Center's "hate list" which was in the lede. The SPLC's "hate list" is so sweeping in its criteria for inclusion on their list that Pres. Obama would have been on the list during his first term because he opposed same-sex marriage at that time. The criteria that SPLC uses doesn't comport with the definition of hate group here on WP. To call a group a "hate group" simply because they oppose same-sex marriage is a fringe view and should not be in the lede. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC does not put groups on their "hate group" list merely for opposing same-sex marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The SPLC website says that they don't do that, but in the case of Liberty Counsel they did just that. There is no evidence that Liberty Counsel has expressed or advocated hatred, hostility, or violence toward any gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. They just provide legal services related to cases involving same sex marriage and religious freedom. Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Historically, SPLC has been a respected organization, however, with the sweeping scope of their hate list and specifically with regard to the Liberty Counsel, their position is a fringe view, as I've demonstrated above. Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

They have described LGBT people as harmful, damaging, diseased, pedophiles and sexual molesters. They have fought against the lawful right of same sex partners to marry. They have misrepresented the science about sexual orientation. They accuse LGBT people of contributing to the decay of society. They have equated “the homosexual lobby” to terrorists.[9] Sounds like a hate group to me.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
That's it. False and demonizing propaganda, which has for a long time been their dividing line between "anti-gay group" and "hate group". They do not label all groups opposing same-sex marriage as "hate groups". --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: thanks for the clarification. @Sparkie82:, why did you say the SPLC called LC a hate group "simply because they oppose same-sex marriage"? Doug Weller talk 17:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The FBI says that a hate group is one whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice toward people based on some immutable characteristic. WP's criteria for a hate group specifies those who express or advocate hatred, hostility, or violence. From what I can find on the Liberty Counsel, they don't fit that criteria. There are some religious groups that actually hate LBGT individuals, e.g., the Westboro Baptist Church. Those are hate groups. But the Liberty Counsel appears to be motivated by a belief that a certain behaviour is immoral and that those who practice that behaviour will not have salvation, and they mistakenly believe that sexual orientation is not immutable. Christianity is about love and forgiveness, and they seem to have a genuine concern for the souls of people who they believe will not be saved as long as they have sex with same-sex partners. That's not hate. It's completely different than the Westboro Church and it's not even in the same universe as Nazis and white supremacists. To lump them all into the same evil category is the same type of pre-judging that leads to bigotry. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, the focus of the group isn't to attack people for who they are, the main activity of the group appears to be focused on protecting the First Amendment rights of those who believe that abortion and having sex with same-sex partners is immoral. This is a similar purpose to that of the ACLU, who represent people to protect civil liberties. The ACLU would offen defend the First Amendment rights of actual hate groups such as white supremacists and in so doing would demonstrate how important it is to preserve freedom of expression even when we have a strong aversion to the ideas expressed. It was just a few short years ago that speaking up for the rights of transgender people was considered a bizzare idea by the overwelming majority of people in the US. What if the majority at that time had the power to silence those of us who were advocating for change? This is why we must protect the right of free expression even when the ideas seem bizarre or backward to us. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
They've been arguing that homosexuals should be barred from the military and be subject for arrest in Texas. Yeah, there's "advocating hostility" there. SPLC categorization is considered significant, and the material is presented in the lede as having controversy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is with the SPLC, not us. We properly attribute the material. It's up to readers to decide if Liberty Counsel is actually a hate group. We're not here to convince anyone either way.- MrX 🖋 14:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@NatGertler: If you have a recent reliable source that says that the group advocates arresting gay people in Texas simply because they are gay, then that's a totally different matter and, yes, that would certainly peg them as a hate group as defined above. Do you have a source for that? Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Sparkie, you've been around enough to know about original research, surely? We don't make this sort of decision. MrX is right. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI, here is their amicus curiae for Lawrence v. Texas, defending the arresting of two people for engaging in homosexual activity, under a law that did not apply to the same activity on a heterosexual basis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@NatGertler: That amicus brief was directed specifically against the act, not the immutable condition of the accused, however, it was in support of the power of police to conduct an arrest. Also, I found a podcast that Liberty Counsel made against allowing gays in the Boy Scouts, which was directed at gay men for who they are, not what they do. The tone and statements made in the podcast leave no doubt that the group (or at least its leadership) is advocating animosity towards gay men. This new evidence supports the view that SPLC is basing their designation on more than just Liberty Counsel's opposition to same-sex marriage and therefore SPLC's position is not a fringe view. When I have more time I'll add what I found to the article with sources so it clear what SPLC is basing their designation on. Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: What we were trying to determine was whether SPLC's designation was a fringe view -- which would indicate how it would be handled here based on WP guidelines. Finding sources in support or against that proposition is not OR. Finding sources and pulling information from them to use in articles is what WP is all about. Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be wanting to judge whether an SPLC view is "fringe" based on whether or not you would agree with it, which is not appropriate. SPLC is recognized as a significant player in the tracking of hate groups, and their statements about them get widespread and credulous reporting. Its views on hate groups is pretty much the opposite of what "fringe" concern is for.... even if they were to be wrong. The people saying that if we had not bombed Hiroshima the war would've gone on for another year are not fringe, nor are the people who are saying that if we had not bombed Hiroshima the war would've been over within a week anyway. That's true even though one of those groups are wrong, and even though one of them holds a minority view. It's the people who are saying that if we had not bombed Hiroshima, our lizard masters would've been displeased and eaten Trenton, those folks are fringe. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources for later expansion

- MrX 🖋 12:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

SPLC has been given undue weight due to placement

Diff page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberty_Counsel&type=revision&diff=955227828&oldid=955220189 In my revision, I moved the statement about what the SPLC's opinion is to the discussion regarding the SPLC instead of in the top paragraph.

This is consistent with the instructions on the page regarding reliable sources, that says about using the SPLC as a source: "Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." In this article, the statement I moved does neither.

It has great weight because it is in the first paragraph with the main description.

Due and undue weight relate to the Neutral Point of View which states: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery..."

Although the article is about an organization, not about a living person, the first paragraph lists two living persons immediately before the statement about the SPLC's opinion. Readers can assume by the prominent placement of the statement that the persons mention are haters, who lead a hate group. Given the prominent placement of the statement and the location, the statement does not show a neutral point of view (NPOV). NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately... all the significant views ... on a topic." Also: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)...." The statement that I moved is disparaging in the context.

It needs to be moved further down to the appropriate discussion where I moved it originally.

Thank you,

--Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

The SPLC designation is a significant matter. Coverage of the Liberty Counsel since the designation has often included it in the description of the group (for example this BBC source), and that's even when the coverage is not specifically about that designation, and coverage of that is significant. As such, the sources suggest that it is lead-appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

-- I disagree, but obviously you have more power than I do, so for now, I'll simply add a citation from a reliable source (The Guardian) to the sentence since it is missing one. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)-Ihaveadreamagain

Kim Davis

There was a recent attempt to remove a failed Supreme Court appeal in Miller v. Davis with a link intending to show that the appeal was now under Supreme Court consideration. However, that link was for a different, less notable case for the same LC client. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't realize there was more than one case. So, I looked at the Miller v. Davis entry and it doesn't end the same way. Evidently the case was dismissed as "moot", and that was the final action. The Supreme Court evidently refused to intervene before that. So we should make this entry clear like the other one. The confusing part was that the last sentence has a 2020 case reference in the middle but the date at the entry for Supreme Court is years earlier. So that needs fixing. Do you want to take a shot at it or can I redeem myself by doing it? Ihaveadreamagain 16:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Since fixing that was trivial (just remove the reference; the reference at the end of the sentence gives us what we need), I went ahead and did it. No major redemption needed, mistakes get made. If you wish to expand, feel free... but avoid relying on WP:PRIMARY sources for much more than adding a full cite for things already mentioned in secondary sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing Madsen case

A Supreme Court case was removed should be put back into the article. If a source needs to be removed, which I agree it does, let's find a better source and even reword as needed. Here is one that can be used. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1993/93-880 Ihaveadreamagain 16:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Here is another reliable source for the information about the case, as it is good to use more than one source, especially on difficult topics: "American Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties - https://books.google.com/books?id=TXoKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=%22madsen+test%22+%22supreme+court%22&source=bl&ots=GPvX3FZhwz&sig=ACfU3U3owqiTM4ETsItXxNsSE4nOaVCFzA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix3P2epdzqAhVmRN8KHdK4C2Y4HhDoATAFegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=%22madsen%20test%22%20%22supreme%20court%22&f=false Ihaveadreamagain 17:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd caution against leaning hard on Oyez - they're a good source for accurate information, but because they are a comprehensive database of Supreme Court cases, they're not good for showing that a case is important enough to mention. The problem with the other source you point to is that, while it discusses the case, it doesn't mention the subject of this article at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Since this section is about cases, it appears there should be more of them, so we should encourage adding cases rather than limiting them. And your point is well taken on using a single source, but we can use two sources to show the same information. If a source #1 connects the Liberty Counsel with the case, source #2 connects the case with the importance of the case, then we should be able to cite to both source #1 (to show Liberty Counsel's involvement) and #2 to discuss the case's importance. A third article could even be added just to give more info. A cursory glance yields this one: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1994-07-01-9407010791-story,amp.html I wouldn't add more than 3 for a particular case. Ihaveadreamagain 17:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This isn't intended to be a catalog of every case that they were involved in. Using a database-like source to connect the subject to the case and then using sources without them to show the import fails to show that either the subject was important to the case or that the case is an important aspect of the subject. We get into matters of WP:PROPORTION. And your Orlando Sentinel link appears to be dead, as have all the OS links you've added lately - they get redirected to the website's front page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I see. The Sentinel article is definitely not dead. I found it with a google search and opened in Chrome and also in Brave for good measure. Maybe a browser setting on your side is doing that. I don't know how to add a screenshot here or I'd show you. Ihaveadreamagain 18:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not going to Google's cache of the pages, which does exist? Because I've had the same result on both Firefox and Chrome on a Mac OS device, as well Safari on an iOS device and Chrome on an Android device. (Or might you have a paid subscription to the Sentinel? Sending one back to the front page instead of requesting some kind of log-in would be unusual, but not, I suppose, impossible.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Odd, indeed. No I don't have any subscription. I put it into an archive site and came up with this new link: http://archive.is/OGq1H so you can see it. Ihaveadreamagain 18:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
To show you that it isn't working in the general case, try taking one of your OS URLs and entering it at https://web-capture.net/ - it will show you a photograph of what it sees. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with the web capture site, but archive.is works great for me. I'll make sure to add the archive link to any orlandosentinel.com sources and create the citation manually. Thanks for letting me know there are problems with those pages. Ihaveadreamagain 19:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
One last thing, since you've been so helpful --> What is the proper action when there is an old link with no current version available and the link is to a document by the subject of this article. I thought those weren't good sources anyway - See footnote 10 to the pdf: # http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/hatecrimes.pdf[permanent dead link]
Ihaveadreamagain 16:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
With a permanent dead link like that, with information that doesn't seem particularly controversial (such a stance is certainly not out of step with everything else we can continue to source on the Liberty Counsel), we can seek an alternate source for the information but assume good faith on the part of whoever placed it there and not be in a rush to delete it.
Self sources can be very useful on some fronts, while being utterly unusable for others. They are good for non-controversial basic information; if we want the article on my publishing company to say it's based in Camarillo, California, the company website is fine for that. It's a good source for statements of what my company's views are. It's not a good source for noting what information is important - in the case you're citing, we already have some third-party source at the end of the sentence that gives some weight to the LC's views on the topic, and this source is just being used to sharpen the view. And it is not to be used for things where I might have a reason to lie. If my website says that we're both the best-selling and all around best publisher going, and that surveys say that all the cool cats and hep kitties read our books, and none of our competitors eat enough bran, none of that can be used. (See WP:SELFSOURCE for an explanation of this that does not refer to bran.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Perfect translation! That gives clarity on a subject that has long been muddy for me. Ihaveadreamagain 17:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

labeling

@Ihaveadreamagain: You recently added to the intro how CNN and Fox have referred to the LC, seemingly in order to parallel that to the SPLC label. However, the SPLC label gets third-party coverage; I have not seen such third-party discussions over how CNN and Fox refer to them. (And they don't refer to them in consistent form; CNN: a conservative Christian organization, CNN:conservative legal group. CNN:a nonprofit legal and education organization that promotes religious freedom, Fox:conservative legal team, Fox:a religious liberty law firm, Fox:religious advocacy group, and so forth. These descriptions don't add particularly more knowledge than what we gain from our own extant description. As such, I am undoing their addition. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. I do not think WP requires third-party coverage of reliable sources for them to be posted. (And the consistency of any description would be hard to track over the years, as even the SPLC has changed its designation of various groups including Liberty over the years. So, if the consistency is relevant, then there is a common theme -- they are conservative religious group. Without any other description in the first paragraph all you have is what they do, not what they are. On this point, I appreciate your input as always, but I disagree. Ihaveadreamagain 14:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
We can certainly use CNN as a source for the statement "they are a conservative religious group." However, to make a point of saying in the text "CNN calls them a conservative religious group", we would want a third party source that indicates that what CNN calls them is not just accurate (we assume it is, CNN is a reliable source), but important. I know that difference may sound subtle, but it's key to seeing that something is due, particularly for the introduction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The description of an organization that is important enought to be written about multiples times by a major news organization is important, regardless of how it is phrased. Stating "CNN called them a conservative religious group" would satisfy the need for a description, as there is no description in the first paragraph of the group by a major news source and that is needed. How can this gap be rectified in your opinion? Ihaveadreamagain 13:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Simply by saying "They are a conservative religious group" and using CNN as a reference, rather than by saying "CNN says they're a conservative religious group." --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh. That's simpler! Will do. Thanks, teacher -- :) Ihaveadreamagain 14:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Do we need a source for this sentence that was already in the first paragraph or is it ok to leave without? --> "by its chairman Mathew D. Staver and its president Anita L. Staver, who are attorneys and married to each other." Ihaveadreamagain 15:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It looks like that information is covered mostly in the next reference (with a little from the prior reference), so it's not a problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
A couple of things about what you did add, "The group is a conservative Christian legal ministry." One is that I'm not sure that it tells us anything that isn't told already in the first sentence, or at least couldn't be told simply by adding the word "conservative" to the first sentence. The other is that to a certain degree, you're using sources to combine terms, and that can be problematic; it may be a legal group and a ministry, but "legal ministry" may form concepts that don't match. (It's like how I've had to explain at times that Charles M. Schulz was a Christian and a conservative, but he was neither a Christian conservative (i.e., his political beliefs were not explicitly grounded in his religious beliefs) nor a conservative Christian (i.e., his belief was not fundamentalist or evangleical.)) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I think I'm catching on ... The first sentence tells us what they do -- they represent Christian litigation, but that could be done by any lawyers who are or are not Christian. Here is why I combined the references instead of putting in separate sentences: Nonprofit Christian ministry was from https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/07/us/nebraska-principal-on-leave-after-banning-christmas-trnd/index.html and I thought adding more would give it completeness. However, I can just leave in the exact CNN statement and remove the others. Ihaveadreamagain 16:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberty_Counsel/Archive_1&oldid=982441911"