This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alliance Defending Freedom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Christianity Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Creationism: Intelligent design Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Low-importance). LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Abortion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, but due to the ongoing controversy, as Mr. Stamper said, to ensure the neutrality of Wikipedia, editors need to investigate any kind of bias that is put on the overall article of the SPLC before doing anything to them right away. In my opinion, not a reliable neutralistic sources only if an organisations "disagrees with SPLC ^[1]". But the overall quality of the SPLC-related works remains fine, but only if they are encountering serious hate groups. The rest are history. Lellyhatesanimals ( talk) 04:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Wikipedia article revision as of March 1, 2023:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<meta />

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noticed a lot of back-and-forth on the SPLC verification stance. I created a SPLC section where all relevant content is now designated. No changes made to the content itself. I figured this would be helpful for the sake of editor consensus.

As for this portion in the lede (see below), should it also be moved or remain in the lede? Due to the above discussion threads on POV, I don't feel that the SPLC description is crucial for ADF's lede description. As in: Why highlight SPLC's stance when immediately following there is content that specifies ADF's anti-LGBT positions?

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designates ADF as an anti-LGBT hate group, saying in 2017 that since the election of President Donald Trump ADF had become "one of the most influential groups informing the [Trump] administration's attack on LGBTQ rights." Kentuckyfriedtucker ( talk) 21:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you spell out the LGBTQ rights that the Trump administration attacked? And a general all inclusive answer like "all of them" is not an answer. Name 10 rights they attacked. 2603:8080:3E00:8D13:DD7B:DBD6:96B9:5284 ( talk) 01:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm seeking consensus on changing the edits of Valjean here, since it's gone a few rounds from his edit, my revert, his revert, my attempt at consensus, and his last revert.

There are three issues with the change of "works to oppose what it sees as threats to conservative's religious liberty" from the previous "protect religious liberty".

1. The two sources cited describe the ADF's goal as "the defense of religious freedom", or "promot[ing] religious liberty".

2. While the ADF unquestionably is an organization within the sphere of American conservativism, its litigation has often been in support of individuals and organizations without particular political ideological attachments (for example, Good News Club v. Milford Central School, and definitely Rosenberger v. University of Virginia). Reliable sources have not described it as refusing to defend Democratic or libertarian Christians in cases related to prayer at public meetings or adoption by same sex couples or similar.

3. The grammatical error.

- TurnipWatch ( talk) 00:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

TurnipWatch, you mention " Good News Club v. Milford Central School, and definitely Rosenberger v. University of Virginia". In both cases, ADF defended the Christian side, not the public's side. They are indeed defending a "particular political ideological attachment", the Christian one. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 05:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

For other reasons, largely stylistic, I made a minor change before I saw this talk page comment. The previous text seems illogical and borderline tautologous . ADF sees the freedoms they defend as universal 'core' christian values, they don't see them as conservative. Others see the things they defend as being at the conservative end of christian values. We either say one or the other about what they are defending (how they see themselves, how others see them) and since it is already stated that they are conservative, in the opening sentence, I chose their self-image.

Regarding TurnipWatch's specifics, the issues raised are substantially conservative christian positions and issues and AFAIK they have never defended more liberal christian/other religious/non-religious values - all of which are aspects of religious freedom. Pincrete ( talk) 04:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Okay, if you don't want to write "conservative", even though they are described as "conservative" in the lead, and it is those values they defend, then try a bit of OR (and be aware you are now engaging in OR...and the consequences for doing so!!!) and write "Christian", which would be "threats to Christian's religious liberty". Is that better? It's certainly accurate, but "conservative" is even more accurate, as there are many "brands" of Christianity, not all of which are "conservative". Something needs to be there. They are not defending the religious liberty of "all" Christians, only of conservative Christians. Certainly not the religious liberty of non-Christians. On the contrary. They wish to force the values of their conservative brand of Christianity on everyone else. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 05:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You are ignoring that it says "works to oppose what it sees as threats to religious liberty". You can't frame the text in terms of what ADF sees as its mission and then demand a balaced/objective account of how others, or WP sees their activity. That is like writing that Donald Trump sees himself as a blustering racist, sexist clown. He doesn't - others do.

It is precisely because they are described as as conservative in practically the previous phrase that repeating it is redundant apart from being illogical in that phrasing. Conservative christian groups advocate for conservative christian views and policies, it doesn't need saying repeatedly. Detailing those views and policies - as we do - makes more sense IMO. Pincrete ( talk) 03:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't understand you. Your objection to the wording here doesn't make sense: "works to oppose what it sees as threats to religious liberty" is not comparable to "that Donald Trump sees himself as a blustering racist, sexist clown." The first is about whose religious liberties they are protecting (their own, and not other's). The second is about his image of himself. We would never write that as it's patently false. He doesn't see himself that way. You'll have to try a different comparison.

Instead, let's deal with what's actually there now: "works to oppose what it sees as threats to conservative's religious liberty". Without the word "conservatives" (you removed it), it's a false statement, because they do not oppose threats to the religious liberty of others. Instead, they actually are a threat to the religious liberty of others by seeking to use the law and politics to impose their own religious beliefs on others. With the word "conservative's", it's an accurate statement that is not offensive. We can't just use their unnuanced wording as if it's accurate because it isn't. In fact, do they even write it that way, without any nuances? (It wouldn't surprise me if they did because such groups are often ignorant of the real impact of their own actions.) -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 05:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I thought it was fairly obvious that if you use the wording "what it sees", you have to follow it with their own view of this topic, not that of 'outsiders'. It certainly isn't untrue that they see themselves as defending "religious liberty" - it is others who see them as only defending certain "religious liberty" for certain groups. But I endorse Avatar 317's comment that we don't need their self-image. Though I'm not sure what RS say they oppose and their is a clumsiness to saying a conservative organisation that defends conservative views and practices - what else would they do? Pincrete ( talk) 19:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, we should not be stating what their point of view is "what it sees as...." and instead say what RS's say it does. That said, I don't know enough about them to offer a suggested wording. (Brings lawsuits promoting conservative-Christian policies maybe?) Or how about simply remove "oppose what it sees as threats to religious liberty," from the lead.--- Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply