Talk:All-American Muslim

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lowe's statement to FFA[edit]

The original response to FFA reads "While we continue to advertise on various cable networks, including TLC, there are certain programs that do not meet Lowe's advertising guidelines, including the show you brought to our attention. Lowe's will no longer be advertising on that program." While that does mean that FFA did contact the chain about the show it doesn't mean that FFA was the first or the only entity to do so. The same response would apply whether FFA was the first or the 500th group to bring the show to Lowe's attention. Putting in the bit about Lowe's saying that the FFA brought the show to its attention implies that Lowe's initiated its research into the show because of FFA's email, which is not supported by the source and which in my opinion gives too much weight to FFA's action. Unless there's a reliable source that says that Lowe's acknowledges undertaking its research in response to FFA's email then the disputed section should not be included. FFA's role is covered neutrally by writing that it sent the email to multiple companies. 76.201.154.20 (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a reasonable point. I would consider that the high-WP:RS The Hollywood Reporter used both the public and the private response to balance each other out, in order to provide a more comprehensive perspective. It sets a standard for full context that an encyclopedia should at least meet, if not exceed.
Personally, I have no more love for the FFA than I would for the KKK; this type of intolerance of religion, stereotyping of a group, and conspiratorial claims of a network's "agenda" are simply remarkable to me. But in a content-neutral approach, any source saying something publicly and something privately needs to have both comments noted. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, we're supposed to discuss it after the original editor reverts the change to restore the status quo. By re-reverting, it's considered edit-warring. If we can't reach agreement or compromise, then we're supposed to call for informal or formal mediation, go straight to a request for comment, or take other steps. Re-reverting is not considered acceptable. I've just posted the required notice on your talk page that you're on the verge of a WP:3RR vio. Nothing personal; it's required. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, as I read the policy it isn't "required" and it seems like its use here is for leverage. You've put back a disputed entry three times, including once after discussion on it was opened, but I'm "edit warring" and you're not?
In the absence of anything indicating that it was FFA that initially drew Lowe's attention to the show, a statement that implies that it did is not neutral. Lowe's stated that its decision was based on reviewing a broad selection of opinion and media; singling out that FFA brought it to their attention at some point gives undue weight to the FFA's action. There is no source that suggests that FFA was the first to do so or that Lowe's took any action because of FFA's email other than letting them know what was happening. The sentence as currently written carries the implication that FFA was the catalyst for Lowe's action and that is unacceptably biased. It has nothing to do with my dislike of FFA's actions; it's a question of implying they bear the responsibility for starting off the chain of events and there isn't any proof that they did. This is not reporting the "public" and "private" side of the issue. If Lowe's had said something to FFA like "Thanks to your communication we decided to stop advertising" but then publicly said "we acted on a wide range of opinion" then yes, the conflicting statements should both be included. But Lowe's simply acknowledging that FFA contacted them about the show is not the same thing. The disputed section doesn't add anything to the article, actively muddles the issue and, frankly, is clumsily written to boot. And since it's actively disputed by more than one editor, it seems completely reasonable to err on the side of caution and leave it out until consensus forms. 76.201.154.20 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did miscount, and I apologize for that. The warning is required, however; if you go to the page where you report 3RR, it requires a link to where you warned the party you're reporting.
Regardless, what your last edit clearly shows is that you are pushing an agenda aimed at discrediting the FFA. On a personal level, I'm all for that; I agree with you. But I believe you're letting your personal views make you stack the deck in a one-sided way.
I don't know if you're a journalist — my gut feeling is no — but there's a reason The Hollywood Reporter reported it, neutrally, as it did. If other editors are OK with what reads to me like a politically biased section — and I'm saying this as someone who agrees with your sentiments — then fine. But I haven't seen anyone other than us two making substantive edits to this yet, and I'm not sure a slanted section will stand. I'm not going to war about it, so do whatever you want. I'm sorry you're so close to your passions that you can't see what seems clear to someone standing outside you. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in "discrediting" the FFA; they do a good enough job of that on their own. What I am interested in is not giving them credit that they aren't due, which saying that they were responsible for initiating this chain of events by contacting Lowe's does. Lowe's did not say this and saying or implying that they did is misleading and inaccurate. I think what I added is an accurate and neutral recounting of the information available. 76.201.154.20 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you very deliberately removed a direct quote, which a major journalistic source considered important enough to include, because it didn't fit with your personal, POV interpretation of events. You're too close to it; you can't even see what you've done. And again, I say this as someone who agrees with your sentiments — that's how extreme and obviously slanted you've made this. And rather than work with another editor, you've just bulled your way to having your WP:OWN way. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a direct quote that was posted completely out of its original context because it is misleading as to the effect of FFA's contact with Lowe's. that a "major journalistic source" posted an email in its entirety toward the top of the article is irrelevant. Lowe's has repeatedly denied that contact with the FFA is what led to the decision to pull ads. Lowe's told FFA (in what was probably a form email that it sent to everyone who wrote in) that FFA had brought the show to Lowe's attention. Big deal. Everyone who wrote Lowe's "brought the show to Lowe's attention". Provide a source that FFA was THE FIRST to bring the show to Lowe's attention or that FFA's contact was what led to the withdrawal, great. Bring it on. Until that happens, the quote pushes the POV. What I wrote brings appropriate attention to the exchange between FFA and Lowe's, that FFA contacted Lowe's and Lowe's acknowledged that FFA contacted them. Anything beyond that is speculation.
And just as a word of advice, your communication style is terrible. 76.201.154.20 (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at all the POV assumptions you make in your comment. You genuinely are unable to see it's simply your opinion that the direct quote was "misleading as to the effect of FFA's contact" when, unless you're with Lowe's, you wouldn't know the effect. "In what was probably [emphasis mine] a form letter" is also pure POV — you have absolutely no way of knowing that.
Then I hear you say ridiculous macho things like "bring it on", and throwing in needless jabs like "your communication style is terrible." All this, combined with the fact that you're an anon IP and not someone registered and fully committed to this encyclopedia, simply reinforces the fact that you're here just to push your personal POV, and to WP:OWN the article abd write whatever you want and not engage in any collaboration or compromise. You hate the FFA; I get that. And so does everyone else who reads this article. But you do not. That's a shame. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't give two hoots in hell about the FFA one way or the other, beyond finding them ridiculous. I certainly don't "hate" them, as you keep insisting. It's really not that difficult. "You brought it to our attention" means exactly that. FFA passed information along to Lowe's. It does not mean that the FFA was the FIRST to bring it to their attention, nor does it mean that the result was because of that attention-bringing. FFA could have been the first. I don't know and neither do you because you're not with Lowe's either. What we know is this. FFA brought the show to Lowe's attention. Lowe's acknowledged that FFA brought the show to its attention and advised FFA that it was pulling its advertising. Lowe's further said that there was no single contact or POV that it examined in making its decision. And that's exactly what the article says. For supposedly not wanting to fight about this, you sure are doing a lot of fighting about it. And for supposedly being so expert in identifying the debbil POV, you're awfully blind to your own.
  • And sweetheart? Editing from behind a string of letters instead of a string of numbers qualifies you exactly bugger all to judge my level of "commitment" to the project. So condescending... 70.226.163.94 (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enough with the snide "sweetheart" and "bugger all" jibes and such; you're violating WP:CIVIL and an admin can call you on that. If you're so insecure in your position that you have to resort to insults and schoolyard name-calling, you've made that very clear.
RE "finding them ridiculous": You are stating plainly that you are not neutral and unbiased.
As for other assertions, my point is that your quotes or lack thereof are selective in a way that slants the issue to that aforesaid bias.
RE: "blind to your own": If you're suggesting I'm biased in favor of one side or the other, state your concerns explicitly and provide evidence.
Finally, you've exhibiting WP:OWN. The directions on the tag are very clear: It is not to be removed until issues are resolved. Your removing it unilaterally will bring in an admin, who I will ask to address these myriad other issues as well.
In the meantime, stop the name-calling. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So using a common expression like "bugger all" is uncivil but suggesting that someone is less committed to the encyclopedia than you are in an attempt to score a rhetorical point isn't? Whatever honey.
Believing that FFA is ridiculous does not mean that what I've written about them is biased.
And for the umpteen millionth time, the sourcing does not indicate that Lowe's acted because of FFA so positioning a quote such that it implies otherwise is misleading. I honestly don't know what about that rather simple concept is so far beyond your grasp but your inability to understand it makes no difference to its fundamental correctness. If you want the quote included, and at its heart all this is about is whether the quote from the FFA email should be included or not, then figure out a way to do it that doesn't make it appear that FFA's contact with Lowe's caused Lowe's to pull its ads.
As for being insecure in one's position, you've now threatened me with administrative sanction three times, four if you include the pre-emptive edit summary. Running to mommy to make sure you get your way isn't exactly a hallmark of security. 76.201.155.80 (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. You insist on using insults, name-calling and patronizing terms like "honey" when all you're doing is trying to justify your personal, POV interpretation. Notifying an admin is "running to mommy"? I find it impossible to have an adult conversation with someone who behaves in such a way as you. The fact is, you cannot continue to talk this way to other edits and run roughshod over them by insisting on your personal POV. Someone will be in touch.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a snide edit summary over a single-character typo that I made, hitting "|" instead of "-"? It was uncivil and unnecessary. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, here is major newspaper, Newsday, that believes, as does The Hollywood Reporter, that the Lowe's quote is valid and should be included: [1]. Not everyone agrees with your opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on All-American Muslim. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:All-American_Muslim&oldid=1204720131"