Talk:ProtectMarriage.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ProtectMarriage.com article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from ProtectMarriage.com appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that ProtectMarriage.com was formed to pass California Proposition 8, a voter initiative against same-sex marriage?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/March.

Wikipedia

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Catholicism / Latter Day Saints Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Distancing from fringe groups with the same aim[edit]

Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said he was trying to distance Prop 8 defense from its partners in getting Prop 8 passed, calling the "fringe" groups (such as Liberty Counsel who say homosexuality is a disease) "strident or combative". Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lost court case over logo parody[edit]

ProtectMarriage.com sent opponents Courage Campaign a cease-and-desist letter telling them to stop using a parody of the "Yes on 8 Protect Marriage" logo, the parody reading "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" with two female figures flanking two children instead of one male and one female flanking the children. Observers noted the irony of the ProtectMarriage.com legal team's argument which asserted that their image with one man and one woman with children was not substantially different than the image of two women with children. Courage Campaign's defense that their image was a parody was what won them the case. MediaBistro.com SF Bay Times Calitics California Watch This loss in court should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more newsy than encyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWS Lionel (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The lost court case was a bit more than a year ago, and was widely commented upon. WP:NOTNEWS advises us to avoid recentism, or breaking news—not a problem here—and it says to avoid routine news such as the daily doings of celebrities, or sporting event results. The guideline aims far lower than what we are looking at here. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This case is currently referenced in the thumbnail, but not anywhere else in the article that I see. Either the thumbnail should be removed or a small blurb about the actual case should be added to the section the thumbnail is in. --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The case makes up the full third paragraph of the section in which the image appears. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explain tags please[edit]

Could whoever placed the "Neutrality" tag explain where in the article they see a problem? Personally I don't see any spin here in any direction.

Likewise, the "Coatrack" tag doesn't seem to apply. Can someone explain their concerns so we can address them?

While the article needs work (nothing on the campaign itself, their funding, the interesting question of their legal status to defend the law), it doesn't appear broken. Uberhill 17:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume the coatrack tag refers to Prop 8 information which does not relate specifically to actions by the ProtectMarriage.com people. I am removing both the tag and the paragraph about Prop 8. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONN editorial[edit]

Are editorials not RS? Lionel (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only for attributed opinions, not facts. That citation wasn't really needed anyway. If we want the definitive source we can cite the press release from which the quotation was taken. Will Beback talk 23:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct[edit]

Since same-sex marriage is now legal in California, and since their website hasn't been updated in over a year, are they a defunct organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE08:C8D0:257B:EE8:EE9E:59DE (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all indications defunct. The website is defunct, and Right Wing Watch has not posted an article on the organization since 2010. I've changed "is" in the lead sentence to "was". BlueMesa171 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on ProtectMarriage.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Website dead?[edit]

The website, while still registered, is non-responsive at the moment. This could be a temporary outage, but if it is unavailable for an extended time, then it is a dead link and the links must be addressed as such. (As to whether it is a dead organization, that's a separate question.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Around April 2017, the site was "under construction" and apparently has not been online since November 27, 2018. It would be safe to say that it is permanently offline.[1] - Mr X 🖋 19:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]