This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
For the record, the section on Williams v. Vidmar read as follows before I edited it:
A partisan organization of parents within the school district expressed unhappiness with the lawsuit and the role of the ADF in it. [5]
This isn't even pretending to be neutral; it was obviously written or edited by someone who has a great deal of sympathy with the ADF. I made the following changes:
1. Changed the confusing back-and-forth section on the press release to reflect what ADF appears to acknowledge, which is that the controversial title was used on ADF's own web page. The characterization of Media Matters as a "questionable" source is also gone. That's a matter of opinion which is better covered on the page for Media Matters itself.
2. Deleted the assertion that ADF "successfully" defended the accuracy of its press release, which cites as support for that proposition...the ADF's assertion that it had done so. We don't use the editorial voice of an article to uncritically repeat the disputed assertions of a party to a controversy.
3. Deleted the reference to the complaining parents as a "partisan" organization, which isn't supported by the reference linked. I suspect someone just wanted to downplay the criticism in question, and just tossed in that epithet without bothering to back it up.
Now, no more making this page into an ADF propaganda front, please. SS451 ( talk) 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed following sentence The ADF defended the accuracy of its press release against claims that it contained errors. It is a red herring, and the referred document is a red herring as well. The ref did not defend the "accuracy" of its press release. It merely reiterated its tstatements. Moereover, it falsely represented the settlement; essentially lying "by omission", failing to mention the third, actuallty, decisive clause of the settlement: namely, that the school has the final say about the aprropriateness of instruction. The title of the press release is a public stunt, clearly intended to harm the opposite party by appealing to alleged desecration American glory. In fact, the title is a lie of overgeneralization: the principal was not against the Declaration of Independence; she was agains POV-pushing by means of handpicking a biased colleciton of quotations out of broader context. And the settlement clearly stated that she was in her full rights to do so. THe last part of the alleged "rebuttal" is a pearl of nonsense: Prior to Mr. Williams filing his lawsuit, there was no clear statement by the School District of this policy, and Principal Vidmar clearly acted in violation of such policy when she prohibited him from distributing the Declaration of Independence to his students. -- How the principal could have violated a policy if there was none? I would suggest against hiring such stupid lawyers. (That's why Williams failed to win :-) Last Lost ( talk) 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
References
I added info about the Bishop case noting that the Tulsa County District Court Clerk, Sally Howe Smith, had sought legal representation from the ADF and asked the U.S. district court to admit four attorneys- Brian Raum, Dale Schowengerdt, Jim Campbell, and Austin Nimocks- pro hac vice. I included as references links to a reply brief to the plaintiffs' opposition to the motion, and a link to ADF'S marriage map. (While the ADF marriage map is biased concerning its legal arguments; it is reliable concerning statements of fact, such as their statements about representing litigants in lawsuits.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.217.189 ( talk) 02:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
1: "Whether the case involves displays of crosses on public property, the rights of hospital workers to decline participation in abortions, or parents' desires for their children to opt out of sex education classes in public schools, ADF is on the job in the courtroom. "
2: "Earlier this month, the ADF joined with the Family Foundation of Virginia to send a letter to Chesapeake, Va., Mayor Alan Krasnoff offering to provide pro bono legal assistance if the city adopts a policy for invitations to public forums that subsequently is challenged in court. Already, the Freedom Forum Religion Foundation, a secular humanist group, has threatened to sue Chesapeake over its policy of opening city meetings with a prayer."
- --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a line at the end of the of the introductory paragraph reflecting ADF's recent rebranding. THe organization's name and logo have changed, but I am not a skillful Wikipediaer, so maybe another volunteer can make the appropriate changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.81.2 ( talk) 14:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe this article is rated "C-class" by any WikiProject. It relies highly on primary sources, or those made by the group itself. How is this organization even notable? Bearian ( talk) 21:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This 'Lisa Biron' topic does not belong on the ADF wikipedia page.
ADF didn’t “distance itself” from this person, the distance exists as a point of fact. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/11/21/adf-attorney-caught-with-child-porn-not-really/ "Point to it as yet another example of an anti-gay, “pro-family” Christian covering up their sexual predation? Absolutely. But the “association” with the ADF is pretty weak here. It appears that she was the local attorney who worked with them on a single case. She didn’t work for them, she was involved in a single case. The ADF works just like the ACLU does in this regard, contracting with a local “cooperating attorney” to handle such cases. If an attorney in Keokuk, Iowa who once worked with the ACLU on a single case was caught doing something terrible, we would find it ridiculous if someone said that proved something bad about the ACLU; the same is true here. Hammer her, but the ADF has no real connection to this."
Original source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/2471427-95/biron-manchester-according-court 'listed her employer in court documents as Donais Law Offices in Manchester.' 'Biron recently served on the board of directors at a Manchester Christian school,'
Does including this add legitimate factual information to this organization’s profile. Insisting on including this at all on this organizations page is like blaming the DC Center for the LGBT Community when one of its many volunteers shot up the Family Research Council building back in July. If you think Lisa Biron is that important then perhaps a a Lisa Biron page should be created.
Lisa Biron is in private practice and has never been employed by Alliance Defending Freedom. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/20/u-s-family-values-lawyer-accused-of-taking-young-teen-to-canada-for-sex/
Orangemike - Per your change referencing "distancing itself" ADF did not distance themselves - The press writer added in that phrase. The actual statement from ADF (in the story linked above) said that this attorney never worked there. There was no reason to “distance themselves” because the distance is a fact. It appears that the false impression of a closer linkage has been stressed by blog writers. The burden of proof is on those making the case for a closer relationship to demonstrate that closer relationship, not on those stating a fact that the relationship is not as close as others want to make it. This loosely “associated” person’s legal trouble has no place on an objective page describing the history and work of this large and fairly consequential organization.
Are there plans on including this on the ACLU page. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090701673.html - An ACLU Chief Gets 7 Years for Child Porn. Are there plans to post about a criminal conviction of an actual ACLU Chief versus posting irrelevant information about an individual that has never been employed by organization featured on this page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Think claimed ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
A stronger argument to leave the Lisa Biron incident off, at least for now, is Wikipedia:RECENTISM. Information regarding the relationship is still coming out, preventing the writing of an encyclopedic entry with historical perspective. Was it just the one ADF case Lisa Biron was involvd with? Who identified Lisa Biron for legal representation, ADF or the involved church? Indeed, after some historical perspective and some more facts, it might be possible to write, "A 'guilt by association' smear was attempted by the media against ADF in November, 2012..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
As stated above...using the same logic...are there plans on including this on the ACLU page. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090701673.html - An ACLU Chief Gets 7 Years for Child Porn. Are there plans to post about a criminal conviction of an actual ACLU Chief versus posting non-relevant information about an individual that has never been employed by organization featured on this page. (This is my main argument as for why this section should not be on this organizations page.) And Wikipedia:RECENTISM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Think claimed ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Orangemike: The last sentence was in reference to the previous statement: "The false impression of a closer linkage has been manufactured by blogs" It was not pointed at you personally - sorry if there was confusion. Thank you for the dialogue ...it truly makes wikipedia great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.239.13 ( talk) 16:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed it from section "Organization" per WP:UNDUE. This section is for describing the organization, not organization's wives, pets, lawyers, or summer homes, period. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: " allegedly brought" (in the article). Since she got herself a sentence, can we get rid of "allegedy" and restrict to facts found in court?
Staszek Lem (
talk)
19:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: "organization was embroiled in a controversy " If it is so, the article must focus on the controversy, rather than on Lisa. Lisa Biron has her own article. This section should focus on the impact of the controversy on the organization. (If there was little impact, the section is out, per WP:NOTNEWS.) Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOVN#SPLC comments removed at Alliance Defending Freedom - should have added this weeks ago. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"The ADF, which according to filings had an income of almost $40m last year, is funded by benefactors including Erik Prince, founder of the Blackwater private security giant, the Covenant Foundation, which is financed by a leading member of the Texas Christian right, James Leininger, and the Bolthouse Foundation, a charity that rejects evolution"
from this Guardian article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/02/abortion-debate-dorries-campaign
I thought it might be good to add some information on this but I'm new to all this Wikipedia stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.41.164 ( talk) 01:54, 10 January 2012
The ADF's old FAQ used to say they were only doing legal aid:
"This means that, while we defend legislative initiatives pertaining to our mission in court, and join forces with allies in many legal endeavors, Alliance Defending Freedom refrains from participating in or promoting any type of legislation or political parties, including handing out voter guides or reviews of judges. Alliance Defending Freedom also does not lobby government officials."
Their FAQ now says thy advise legislators:
"This means that, while we may provide legal advice to legislators and allies or defend legislative initiatives pertaining to our mission in court, and join forces with allies in many legal endeavors, Alliance Defending Freedom refrains from participating in or promoting any type of legislation or political parties, including handing out voter guides or reviews of judges. Alliance Defending Freedom also does not lobby government officials."
What this seems to mean in practice is shopping model bills to oppose transgender student protections ( http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/?CID=82478) and set up state "religious freedom restoration" laws ( http://national.deseretnews.com/article/3269/here8217s-why-your-state-may-be-expanding-religious-freedom-protections-this-year.html).
Does someone want to take a crack at putting some appropriate wording together about this?
It's probably also highly relevant to add the extensive work ADF has done with the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities parallel to the Becket Fund re. the HHS contraceptive mandate, and other things since ADF has a senior attorney on the CCCU board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.206.118 ( talk) 22:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Alliance Defending Freedom. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This article has a section called "Notable cases". Out of the dozens (hundreds?) ADF has been involved in, these have been selected. But on what basis have they been selected? The heading sounds like it's based on the WP definition of notability, but many of them do not have their own article, and thus are presumed to be non-notable. I tried removing the non-notable ones, but User:Michaelmalak reverted my change. Thoughts? St Anselm ( talk) 19:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman, WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed in Wikipedia as long as they are not used to establish notability and as long as they are not used to support WP:ORIGINAL. In the case of G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, notability is established by the existence of that WP:ANCHOR and the numerous secondary sources cited therein. No independent research is required within the amicus briefs; their mere existence and titles ("filed on behalf of petitioner") is all that is needed to establish that ADF was on the same side as Women's Liberation Front.
Also, regarding "although", the example of SPLC is an example of a liberal organization being on the opposing side of an issue that ADF, a conservative organization, is on, and the examples of WoLF and ACLU are contrasting examples where liberal or left-leaning organizations are on the same side of an issue as ADF.
My intention after resolution on this talk page is to revert https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&type=revision&diff=762285157&oldid=762284618 and https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&type=revision&diff=762284618&oldid=762284189
Michaelmalak ( talk) 21:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Alliance Defending Freedom. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dayoftruth.org/docs/dayoftruthhomosexualityfaq.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
As it exists this article should be flagged as biased, as it portrays the ADF in nothing but a positive light. Given that the group opposes the separation of church and state and has promoted anti-gay legislation around the world, a section on criticism is needed for balance. Dismalscholar ( talk) 04:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Released on the 13th: "The following statement is from SPLC President Richard Cohen. "The Alliance Defending Freedom spreads demonizing lies about the LGBT community in this country and seeks to criminalize it abroad. If the ADF had its way, gay people would be back in the closet for fear of going to jail. It was inappropriate for Attorney General Sessions to lend his credibility to the group by appearing before it, and it was ironic that he would suggest that the rights of ADF sympathizers are under attack when the ADF is doing everything in its power to deny the equal protection of the laws to the LGBT community." [3] Doug Weller talk 11:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
July 2017, Jeff Sessions addressed the group and refused to release details of his talk. One would think that the hosting of such a prominent government person would, or should be, a part of the article. Would an editor make this addition?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeff-sessions-addresses-anti-lgbt-hate-group-doj/story?id=48593488
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 11:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I've replaced the section. The problem was that the url for the designation hadn't been added. I've done that. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: I don't understand why you evidently haven't done a search yourself. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Q: Should the reference to the Murdock trust have been streamlined as it was?
My stance: An edit to "streamline Murdock trust donations" was made in the ADF article. It seems to me that the name of the trust is the most important piece of information (they gave the money, not Murdock himself). If any streamlining was necessary (and I don't think it was) I would think you'd take out who founded the trust. This would place the sentence more in line with the previous part of the section. Response from the editor who made the change when asked on talk page:
Further input from me. Mr. Murdock is dead. He has no current control over the trust nor are there any Murdocks involved (at least by last name) in the trust at this time. Bcostley ( talk) 23:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
If we are going to include this we need a reason. I guess the best reason is in the SPLC's response [7] which says, among other things:
"Events began Tuesday, when BuzzFeed reporter Dominic Holden broke the news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was scheduled to deliver remarks hours later at a closed-to-press event hosted by the anti-LGBT hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
After refusing comment for two days, the ADF went on the offensive, backed by their allies in the right-wing media. Rather than address why the organization sought to conceal the AG’s speech, ADF attacked the mainstream press for writing about its work vilifying LGBT rights in the U.S. and abroad and for referencing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s work.
The Department of Justice similarly refused comment for two days, and then gave the Attorney General’s remarks exclusively to a rabidly partisan website, The Federalist, rather than posting to the DOJ's website or providing to the press at large. The remarks have not yet been posted on the DOJ’s website, though Sessions appeared in his official role.
The Federalist is well known for its anti-LGBT and specifically anti-trans writings.
It shouldn’t be surprising where Sessions’ comments eventually appeared. The Federalist is well known for its anti-LGBT and specifically anti-trans writings." - it discusses this in a bit of detail. I see none of this is mentioned in our article on the website.
Anyway, we need a reason to include their comment. Of course they hate the SPLC, so do a lot of people. Why include this website? Doug Weller talk 10:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
First off, I should make myself clear that I have no problem simply mentioning the fact that the SPLC labeled ADF a "hate group." However, devoting an entire section under a level 2 header to this instance violates WP:UNDUE. It is giving this incident far more weight than it deserves. The SPLC is not respected by at least one half of the U.S. political spectrum, and in the long run, it does not seem that this designation is very notable in defining ADF. I recommend merging this section into an existing one, such as the "History" section (this incident is part of ADF's history, after all). -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 03:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the hate group section being moved to a "Criticism" section. It is also necessary to provide a counter argument or that some groups refute the hate group label (while providing citations). I would also recommend adding a brief comment that the SLPC has come under increasing criticism for relaxing their standards of what is considered a hate group to include groups that have not history of physical violence against others or illegal activity (see wiki's own SLPC article section "controversies over hate group and extremist listings" section for citations). The comments about Jeff Sessions are out of place in this article. His speech has now been fully published [1], and though he did speak to the ADF, his speech does not define ADF policy and was not noteworthy enough to include in an article about the ADF. Juparo01 ( talk) 09:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Doug Weller: is it your position that this case fails your "criteria" of "mainstream media sources showing ADF played a substantial role"??? http://wxxinews.org/post/supreme-court-rules-prayers-greece-can-continue – Lionel( talk) 14:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
According to the Notable Cases section the ADF is noted as having won 5 cases in the past 3 years. I've updated this with a WashPo piece which notes 9 cases (all won) in less than a decade, though the phrasing could probably use work. (If anyone has figures for all their cases argued\won that'd be even better). Since SCOTUS considers roughly 80 cases a year 9 cases (all won) seems a fairly good record and something that merits mention in the lead as a counterpoint to the hategroup label. Thoughts? 人族 ( talk) 10:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
For the record, the section on Williams v. Vidmar read as follows before I edited it:
A partisan organization of parents within the school district expressed unhappiness with the lawsuit and the role of the ADF in it. [5]
This isn't even pretending to be neutral; it was obviously written or edited by someone who has a great deal of sympathy with the ADF. I made the following changes:
1. Changed the confusing back-and-forth section on the press release to reflect what ADF appears to acknowledge, which is that the controversial title was used on ADF's own web page. The characterization of Media Matters as a "questionable" source is also gone. That's a matter of opinion which is better covered on the page for Media Matters itself.
2. Deleted the assertion that ADF "successfully" defended the accuracy of its press release, which cites as support for that proposition...the ADF's assertion that it had done so. We don't use the editorial voice of an article to uncritically repeat the disputed assertions of a party to a controversy.
3. Deleted the reference to the complaining parents as a "partisan" organization, which isn't supported by the reference linked. I suspect someone just wanted to downplay the criticism in question, and just tossed in that epithet without bothering to back it up.
Now, no more making this page into an ADF propaganda front, please. SS451 ( talk) 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed following sentence The ADF defended the accuracy of its press release against claims that it contained errors. It is a red herring, and the referred document is a red herring as well. The ref did not defend the "accuracy" of its press release. It merely reiterated its tstatements. Moereover, it falsely represented the settlement; essentially lying "by omission", failing to mention the third, actuallty, decisive clause of the settlement: namely, that the school has the final say about the aprropriateness of instruction. The title of the press release is a public stunt, clearly intended to harm the opposite party by appealing to alleged desecration American glory. In fact, the title is a lie of overgeneralization: the principal was not against the Declaration of Independence; she was agains POV-pushing by means of handpicking a biased colleciton of quotations out of broader context. And the settlement clearly stated that she was in her full rights to do so. THe last part of the alleged "rebuttal" is a pearl of nonsense: Prior to Mr. Williams filing his lawsuit, there was no clear statement by the School District of this policy, and Principal Vidmar clearly acted in violation of such policy when she prohibited him from distributing the Declaration of Independence to his students. -- How the principal could have violated a policy if there was none? I would suggest against hiring such stupid lawyers. (That's why Williams failed to win :-) Last Lost ( talk) 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
References
I added info about the Bishop case noting that the Tulsa County District Court Clerk, Sally Howe Smith, had sought legal representation from the ADF and asked the U.S. district court to admit four attorneys- Brian Raum, Dale Schowengerdt, Jim Campbell, and Austin Nimocks- pro hac vice. I included as references links to a reply brief to the plaintiffs' opposition to the motion, and a link to ADF'S marriage map. (While the ADF marriage map is biased concerning its legal arguments; it is reliable concerning statements of fact, such as their statements about representing litigants in lawsuits.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.217.189 ( talk) 02:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
1: "Whether the case involves displays of crosses on public property, the rights of hospital workers to decline participation in abortions, or parents' desires for their children to opt out of sex education classes in public schools, ADF is on the job in the courtroom. "
2: "Earlier this month, the ADF joined with the Family Foundation of Virginia to send a letter to Chesapeake, Va., Mayor Alan Krasnoff offering to provide pro bono legal assistance if the city adopts a policy for invitations to public forums that subsequently is challenged in court. Already, the Freedom Forum Religion Foundation, a secular humanist group, has threatened to sue Chesapeake over its policy of opening city meetings with a prayer."
- --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a line at the end of the of the introductory paragraph reflecting ADF's recent rebranding. THe organization's name and logo have changed, but I am not a skillful Wikipediaer, so maybe another volunteer can make the appropriate changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.81.2 ( talk) 14:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe this article is rated "C-class" by any WikiProject. It relies highly on primary sources, or those made by the group itself. How is this organization even notable? Bearian ( talk) 21:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This 'Lisa Biron' topic does not belong on the ADF wikipedia page.
ADF didn’t “distance itself” from this person, the distance exists as a point of fact. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/11/21/adf-attorney-caught-with-child-porn-not-really/ "Point to it as yet another example of an anti-gay, “pro-family” Christian covering up their sexual predation? Absolutely. But the “association” with the ADF is pretty weak here. It appears that she was the local attorney who worked with them on a single case. She didn’t work for them, she was involved in a single case. The ADF works just like the ACLU does in this regard, contracting with a local “cooperating attorney” to handle such cases. If an attorney in Keokuk, Iowa who once worked with the ACLU on a single case was caught doing something terrible, we would find it ridiculous if someone said that proved something bad about the ACLU; the same is true here. Hammer her, but the ADF has no real connection to this."
Original source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/2471427-95/biron-manchester-according-court 'listed her employer in court documents as Donais Law Offices in Manchester.' 'Biron recently served on the board of directors at a Manchester Christian school,'
Does including this add legitimate factual information to this organization’s profile. Insisting on including this at all on this organizations page is like blaming the DC Center for the LGBT Community when one of its many volunteers shot up the Family Research Council building back in July. If you think Lisa Biron is that important then perhaps a a Lisa Biron page should be created.
Lisa Biron is in private practice and has never been employed by Alliance Defending Freedom. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/20/u-s-family-values-lawyer-accused-of-taking-young-teen-to-canada-for-sex/
Orangemike - Per your change referencing "distancing itself" ADF did not distance themselves - The press writer added in that phrase. The actual statement from ADF (in the story linked above) said that this attorney never worked there. There was no reason to “distance themselves” because the distance is a fact. It appears that the false impression of a closer linkage has been stressed by blog writers. The burden of proof is on those making the case for a closer relationship to demonstrate that closer relationship, not on those stating a fact that the relationship is not as close as others want to make it. This loosely “associated” person’s legal trouble has no place on an objective page describing the history and work of this large and fairly consequential organization.
Are there plans on including this on the ACLU page. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090701673.html - An ACLU Chief Gets 7 Years for Child Porn. Are there plans to post about a criminal conviction of an actual ACLU Chief versus posting irrelevant information about an individual that has never been employed by organization featured on this page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Think claimed ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
A stronger argument to leave the Lisa Biron incident off, at least for now, is Wikipedia:RECENTISM. Information regarding the relationship is still coming out, preventing the writing of an encyclopedic entry with historical perspective. Was it just the one ADF case Lisa Biron was involvd with? Who identified Lisa Biron for legal representation, ADF or the involved church? Indeed, after some historical perspective and some more facts, it might be possible to write, "A 'guilt by association' smear was attempted by the media against ADF in November, 2012..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
As stated above...using the same logic...are there plans on including this on the ACLU page. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090701673.html - An ACLU Chief Gets 7 Years for Child Porn. Are there plans to post about a criminal conviction of an actual ACLU Chief versus posting non-relevant information about an individual that has never been employed by organization featured on this page. (This is my main argument as for why this section should not be on this organizations page.) And Wikipedia:RECENTISM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Think claimed ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Orangemike: The last sentence was in reference to the previous statement: "The false impression of a closer linkage has been manufactured by blogs" It was not pointed at you personally - sorry if there was confusion. Thank you for the dialogue ...it truly makes wikipedia great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.239.13 ( talk) 16:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed it from section "Organization" per WP:UNDUE. This section is for describing the organization, not organization's wives, pets, lawyers, or summer homes, period. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: " allegedly brought" (in the article). Since she got herself a sentence, can we get rid of "allegedy" and restrict to facts found in court?
Staszek Lem (
talk)
19:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: "organization was embroiled in a controversy " If it is so, the article must focus on the controversy, rather than on Lisa. Lisa Biron has her own article. This section should focus on the impact of the controversy on the organization. (If there was little impact, the section is out, per WP:NOTNEWS.) Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOVN#SPLC comments removed at Alliance Defending Freedom - should have added this weeks ago. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"The ADF, which according to filings had an income of almost $40m last year, is funded by benefactors including Erik Prince, founder of the Blackwater private security giant, the Covenant Foundation, which is financed by a leading member of the Texas Christian right, James Leininger, and the Bolthouse Foundation, a charity that rejects evolution"
from this Guardian article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/02/abortion-debate-dorries-campaign
I thought it might be good to add some information on this but I'm new to all this Wikipedia stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.41.164 ( talk) 01:54, 10 January 2012
The ADF's old FAQ used to say they were only doing legal aid:
"This means that, while we defend legislative initiatives pertaining to our mission in court, and join forces with allies in many legal endeavors, Alliance Defending Freedom refrains from participating in or promoting any type of legislation or political parties, including handing out voter guides or reviews of judges. Alliance Defending Freedom also does not lobby government officials."
Their FAQ now says thy advise legislators:
"This means that, while we may provide legal advice to legislators and allies or defend legislative initiatives pertaining to our mission in court, and join forces with allies in many legal endeavors, Alliance Defending Freedom refrains from participating in or promoting any type of legislation or political parties, including handing out voter guides or reviews of judges. Alliance Defending Freedom also does not lobby government officials."
What this seems to mean in practice is shopping model bills to oppose transgender student protections ( http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/?CID=82478) and set up state "religious freedom restoration" laws ( http://national.deseretnews.com/article/3269/here8217s-why-your-state-may-be-expanding-religious-freedom-protections-this-year.html).
Does someone want to take a crack at putting some appropriate wording together about this?
It's probably also highly relevant to add the extensive work ADF has done with the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities parallel to the Becket Fund re. the HHS contraceptive mandate, and other things since ADF has a senior attorney on the CCCU board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.206.118 ( talk) 22:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Alliance Defending Freedom. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This article has a section called "Notable cases". Out of the dozens (hundreds?) ADF has been involved in, these have been selected. But on what basis have they been selected? The heading sounds like it's based on the WP definition of notability, but many of them do not have their own article, and thus are presumed to be non-notable. I tried removing the non-notable ones, but User:Michaelmalak reverted my change. Thoughts? St Anselm ( talk) 19:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman, WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed in Wikipedia as long as they are not used to establish notability and as long as they are not used to support WP:ORIGINAL. In the case of G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, notability is established by the existence of that WP:ANCHOR and the numerous secondary sources cited therein. No independent research is required within the amicus briefs; their mere existence and titles ("filed on behalf of petitioner") is all that is needed to establish that ADF was on the same side as Women's Liberation Front.
Also, regarding "although", the example of SPLC is an example of a liberal organization being on the opposing side of an issue that ADF, a conservative organization, is on, and the examples of WoLF and ACLU are contrasting examples where liberal or left-leaning organizations are on the same side of an issue as ADF.
My intention after resolution on this talk page is to revert https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&type=revision&diff=762285157&oldid=762284618 and https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&type=revision&diff=762284618&oldid=762284189
Michaelmalak ( talk) 21:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Alliance Defending Freedom. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dayoftruth.org/docs/dayoftruthhomosexualityfaq.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
As it exists this article should be flagged as biased, as it portrays the ADF in nothing but a positive light. Given that the group opposes the separation of church and state and has promoted anti-gay legislation around the world, a section on criticism is needed for balance. Dismalscholar ( talk) 04:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Released on the 13th: "The following statement is from SPLC President Richard Cohen. "The Alliance Defending Freedom spreads demonizing lies about the LGBT community in this country and seeks to criminalize it abroad. If the ADF had its way, gay people would be back in the closet for fear of going to jail. It was inappropriate for Attorney General Sessions to lend his credibility to the group by appearing before it, and it was ironic that he would suggest that the rights of ADF sympathizers are under attack when the ADF is doing everything in its power to deny the equal protection of the laws to the LGBT community." [3] Doug Weller talk 11:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
July 2017, Jeff Sessions addressed the group and refused to release details of his talk. One would think that the hosting of such a prominent government person would, or should be, a part of the article. Would an editor make this addition?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeff-sessions-addresses-anti-lgbt-hate-group-doj/story?id=48593488
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 11:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I've replaced the section. The problem was that the url for the designation hadn't been added. I've done that. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: I don't understand why you evidently haven't done a search yourself. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Q: Should the reference to the Murdock trust have been streamlined as it was?
My stance: An edit to "streamline Murdock trust donations" was made in the ADF article. It seems to me that the name of the trust is the most important piece of information (they gave the money, not Murdock himself). If any streamlining was necessary (and I don't think it was) I would think you'd take out who founded the trust. This would place the sentence more in line with the previous part of the section. Response from the editor who made the change when asked on talk page:
Further input from me. Mr. Murdock is dead. He has no current control over the trust nor are there any Murdocks involved (at least by last name) in the trust at this time. Bcostley ( talk) 23:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
If we are going to include this we need a reason. I guess the best reason is in the SPLC's response [7] which says, among other things:
"Events began Tuesday, when BuzzFeed reporter Dominic Holden broke the news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was scheduled to deliver remarks hours later at a closed-to-press event hosted by the anti-LGBT hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
After refusing comment for two days, the ADF went on the offensive, backed by their allies in the right-wing media. Rather than address why the organization sought to conceal the AG’s speech, ADF attacked the mainstream press for writing about its work vilifying LGBT rights in the U.S. and abroad and for referencing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s work.
The Department of Justice similarly refused comment for two days, and then gave the Attorney General’s remarks exclusively to a rabidly partisan website, The Federalist, rather than posting to the DOJ's website or providing to the press at large. The remarks have not yet been posted on the DOJ’s website, though Sessions appeared in his official role.
The Federalist is well known for its anti-LGBT and specifically anti-trans writings.
It shouldn’t be surprising where Sessions’ comments eventually appeared. The Federalist is well known for its anti-LGBT and specifically anti-trans writings." - it discusses this in a bit of detail. I see none of this is mentioned in our article on the website.
Anyway, we need a reason to include their comment. Of course they hate the SPLC, so do a lot of people. Why include this website? Doug Weller talk 10:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
First off, I should make myself clear that I have no problem simply mentioning the fact that the SPLC labeled ADF a "hate group." However, devoting an entire section under a level 2 header to this instance violates WP:UNDUE. It is giving this incident far more weight than it deserves. The SPLC is not respected by at least one half of the U.S. political spectrum, and in the long run, it does not seem that this designation is very notable in defining ADF. I recommend merging this section into an existing one, such as the "History" section (this incident is part of ADF's history, after all). -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 03:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the hate group section being moved to a "Criticism" section. It is also necessary to provide a counter argument or that some groups refute the hate group label (while providing citations). I would also recommend adding a brief comment that the SLPC has come under increasing criticism for relaxing their standards of what is considered a hate group to include groups that have not history of physical violence against others or illegal activity (see wiki's own SLPC article section "controversies over hate group and extremist listings" section for citations). The comments about Jeff Sessions are out of place in this article. His speech has now been fully published [1], and though he did speak to the ADF, his speech does not define ADF policy and was not noteworthy enough to include in an article about the ADF. Juparo01 ( talk) 09:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Doug Weller: is it your position that this case fails your "criteria" of "mainstream media sources showing ADF played a substantial role"??? http://wxxinews.org/post/supreme-court-rules-prayers-greece-can-continue – Lionel( talk) 14:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
According to the Notable Cases section the ADF is noted as having won 5 cases in the past 3 years. I've updated this with a WashPo piece which notes 9 cases (all won) in less than a decade, though the phrasing could probably use work. (If anyone has figures for all their cases argued\won that'd be even better). Since SCOTUS considers roughly 80 cases a year 9 cases (all won) seems a fairly good record and something that merits mention in the lead as a counterpoint to the hategroup label. Thoughts? 人族 ( talk) 10:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)