Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom

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

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

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

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


 * "Please read ADF's response to being labeled by SPLC"
 * And the ADF's response also strikes me as propaganda. I don't much trust the SPLC's classifications, but look at this quote from ADF's own website:
 * "Ensuring the law respects God’s created order for marriage, the family, and human sexuality."
 * We advocate for laws and precedents that promote human flourishing by recognizing the important differences between men and women and honoring God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman.
 * "God's design" has (or should have) nothing to do with what government does. There is no official religion for the United States. The First Amendment explicitly forbids it:
 * "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
 * Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting that no one wants to go to the first part of the ADF Legal quoting an employee of the SPLC saying the SPLC is
 * "nothing but a scam", and progressives stating that the SPLC is "everything that is wrong with liberalism".
 * I would like to know of ANY Right leaning news sources that is allowed as RS, so I can research what their view of the SPLC is. Anyone have a list? 2603:8080:3E00:8D13:DD7B:DBD6:96B9:5284 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

SPLC section
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)


 * 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)

Opening Section
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)