Talk:American Family Association

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

AFA

  1. Show how the following sources are "unreliable" or "questionable":
  • Anti-Defamation League
  • Institute for First Amendment Studies, Inc
  • American Jewish Congress
  • National Conference of Catholic Bishops
  • Mennonite Church
  • Church of the Lutheran Brethren
  • Media Matters For America
  • Archdiocese of Denver

10px שועל (talk|contribs) 11:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Do not remove talk page posts. If an editor has an opposition to information included in the article - which you do, leading to your removal of that information - then to avoid edit warring discussion is necessary. The above organizations have been described by you as unreliable and questionable, and thus their statements regarding the AFA as somehow not to be trusted. They are all widely regarded organizations. I do not see what axe the Archdiocese of Denver, for example, has to grind and why it would lie. Please outline your objections to the organizations and the statements that they have made, and how highly respected Roman Catholic Archbishops are "far left garbage". 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I sense a bit of deceit. Actually, a lot of deceit. None of those were the source you used. The source you used was a far-left "progressive" website (with their laughably internally inconsistant "About" page) which proudly admits it engages in deceit to "expose" people like Wildmon. Jinxmchue 11:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


There are two sources shown, who make direct quotations from the other organizations. The ADL comments can also be seen reported at "Jews and the Christian right: Is the honeymoon over?". I'm sorry, but you can't pick and choose to shoot the messenger just because you do not like what he is saying. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 11:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Also, your link above is not to the IFAS at all, but to the site hosting the IFAS article. Notwithstanding, the page you do link to also points out very clearly: "We conduct research of the highest quality and methodological rigor, and are committed to making our research and analysis readily available and accessible. Our work is even-handed, fact based, reliable, and not over-dramatized. Our commitment to mutual respect means that in our work, we do not caricature or demonize the followers of right-wing organizations, and we recognize the abilities of the movement's leadership." I think that is somewhat fairer than someone who is perhaps ignorant of the wider picture to just label anything disagreeable as "left wing garbage." 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 12:01, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Oh, yes. You're right. It was two sources, with the other being... *snigger*snort*guffaw* ...Media Matters for America. Two bastions of reliable and unbiased reporting. *massive eye rolling* Jinxmchue 12:14, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I see. Well, if you don't wish to have a grown-up discussion, I'll get back to what we non-parodists do best: real edits. Thanks for stopping by! 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 12:17, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I see. I'm a parodist now. Cute. Jinxmchue 12:19, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


I hope I'm not out of line here but I really think both of you should relax a little. You've both accused each other of being socks, both edit warred against each other, and even complained to Andy about the other. Clear heads and clear minds are required right now. I agree that the issues raised by both Fox and Jinx need to be discussed, but lets wait untill tomorrow eh?--DamianJohn 12:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

What needs to be discussed? This is Conservapedia. It does not make sense to include far-left rags like Media Blathers as sources here other than to point out how stupid and wrong they are. Jinxmchue 12:59, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Well the thing is, yes the essay that essay quoted is found on a liberal site, however the essay makes direct quotes by what must be considered conservative people or at least trustworthy sources. Thus it appears to me that there is certainly a profitable debate to be had as to whether the people who say that AFA is anti-semitic are trustworthy sources. I personally don't know that you can simply disregard firsthand statements by seemingly trustworthy sources simply by saying that the essay that brought them together is hosted on a liberal site. Perhaps such an attitude is appropriate on this site, however, its not as clear cut as you think it is. I think the argument can be made both ways, especially when you are both calmer and not blocking each other.--DamianJohn 13:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


Gentlemen,
It seems as if there's a reasonable compromise to be found here. Fox wishes to include information from the various sources listed above; Jinx would prefer that leftist cites not be referenced. Surely the answer is to locate those sources in their original form and cite those directly? For instance, the article "Homeless By Choice" can be found on the AFA's own website: http://www.afajournal.org/2005/march/3.05wasserman.asp. --Benp 14:04, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I've no problem with including the [laughable, groundless, petty] accusations against the organization as long as (A) sources that at least can be viewed as neutral are used (e.g. main-stream news outlets) and (B) it's made very clear that these are accusations only that have never come to anything. Jinxmchue 10:26, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Boycotts

Err...on an unrelated note, should the AFA's boycott campaigns (including the current one against McDonald's) be mentioned in the article? After all, if it's newsworthy enough for the main page... --Benp 13:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it would be appropriate under some type of "Boycotts" section. We can talk about the companies boycotted, the reasons, and the results. In addition to McDonald's, there were boycotts by the AFA against 7-11, Abercrombie & Fitch, American Airlines, American Girl, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, Calvin Klein, Carl's Jr., Clorox, Crest, Ford, Kmart, Kraft Foods, S. C. Johnson & Son, Movie Gallery, Microsoft, MTV, Mary Kay, NutriSystem, Old Navy, IKEA, Sears, Pampers, Procter & Gamble, Target, Tide, Waldenbooks, and Walt Disney Company. Busy boycotters! --Jareddr 13:59, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


Indeed! Now, the question is, can a reliable source documenting the various boycotts be found? Does the AFA have a list of these on their own site? It would be best to get the information straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. --Benp 14:06, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Add Hallmark to their list of boycotts. --Jareddr 16:04, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Protected

I have protected the article for the time being. I realize this is a very sensitive issue, but it's best to find the offending article if strong allegations are to be made against the institution. In other words if possible we should find the reason why the article was offensive, not just that some people found it to be offensive. Thanks Learn together 12:43, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Personal tools