Talk:Americans for Peace and Tolerance

Severe WP:PUFF problems
The article consists entirely of an attempt to instill notability by citing sources that mention Afpat in passing to inflate the reference count; even if one were to consider all the references proper, none of the incidents noted reflect encyclopedically notable events. THF (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you mention your essay and template.
 * The references meet all guidelines. The Jerusalem Post and Boston Globe find this group to be reputable and notable enough.For these reasons, I suggest the puffery essay template be removed. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notable, yes. Reputable, no. But you don't have to be reputable to be in Wikipedia (or in the newspaper). 178.39.122.125 (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Blog
This looks like a very biased blog post and not at all a reliable source. So I'm removing it.VR talk  04:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

POV pro-APT article, not an encyclopedia entry.
Someone, possibly me, needs to add balance to each of the pro-APT paragraphs, which are most of this entry's paragraphs.Haberstr (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Self-serving language from APT website
The other day I removed some self-serving language from the lead section and infobox that cited the APT's website. I cited WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NPV. reverted (here, here) with unsubstantiated allegations of "misuse [of] WP standards" and POV-pushing. Orthogonius, I'll let the POV-pushing accusation go, but please explain why you think ABOUTSELF is inapplicable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My changes were re-reverted with the cryptic comment "nothing exceptional here." Please explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Group dicey
The group seems to be a controversial one:


 * https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/07/activists-disrupt-newton-forum-prejudice/L2BaSX5YUNs3gkhERUI9AL/story.html

Afterwards, Jewish groups including ADL apologized for the group. It's evident from the Wikipedia article that this is not the first time. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede weak
The lede is weak -- in lieu of an encyclopedic sentence or two describing their viewpoint and activities, we have a long quote from a brochure. The lede should summarize the article. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)