Talk:Eagle Forum

message: Surely there must be some controversies we can dig up on this group. Let's find some evidence of hate speech, vitriolic rhetorical, and examples of bigotry. I am sure the stuff exists, we just need to dig it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.202.86 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:SOAP Roger (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And what if they don't hate anybody? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If they don't hate anybody, that should be in the article. If they do, it should be in the article. Calling for sources for or against common assertions is NOT WP:SOAP. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies Section

message: Conservapedia charged Wikipedia with liberal bias - pffft
Secular content is not biased. Conservapedia, on the other hand, uses outright fundamentalist bias to attack Wikipedia. How Americancentric can you be to deem Wikipedia biased for including substitutions of labor with labour. And if Wikipedia uses censorship too much, what can defend Conservapedia's prevention of even creating an account. Fundamentalists need to cry somewhere else, Wikipedia is a home of secular objectivity. 68.163.32.207 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it a little odd that the example given of "bias" is so laughably minor compared to the fact that the site declares on its front page that faith is unique to Christianity, contains articles presenting creationism as fact, has statements of opinion directly in the summary of articles, and so on. I get that it might be a parody of criticism of bias at wikipedia (their examples are indeed pretty laughable), but uncyclopedia is the place for parody.
The premise behind it is equally laughable. Given that any Wikipedia editor, if challenged, will have to justify their neutrality with logical arguments, Conservapedia is essentially saying that logic has a liberal bias... Baggabagga 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A reminder that talk pages are not for general discussions but for discussing ways to improve articles. That said, I will be slightly hypocritical and make a very brief comment- one could argue that Wikipedia is so biased with liberalism that what passes for logic and sourcing on Wikipedia is skewed. JoshuaZ 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Respecting the scientific process and rejecting scripture as a source doesn't equal liberalism. It equals secularism, and there are plenty of secular conservatives. Perhaps we should have a section which highlights the disparity between Conservapedia's conservatism and international conservatism? I'm not sure about this, since they openly proclaim to be America-centric. Might be redundant. Kronix1986 11:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is an ongoing deletion review. Look at WP:DRV. JoshuaZ 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then say so at the DRV. This is not the forum. JoshuaZ 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: dammit, they took down their wiki entry on the tree octopus :( 68.33.185.185 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservapedia

message: * archived snapshots of eagleforum.org at the Internet Archive
* GroupWatch entry (2005 Oct)
* PFAW entry (2002 Sept)
* RH Reality Check entry
* 9/11 response at CDT
* PAC data at opensecrets.org
* legal defense fund data at mediatransparency.org
* description of Eagle Forum anti-HPV vaccine activity at mediamatters.org
* more anti-HPV vaccine activity at gopusa.org
* description of a 1997 Eagle Forum video about a NWO conspiracy
* YouTube video of Jessica Echard speaking
* Eagle Forum radio shows list at podcast.net
* pointer to news article about Eagle Forum participation in the Council for National Policy
* Eagle Forum of CA anti-psychiatry activity
* approving link to eagleforum.org from anti-psychiatry Scientology subsidiary CCHR
* 1997 Schlafly column opposing "medicalization" of public schools
* article from the Eagle Forum legal defense fund's newsletter, about opposition to genital exams in schools
* Eagle Forum of CA anti-feminism activity
* Eagle Forum of TX misc. activity
* description of Eagle Forum anti-condom activity
* blog post pointing to Eagle Forum activity re: international law
* NOW Orlando page pointing to feminism-related columns at eagleforum.org
* description of Eagle Forum of TX activity re: school textbooks
* Schlafly interview at CFIF re: Eagle Forum and immigration
* Schlafly as guest on Democracy Now!, 2001 July 10
* listed by the United Wiccan Church as engaging in some sort of anti-Wicca activities
- Kelly Ramsey 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these links aren't from reliable sources. I think we should be more careful, not less, about what we say of organisations critical of wikipedia. Andjam 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I stuck them on the talk page, not the article, as starting points for research. (No sense keeping the search engine trawl all to myself, gee whiz.) We are certainly in agreement that this organization requires extra-scrupulous adherence to policies - which is good, because it's looking like the more of us who are here reverting the unverified outbursts, the better. - Kelly Ramsey 04:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Research stack for expanding the article

message: Hmm on a related note. Looking at this article's history, the "dominionist" label was apparently a point of contention recently. It was, too, for the Free Congress Foundation article. As far as Eagle Forum is concerned, there currently isn't any documentation with reliable sources. The main source for the categorization, TheocracyWatch, is another activist group so it really doesn't qualify.
I'm taking off the "dominionism" template until this article has proper verification for the label.
- Kelly Ramsey 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominionist? Needs reliable sources

message: In this edit, a user changed the traffic rank from ~10,000 to being in the 500,000s. The daily traffic was close to 10,000 (the bit in the graph), but the 500,000s seems to be the overall (longer term) rank. Oh, the joys of original research! Andjam 23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic rank 

message: With the recent coverage in Wired magazine (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0%2C72818-0.html?tw=wn_index_3) and New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/02/conservative-rival-for-wikipedia.html) as well as the attention all over the various blogs, at what point does conservapedia actually reach enough notoriety to have an article and not simply a redirect to a page that doesn't even mention it? Tmtoulouse 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being discussed. I suggest you go to WP:DRV and scroll down to the discussion. JoshuaZ 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks I just noticed that after I posted here. I commented there.Tmtoulouse 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservapedia article

message: look people! I just copied exactly word for word what a wikipedia definition says and what a conservapedia definition says???...how in the hell...is that POV?...its showing the differences...and conservapedians should be proud of their definitions! why would you attempt to hide me presenting them on this page?...anyways Im being careful in the future, it seems that I will indeed go to Hell if i ever dare to believe dinosaur bones are older than 6,000 years. What happens to me if I disagree with "dinosaurs still roam the earth" and that they were all "vegetarians"...??? 83.78.181.214 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV??? 

message: "I'm personally really pleased in conservapedia, it will prove very interesting, perhaps at times even entertaining, and it will be nice to see how the conservapedians think of and view the world...as you know what conservapedians?...I have a distinctly right wing streak in me sometimes, and it can prove very useful to have such knowledge over how people are thinking...very useful..and while i may lean rightwards at times, yet still think this business of 6000 year old dinosaur bones is absolute rubbish, its very useful to know how y'all think!!!...and anyways Im sure that you may eventually have some definitions perhaps better than wikipedia on certain subjects, we will at least get all the dirt on the democrats yes?, I suppose we next need a "liberalapedia" so we can see all the dirt on the republicans also without it being blocked and erased out 83.78.181.214 02:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  But its a great thing!!! 

message: well I just want to state that I have been immediately blanked out for showing the definitions from wikipedia vrs conservapedia, copied word for word, if someone wants to try and state wikipedia has a "liberal" bias then try editing on this page! and you might change your mind!!!...83.78.181.214 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshuaz does not have a bias towards conservapedia, and he is right, the appropriate thing to do is to wait for the results of the DRV.Tmtoulouse 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I might, I have been editing there. I doubt it though. I do however intend when we have an article on Conservapedia to propose all my non-trivial changes on the talk pages before implementing them. JoshuaZ 03:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the point made was that it was a logically consistent respone that Conservapedia could make to Baggabagga. Hence the "one could." I don't endorse the argument at all (and in fact if you look at for example here you will see my arguing strongly against such a viewpoint. JoshuaZ 04:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed your attempts with the evolution section on conservapedia, good luck! Not to clutter up this talk page with too much unrelated information, but I am sure your edits to the page here will be fine, I have only recently started contributing to wikipedia but have consistently been impressed with your integrity and contributions on the articles that I have followed through my time lurking. Tmtoulouse 03:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The DRV is not about deleting the Eagle Forum article, there was an entry on conservapedia a while ago but it was deleted because of a lack of notoriety. With the recent press coverage and discussion it should now probably be undeleted. That is what the discussion is about. Scroll up to under my heading Conservapedia Article and follow Joshuaz's instructions and comment on your support for undeleting the article on conservapedia. Tmtoulouse 03:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Even better is the article on Charles I himself: "Charles I was born November 19, 1600 and died January 30, 1649. He became king of England and Ireland in 1625 and did much to worsen the conflicts between the king and Parliament throughout his rein [sic]." I suppose that's one way of putting it.Bedesboy 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  blocking by wikipedia conservapedians 

message: I've started a new draft based on reliable sources - User:JoshuaZ/Conservapedia so we can be ready to stick it into the page when the DRV closes. Feel free to edit it. JoshuaZ 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Userspace draft moved to article space. Give thought to how much content should be here now that there is an article. GRBerry 13:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft of Conservapedia article 

message: I would like to add some constructive pages and fix a spelling error (not of the -our -or kind)
but Conservapedia does not appear to have a Create Account option? Help needed please.
Tabletop 08:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a function for creating accounts. So much for "openness" from our conservative friends? --Sumple (Talk) 13:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing onto Conservapedia 

message: There is now a separate article on conservapedia so most of that information can be removed from here which doesn't leave much left. The references are blank and not much information about "Eagle Forum" lets see what sources we can find and get something worth having here. Tmtoulouse 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to Re-Do this article

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Article text is clear
:2. Factually accurate?: Very well cited, seems to all be factual
:3. Broad in coverage?: This article doesn't have enough breadth.
On reading it, I was left with a multitude of unanswered questions. Below are a few of them as a guide on what could be added:
The Eagle Forum is almost certainly a controversial organisation, due to it's far right wing views. Why is there nothing about confrontations with people on the other side of politics? - Eagle forum, and their founder, make numerous appearances on www.rightwingwatch.org
How is the organisation linked to the church? - It seems there is a link since in creating Conservapedia they were concerned that Wikipedia was anti-Christian.
History Section
What is the Education and Legal Defense Fund used for? What/who's legal problems are defended using the fund?
What does PAC stand for? (as in Eagle Forum PAC). Who have been their main & most controversial targets for donations?
Organisation Section
There is no mention of the structure of the organisation. Are there any full time employees? What are the offices for? Is there any significance to the location of the offices.
Do members pay a fee? How much? How do they raise other cash?
Are non-caucasians permitted to be members/leaders? Why are almost all of the state leaders women? What are the demographics and geographics of the members?
Scope of Activities section
This section lists a number of issues in which the Eagle Forum is involved, but there is no detail of how they are involved. Who/how/where do they lobby? How much influence do they exert?
Anti-Evolution/pro-Creationism and anti-conscription could added to the list.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Seems to be reasonably neutral
:5. Article stability?
:6. Images?: This article contains no pictures - It would be good to have either a photo of the leader of the Eagle Forum, and/or it's eagle symbol on the page.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.
--Ozhiker 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: The references in this article are of poor quality - URL's are not enough, full references should be provided, possibly using :Template:Cite web.
Many of the references do not properly match the sentence or phrase they are attached to:
* Ref #3)  doesn't mention the phrase 'socially conservative'
* Ref #4)  doesn't mention the phrase 'anti-feminist'
* Ref #7)  doesn't mention specific ages
* Ref #8)  is an old link, the replacement  doesn't specifically mention who Eagle Forum Collegians is aimed at
* Ref #10)  does not use the quoted phrase 'continuing education'
* Ref #11)  is not available to most web users without payment
* Ref #12)  refers to 'Phyllis Schlafly's Stop ERA organisation' but does not specifically say that it was she who founded it.
* Ref #14)  just points to tax info for charities - it should point to the specific charity information page for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund.
* Ref #16)  says the eagle forum contributes to right wing Campaigns, not Candidates as mentioned in the article. Campaigns suggest contributions need not involve a particular candidate
* Ref #21)  does not reference the quote to which it is attached.
--Ozhiker (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor referencing 

message: For your information,
Currently, there are four sources to support saying Eagle Forum is a dominionist organization.
One is an article by Glenn Scherer. The Godly Must Be Crazy:
:: Forty-five senators and 186 representatives in 2003 earned 80- to 100-percent approval ratings from the nation's three most influential Christian right advocacy groups -- the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. Many of those same lawmakers also got flunking grades -- less than 10 percent, on average -- from the League of Conservation Voters last year.
Three others are links from TheocracyWatch's website. They all take the numbers that Glenn Scherer compiled to group Eagle Forum with the Christian Coalition and the Family Resource Council:
* Home Page before Nov. 06:
:: Congressional scorecards from organizations such as the Christian Coalition, and the Family Research Council also illustrate the strength of dominionists in Congress. Click here to view Senate Congressional scorecards from those three organizations as compared to the League of Conservation Voters, a consortium of environmental groups. You'll see an almost perfect inverse correlation -- the higher the scores from dominionist groups, the lower the scores on the environment. (The tables in the above link were provided by Glenn Scherer, October, 2004 ...)
::* Note: The page now does not mention "Eagle Forum", but it still says "three" (as opposed to "two") organizations, and the spreadsheet it links to still has Eagle Forum in a column.
* The Environment:
:: To see Senate scorecards produced by the League of Conservation Voters, a consortium of environmental organizations, compared to the scorecards produced by three organizations that promote the theocratic right -- the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Eagle Forum -- click here. (These tables were provided by Glenn Scherer, October, 2004.)
* An editorial by Chris Hedges:
:: Forty-five Senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives earned between an 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian Right advocacy groups - The Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominionism and Glenn Scherer 

message: I am not in sympathy with Eagle Forum or with Phyllis Schlafly, yet at my first glance at the image chosen my instant reaction was that it was an unflattering image. So I did a quick Google image search for "phyllis schafly" and turned up the image used in the article, but also many far more attractive-looking ones. The first Google Image hit, for example, was
http://www.patrolmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/schlafly+phyllis.jpg
This image does not look phony or airbrushed, and yet her smile makes her look far more attractive.
I don't know what Wikipedia policy is or could possibly be with regard to image selection, and I understand the issues with finding free images, but I really have a problem with the image that's in the article now. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unflattering image? 

message: An editor reverted my change from "The organization is pro-life" to "The organization is opposed to the legalization of abortion", commenting "this is how they self-describe; no consensus for this change". I'm aware of no policy that requires WP to use self-descriptions; WP:ABOUTSELF states that "Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" with caveats (emphasis mine), but WP:NPOV requires that WP "Prefer non-judgmental language". The articles on abortion advocacy are actually titled "Opposition to the legalization of abortion" and "Support for the legalization of abortion" for NPOV, and articles that link to them should do the same. AV3000 (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant policy is MOS:IDENTITY. The article titles you cited fall unser WP:OTHERSTUFF. In any event "pro-life" is commonly used in reliable sources and consequently not POV and certainly not "judgmental".– Lionel (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, not a policy, that explicitly states it is trumped by WP:NPOV: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as ... Neutral point of view". It also says "When there is no dispute, ... the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself"; there is obviously a dispute. (WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant because the article being linked with a pipe rename is an integral part of the text.) Not aware of the related ArbCom case; link please? AV3000 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pro-life" description 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:STOP ERA.gif Nominated for Deletion