Talk:People for the American Way

Changes
I made some pretty big changes to this... my source is the PFAW website, but I'm not sure how to create a citation...I need to figure out how to do that. Also, all of the items in red are things that don't yet have articles, but I think may be deserving of them. First major additions to Wikipedia, so feedback would be great. Thanks! --Njfellow 11:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ALL
Since PFAW is considered important enough of a source that their factsheet denouncing the American Life League is listed on the "external links" page, in the interests of fairness shouldn't somebody ask ALL to put up a bit of HTML giving us their opinion of PFAW?

Liberal?
This group seems extremely liberal, yet the word is not used once in the entire article. This should be rectified. 168.216.221.128 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a very much left-leaning organization that is very active on the liberal side of the political coin. That's fine, but the article presents this one-sided political organization in a very favorable light, even saying it's 'rapid responder to monitored right-wing activities'. There should be a criticism section and some significant rewriting to clarify the political stance of the organization. "Progressive advocacy group" just didn't do it. I've put up a NPOV tag. Okiefromokla questions? 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that the summary now states the organization's liberal leanings, I think the neutrality tag can be taken off. I don't think a criticism section is warranted unless there has been highly publicized and/or commonly referenced criticism of the group.  They may be liberal but that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing anything incorrectly.  Omishark (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

PFAW is NOT "liberal". They are strict interpeters of the US Constitution. At different times in US history that has been portrayed as both liberal and conservative. Most modern conservatives consider many founding fathers (ie Jefferson) "liberal". PFAW is a Constitution advocacy group, not a liberal or conservative group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.225.91 (talk • contribs)
 * They support politicians and lobby for laws that correspond only to the political "left". Whether you believe that is how the constitution should be interpreted is beside the point.
 * This neutral source says the media refers to them as "liberal":
 * If they are a non-partisan group that does not align themselves with the political left, these conservative groups would not call them "liberal": ,
 * These other independent sources also call them liberal:, ,
 * They also "monitor the activities of right-wing groups." Okiefromokla questions? 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say a group is about strict interpretation of the Constitution when they constantly talk about monitoring the right, since the left is just as big a threat to the Constitution as the right. Also, yes Jefferson was a liberal, and if that is your standard, then actually the word liberal should not be used to describe this group, since they are not liberals in the Jeffersonian since, they are more "progressives". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PFAW's own website is the extreme liberal agenda. There is not one mention of being "strict interpreters of the US Constitution". How is "Global Warning" a constitutional issue? PFAW is selective in their outrage of separation of Church and State. There is no discussion of tax-payer funded Muslim schools, or Black Churches expressing political opinions. Only the Religous Right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.144.197 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is a Rabbi on the Board obliges me to doubt about the adjective Liberal, since it cannot really be called Secular, as in separated from any kind of religion. ADM (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverse POV
It seems as though in the rush to make this article NPOV, TazRebel overcompensated and added original research or claims about the organization. I believe these to be POV, and would like another editor to inspect the changes made. Of particular interest is the addition of the phrases "illegal", "liberal," etc. which I believe would constitute a stated conservative bias. Without these additions, I believe the article is no longer POV. Ipsenaut (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Politically active topics are notoriously difficult to make NPOV. I've made some fairly minor changes that avoid scare quotes and weasel-wording, but it's still clear that the organization is generally recognized as having a distinctive agenda. DavidOaks (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal" category addition.
This category appears to have been added incorrectly as this organization does not self-identify as liberal (to my knowledge). One editor has been repeatedly adding this but has yet to show where they self-identify. When asked directly they said "see the freaking website" in an edit summary. Having seen the website, I find no such statement anywhere. It's certainly not in their mission statement but I may have overlooked something. Can you please quote and link directly to what this is based on rather than edit-warring? Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22liberal+people+for+the+american+way%22 is pretty dispositive on this as reliable sources go. If even the New York Times thinks you're liberal, you're liberal. THF (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters we don't use google searches as sources. More to the point, none of those indicate self-identification. Please, please stop edit-warring on this.  If there is an organization that does self-identify and it was missed, mention it on the talk page of that article with a cite and it won't be reverted.  Short of that, you're editing against the guidelines for these categories (in an extremely tendentious manner).  --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop being tendentious. If you bothered to click on the link, you'd see dozens of reliable sources.  You're the one who is completely misunderstanding the guidelines and violating NPOV. THF (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, can you provide one single example to support your claim that PFAW self-identifies as "liberal?" If not, then the category is inappropriate.  It's as simple as that. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, pick any page on the website. Again, there's no requirement for self-identification.  You misunderstand the purpose of categories.  This has turned into Argument Clinic, and you are being WP:TEDIOUS.  The Wikipedia consensus does not agree with your idiosyncratic definitions, and you shouldn't be relitigating an issue you've already lost multiple times at CFD.  Further discussion should be at WP:NPOVN since your disruptive editing extends well beyond this particular article. THF (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're argument has changed 180° here. Ok, so you were lying when you repeatedly claimed they self-identified as liberal (and repeated this lie on various discussions, even claiming I removed the category even from organizations that self-identify).  Then when asked to provide evidence of this, you blustered and launched another volley of personal attacks but still didn't provide.  Then, when finally pinned down on that point you suddenly claimed self-identification wasn't necessary (unilaterally going against two years of consensus and practice).  Meanwhile, you're completely incapable of posting anything that isn't primarily a series of insults and attacks.  What a piece of work. You clearly have an ax to grind. I'm just trying to get these categories applied correctly, while you're on some kind of mission to label various organizations based on your personal opinion.   And you have the gall to accuse others of tendentiousness?  You know, there's an old yiddish saying, "when you point one finger at another, you're pointing three at yourself." --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My argument hasn't changed. Self-identification is sufficient, not necessary.  And PFAW self-identifies.  They regularly quote sources that call them liberal, and most recently released a press release calling themselves progressive, also.  My only mission for Wikipedia to adhere to NPOV. THF (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (sigh) really? You're going back to claiming they do self-identify as liberal now? And yet every time you were challenged to provide a single piece of evidence of this, just one, you were unable to.  So for probably the eighteenth time, can you provide a quote and a cite specifically demonstrating that they self-identify as liberal?  I'm not going to hold my breath....--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Right Wing Watch
Can someone tell me why Right Wing Watch redirects to this page. Was 'People For the American Way' previously called Right wing Watch, or is Right Wing Watch owned by them? Freikorp (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's one of PFAW's projects. —  Wylie pedia  07:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary Source
Primary sources can be used to provide data without commentary: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

My addition regarding salaries was reverted. It came from Guidestar which published the PFAW's official IRS Form 990. There are no other sources other than primary sources for official 990s. I did not use the one from the group's website, but from a neutral site that got it from the IRS. I made no interpretations, conclusions nor opinions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_for_the_American_Way&curid=625680&diff=956309281&oldid=956292354

I think my edit was appropriate. Input requested. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain


 * There are no other sources discussing the CO's compensation because it is not relevant. There is lots of information about every non-profit in their filings. Some of it is reproduced by Charity Navigator. The selection of this one piece from the only source available and only about this one organization's current CO raises the question: why? Why are we not using all of the data from the current and past filings (including but not limited to 990 data at Charity Navigator) on every 501c3 we have an article on?


 * Were we looking for a non-controversial, basic fact about the organization -- one included min most such articles -- there wouldn't be an issue. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I can only edit one article at a time and do one edit at a time. I intend to expand as I find info. Articles don't have to be complete and there are many articles that are marked as needing edits and expansion. Compensation is not controversial when just posting 990 info. I think compensation can be relevant and can provide plenty of articles discussing leadership compensation. I have no particular affinity to the group but I would on nonprofit issues in general so I have an expertise on these issues. I noticed they did not have a written compensation policy that the IRS asks for, but I have not mentioned that. There are plenty of articles about the lack of compensation policies and what constitutes unreasonable compensation: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/what-is-reasonable-nonprofit-compensation-a-guide-to-avoid-irs-penalties/

I would happily add more information to explain the relevance. It's not a hill I want to die on. ;)

--Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain