Talk:Born This Way Foundation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ptfelder.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources for further development
 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   16:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Reinstitute article
user:Insomesia somehow made WP:Born This Way Foundation in Wikipedia space rather than article space. This user tried to speedy delete this article over its history and the previous merge discussion. The history needs to remain in place. The procedure should be a merge of content, not a delete and move.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   02:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is now Born This Way Foundation, what merge do you mean if there is a redirect? Insomesia (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Check the history. This article already existed in one form and there was past discussion on its notability. If you delete this article then the history is lost. You should merge the new content into this space, not delete and move.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   03:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I now see what happened. Insomesia (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! I am glad that this can come back live!  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   03:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank Insomesia, he did most of the work here. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

History of history
Insomesia made an entirely new version of this article and moved it to this space over the old history. Normally there would be a WP:HISTMERGE but because of WP:parallel histories this was not performed. See Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen for the review. See Born This Way Foundation/version 2 for the old version of the article.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   11:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ready for an independent article?
Hi Dave. There was a merge of the BTWF article a short (recently some time, maybe 2 weeks?) while ago into the Lady Gaga article and a lot of content was lost. Do you see any obvious issues with restoring a remade and improved article to mainspace when it looks like this? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't like that whole "Florida Family Association" bit at the end, it feels awfully like a coatrack, and certainly not neutral. I would have just put "The donation was criticised by Florida Family Association", if that. Otherwise, the vast majority of the sources aren't reliable, be they PR based, or self published, I'd discount them... Otherwise, it's not that much of an improvement... and I don't think you've added much which would change the consensus at Articles for deletion/Born This Way Foundation  Worm TT( talk ) 10:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Compare it (the FFA bit) in the recent history with what i wrote and see what you think was better/more neutral. I wasn't in an arguing mood and so i left it til i got more eyes on it.
 * Thanks for the advice. The referencing method used makes it difficult for me to see the sites used for the sources and makes it take an incredibly long time to even find the reference url itself. I decided to give up on trying and go to bed. Thanks again ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've partly reverted it but kept the sources. Can you fix the cite issue that has appeared and comment on the wording? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still got "the scientific consensus..." which has nothing to do with BTWF. It's 2 steps removed. Like I say, drop the whole bit, at least :P  Worm TT( talk ) 14:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was left in because of a disagreement over WP:WEIGHT somewhere else and i thought it appropriate. I'll take it out. Thanks for looking over it ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we discuss it before i do though to clear up my understanding?
 * Under WP:WEIGHT i've been under the impression that if we mention something on Wikipedia we use the mainstream view, which would be why the claims made by the FFA here are in speech marks:
 * The Florida Family Association later accused Office Depot of delivering an "irresponsible message to many teens who would have eventually chosen to be straight" and influencing teenagers to reject heterosexuality for a lifestyle few would have chosen otherwise.
 * And so because of this i assumed i was best to mention that the scientific and main stream consensus says it is not a choice. (Which got reworded to the current wording).
 * I see your point of it being coatrackish and so is my understanding there incorrect since i've already put the section in speech marks and so not in the words of Wikipedia? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I'd leave it at "FFA criticised the payment" if mentioning it at all. Don't go into the reason behind the criticism. If it really is a one-man band, why bother mentioning it?  Worm TT( talk ) 15:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought some of their exact wording merited mention since it was so laughably incorrect and a few news sources picked it up just because of the strange uneducated claims they made. I also felt that made more of a comment on what they are doing than the previous coatrack wording i changed and the readers can interpret it themselves without us spelling it out.
 * I'll take out the scientific consensus bit. People in this day and age would have to be pretty thick to read that thinking FFA is a defender of morality anyhow. Thanks Dave ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this comment made at a glance. I haven't read the article; however, I believe the best idea once Jenova does think it is ready is to take it to WP:DRV. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for that Ryan, though i think this article needs about 2-4 weeks more work before it's ready unless i work really hard. Thanks again ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the FFA bit is left in at all, at this point the most I think is The Florida Family Association, an one-man Christian fundamentalist organization, criticized Office Depot as influencing teenagers to reject heterosexuality. To give his fringe views any more free publicity seems almost irresponsible. Insomesia (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinions staplers? Dave? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it would be like writing an article on an opera house and then mentioning a one-man band that sometimes plays outside. In most cases, the one man band is a distraction and doesn't deserve to be mentioned; however, it the opera house is particularly known for that one man band, or the one-man band has been significantly covered it should be mentioned.  In this case, I don't know enough to decide keep or remove, but it will need to be a determination of how important the viewpoint of David Caton is to the foundation.  Has it had a significant impact?  Is it mentioned in a large number of sources describing the foundation?  If not, don't include it. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned in a lot of sources and got a decent amount of media attention but mostly because the reasons given by the FFA in their/his attack on BTWF were so outragously and factually just waffle it was a joke. Thanks and don't forget to feed your pug Ryan ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice rewording Insomesia. Dave, opinion? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still on the "don't mention it at all" side of the fence, but is there a need to describe him? We wikilink for a reason.  Worm TT( talk ) 19:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The criticism attracted as much press attention as the partnership with Office Depot, that's why i first thought it necessary. Wouldn't it be unusual to take that sentence out of the BTWF article to put it in the article about the guy who runs the FFA when it's about criticism of Office Depot and BTWF? That seems more coatrackish because we're going from the guy - to his organization - to what it says about others, rather than the BTWF - and what others say about it. That's 3 steps removed...Thanks, i'm more confused now than before...ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant removing "an one-man Christian fundamentalist organization", as if you click on FFA, you find that out very quickly. Assuming the criticism received as much coverage as the partnership, then yes, the rest of it makes sense in the BTWF article.  Worm TT( talk ) 09:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅Done - i think i've been misunderstanding your requests but i've done it now. Neutral now yes? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Made a small tweak, and I'm much happier. You just have to prove the AfD wrong now ;) might need a little more expansion.  Worm TT( talk ) 09:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I'm going to leave it a few weeks for some more work on it first ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I object to removing that context. I think it's fair to say most readers wouldn't bother clicking a link to do the research and find out that FFA is in fact just one man, and a Christian fundamentalist, information that is rightfully blurred in a biography. I think it's better to remove any information than present a POV view this this one criticism comes from anything but one extremist who knows how to send out press releases. If we aren't going to duly inform our readers where this wacky criticism is actually coming from then it should be left out altogether. Insomesia (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do see that point of view, but the wording really does take us away from NPOV. How about David Caton, sole employee of Florida Family Association, criticized Office Depot as influencing teenagers to reject heterosexuality. - makes it clear precisely how important they are, without removing neutrality.  Worm TT( talk ) 09:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But the motivation comes from an extremist religious viewpoint and we are whitewashing that. Lady Gaga gets loads of "special" attention from fundamentalists trying to gain attention for their causes. I think we need to be clear this is religiously motivated by a fundamentalist Christian, one so outspoken that the New York Times was compelled to find out who exactly is behind this "Association." To me this ties into Christian fundamentalists funding reparative therapy and other de-gaying ministries. Insomesia (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see it like that Insomesia, it's clear from the statement they gave that they believe homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured, even though medical science says otherwise. I don't think many readers would believe that either since this isn't conservapedia. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The other problem is that the sources aren't saying this. I don't disagree with your analysis, but to link through in this manner is synthesis, and certainly not a neutral way of presenting the information. You are putting spin on it, making readers think in a certain way before reading the fact, and that's not what WP should be doing. We're not trying to soapbox here, we're presenting neutral information for both sides of the debate.  Worm TT( talk ) 10:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're being too POV by not adding any context. Similarly if we were discussing Apple, we might easily add it's one of the largest and most influential companies in the world. Someone might click on one of dozens of links in the article and get that information for themselves but it's more likely that they won't. FFA, or more accurately David Caton, is making ridiculous statements but we aren't really expressing that, fine, because no sources have really gone into it as far as I've seen. But the New York Times has researched this issue because of his press releases against the TV show American Muslims. So we have one of the most reputable news sources specifically noting "the man who had manufactured the entire controversy [ ... ] founder and sole employee of a fundamentalist group [ ... ] a person unaffiliated with any established organization on the Christian right [ ... ] [who] often used the tactic of pressuring advertisers on shows he depicted as advocating for homosexuality." Others in the story noted him as a part of "a well-organized extreme right,” and "one fringe individual." To me this makes one-man Christian fundamentalist group an apt, neutral and sourced descriptor to accompany any content associated with the misleadingly-named Florida Family Association. Likewise we could attribute the statement to David Caton, founder of the one-man Christian fundamentalist group Florida Family Association. Otherwise we open the door to other fringe characters who build a website and court controversy much like The Catholic League and other religious based groups do. If it's actual group then great, we contextualize what kind of group it is; a consumer group? a victim-rights group? a LGBT rights campaigning group? Etc. In this case it's a one-man Christian fundamentalist group, if needed we can attribute the context to the New York Times. Insomesia (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your logic Insomesia. I'm just unsure about this ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, why not copy this entire conversation to the talk page of the article (in your userspace), worry about it when you put it live. I'm afraid I can't really be helping out much more here - too much on.  Worm TT( talk ) 10:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

small error in article
In the section on "Body Revolution" it states that Lady GaGa posted images of herself dressed in a bikini. She is dressed in underwear ( bra and panties ), while this may seem irrelavent, it is not so to the target audience ( young women ). I do not know how to change it, or if I should ? Hence my comment here.

CATPrairieArtist (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed, thank you for the heads up! Insomesia (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Born This Way Foundation. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004195050/http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2634.html to http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2634.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)