Talk:Frank Gaffney/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

A great deal of weight is given to the SPLC and their conclusions without noting their political leanings and agenda

You'd think this article was largely sourced from their own copy. 208.102.198.209 (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Numerous references are made on this page about the SPLC's "expertise" on bigotry, but according to the SPLC, the Republican Party is a megaphone for hate groups. That makes their opinion on hate groups anything BUT neutral. http://www.thedailybeast.com/southern-poverty-law-center-gop-is-a-megaphone-for-right-wing-hate Some other examples of "hate groups", according to the SPLC: Federation for American Immigration Reform; American Family Association; and David Horowitz Freedom Center. Apparently the only thing necessary to make a group a hate group according to the SPLC is political opposition to favored causes. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter isn't a hate group according to the SPLC.

p.s. Why is someone (lavabaron) obviously so hostile to the subject of this article in charge of it? I agree with the dozen or more other posters that have tried to add some balance to this article that as it currently stands, it is nothing more than a hit piece on Gaffney. There is absolutely no "neutrality" about it.71.54.176.58 (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

On your first point: I don't believe anyone claimed SPLC was neutral, did they? On your second: Don't worry about LavaBaron, as they were blocked indefinitely. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Of the 60 sources, 3 of them, 5%, are to the SPLC. And as DrFleischman has said, no one would suggest that the SPLC is neutral where hate groups are concerned. The SPLC did not say that the GOP was a megaphone, etc., that was the headline writer at the Daily Beast, and the job of a headline writer is to provoke people into reading the article. As for 'neutrality', we strive to maintain a neutral point of view, which not the same thing as 'neutrality'. So as an example, our article on Young Earth Creationism doesn't take a neutral stance, it takes the mainstream view while presenting the YEC view as well. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Information used for articles needs to come from reputable sources in order to maintain the credibility and overall value of Wikipedia as a resource. With that in mind, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) should not be used as a resource at all. The SPLC has been identified by the Family Resource Council as well as by the American Family Association as a left-wing, anti-Christian hate group. As others have noted, the SPLC denigrate anyone who disagrees with its social/political positions whether they have actually taken any threatening actions or not. Even the Federal Bureau of Investigation has stopped using the SPLC as a resource due to their bias. Simply put, if we wouldn't use Planned Parenthood as a resource for information regarding Crisis Pregnancy Centers or the Nazi Party for information regarding Orthodox Judaism, then we shouldn't use ilks like the SPLC for information regarding individuals or organizations that they target for vitriol, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.246.24 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. So we're to rely on the opinion of two hate groups for what constitutes a hate group? I'm sure that various Nazi groups consider the SPLC a hate group, too, but you know what? All opinions aren't equal; some are based on rational methodology, and others are merely so much bullshit. RivertorchFIREWATER 23:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The statement about the FBi is simply false. The FBI still has a partnership with the SPLC as it clearly says on its website.[1] Anyone arguing that it doesn't is badly misinformed and I'd be hard-pressed to take any of their arguments seriously. I also agree with Rivertorch. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
There is broad consensus across Wikipedia that the SPLC is reliable for certain types of content. If you wish to dispute this, the appropriate forum is WP:RSN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Do not remove - or even change the position - of "Conspiracy Theorist" without a new consensus

There is a double-locked consensus, built over nearly a year of discussion, that this exact sentence must be the first sentence of this article:

  • Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953) is a conspiracy theorist who is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy.

On February 5, GeeTeeBee changed this with the edit note [2] "Putting facts before opinions, regardless of how much consensus there is on classifying the person this way." Consensus has established that Frank Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist by profession and this is a matter of fact. Since this outrageous WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit, a number of additional whitewashing attempts have been made as part of, what appears to be, the ongoing, gentle effort, to restore this article to its former glory as a tribute to Gaffney. These include adding this unsourced WP:PEACOCK phrase to the lede -

  • Gaffney is an outspoken critic of islam, and has repeatedly accused American islamic organizations of wanting to destroy Western civilization from within to make Islam victorious over other religions.

- among others too numerous to list. I've undone all that (if there was a GF edit that was accidentally impacted in my attempt to undo weeks of vandalism, accept my apologies and please restore it). Over the last two years, numerous whitewashers have been indeffed over the outrageous, highly coordinated meat-puppeting that has gone on with this article, meatpuppeting that seems to regularly rear-up again after Gaffney makes one his periodic TV or radio denouncements of his WP article. LavaBaron (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I think you mean 'lead — not 'lede' ...
  • I have to admit I edited on the basis of the WP:BOLD principle, and hadn't taken note of the talk page of this article, which is peculiarly more extensive than the article itself .. This principle encourages others who know better, to fix whatever I did wrong — not to bash me !
  • It is important to keep in mind that a consensus of opinions can never outweigh facts — no matter how much consensus there is. A consensus of opinions is nothing more than intersubjectivity, and it can never outweigh objectivity !
  • My edit was a WP:GOODFAITH edit, and doesn't deserve to be bashed as outrageous.
  • Furthermore, it utterly baffles me how the sentence "Gaffney is an outspoken critic of islam, and has repeatedly accused American islamic organizations of wanting to destroy Western civilization from within to make Islam victorious over other religions." can be seen as a WP:PEACOCK phrase ??!
  • My intention was to add objectivity to the article, and I vehemently protest the accusation of trying to do whitewashing. I think the opposite is going on. Although I am certainly not a great fan of Gaffney, I believe in the values of truth and objectivity, and I get the impression that some editors are policing this page, driven by a personal agenda to paint Gaffney blacker than he really is .. GeeTeeBee (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
GeeTeeBee, I'm a little confused since this appears to be a dispute that went silent for a few months. What edits are you seeking to make? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Edits ? No specific plans involving this article, at this moment. Just felt a need to protest being slammed with terms like "outrageous WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit" and "whitewashing". I'm frankly taken aback by this way of "discussing" another persons edits. I would appreciate a considerably more careful tone before reaching the conclusion that such terms apply, considering I haven't built up a prior history of editing this article. GeeTeeBee (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Whitewashing is a major problem on pages about conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. One should expect edits that appear to be whitewashing to engender hyperbolic responses, given the frustration experienced by editors determined to abide by consensus and policy. The best thing to do if you feel someone is being rude to you is to ignore it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh — the "best thing to do if you feel someone is being rude to you is to ignore it" ? Well, Fuck You then, and happy editing ! GeeTeeBee (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
GeeTeeBee, if it makes you feel any better, LavaBaron was blocked indefinitely last month. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • That DOES make me feel better. Thank you for mentioning that !
  • After considering some more, I would like to point out that the problem here – I think – was something more essential than rudeness.. Getting my edits labeled as "outrageous WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit", "whitewashing" and a Peacock phrase, strikes my as a WP:PERSONAL attack, and uncalled for. GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
About as much of a personal attack and as uncalled for as responding with "Fuck you" to someone offering you useful advice? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for insulting you – but it was the best way to illustrate the uselessness of your advice, which you yourself have now proven by not ignoring my rude response to you .. My apologies. GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Why are you still whining instead of editing? I made a snide remark, you on the other hand are still going. If you honestly think that advise is useless (though it's taken directly from WP:NPA and a trhousand other experienced editors, but I'm sure you know better than everyone else), then go complain at ANI. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and get back to editing. Nobody wants to talk about how poorly you've been treated or any other form of hypocrisy you want to engage in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Ehhm — Who's whining now ? Would you like to take a look at the man in the mirror ? Or consider taking your own advice ? GeeTeeBee (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the point where I laugh at how immature you're acting and walk away. Good luck with that "freak out every time someone's rude to you" approach. I'm sure it'll get you far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There is not actually a consensus about this at all. Several of us raised objections. What there is, is a failure to achieve consensus on what the first sentence(s) should be exactly, resulting in defaulting to the status quo. That is not at all the same thing as a consensus in favor of the status quo version. The current wording reads like an attack piece. Our bios are written to present someone's occupation, then detail any controversy around them (and identifying a controversial view as such, not converting it into a personal label). This article turns that on its ear, falsely presenting a controversial view as if it were a profession not a viewpoint. We just don't do that. Imagine an article starting with "...is a Scientologist, who has also written books and produced films", or "... is a New Right conservative, who has a talk radio show". We would not do that, and shouldn't be doing that here. Challenge: RfC the matter at WP:VPPOL for full community scrutiny. How large a wager would you like you place on the outcome?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There is not actually a consensus about this at all. After reading through this page, I don't think this statement is at all true. If you think the wider community feels differently, by all means start an RfC. But I doubt this will change, as the man is known first and foremost for his conspiracy theories, and there are a large number of sources not only calling him that, but even arguing that he is a conspiracy theorist against his defenders. The level of sourcing for this is well beyond the requirements of BLP. Wrt your examples, while I would normally be hesitant to identify a person first and foremost as a member of a specific religion, I would make exceptions for cases where the person in question is known primarily as belonging to a specific religion. Those cases would be quite rare, but only because most people's religious practices aren't done being proverbially shouted from the rooftops the way Gaffney's CSes are. As for political affiliations, much the same things holds true, except that we have a specific word for people who shout their political views from the rooftops, much like we have "conspiracy theorist" for people who shout conspiracy theories from the rooftops; "politicians". There are plenty of "... is a politician..." lede sentences on WP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for the early life section?

It may be best if we lock-in a consensus section-by-section to ensure all future changes and source deletions are discussed, given the serious and ongoing issues this article has with meatpuppeting and sockpuppetry. Let's start from the top and work our way down. The current "Early life" section reads as follows:

LavaBaron (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c "Devon Gaffney, Research Director, Engaged to Marry Jay Cross in June". New York Times. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
  2. ^ a b "Arena Profile: Frank Gaffney". Politico. Retrieved February 20, 2017.
  3. ^ Gigler, Dan (3 Nov 2001). "Lawyer with a Passion for Classical Music". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
  4. ^ "Clark Hill dropping Thorp Reed from name in Pittsburgh". Pittsburgh Business Times.
  5. ^ Evenson, Bruce (1996). When Dempsey Fought Tunney: Heroes, Hokum, and Storytelling in the Jazz Age. University of Tennessee Press. p. 80. ISBN 9780870499180.
  6. ^ "Frank Gaffney". TownHall. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
  7. ^ Ruppert, Michael C. (2004). Crossing the Rubicon. p. 531.

Survey

  • Support as written with all sources except "Town Hall". Strike this source. (The supported sentence can remain as it's double-sourced.) Also change "controversial as a known Catholic" to "once denounced as a known Catholic" which is truer to the source. LavaBaron (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I don't think that "locking in" a whole section is consistent with Wikipedia principles. What's the dispute? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Well you keep removing WP:RS (and content) [3], so you tell me. LavaBaron (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
So you're accusing me of socking? Why should I take you seriously? If you strike your personal attacks then I will explain that deletion. Or, you can read the edit summary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
No. Dunno. Can't. Did. LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
That certainly isn't an effective way to obtain consensus. Best of luck. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Gaffney. 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) 21:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

MjolnirPants, I know it's six months old, but I'm going to take you up on your offer to explain your objections to SMcCandlish's proposal to split the first sentence in two. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Good lord, I barely remember that... Honestly, I don't remember what particular policies I was referring to, but the logical problem is that he's best known as a CSist. He's only notable due to his CSes. To relegate that to an "...and a..." minimizes that fact and gives it the impression of being more contentious. From a meta perspective, it looks like something a Gaffney critic might have added as an act of vandalism, if one doesn't bother checking the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I readdressed this in the (frankly very WP:OWNish and otherwise inappropriate) "Do not remove ..." thread above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:OWN applies to individual editors. In this case, there's a rather large group of editors who are in agreement about this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Gaffney/Archive_2&oldid=1151381054"