Talk:National Organization for Marriage/Archive 3

Synthesis in SPLC section
An editor has repeatedly tried to insert a reference or note to this document in the Southern Poverty Law Center section. Problem is, that document makes no reference to NOM; it is synthesis to use SPLC's statement that NOM propogates myths and then point to a list of myths to suggest that SPLC said that NOM propogated these myths. Can I get consensus for deleting this (again)? --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The cited SPLC article hyperlinks "falsehoods about homosexuals" to that document, so it doesn't appear to be synthesis (albeit not particularly necessary.) AV3000 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "see" template was being used to support the quote "based on known falsehoods", and the SPLC article was applying that phrase to hate groups, which they did not classify NOM as. As such, I clipped that phrase out of the sentence, and clipped the "see" which was supporting it. Even if an editor tries to find another path to this, neither SPLC article says that NOM was supporting any of these specific myths; they may have embraced one that's not on the list (say, the myth that gay people never order a large bowl of soup and eat it slowly, thus causing them to miss their train.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not true. The article says "What follows are 10 key myths propagated by the anti-gay movement, along with the truth behind the propaganda." The "falsehoods" reference was not to hate groups, it was to anti-gay groups. On the list of anti-gay groups, which NOM is a part, it states that the groups "continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities" and "SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities".
 * The link is very relevant to the Southern Poverty Law Center section, as a note in it's present place, because it gives examples of the certain "falsehoods" which allowed them to come to the conclusion that the National Organization of Marriage is an "anti-gay group". While it doesn't specifically give an explicit reference to NOM, there is no question that these are the "falsehoods" that were in the criteria for concluding "anti-gay group" status. It's not reasonable to think that the article would mention every single listed anti-gay group because there are well over a dozen. Only 5 out of 18 groups are explicitly mentioned, that does not mean the rest of the groups had not participated in at least one of the 10 listed falsehoods. Also, could you sign your statements. Thank you. -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

correction: The "based on known falsehoods" quote did refer to it's new list of hate groups, so I removed it. I reinstated the Note to this page because the anti-gay group page actually links to it when saying "have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities...because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations." This proves it's relevance to all the anti-gay groups and their concluded status. - Teammm Let's Talk! :) 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot assume that a reference to what a group as a whole does applies to each and every member of the group. Even if we have a source that says "New Jerseyans like Tastykakes" and that "Fred is a New Jerseyan", it's still synthesis to say or even imply "Fred likes Tastkakes." In this case, SPLC is talking about the effect of anti-gay groups as a whole, and this is not an article about anti-gay groups as a whole. "Only 5 out of 18 groups are explicitly mentioned, that does not mean the rest of the groups had not participated in at least one of the 10 listed falsehoods" seems to suggest that what we're looking for is lack of proof that what we're saying or implying is incorrect, which is a ridiculously weak standard. We're pointing to a list of falsehoods as if NOM was guilty of all of them, when there is not one that the SPLC is specifically accusing them of. It's uninformative and misleading. Added: to be complete, I should note that the NOM section of the 18-group page does mention to specific falsehoods that were put out unde rthe NOM banner, but also notes that NOM disassociated themselves from the person who does so. The claim that SPLC claims that NOM continues to put out falsehoods come across as itself a demonizing falsehood. -Nat Gertler (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. The list of false facts is linked to in SPLC's description of why those particular 18 groups are categorized as anti-gay. It's linked to within the paragraph, on that particular statement I mentioned and it is also linked to under the description of NOM. That in itself explains the relevance in showing a note to it when referencing that NOM was concluded anti-gay due to propaganda/false facts. I don't see how you think it doesn't belong there. --Regarding your claim that SPLC's is trying to demonize NOM, I think that's plain ludicrous. NOM links to anti-gay material on their site and blogs among other things. While linking to a piece may not mean you endorse the piece, it is all about context. And generally when NOM links to pieces about the LGBT community, the inference from the material is that they are the "diseased other out to destroy society." So I am of the opinion that there is a slight degree of endorsement in the pieces that NOM links to. Gallagher used the "we don’t endorse everything we link to" defense when it was discovered that NOM’s blog linked to an article A "Bad Catholic" Case Against SSM? SPLC has been objective in it's conclusions and determinations based on credible scientific authorities when it comes to not only the anti-gay groupings, but the hate groupings as well, and I don't find any "demonizing" going on with that. -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 18:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The list of false facts is linked to in SPLC's description of why those particular 18 groups are categorized as anti-gay." This article isn't about eighteen groups; this is about one group in particular. To try to paint NOM with all of the sins of all eighteen is quite improper. "Regarding your claim that SPLC's is trying to demonize NOM" - I made no such claim; my claim is that you are trying to demonize NOM, and are repeatedly and aggressively misrepresenting the SPLC in order to do so. -Nat Gertler (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't demonize anything. I simply placed the note to a reference that further explained the types of false information the anti-gay groups have used. Under NOM on this page, there's a reference to it. Not only there but generally in the description at the top of the page. I still don't understand how it's a misconception. If you don't want to place ALL the information under the criticism section of the NOM article, then that does a disservice to people seeking information. There's a whole article of what NOM has done and there needs to be a full exhibit of the controversy that goes with the organization. I don't see how the note is demonizing. -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 22:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've rephrased that line so that it's clear that SPLC is referring to the groups on its list in general, rather than specifically calling out NOM. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. That was a good idea to compromise. I wish we could of thought of that. -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 23:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

II
If it's not about NOM, then what's the point of having that in here? No, this is not a good compromise, it's a WP:COATRACKy way to work in something inappropriate. It does not serve the reader looking for more on the topic of the information well; the person seeking information will be far better served by going to the Ref, in which SPLC is actually talking about NOM, and which can lead them to the other information in context. Instead, the reader is given the command SEE, as if that will take them to the truly important stuff, and which takes them to a page in which NOM is not mentioned, as if everything on that page applies to NOM, rather than the page on which NOM is discussed and specific accusations are made in a way which allows the there-linked page to be viewed in specific regards to NOM. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SPLC is referring to NOM. They're referring to all 18 of the anti-gay groups on their list. Like I said, it pertains to the falsehoods and propaganda and also ties into NOM and the others and that's not WP:COATRACK. This small section of criticism is giving you such a problem. I believe it is relevant according to WP:FRINGE, but not only because of that. I can change the word from "see" to "note" ...but I still don't understand your argument. Do you simply not want it there? It has direct relevance to NOM being an anti-gay group. I just don't get it.-Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 01:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "SPLC is referring to NOM" With which of these accused myths? Reading that page, there is zero way to tell, because the page mentions NOM not at all. Yes, I do not want that link there. We already have a much better link for SPLC's actual criticism of NOM, being a page that, well, actually and specifically refers to NOM. A page that blanketly criticizes anti-gay groups without mentioning what criticisms apply to NOM no more belongs here than a page that criticize organizations in general, or Americans in general. There may be appropriate articles for such a link (maybe opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States?), but this is not that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think the reference to the "10 Myths" article should be included in this article. The "10 Myths" article does not mention NOM.  The "18 Anti-Gay Groups" article does--and it states explicitly what the SPLC has concluded about NOM.  The NOM article would be best served by linking only to the article which mentions NOM and including only content which is mentioned in that article.


 * I think the lead section on the "18 Anti-Gay Groups" is confusing w.r.t. which comments it is applying to all 18 groups listed and which it is applying to only the 13 groups on that list it has designated as "hate groups". The SPLC has attempted to clear up this confusion with this later article which states specifically that the criteria they use for identifying an anti-gay hate group is “[T]heir propagation of known falsehoods – claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities – and repeated, groundless name-calling.” and that NOM does not meet this criteria.


 * The reference to "demonizing propaganda" appears to apply to all 18 groups on the anti-gay list, but the reference to "propagation of known falsehoods" does not.


 * In the actual profile of NOM on the SPLC article the only mention of use of items from the "10 Myths" article identifies those uses as coming specifically from Louis Marinelli, who the SPLC acknowledges is no longer associated with NOM. The demonizing propaganda which the SPLC reports NOM has used independently of Marinelli includes fear mongering on the grounds that "gay activism" will harm heterosexuals by “'tak(ing) away' their rights, chang(ing) their lifestyle, and forc(ing) homosexuality on their kids."  This is anti-gay propaganda, certainly, but not propaganda which appears in the "10 Myths" article. Bowrain13 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Movement of "strategy" into criticism section
The movement of the "strategy" section into criticism is inappropriate, in that it contains no one being critical of NOM. It's a simple placement of facts, the words quoted are NOM's own. (It's also inappropriate to refer to these as "leaked" documents; to the best of my understanding, these are documents which NOM released to the court.) I also think its off-the-mark to make the lede of the section about how the facts came to light rather than what the facts are. There may well be people who will now criticize NOM on the basis of these documents, and that criticism might be reasonably covered in the criticism section. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Criticism ghettoes in articles are enough of an issue already without their becoming "let's shunt as much unfavorable material as possible to the bottom, where people are less likely to read it" by another name. (As some of the things there already appear to be.) You are also correct that it does not appear to be a leak. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Secret contributions by Presidential candidate Romney?
This story gets more interesting each day. If someone gets a chance please add fact Romney now implicated with secretly supporting group and avoiding the $100 disclosure limit. See Pbmaise (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2012 (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 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Heads up on coming news
NOM's Maine case will be considered on Thursday, but it's uncertain how long it will take for the ruling to come down. We should try to stay alert for that... and once it's done, we may want to simplify the coverage of the Maine case, as it's so filled with various appeal attempts that it is hard to follow. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Left-Wing's Stranglehold on Wikipedia Apparent in This Article: Biased Language
Recently I changed language including the phrase "same-sex marriage", etc., to more neutral language, and, as expected, it was quickly reverted.

Using the phrase "same-sex marriage" supports the homosexual agenda and promotes the homosexual ideology because it requires the word "marriage" to assume the meaning, "union of two people", instead of its usual definition "union of man and woman". Of course, changing the word's meaning in this manner is central to this debate. Until the debate has been conclusively settled and the word "marriage" means "union of two people" as the standard use, it should not be used as such in Wikipedia articles, or any other article claiming to be professional or objective.

It would be more neutral to say they are "opposed to redefining marriage", because that is precisely what they are opposing, instead of the phrase "opposed to same-sex marriage", which is biased as I've just shown. However, I expect the article to remain biased in favor of the homosexual agenda because Wikipedia is controlled by left-wing editors, who will simply say "the media uses the term, therefore we should, too" as an excuse. Please note (in response to this objection) that the mainstream media can hardly be held as a standard of professionalism, given their goals are to sell publications and advertising, and to create controversy (in order to further sales); it is also well-known that those working in this field are often themselves biased -- thus, it is not a good argument to suppose that a professional encyclopedia ought to use their language.

It is a shame that Wikipedia cannot be neutral or professional as it advertises to be. I would like to be proven wrong, though.

-- Newagelink (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The media uses the term, therefore we should, too. That is how Wikipedia works. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the assertion that "opposed to redefining marriage" is more neutral than "opposed to same-sex marriage". NewageLink seems to be asserting that using the term "same-sex marriage" makes it biased because it uses the term supported by the "left-wing" side of the debate, supporting the "homosexual agenda".  However, I believe that that side of the debate would prefer "marriage equality" and would not agree that they are supporting a "homosexual agenda".  The term "same-sex marriage", to me, seems comfortably, somewhere in the middle.  Neither what the left-wing nor right-wing would prefer. Sterrettc (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposing same-sex marriage is NOM's own language about what they were created for. There is not significant sourcing for describing them in other terms. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * NOM is opposed to same-sex marriage. That is what they were formed to do, and that is what they still do. What is the difficulty here?
 * "Opposed to redefining marriage" is political misdirection, and flatly wrong. In fact, NOM is in favor of passing laws which would redefine marriage such that only heterosexual couples could marry. In many jurisdictions wording such as this has never been on the books, was never made explicitly into a law. For these places, marriage would be effectively redefined by NOM. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where Wikipedia supposedly advertises that it is professional. However, if the standard is what a professional encyclopedia would do, we can allways look at Britanica, -Nat Gertler (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Traditional definition of marriage"
Someone has been trying to edit-war in discussion of a "traditional definition of marriage" as the reason why NOM was formed. It's not how NOM describes why they were formed, does not match the usual descriptor of what they do, and this addition has been removed by a variety of editors, showing that this change does not have consensus. If that editor wishes to make that change, they should raise the issue here on the Talk page and achieve consensus before reinserting it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Further Karger charges
We're going to need more than Karger accuastions for inclusion i n the article, but this is worth keeping an eye on. -Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Goes before board August 8 --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

One to watch
A member of NOM's board has just put out an announcement stating that "With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state." It would be marginal to add this to the article at this point, as he did not do it under the flag of NOM, although the articles covering it do note his involvement. However, this will likely have some response from NOM, which has not as an organization taken that view of the effect of the recent court ruling. We should pay attention as this may involve a response to his statement or some change in his status, which would be coverable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Board members has resigned and has been noted in the article, so that's taken care of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)