Talk:Parents Action League/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Michele Bachmann being "uncharacteristically silent" on this subject

Between 2009 and 2011, nine students in Anoka-Hennepin committed suicide; the area is designated by state health officials as a "suicide contagion area" because of the unusually high death rate. Mother Jones noted that Republican member of the United States House of Representatives Michele Bachmann, "who began her political career as an education activist," has been "uncharacteristically silent" on the deaths in her district—"including the high school that she attended." Mother Jones' report also notes "the anti-gay activists who are some of the congresswoman's closest allies stand accused of blocking an effective response to the crisis and fostering a climate of intolerance that allowed bullying to flourish" and that the PAL, as the local affiliate of the Minnesota Family Council are "among Bachmann's biggest supporters in the district."

The above contested content justifiably includes Michele Bachmann who was the subject of the article quoted. Could those opposing please discuss deletions? Insomesia (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No the Mother Jones piece does not automatically justify inclusion. Especially the in the POV way it was written and how it is used as a coatrack to attack Bachman. While I'm not saying we shouldn't include a reference to Bachman at all, the edit as you sumbitted is completely unacceptable.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So, instead of fixing it so that it was "acceptable", you deleted it. How helpful. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:BRD? It is a well known guideline. I admit WP:YOUCANTPOLISHATURD is still red-linked, but maybe someone will get around to writing that someday.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made repeated attempts to get you to explain what in specific you object to. So far, all I've gotten are personal insults, random TLA's and evasion. If you can't explain your objection, I'm simply going to restore it as-is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've explained my rationale here and in edit summaries. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not an acceptable reason to restore material removed under discussion. In fact it is WP:DISRUPTIVE and can get you blocked.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So far, all I know for sure is that you don't like it. Since you can't explain why you don't like it or what parts you don't like, I don't see how that information can be expected to persuade anyone. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm really not getting the removal of this content or the removal of the Focus on the Family reference. It seems as if the desire is to remove all connections to other related subjects so as to keep the reader in the dark. I also notice these types of edits consistently come from editors who almost never edit to expand these articles. If there are facts that are not being adequately presented, please jump in and present them. Or change the content to make it better, or more neutral, but these types of wholesale deletions and failed AfDs are disruptive and uncivil. – MrX 00:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no problem with the concept of linking Bachman to this article (as I've indicated elsewhere), but honestly, the edit in question is wildly undue as well as being a coatrack. And need I remind you that those editors who choose to act as "source checkers" to newly added content are just as valuable to the pedia as those to who write content.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect to you last comment. I don't want to mis-characterize anyone's value to the project. Every editor of course if free to contribute as they choose. But there are reasonable expectations by other editors that their work not be instantly dismantled by people who, in some case, don't even bother to check the sources, or try to understand the nuances of the topic. This sometimes seems like building a sandcastle on the beach only to have someone come up and kick it. – MrX 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Aurthur Rubin, BelchFire and Insomesia will join this discussion? – MrX 01:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@ISS, you are aware that least one other editor understands my concerns about this edit eing a coat-rack? That would suggest that you need to re-read the edit in question and come back with an explanation as to why you think it is NOT a coat-rack.

@LGR - The added content may be overly detailed, and perhaps a second article to address the bullying and subsequent suicides would be warranted, but I'm not understanding the coatrack assertions (which I think is used all to often as along with POV and UNDUE.

By my understanding, a coat rack is an article that is virtually bereft of content, that disguises itself as one thing, while actually being another. This article is well researched, fairly balanced per the sources, and covers the topic fairly comprehensively. I absolutely think it would benefit from copyediting, additional content and possibly even restructuring. But again, I see these major deletions of content to be what I expect in cases of vandalism.

Please re-read the background section in the edit in question. If anything this information should have been at the end of the section, and the overreliance on MJ is undue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I did. Perhaps the arrangement should be different and I do think it should be summarized, and in a slightly more dispassionate tone.

WRT to Mother Jones, remember that this paragraph is also supported by Rolling Stone, and to a lesser extent other sources. Like it or not, Michele Bachmann is involved because of her public role, location and most importantly, for associating financially and politically with FOF, MFC, MFI, and NOM, and for specifically writing legislation opposing SSM and civil unions. Oh yeah, and for being very vocal about it. – MrX 01:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Slightly more dispassionate tone is an artfully way to express the blatant POV. Not that I'm blaming you for this, but I promise I will revert junk like everytime and am far less likely to give consideration as to improving an edit if the attempt werent so pointed in the first place.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what I meant. To clarify, I think there need to be fewer quotes and more paraphrasing. The dilemma there is then that become delete-bait because the article no longer matches the source word for word.

I would propose as a way of going forward that we come to agreement on what extent of that content should remain, and what may belong in a fork. Then we can draft something and get comments here before putting it in the article. What do you think? – MrX 01:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think StAnselm has the correct approach (a few sections up), but we are going to need to attribute this carefully.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where StAnselm has commented on the paragraph that Insomesia wrote. Could you be a little more specific? – MrX 02:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

---

User:StillStanding-247, please stop edit-warring. "Talk this over" is an appropriate sentiment, but you shouldn't be adding the controversial material back in until a consensus has been reached. Now, I made a suggestion above on how Michele Bachmann could be mentioned in the article, but no-one has commented on it. StAnselm (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason at all to mention Bachmann in this article. Belchfire-TALK 02:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no justification for that Mother Jones article to be considered "reliable". It's their "coatrack". It's possible that Backmann could be included in the article, but not with that source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Now you're disputing Mother Jones as a source as well? I suppose another round to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard should shut this circus down, or those completely obstructing content could read the source ... here's the first three paragraphs:

The first was TJ. Then came Samantha, Aaron, Nick, and Kevin. Over the past two years, a total of nine teenagers have committed suicide in a Minnesota school district represented by Rep. Michele Bachmann—the latest in May—and many more students have attempted to take their lives. State public health officials have labeled the area a "suicide contagion area" because of the unusually high death rate.

Some of the victims were gay, or perceived to be by their classmates, and many were reportedly bullied. And the anti-gay activists who are some of the congresswoman's closest allies stand accused of blocking an effective response to the crisis and fostering a climate of intolerance that allowed bullying to flourish. Bachmann, meanwhile, has been uncharacteristically silent on the tragic deaths that have roiled her district—including the high school that she attended.

Bachmann, who began her political career as an education activist, has described gay rights as an "earthquake issue," and she and her allies have made public schools the front lines of their fight against the "homosexual agenda." They have opposed efforts in the state to promote tolerance for gays and lesbians in the classroom, seeing such initiatives as a way of allowing gays to recruit impressionable youths into an unhealthy and un-Christian lifestyle.

I could see how if you only read every other word or chose some other novel way of avoiding the obvious you might come to a different conclusion but clearly Bachmann's prominence and outspokenness against aspects of LGBTQ people is held in tension with the fact that her school district was found culpable in LGBTQ suicide rates. So we have the assertion this was written by a bad source, nonsense; that it puts unfair words into Wikipedia's voice, that seems untrue; that Bachmann had nothing to do with this subject, also false; and that it's undue and POV, which are merely clean-up issues which those opposing have utterly failed to even try. This is the same cycle we seem to have with these editors on every aspect of the Southern Poverty Law Centers anti-gay hate group articles. Should we just assume this is the playbook from here on in? That every article will be depopulated and attempted to delete in various ways? This is the opposite of collegial writing, deleting what you don't like until others are called in to force the inclusion. Do we really need to waste energy on the same culprits disrupting the same topic area again and again? Insomesia (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There's also this:

The anti-gay climate in the schools in Bachmann's district has been so extreme that it has attracted the attention of the Justice Department and the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which are both investigating allegations of anti-gay bullying.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomesia (talk • contribs)

Insomesia, accusing other editors of disruption doesn't contribute to collegial writing either. You've made the same accusation again and again, and it doesn't help matters at all. StAnselm (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should send it to RSN. Some (perhaps most) Mother Jones articles are reliable, but some are not. In this case, their reference to Backmann is sufficiently close to a pure opinion that it fails WP:BLP. As I said, it's their WP:COATRACK, which is not in violation of their editorial policy. It is a violation of ours.

And there has been an clearly improper interpretation of WP:COATRACK given above in an unsigned section. It applies to writing comments about a related subject (Backmann) which are not related to this subject. Unlike other times COATRACK has been misinterpreted, it is a plausible interpretation of the text that it is not a COATRACK. However, I see it as such. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, you have provided no substantiation for you claims about the Mother Jones article. It is a reputable source, and the content added by Insomesia is corroborated by other sources. There is no reason why it can not be included in this article. The COATRACK essay has been wielded all too often in this, and other related articles, and it has been mostly rejected as the weapon of mass-disruption that it is. This content more than meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion on the grounds of verifiability, corroboration, notability and neutral point of view.

These transparent attempts to censor content which a few individuals find objectionable have failed time and again, most recently in this article's failed nomination for deletion. These deletions usually fail to be backed by reason, and almost always involve reliably sourced content that the deleting editors have evidently never read. Frequently, edit summaries reflect a refusal or inability to read the sources. In the case of the AfD, the specious grounds upon which the nomination was made were sweepingly rejected by the community. The nomination was a clear abuse of process; retrospectively, it does not seem to have been made in good faith.

As I have said before on your's, StAnselm's and BelchFire's talk pages, the editors who are making these tendentious deletions of content, rarely, if ever contribute to adding any content to the articles. In my view, these are very disruptive patterns and contrary to the purpose and goals of the encyclopedia. – MrX 13:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if editors like yourself were not so intent on using WP to attack other people it would not appear that way. The fact is that very little true historical stuff happens on a daily basis, but you do, on a daily basis, have POV pushing editors trying to use WP for political purposes. Arzel (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I did not intend to attack anyone, and if I did, let me apologize and retract any such attacks. If you believe I have been uncivil, could I please ask you start a discussion on my talk page so that I can rectify any uncivil behaviors?

If you are talking about what you regard as attacks on people mentioned in this article, could I ask you to specifically articulate where this has occurred? Of course, we need to uphold WP:BLP policies, so any unverifiable content should be removed. I'm not aware of any in the article, or in Insomesia's last expansion, but I would appreciate your help identifying them. Many thanks – MrX 13:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's dial it back a notch While Mr. X. has clearly shown a bias in a few of his editorial TP edits, he has done a pretty damned good job of not letting that bias come through in his edits to articles. For that he is to be commended. Has he been perfect? Of course not, but compared to the other editors that are consistently pushing the envelope for POV, he is always willing to discuss an edit and will concede a point when warranted. Once again, he is to be commended. Now I also can understand his "sand castle" argument as well. It certainly isn't fun to spend your time crafting and have someone kick down your work willy nilly, but as I've said before that is an unfair characterization, as these "kickers" are not destroying but verifying.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you for the support, and I apologize to everyone if I have excessively editorialized or strayed off-topic on talk pages. – MrX 17:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing excessive IMO, and if you have to vent, here is the better place.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Revised content

OK, I moved to a separate subsection of "History" for a potential move elsewhere, and marked it as a {{coatrack}} section. Thinking it over, although the section title should be "Mother Jones political commentary", it's adequate sourced, although not very relevant to the article. It should be moved elsewhere in the article if found (by consensus) to be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's described better and more appropriately in Anoka-Hennepin School District 11#Anti-gay harassment, 'suicide contagion' and school board policies. Backmann's connection to PAL is tangential, even by Mother Jones standards, and certainly by Wikipedia standards. I'm not entirely sure that section is NPOV, but it's certainly better written. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

While it is certainly better written, it is still not appropriate under a section called "Political Reaction" when the only reaction is unattributed opinion in the Mother Jones and Rolling Stone articles. They are not covering reaction, but espousing their own reaction.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are now four sources. Perhaps the section should be demoted and put under history? – MrX 16:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As it reads, it appears the entire section is attributable to the MJ piece, which is still problematic.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to adjust it, but it needs more summarization and less quoting, in my opinion. This should not be difficult with four sources to work from. – MrX 16:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have made additional edits. There are now five sources. It might be a good idea to change the section header to Reaction, in stead of Political reaction. – MrX 17:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A non-reaction is a reaction? This still doesn't seem germane.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, she did react. A petition was sent to her forcing her to make a statement. She also sent a letter in response, which essentially dismissed the issue. That, said I'm open to better wording than 'reaction'.

WRT to the off topic template placed in that section, I want to go on record as opposing it as inappropriate (if not downright dismissive). We now have five sources which have connected PAL, MFC and Michele Bachmann, without even breaking a sweat. I have not observed this same standard of tagging being applied equally to other articles.

Finally, I wanted to mention that there is a fairly large piece that still needs to be added the article: the lawsuit by the six students and DOJ investigation, as direct result of PAL influencing the school district to create a "don't say gay" policy. – MrX 17:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's still primarily about the school district policy, not about PAL. Move it there, and have at most one or two sentences here, even if the sources were good. I haven't checked the other sources, yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The connection to PAL is still problematic; MJ or RS speculating on who Backmann's supporters might be do not qualify as a reliable source, and even they claim that MFC, not PAL, is Backmann's support group. Thinking it over, there should be something here, but the "meat" (if any) should be in the other article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And the lawsuit should also be there, and not here. Is PAL named in the lawsuit? Looking more closely at the article, the actions described are Anderson's, rather than PAL's, although PAL appears to have had the words. Perhaps the focus should be changed slightly and the article made about Anderson. But that's a separate issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The links to and from Bachmann's supporters are well documented. In fact, the MFC, a lobbying organization, tried to hide some of the money trail. Nevertheless, it's not really up to us to conduct that original research that Rolling Stone and Mother Jones (and the other sources) have done so well. If there is a notion that these publications do not adequately research their stories, or that they lack editorial oversight, then I think that is a questions best left to RSN. In my view, the section in discussion, the lawsuits and the DOJ investigation are all extremely relevant to a topic about PAL. Remember that PAL wielded significant influence on the school district and used other means to cause the school board to adopt its policy. To omit this vital information would leave the reader wondering what is so notable about a few parents forming a group called Parents Action League. I agree that extra details/meat should be another article, and I propose that this article should be a concise but complete summary of PALs/MFCs influences and the resulting consequences. Context is key. – MrX 19:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As usual more sources confirming the original sources were correct have been found and the article has improved despite the attempts to delete content including trying to delete the article itself. Insomesia (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

MJ and RS do not research statements that are considered (by them) to be opinions of the writers, as it's the writers' job to research their own opinions. In addition, some (not necessarily the ones used in this article) of the statements sourced to MJ or RS turned out to be to editiorials or columns, which are hardly ever fact-checked. Some of the statements made in the MJ and RS articles are clearly opinion; but I don't know if the potentially factual statements are sufficient to support the paragraph as written, or if the articles have been adequately tracked to see if they are "news" or "commentary". (On the other hand, if they are "opinion", they might be "expert opinion".)

Regardless, nothing about Backmann should be here unless it's also in the article about the school district. Please edit there, first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we are under no obligation to edit articles in any particular order, nor is your second-guessing of MJ or RS particularly binding upon us. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's true. There's no obligation to edit articles in any particular order. However, if more information is here than in what is clearly the main article, it should be summarily moved to the main article. I'm giving you a chance to combine them before I move it, leaving a reasonable stub here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if there's more here than at the main article, we should add all of it to the main article. We should leave as much here as is appropriate for here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"As much as is appropriate for here" is a little less than is presently here. (After my latest edit. It was much less, before the edit.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I don't know what to say when you proclaim conclusions without any sort of basis. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE and questionable relevance to PAL. But I've already said that, and you've already disagreed (without any sort of basis), so there's no point to further argument here, unless it's likely other editors would comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think undue means what you think it means. It's actually about making sure we follow our sources, giving due prominence to the mainstream ones, less to the rest, and almost none to fringe. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. We need not (and should not) give any "weight" to irrelevant facts, and little "weight" to tangentially relevant facts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not up to us to decide what relevant; that's what our sources are for. If they say, for example, that Michelle Bachmann is relevant to the PAL, we can't just ignore that because we personally disagree. So, in conclusion, you are once again mistaken about policy. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, not always. Some sources can be reliable for relevance, and not for "facts", and sources such as MJ and RS may be reliable for "facts", but not, because of extreme bias, for relevance.

Actually, on checking policies, not ever. There are not even essays which assign "relevance" to the reliable sources. Relevance is a matter for editors to determine by consensus. WP:ROC states that relevance should be supported by reliable sources, but it is difficult to read that as if reliable sources find the fact relevant, then we should do so. WP:RELE almost makes what you are claiming an option, but other related essays (WP:REL and WP:RELNOT) do not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

A POV/neutrality disputed tag has been placed in the section being discussed above, so I would like to invite the editor who placed it to explain (in light of the above discussion), what exactly is disputed as being non-neutral or offer a proposal on how to edit it to make it neutral. – MrX 23:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not neutral because it is basically regurgitating an editorial opinion, and privileging it above all others. There is no particular reason my MJ, of all sourced, should have its opinion posted here. How do we know it's a significant opinion? Have third parties reported on it? It would seem that the best way to make it neutral would be two delete the two sentences, viz.: According to Mother Jones magazine, Republican member of the United States House of Representatives Michele Bachmann, whose political career started as a an education activist, was "uncharacteristically silent" on the deaths in her district—"including the high school that she attended." Mother Jones also argued that "the anti-gay activists who are some of the congresswoman's closest allies stand accused of blocking an effective response to the crisis and fostering a climate of intolerance that allowed bullying to flourish" and that the Parents Action League, as the local affiliate of the Minnesota Family Council are "among Bachmann's biggest supporters in the district." StAnselm (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the MJ opinion (along with the NPOV tag) - I can't see a consensus to include it, and it shouldn't be added without a consensus. It is a non-notable opinion, critical of a living person. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I support including it as well, notable commentary on a national figure who was caught contributing to an atmosphere of violence against gay kids, while demonizing gay people. Bachmann believes in this so we should let her actions speak for her. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say the commentary is notable? Have you found any third party sources commenting on it? StAnselm (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing your work for you, and the only thing I can find is this mention of it on the Yahoo news blog. That's not enough. StAnselm (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources need to be reliable. There does not need to be a cascading series of analyses on one source by another, for inclusion. I'm seeing solid support for keeping this relevant and revealing material. The Rolling Stone article and the Mother Jones article alone are sufficient. By rough count, I see six editors supporting inclusion and three opposed.

Also, both myself and Insomesia have made detailed arguments, the substance of which has not been refuted. – MrX 12:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this recent [1] edit by Mr. X. is suitable for the information it portrays, without any of the MJ editorializing that Insomesia has been pushing. A pint o grog for Mr. X. Yaaaaargggh!  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the backhanded jab there, I attributed direct quotes to those whose made it and used quotes to keep it accountable and accurate. It's unfortunate edit-warring and pointed discussions had to ensue to get to this point but I've come to expect it I suppose. Insomesia (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

When you push POV edits into articles, expect to be called a POV pusher. Your edit history speaks for itself. Perhaps if you ask yourself "Is this edit neutral in tone?" everytime beore you hit that "save page" button you might find yourself not being accused of this at all.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

MrX's edit is an improvement, but there is still no evidence of relevance to PAL, other than in clearly biased publications. We can use reliable, but biased, publications, for facts (not including opinions), but not for relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I respectfully dispute that the sources are clearly biased, any more than any other media publication in the world. Would you please tell us which of the following you dispute are facts:

1. Michele Bachmann is a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives
2. Michele Bachmann's political career started as a an education activist,
3. Michele Bachmann did not comment on the deaths in her district (until she was forced to by a petition)
4. Michele Bachmann attended high school in the district
5. The Parents Action League, as the local affiliate of the Minnesota Family Council are among Bachmann's biggest supporters in the district.

I think relevance has been established in the two primary sources, and corroborated in the other three. Please help us understand how you do not believe that to be true. Do you honestly not see the connection, are are you concerned that this make Republican's look bad by association? If the latter, we can simply remove the word Republican as far as I'm concerned.

I will be adding additional sources shortly. – MrX 15:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I dispute #5, both for the implied fact, and the the fact their are few supporters about which it could not be honestly said, by a sufficiently biased organization.

I also dispute the relevance, even if the statements were all unambiguously true (and sourced). A biased source should not be used to determine relevance, as its assertion of relevance is determined by its own agenda, so we would need a reasonably unbiased source to assert relevance. There seems to be little guidence for editors in how to determine relevance of a fact to the article; I think we would need consensus to include. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you clarifying that. I'm sure that you would agree that bias is a perceived attribute that can not be measured against an absolute standard. It would seem that there are a few editors who believe the main sources are (overly) biased and a few more editors who believe that not to be the case. It might be helpful for your case if you can find any sources that contradict 'fact' No.5, thereby refuting the other reliable sources. – MrX 17:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The peacock tag applied for the word 'largest' is probably not warranted. The source (MJ) uses the word 'biggest'. Perhaps there is a better word, or it can simply be removed until it can be quantified. I think removing it for now would be preferable, as these tags tend to interrupt the flow of the article. – MrX 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thinking it over, it's the wrong tag, but "one of ... the largest" is vague. It's still not acceptable, even if such a biased source is reliable for what appears to be an opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Then extract the factual part, which is that the PAL, as part of the MFC, is a strong supporter of Bachmann. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 14:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)