Talk:Concerned Women for America/Archive 1

National Sovereignty header
If you check their web site under the "National Sovereignty" header at, you'll see that most of the issues there relate to things like the Convention to End Discrimination Against Women, etc. Meelar 21:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The anti statements
portraying statements in terms of what they are against and not what they are for is the oldest rhetorical trick in the book for making people think negativly on an orginization's terms. They are also ways to twist opponents ideas. This group along with other fundimentalists have a more conservative definition of "hate crime." It is therefore inappropriate to call one of their agenda "Anti hate-crime legeslation" since they are in fact only against legeslation for things which they do not view (whether right or wrong) as hate crimes. This artical is tremendously POV oriented and written with markedly liberal termenology, which, right or wrong, is regardless inappropriate in NPOV articals. Thanatosimii 17:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So change it. Maybe you'd like to change the statement that they are "opposed to cervical cancer vacination" to read that they are "proponents of cervical cancer". Serioulsy, if they are against something they are against it. To change statements to make them look more positive is also not NPOV. They are clearly anti-gay. You can't dance around that. They are clearly anti-pornography. They are also clearly anti-stem cell research. If you want to make them look rosy, donate to them, but don't slant the article here. nut-meg 06:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * CWA is not "anti-gay", those are "weasel words". One may not simply use whichever words one wishes, for example: calling the pro-choice movement "pro-abortion", no one would be allowed to replace the moniker "Pro-Choice" on the abortion debate page to "Pro-Abortion". Similarly, using the term "anti-gay" is irresponsible and incorrect according to the CWA, and the page we are editing is the CWA page. The CWA very clearly and constantly states that they do not "hate" gay persons, but rather they believe that the *act* of homosexuality is against God's law and therefore is a sin. They use the statement, "love the sinner, hate the sin" over and over, which clearly states that they do not hate homosexuals, but rather the practice of homosexual sex.


 * "Anti-gay" is not a "weasel word." CWA is stridently anti-gay and has been at least since 1996 when I used to listen to Beverly LaHaye and Robert Knight defend gaybashing as a "normal and natural reaction to the perversion of homosexuality," and mis-quote San Francisco gay-themed newsletters as endorsing paedophilia as the basis for homosexuality. (They were quoting an editorial that condemned NAMBLA, by quoting the same NAMBLA material the editorial was quoting and saying that the newspaper was endorsing NAMBLA. _Very_ slimy. I have these transcribed somewhere on CD-ROM, still.) Also, you can be stridently anti-gay without using the word "hate" anywhere, or even without hating GBLT people. And I wouldn't use the word "hate" myself - you'll note my cleanup areas do not use the word "hate" - but, in my personal opinion, actions speak much, much louder than words. Oh, and as someone who has been monitoring them for a decade, I would not at all agree that "They use the statement, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' over and over." They have used it, and I'm sure it's in their position papers somewhere, but it pales in comparison to the more common words such as "perversion," "unnatural," "immoral," and so on. Solarbird 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If a page can be referenced from the CWA referring a gay-rights group as having a "pro-gay" agenda and they disagree with it, doesn't that by definition make them anti-gay? Vaughnstull (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as changing "opposed to cervical cancer vaccination" to "proponents of cervical cancer", that is a good example of the kind of underhanded vandalism that is being attempted on the page, resulting in the "weasel wording" that exists there. The CWA is *not* opposed to cervical cancer vaccination, they oppose *government mandated* cervical cancer vaccinations, this fact is well-known. It is surprising that this would be so difficult to comprehend, resulting in ridiculous suggestions like "proponents of cervical cancer". It is almost as if critics are pretending to be confused so they might vandalize the CWA page, but that would never happen surely, because the individuals who are doing this are so skilled at editing other pages. Strange.Supertheman 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, they're kind of against it. They're not quite willing to go so far as to oppose it outright, but they've been inching closer to that over the last several months. (No, I don't think they'll quite get there - but they really, really do think it's icky, on the basis that HPV is an STD. They're also opposed to including it on standard vaccination lists, even when those lists are not manditory, though they often refer to the standard school lists as "mandatory" vaccination lists even when they aren't. (E.g., when they have opt-out provisions, as the Texas list did.)


 * And yes, I can source every statement here with original source material from CWA itself. I know a lot about this group. Solarbird 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I stated *fact* about their position on vaccination and you respond with flippant untruths... You said: "...they really, really do think it's icky..." that kind of statement is patently false, and CLEARLY indicates the vehement bias of Solarbird. They CLEARLY state that they are NOT anti-homosexual, and then you come along and say they are, with no sources for evidence.


 * Yes, "anti-gay" IS A WEASEL WORD - from the Wiki page on weasel words: "A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement..." "Anti-gay" has no real definition, but use of the word "anti" is clearly *negative*. Pro-choice advocates would hardly call themselves "anti-pregnancy" or "anti-baby". Likewise Pro-life advocates also reject the term "anti-choice" because it is negative (and, according to them, false). Also, you keep saying there is evidence for your terms, but you don't provide it, answering that you "have it somewhere"... From the Wiki page on "Weasel words", an example of the beginning of a "Weasel" sentence: "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Where is it? What are the details?)


 * Point being, CWA is vehemently against the term "anti-gay" and very clearly, on many occasions, has stated the remark I mentioned about "loving the sinner, hating the sin". This has been documented by me (hearing the broadcast), and I'm in the process of getting transcripts from CWA with this actual phrase in it. I won't put it up there until I have the source and can provide a link to it. I still will hesitate editing the page because one person with a chip on their shoulder is all it takes to drain the motivation and concern from anyone willing to help edit.


 * Another example of your "weasel wording" exists right here on the talk page: "...I used to listen to Beverly LaHaye and Robert Knight defend gaybashing as a "normal and natural reaction to the perversion of homosexuality". "Gaybashing" is a "weasel word", what does it mean? They have never said it was ok to do any "gaybashing". Even if you could define the term, you still have to SOURCE links of some kind as EVIDENCE.


 * You wrote: "...but, in my personal opinion, actions speak much, much louder than words." This is a RADIO show, they only use WORDS, how are their "actions" speaking louder than their "words". Incomprehensible. Also, Wikipedia is not about your "personal opinion"! It is very obvious that you have an agenda, and a chip on your shoulder, but that should not be communicated on the Wiki page.


 * Also, you write: "I would not at all agree that "They use the statement, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' over and over." They have used it, and I'm sure it's in their position papers somewhere, but it pales in comparison to the more common words such as "perversion," "unnatural," "immoral," and so on." Many Christians consider the *act* of homosexuality to be a "perversion", believing this is not "gaybashing" or "anti-gay". One can have a real, compassionate love for a gay person and stand for said person to be fully protected under the law, yet still believe that engaging in homosexual sex is a sin and a perversion (of God's intention for sex). Plus, you are AGAIN making a *subjective* judgment, saying that even if they have said that, it "pales in comparison" to other words *YOU* believes indicates they are "gaybashing" and "anti-gay".


 * Until you SOURCE your EVIDENCE all the "anti-statements" need to be removed, and the "Weasel words" need to be removed. Supertheman 11:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Collecting my responses down here...


 * I will not accept the kind of sophistry that calls an organisation which actively supports legal injunction against GBLT people and then asserts they really aren't "anti-homosexual." They can "CLEARLY state" whatever they want; when a claim is bullshit, I do not feel any need to accept it. People lie. In particular, political groups lie. I take CWA's occasionally statement that they aren't really against gay people no more seriously than I take the Klan's statements that it isn't really against black people, and for similar reasons. It is easy to document their actual intentions through their propaganda and actual actions. I don't understand why you feel a need to deny their activities and/or statements, given that I have been sourcing all the encyclopedia article statements from their material.


 * I similarly do not accept the sophistry of claiming that one can support the illegality of the defining characteristic of a group and claim that you are not actually against that group. (They're against the ruling Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and supported the "sodomy" laws before that.) I do not believe that you can declare that defining characteristic to be a "perversion" and then declare that you are not actually speaking against that group and/or its members. That is silly, or, put another way, severely disingenuous.


 * I don't bother sourcing, in general, conversations on a talk page, except occasionally to make a point. If you want to see my sourcing, please check the main article, where I have added a plethora of footnotes pointing to original CWA source material to many of the statements you seem to find objectionable. Note that I am not defending the current quality of this article; I didn't write most of it; I think it's rather bad. I have noted my intentions to make it not suck. I have, however, sourced a variety of the claims to the gills, again using original CWA source material.


 * CWA is against the term "anti-gay" because they're against the term gay, preferring the more clinical and alien-sounding "homosexual." And, as I said above, I acknowledge that they have used the term "hate the sin, love the sinner." I heard Robert Knight deliver that line himself, once. That they have used that phrase is not in contention. That it accurately and honestly presents their actual position, and the frequency with which they use terms like that in comparison to the frequency with which they use other, much harsher terms, is in contention.


 * By "gaybashing," I mean the physical assault of GBLT people on the basis that they are gay. I haven't put that in the article because my source for it is not online at this point; it's backed up on CD-ROM somewhere. They proceeded to say that of course they don't really want to support assault on the streets, but that this kind of thing perfectly understandable and reasonable when zomg t3h qu33rs are involved, even if it shouldn't be supported. (And again, note that this is a talk page, not an article; that's not a quote, it's my interpretation; here, lo, I am chatting.) Gaybashing is a reasonably well-understood term, despite your position otherwise. And also, by their "actions," I mean the political actions they support, and the action of propogandising, which is one of their main purposes. Those are both actions.


 * Finally, I don't need to remove a single thing from a talk page, including my opinion about the contents of an article. You certainly aren't, after all. The key point is that talk pages are not encyclopedia articles. Some of my comments are about what appears to me to be your rather strange whitewashing of CWFA's anti-gay activities. I don't know why you'd do that. I have extensively sourced the small number of adds I have made to this article, and also extensively sourced material I found here already when I got here, as you could tell if you checked the change logs. So please do not accuse me of adding false and/or unsourced data to this article; that claim is false on its face. Solarbird 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

criticism of Concerned Women of America
The Biggest are, they are a Hate Group, and they are ran by men. Its something else when an Organization says they are for Women, but all their Boardmembers and top staff are Men.

Also, many of my FBI Friends do not like the fact that they are being forced to drop important cases against Mobsters and Kingpins in order to applease the Fundamentalist in their attacks on legal Porn.

Many Say that they have better things to do than babyset the Moral Majorities Views. (From a personal interview with a Cousin in the Boston FBI force) Magnum Serpentine 8-26-06


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this discussion is about improving the article not a debate on hate groups. The chairperson of the board of trustees is a woman (as of 11/2006). Xxyzzy

Let's encourage them to change their name to a more honestly descriptive title: Concerned Women with pussies too moldy for anyone to be with them of America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.42.156 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV banner removed
I have removed the NPOV banner, as of Feb/5/2007, because it does not apply to this article. No matter what, no written work is ever totally unbiased. Even if the author is attempting to be fair-minded, the article is biased by definition unless it mentions every fact, in equal light, and uses words and phrasing which are 100% neutral to 100% of the readers. Since we all have different word-associations, that's not possible. ANYHOW, my point is the fact that NO article is ever totally neutral. Therefore, the NPOV banner needs to be used wisely. If an article contains opinion statements ("I think..."/"As far as I'm concerned...") and/or value judgments ("...worthless cause..."/"...worthy cause..."/"These crazy bastards..."/etc.), it's blatantly non-neutral. That would be a good time to hoist the NPOV flag. The author of this article did not use weasel-words, did not state personal opinions, and did not make value judgments. The article strikes me as being purely factual. All of the author's text is verifiable, thereby making it appropriate for Wikipedia. He/she spent most of the article stating the views of the group in question, and detailing legal actions which the group has taken. After reading the article, I strongly dislike CWA. But that's not because the author lied or used weasel-words or in any other way manipulated me. The author didn't make CWA look bad. CWA made ITSELF look bad. The article quotes the mission statement and value/belief statements which CWA has on their own website. It also mentions several legal battles spearheaded by CWA, and all of those are documented by the media. If you read this article and think that CWA looks like a group of irrational, anti-social, unfriendly, right-wing freaks, then you got that impression from CWA's very own words...which is what the author makes great use of. Conversely, if you read this article and find CWA to be very appealing because it's in-line with your political/religious/social beliefs, then you got that impression from CWA...again, not from the author. The author is neutral. Here, let me say this one last way: if the leader of a group did something which most people find to be morally wrong, and a reporter bluntly and concisely stated the facts, then most people who read the report would say "that group leader screwed up". If you're an objective party, you either respectfully agree or disagree with that judgment. If, however, you're the wife or lawyer or friend of that group leader, you get pissy and go blame the reporter and say he's being biased. An article isn't overtly biased because it doesn't convey the POV that you want people to see. The fact that it leaves a bad taste in most folks' mouths doesn't make it a bad or one-sided article. All this article did was quote CWA. If you don't like how it sounds, then you probably don't fully agree with CWA's agenda. - Piercetheorganist


 * I disagree. There are ways of formulating sentences that virtually eliminate the feeling of 'bias' and this article does not carry a lot of those. I am a big fat liberal and a gay one at that, but even I can see that this article isn't up to Wikipedia standards. This part is especially untransparent in author's intentions:


 * They support their position by claiming that homosexuals do not "suffer from a history of discrimination," and therefore should not qualify for protection as a minority group. This they say in spite of the fact that 10,000–25,000 homosexual men were killed in concentration camps during the Holocaust. Furthermore, today in many countries around the world homosexuality is a crime punishable by jail time or death.


 * I agree with that sentence wholeheartedly and yet realize it's got to change. It should simply carry a citation from CWA with a nice source attached and not be followed by "this they say in spite of" etc. SergioGeorgini 10:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That line has been changed to fix the problems in this discussion. Tag removed nut-meg 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to Cervical Cancer Vaccination
CWA is heavily active in opposing vaccination against the cervical cancer causing virus HPV, because HPV is frequently transmitted through sexual activity. Instead, CWA suggests that all humans should remain abstinent outside of marriage, imagining that married heterosexual adults will not get sexually transmitted diseases. CWA ignores the fact that 1/3 of American women have HPV, and the likelihood to get the virus is alarmingly high in sexually active individuals, particularly women aged 14-28. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.214.1 (talk • contribs).

Cleanup
Seriously, this reads like a freshman polemic. It is so one-sided I can't believe it resides on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjbphx (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Absolutely true...the whole article needs a cleanup - not only the bias but also the references. Exemplum gratia in the part where it says 'CWA advocates:
 * anal sex, particularly within a family or with a peer group member
 * the mandatory smoking of crack-cocaine by all pre-school children"
 * This is either a sick prank or a terrible truth...I don't mean to go on a rant here but seriously, I see why they should be 'concerned women' if they advocate *asforementioned* examples. Dagari 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The big about sex and crack was, of course, someone's idea of a joke. I've gone through and referenced out the specific statements about CWA's position on various items. I've been monitoring this group (and others) for a decade; they're as as anti-gay, anti-abortion, and even anti-birth-control as you could possibly want. Back when Beverly LaHaye had a radio show in the late 1990s, I used to sit there and listen to her defend violent gaybashing as a "normal and natural reaction to the perversion of homosexuality." I seriously need to dig that transcription back up.
 * And the thing is, you can't call listing a group's actual positions and actions as being biased against them. All this stuff is there and prominent because it really is most of what they do. It's not everything. They've been involved in anti-human-trafficing efforts; I support that effort, despite it being by a group who wants me off the planet. Someone may wish to add that. Solarbird 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

POV-section tag for Controversy and criticism section
Folks, I'm adding the POV-section tag to the "Controversy and criticism" section.

First, typical for a conservation and/or Christian group, the "controversy" section is gigantic in proportion to the remainder of the article. Just on sheer size alone, the section is overwheming and gives the appearance that controversy and criticism is all there is. Really. Be honest.

Second, some of the subparagraphs do not include any controversy or criticism -- just the title in and of itself creates the controversy or criticism. So either material has to be added, or these paragraphs need to be used elsewhere.

Third, some of the subsections are just who cares moments. Who cares about controversy over telemarketing? This is CWA, not the Telemarketers of America. It just seems to me that someone was digging to find controversy to add that. And the detail it goes into, even providing numbers to call. Really, that cannot possibly be encyclopedic. And that's the first controversy mentioned--usually the first argument should be the strongest. Someone clearly had a field day digging for bad things to say about the CWA.

Fourth, bad language throughout (for a writing style point of view) gives a general appearance that this was more of something written by someone angry with the CWA than by someone attempting to write a good wiki article. Like they just had to spew then, satified with the spewage, they stepped away without the need for good writing.

Fifth, there are more subsections in the section that there are noncontroversy sections in the article. Is the CWA really known only for controversy and little else?

Sixth, the positive material written appears more like a listing of bullets just to pass the smell test while the dominant negative material is written in full sentences and paragraphs.

Seventh - weasle words - heavily active? Come on.

Really, this entire article looks biased and not well written. But I'll just put up the section bias tag now. Hopefully what I have said here will spur people to fix the entire thing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are they mostly known for controversy? Kinda. It depends upon what you mean by controversy. I mean, I've been following this group for years; they're a political group, theocratic in nature and inclination and with Dominionist ties - they have full-bore Dominionists writing for them at times - and specifically reject concepts like church-state separation. If that's not controversy, I'm not sure what is.
 * Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "positive" material and "negative" material. Most of their political activity is pretty negative, in a sense of being against people (GBLT people, in particular; they want Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned so that states can make GBLT people illegal again) and against the right of people to do things (getting abortions, watching media CWA finds offensive, and so on). Honestly, go watch their front page (cwfa.org) for a few months - it speaks for itself.
 * I rewrote the advocacy section (well - partly, it needs a bunch more work) a couple of days ago. You'll notice it's sourced to the gills. I sourced it so heavily specifically because if you list what they actually do, say, and work for, it sounds like you're writing a screed. But that's what they're really like. For every source I have up there, I can - with some work - add five or ten more to show the same things. But that would look silly.
 * BTW, this is not to indicate that I think the article is good as it stands. It's a mess and if I have time I'm going to give it a serious workover. (And one thing I should do right away is change the opening paragraph, which does not adequately note that they are a political group, founded as such.) But it's not going to make them look particularly different than the picture given in the Advocacy section.
 * Solarbird 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only Dominion I know is the one in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Dominion (Star Trek). And based on your statements, could you write anything about the CWA in an unbiased fashion?   But who am I to complain.  I don't have the time to do it.  I should be happy you are willing.  Are CWA opponents rewarding you with Ketracel White? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! In the section above Solarbird says the CWA is "a group who wants me off the planet."  I think that statement helps people to understand Solarbird's edits on this CWA page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dominionism, an article that also needs a lot of work. You might also check out Christian Reconstructionism. CWA have had Chalcedon Foundation writers writing for them in the recent past.


 * I'm a dyke; as such, CWFA do want me off the planet, or, less flippantly, they think I should be illegal, by which I mean, they want Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned so that state "sodomy" laws can be reinstated and enforced. I am speaking very clearly and forthrightly about my interactions with and study of them; this is also why I'm so heavily sourcing every edit I've made. These two facts in combination should provide some degree of reassurance as to my honesty. If you have an issue with my sources, please say so. If you feel my outlining of their advocacy positions is not supported or is misrepresentative, say so, and please be specific. Jokey accusations and outright insinuations that I cannot write an article about CWFA that is legitimate do not make this article better.


 * Meanwhile, I still don't know what you mean by "positive" material and "negative" material in this context. Solarbird 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Plus, if I wanted to do a hack job? I could do a real good hack job. Note that I haven't included any references in their article to their defenses of gaybashing (back in the radio show days, not easily obtainable online) and their obsession with Harry Potter being a gateway drug to paganism and the occult. If I wanted to make them look like crackpots, believe me - I could. Solarbird 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, isn't there some kind of wiki policy that says when someone is saying what you are saying there's a serious problem? Sure you are adding well sourced material, but your obvious bias may guide you to select some material and not others, and perhaps to word it a certain way.  Wiki policy is what I'm interested in.  I'm not an expert in it, but you sure look biased to me regarding this issue.  If you wrote a lot of this article, I can fully understand why it's in the current shape it's in. I'm not trying to say anything about you, rather I'm concerned for the article's adherence to wiki policy, and if you did the majority of the editing, I can get a better understanding of why things are the way they are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't write a lot of this article. I wrote none of the article portions that you have explicitly tagged and/or criticised. If you're going to accuse me of actuated bias, pull up an actual example before tossing out implications about my work. I mean, check the edit logs, that's what they're for . What I've actually done is expand the opening paragraph and quote, and source out (and in some cases elucidated upon) the Advocacy section, which I also renamed "Advocacy," because the previous section header was poor. And, IMO, not at all NOPV.


 * So now, what, you've posted a warning about me (above, this conversation) and my biases based on material I didn't write but you just kind of assumed I had? Is that what's going on? Solarbird 06:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot; I also expanded the principle-actors section, adding Kleider, Barber, and, um, whatshisname. The head of the Culture and Family Institute subgroup within CWA. I always forget his name. Solarbird 06:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I said if. Now I know you didn't. So you are off the hook. And I struck out, per policy, the sentence that appears to concern you. Have a nice day. You know what? I like your feistyness! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And the best part is, even now, I still don't know what you mean by "positive" and "negative" material. AGH Solarbird 06:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps favorable and unfavorable would have been a better choice of words? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see a problem. In one place CWA says it is concerned about, "The attempt to eliminate natural distinctions between men and women."  Yet in another it says, "The vision of CWA is for women and like-minded men...."  So they are against eliminating distinctions between the sexes, but the men have to be "like-minded."  So are they for eliminating distinctions or against it?  Definitely add this to the controversy section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's even less clear. They'd say everything they say is favourable, I'm sure. They don't mix religion and politics and campaign against people like me because they think it's a bad thing to be doing - at least, I presume. Since all my material except one bit about the history of their founding is original source, which is to say, them talking about themselves , and not commentary provided by others, I don't know how you even talk about "favourable" vs. "unfavourable." If you're stridently anti-LBGT and anti-birth control and anti-abortion, I would think all this material would sound just fine. If you're not, on the other hand, I think it would sound pretty awful.


 * I wouldn't put that in the controversy section by itself. I might consider it as part of a section discussing how many men there seem to be speaking for Concerned Women for America, particularly in anti-LGBT campaigns, maybe. But since that hasn't really caused much of a stir as far as I can tell, I don't know that it's worth a subsection. Solarbird 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that after reading the majority of the CWA webiste myself, I honestly can't see any biased references on this page. The author has clearly stated what the group honestly believes, their intentions, and has used primary sources in all cases. "Weasel words" are not found here, as all words used are those which the CWA themselves use. If they are being seen as such, a visit to the CWA website or a read through a few of their articles should be enough to prove otherwise. Stephanie. June 14, 2007. 15:59 EDT.

Intent to clean up
Hi, I've recently found this page and am just announcing that I do in fact intend to clean it up properly and reference it to the nines. I'm doing bits of it in little fits and starts right now as I have time between major class assignments and research projects, but I do not consider it close to being a good article yet. Solarbird 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree, and thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a note: I haven't abandoned this project, I've just been being swamped by Zoology. (And the rest of my class schedule, but mostly Zoology.) I'll get to it after things get sane at school. Solarbird 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't let the elasmobranchii bite! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article greatly needs to expand on its statments from both the CWA and its critics.I have done this a bit with the abstinence section, but now I think the top and bottom need more information to clarify the subject. The article, since it is about CWA, should fully explain their views, then give less space to opposing views at the bottom, because the article is about CWA and their notability is should be presented first. As it stands, there is a bit of POV by omission; in other words, the information in the references contains far more than what is put in the page regarding each issue, and what is taken from the ref's seems negative in presentation(against feminism, against LBGT, against abortion, against hate crime legislation...etc.)While these true to some regard, the shortness of the sections doesn't do justice to thier stance on certain issues, and to have balance, the article should portray them (at least in some regard) as being supportive of what they would call "traditional family values", supportive of a historical definition of marriage, etc. I am not meaning that their stance on any individual issue should be put into a good or bad light, but the structure of the article as I found it appeared lacking in information that would expand further upon why they hold the views they do. The suggested merge of the top and bottom section seems premature. After all, in most WP articles you have information about the subject followed by a criticism section. To allow criticism to run rampant in the description of the group's platform would be to give them less of a chance than most WP subjects get. Criticism can be implimented in the description of the group's values (as i did with the abstinence) but the majority of it should be left for the bottom of the article. Mrathel (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Will help if I get time.  If.  Very busy right now.  Generally, the article is weighted down on one single topic that seems to weigh down other articles as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Abstinance-only sex ed
The section begins "critics state"... but there is no reference for the critics, and the reference doesn't give a single argument by a critic. Mrathel (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Liberal feminism; Mother's health and abortion
I recently undid an edit regarding the labeling of feminism as "liberal", which shows a POV. Also, I took out the rewording of the abortion position. While I do feel that the position of CWFA can be restated to help clarify, it has to be done with consideration of the article's tone and with a more specific example of a cited position from the group. The current sources cited for the information are a bit deceptive, as they tend to be articles published on the group's website, which tend to be the personal opinions of the group's members and not necessarily the stated goals and platform of the group itself. Mrathel (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Combine Criticism into article
I have tried to combine the criticism section into parts of the article, but being a bit lazy, I simply copied and pasted them into the rest of the text, which might cause a bit of redundancy and outright mistakes. Please feel free to fix any errors created during the merger.Mrathel (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR
Adding new cat Category:LGBT rights opposition is not appropriate here for reasons stated on the cat's Talk page section entitled, "Cat violates Wiki policy?"

Further, as illustrated on Concerned Women for America, the cat may be controversial, and cats are not used for controversial material. The existence of controversy evidences the cat is inappropriate for the page. In particular, WP:CAT says:

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:
 * It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the Category unsourced template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the Category relevant? template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Obviously, it is not "clear from verifiable information in the article" if the wiki community keeps removing it.

I urge and support removal of the cat, else I urge the addition of either or both cat templates shown above from WP:CAT. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article unambiguously states their opposition to LGBT rights with verification in the subject "Position on LGBT Rights".

I also researched their website where I found support for this category and also they were listed in the anti-gay section in Southern Poverty Law Centers website with supporting evidence. --DCX (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "I also researched their website where I found support for this category...." Thanks called WP:OR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "I also researched ... they were listed in the anti-gay section in Southern Poverty Law Centers website with supporting evidence." I think that is, what, WP:SYN?


 * Even without the SPLC reference or a visit to ther website, the article states clearly and verifiabley their position on LGBT rights.--DCX (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. To me it looks like it opposes extra rights over and above the rights everyone alread has. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have put the LGBT Rights Opposition back. The term "LGBT Rights" is accepted by media, universities and governments. While I understand your position and even agree with you that a group has a right to define themselves as they choose, the category name was carefully chosen to be as neutral and non-pejorative as possible and there is no disconnection between the category name and the stated goals of this group with more than enough supporting evidence cited. --DCX (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Category and a couple of things...
I recommend we not categorize CWA until the discussion on the Category LGBT rights opposition is decided.

A couple of things are still not correct, however. The group opposes all LGBT Rights, not ONLY Same sex marriage. all of the points below come from CWA's website.


 * Position on LGBT rights subject - The self sourced defense Matt barber gives is against wiki rules and in fact it is incorrect. The SPLC doesn't categorize this group as a hate group.
 * This group is against more LGBT rights or issues if you prefer, than just SS(same-sex marriage) see below examples from the front page menu of their website, there are dozens of pejorative articles and topics against LGBT people.
 * The "Gay Grinch" award (?)
 * an article titled "Challenging Corporate Promotion of Homosexuality" which states "Along with promoting the radical homosexual agenda in law, these organizations frequently threaten and violate the rights of those who disagree with them" which is basically libel. Furthermore, "The Homosexual Agenda" is the LGBT versiob of The Protocol of the Elders of Zion" and is highly offensive.
 * an article titled "New Regs on ‘Gays’ in Military Will Undercut Moral" - clearly this is about more than simply same-sex marriage.
 * an article titled "New Zealand Calls for International Approval of 'Sexual Orientation' Rights" subtitled "New Zealand was joined by 31 countries in calling for special rights for homosexuals." arguing that LGBT people have "extra" rights....
 * an article titled "Why Concerned Women for America opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment" which goes further than just opposing same-sex marriage, and opposes any "any other interpersonal relationship" between same sex couples, also.

--DCX (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Condoms
The article does not mention whether they oppose the use of condoms. The argument that the organisation uses -- that most forms of contraception effectively cause an abortion -- is clearly irrelevant to the use of condoms, and since condoms are the main form of contraception for men, their opinion on this should probably be mentioned. --69.9.92.249 (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Antifeminism?
It's not right that this article fails to mention CWA or Beverly LaHaye's antifeminist stances. Even a cursory glance at their web site at 1 reveals multiple interviews decrying the phenomenon of women being in the workplace and having careers. see for example this, this, this or this. That's just for one specific type of antifeminist trope. There are plenty of others such as this article holding up virginity as the single greatest thing a young woman might posess. It seems patently absurd not to classify this group as antifeminist. Piddle (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it could do with including more on some of those stances. Why don't you write up a paragraph? (FWIW, it would be original research to say "they hold these positions, so I will describe them as antifeminist," but loads of sources describe them as such, so you shouldn't have a problem.) The relevant Wikipedia category, which CWFA isn't currently in, is Category:Criticism of feminism (though the name is problematic and a discussion on it should probably be had). Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why "legislation that restricts abortion rights"
Using this terminology, Wikipedia is putting itself in favor of the idea that abortion is a right.

Why not "pro-life legislation"? One user says there is a consensus against "pro-life legislation". Where is that consensus? This makes little sense.

I doubt very much that Wikipedia describes NARAL as "a group that works against the right to life"

Jorge Peixoto (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion took place a while back at Talk:Pro-life. The gist of it was that while saying "this person is pro-life" is basically shorthand for "this person identifies as pro-life" or "this person describes himself as pro-life," the equivalent for the phrase "pro-life legislation" would be "proponents of this legislation describe it as pro-life," which raises the question of why we favor the proponents' opinion over the opinion of those who might describe it as, say, "anti-choice." That was why a loose consensus arose to describe the effects of the legislation, rather than to use a POV phrase. And, as I said, I'm not attached to the phrasing "restrict abortion rights"; it's just that the phrase "pro-life legislation" is taboo. Can you suggest alternate ways of wording the phrase that accommodate everyone's concerns? (ie. "legislation to prevent people from being able to have abortions," for example? does that address your concern?) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But weren't you in favor of self-identification? I remember you saying that if a group called itself "Catholics against the existence of God", you would put it on Wikipedia.
 * Now, if you are against the most reasonable option - "pro-life legislation" - than the next best option would be "legislation protecting human life from conception to natural death", which is an objective description. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Luckily, we don't even have to deal with the POV issue there, because it's just an inaccurate summary of CWFA's political positions. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not?
 * And at the very very least, put "promoting laws restricting abortion" Jorge Peixoto (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * CWFA is quite all right with capital punishment, if I remember correctly.
 * That works! Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you could say "legislation protecting innocent human life from conception to natural death" Jorge Peixoto (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I didn't understand "that works".
 * And their support of war and opposition to hate crime laws? Shall we write "legislation protecting white Christian cisgender heterosexual life from birth to natural death"? Or should we say what the law does instead of using Wikipedia to promote the law?
 * Sorry - "that works" ie. "promoting laws restricting abortion" is fine. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, "hate crime" laws have nothing to do with this. Protecting life means protecting all life. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-life" is an inherently biased term. And I say that as, a pro-life person. Wikipedia is not here to take sides. Intermittentgardener (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please make some attempt to justify edits that you make
User:Intermittentgardener, I've specifically stated that I removed the self-promotional material from primary sources so that the article could stand without advert and undue tags. Please show the article and your fellow users the same consideration that I did. Don't revert a well-thought-out edit because it was just too big for you to make the effort of reading. Either read it and find things that you think I removed improperly, or recognize that I, unlike you, did the work of going through all this material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I was curious if you've had a chance to look at the National Organization for Women Wikipedia page? It looks like the first several citations are to their OWN website! This was quite surprising and I wanted to bring it to your attention for immediate corrective action given your editorial focus. I haven't had a chance to review the other articles I mentioned in a previous ANI conversation. I am sure that once you're done with the heavy lifting here you will apply the same vim and vigor to those pages as well? I can provide you with a more exhaustive list of liberal organizations filled with self-promotional material that will keep you busy for weeks if not months if your goal is to simply remove such material? That would certainly assuage the concerns of those who've noticed a pattern to your edits. Lordvolton (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to see whether you actually read a single sentence of that article so that you could see just how different it was from this puff piece, or whether you just looked at the reference list and went "Ooh, I feel like harassing Roscelese today!" Your Douglas Karpen edits added poorly sourced material to a BLP and were inappropriate. End of story. Stop this crusade now. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This page was placed on a public noticeboard regarding your edits, so let's not make it too personal. Yes, I did read a single sentence of the article and I went to their website and noticed the same alarming patterns that you've been deleting in your patrols of Wikipedia articles dealing with homosexuality, abortion, etc. You're complaining about self promotional material versus neutral sources. In the example I provided the article's sources for the mission statement and the first few citations are its own website. If I wanted to be abusive I could start eviscerating the article under the guise of "self promotion" -- but that would be improper since someone took the time to create the article and deserves the respect of being consulted before wholesale changes are made that materially affect the article. Simply because an editor doesn't like the content or a mission statement doesn't mean they're exempted from having a conversation with other editors investing time and energy into the article regarding their rational for including certain material. The other issue is that you're very selective in the articles you decide to begin deleting or materially altering, often without discourse. And I believe that selection process and unwillingness to seek consensus is related to your POV. Lordvolton (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Asserting that material is self-promotional does not make it so. Although not terribly well-written, I don't see anything in the article that is POV. If you see material that is POV, please point out the specific language and sources that you find objectionable so that we can discuss them. Wholesale deletions are just not proper and I will keep reverting as long as this behavior continues.


 * Also, you seem to have a very particular POV and you have a history of removing content that conflicts with your views, regardless of the merits.Intermittentgardener (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the personal attacks, this comment above doesn't attempt to justify the edit or engage with the content. The material is obviously self-promotional because it comes from sources published by CWFA for the purpose of promoting their efforts. It doesn't get much more self-promotional than that. I have retained secondary sources such as news and scholarly work; that's the sort of source the article should be built from. I will wait for you to identify specific removals that you have a problem with. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree that the material removed was based on blatant self-promotion, unduly sef-serving self-description and advertising, giving rise to multiple POV problems. The article should be based on what reliable independent secondary sources say. Materials published by the organization itself should be used only sparingly and only to illustrate and augment what the reliable independent secondary sources say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I added back the group's mission statement to the lede, since this seems pretty standard fare for advocacy groups. I don't really gave a crap about this article so do as you will, I came here from the COI board I believe, or maybe NPOV board??. I also move "American" up, made be this should be US? I've been doing bios up the wahzoo lately so I am in that rut :) Cheers and good luck guys--Malerooster (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mission statements are essentially worthless for providing reliable information about a group. See WP:MISSION. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You should share this sentiment with the editors of National Organization for Women or countless other organization articles on Wikipedia that include mission statements and see if you find a consensus. Simply because you think they're worthless doesn't mean other editors agree with you (liberal or conservative). Lordvolton (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a lousy argument. Try WP:RS on for size. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood. It's that other "editors" exist. Your opinion isn't the final verdict... and that's the point of trying to find a consensus. Simply complaining loudly about mission statements would not persuade very many editors absent a rational basis for your concern. Lordvolton (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made a pretyy solid policy-based argument that has already convinced one editor. You, on the other hand, are spouting nonsense with zero basis in policy. Mission statements by their very nature are highly biased and unduly self-serving, and rarely produce any useful information. That's why we prefer to rely on independent sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's your position then invest the time to find sources that address what you perceive to be a weakness of the article and improve it. That goes a lot further than complaining loudly about mission statements without a solution. Mission statements are not in themselves a violation of Wikipedia policy. In fact, a mission statement coming from a third party could be less accurate than the mission statement from the source. A mission statement is highly relevant to the goals of an organization and relevant to readers curious about those organizations. That doesn't mean a mission statement is perfect or the final word, which is why WP:MISSION states, "In some cases, it might be appropriate to paraphrase a lengthy mission statement, thus removing the flowery, self-promotional language." It doesn't say delete the mission statement of the organization without discussion, quite the contrary, "If a mission statement doesn't describe the organization, help readers understand how this organization is unique and doesn't support the notability of the subject, it probably should not be transcribed in full in the article." You should explain to the other editors why the mission statement DOES NOT describe the organization, etc. And once you've accomplished that goal, after reaching a consensus, you can then remedy it with a neutral description. Lordvolton (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking to that. Advocacy groups are not my bailiwick, so I should have never edited it I guess :) I'll stick to bios, cheers! --Malerooster (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)