Talk:Soulforce

message: Is the incident at Baylor really worth mentioning?  The members of Soulforce have been arrested other times, too - what makes the incident at Baylor worthy of inclusion in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.62.119.195 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2007
:I think it's a good idea to include information on what's happened at Soulforce's protests. It gives the reader a very clear idea about how these protests have been received. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Greetings friend! I will help clean this up if others are available to offer suggestions after I do an edit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.37.86 (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with flowingfire on this point as does wp:summary style. These subsections should be moved to the main article at Equality Ride. Pursuant to this, I have moved the Baylor Univ. subsection to the main article. Because it was longer than other similar paragraphs there and made statements not supported by its sole source from The Baylor Lariat, I have paraphrased the subsection such that it only includes supported statements. Other reliable sources may validate claims made on this article and could be added to the main. Time permitting, I will work on migrating this article's other Equality Ride subsections. Ruodyssey (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just merged the Covenant College incident into Equality Ride.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruodyssey (talk • contribs) 23:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument about Relevance 

message: These sections don't even belong in this article.  They belong in the Equality Ride article.  If you want to add them, figure out a way to do it in a neutral tone, because it's certainly not neutral as presented here.
--flowingfire
:: Greetings friend! I will help clean this up if others are available to offer suggestions after I do an edit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.37.86 (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with flowingfire on this point as does wp:summary style. These subsections should be moved to the main article at Equality Ride. Pursuant to this, I have moved the Baylor Univ. subsection to the main article. Because it was longer than other similar paragraphs there and made statements not supported by its sole source from The Baylor Lariat, I have paraphrased the subsection such that it only includes supported statements. Other reliable sources may validate claims made on this article and could be added to the main. Time permitting, I will work on migrating this article's other Equality Ride subsections. Ruodyssey (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just merged the Covenant College incident into Equality Ride.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruodyssey (talk • contribs) 23:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to argument 

message: I'm getting tired of being referred to this article from other articles' criticisms seciton.  It seems every time I read an article that is about anything conservative, I come accross a 'criticisms and controversy' section that has something about Soulforce.  Well how about some criticism of Soulforce?  What is wrong with wikipedia?  Talk about bias!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added a critisms section, and it is continually being removed by a few users on a range of grounds.  It appears that there is some / contriversial / political relationship with the organisation 'Focus on the Family', which probably should be included.  While readers may disagree with the critisms made by FOF, I can't see how we can deny they exist.  Any opinions?
Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Self-published criticism by Focus on the Family is not worth repeating. See WP:SPS: "However, caution should be exercised when using [self-published] sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." --02:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section depends on the WP:SPS onenewsnow. Onenewsnow is a publication of American Family Association, and may not be used to comment on third-party sources. Onenewsnow may be used in the American Family Association article.  --01:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves read the whole thing. - Schrandit (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, that only covers the statements from Soulforce about themselves, not the American Family Association; just as we can't use Soulforce to prop up a criticism section on American Family Association we can't do the reverse either. Start with WP:RS by Wikipedia's standards and apply due weight to any content, then ensure it's presented NPOV. As for the start of all this? No, we do not want a "controversy" or "criticism" section on pretty much any article for exactly the reasons spelled out so far - it invites poor writing and sourcing. Really we're aiming to write good articles. Even if some pointy statement is wedged in now it will be removed soon enough as POV. Find reliable sources and see what they say. The American Family Association is only reliable for an article about them just as Soulforce's opinions are likely only reliable on an articles about Soulforce - and we'd rather have independent sourcing.  -- Banjeboi 00:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a Criticisms Section

message: The organization has protested against the Vatican, this could maybe be included in the controversies section.     ADM (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protests against the Vatican

message: The vast majority of this article is devoid of any references.
74.70.38.127 (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Needs Sources

message: Focus on the family can be used as a source for statements from Focus on the Family.  The material is sourced and neutrally worded, there is no legitimate reason it should be excluded. - Schrandit (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Focus on the Family can be used on the Focus on the Family article. To prop up a controversy section - which in itself shows a POV problem - you need independent reliable sources. Focus on the Family is hardly such. Ask at WP:RSN for guidance.  -- Banjeboi 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word, no.  Statements of opinion are not restricted to the pages of their originator and it is merely your opinion that the text is POV. - Schrandit (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm disappointed you continued to edit war to reinsert contested material. I have asked for more eyes at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#User:Schrandit and Soulforce .28organization.29.  -- Banjeboi 18:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm disappointed at the fact that you seem so focused on the validity of this one citation, when the article has been tagged for needing citations for more than a year.  The vast majority of the article is unsourced.  There are only three footnotes in the whole thing.  Entire paragraphs are unsourced, and appear to be taken from Soulforce's own materials.  And yet, you seem very focused on one sentence that--unlike most of the rest of the article--IS sourced.  In any event, to suggest that Focus on the Family is not a reliable source as to the position taken by Focus on the Family on an issue is just off base.  I am re-inserting the citation with a direct quote this time.  I hope you will reconsider what I consider to be completely unreasonable reverts.  Thank you.
72.224.119.119 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Nat, the hair-splitting about whether Price is a spokesperson for Focus or not is just that--hair-splitting.  Unless you have some reason to believe that he went "rogue" and started making public comments on behalf of Focus without authorization, there is no reason to question the validity of the source.  I will modify this to include a direct quote from the article to address your concern about the "wolves in sheep's clothing" language, even though I don't agree with your analysis. 72.224.119.119 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I was the one that added more to the quote. I figured since some people kept demanding a controversy section and accoused this page as being POV toward the group I might as well show the quote isn't really controversy for what the groups have done, but rather just conservative religious groups opposing the ideaology of the group, and saying that what they do goes agianst their god and their religion. Dflav1138 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. As a general rule "controversy" and "criticism" sections cause problems and the content instead should we sourced and woven into the main text in context. For what you're stating a line that some socially conservative groups oppose them would seem to make sense but really that's not very surprising. If a reliable source sttaes that though it could be added.  -- Banjeboi 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A socially conservative source is reliable as to what a socially conservative organization has to say about an issue.  Does anyone disagree?  If so, please feel free to visit any Wikipedia pages relating to conservative groups and remove any material that is remotely critical of those organizations that cites to a liberal source.  Thanks. 
72.224.119.207 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is this individual (he is not listed as speaking for Focus, merely working for them) supposed to be important here, particularly important enough for the lede? What you have here is one person of dubious relevancy making unsourced claims. And no, being a socially conservative source does not of itself make it reliable on anything. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that there is some hairsplitting going on.  I think it's perfectly obvious that Price is commenting in the article in his official capacity as an employee of Focus.  If he were not, would not Focus have disavowed his comments?  And what do you mean by "unsourced claims?"  Speaking of unsourced claims, there are entire paragraphs in this article that are completely unsourced.  It is curious to me that editors have gotten so focused on this one sentence whenever it has been inserted or re-inserted, while apparently having no problem with the entirely-unsourced paragraph.  Regarding the notability argument, I have a similar response to the one I gave above.  If Focus on the Family is not a notable enough source to be included in an article on Soulforce, then liberal groups that criticize conservative groups or spokespersons should not be considered notable enough to be quoted or cited to on Wikipedia pages dealing with conservative groups.  
72.224.119.207 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "If he were not, would not Focus have disavowed his comments?" I don't claim to know whether they would've, and I don't claim to know whether they have. As for "unsourced claims", he's making claims about their "real agenda" - not showing any specific access to the internal efforts of Soulforce. If we were to have someone claim that the real agenda of Focus was to line up all homosexuals and force them to be strawberry pudding, we'd be saying "really? How does he know?" - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nat, if Caleb Price were a random individual commenting about Focus' perspective on an issue, you would be right.  However, Caleb Price is an employee of Focus commenting on Focus' perspective.  He is clearly referenced in the article as an employee of Focus.  On a different note, I'm unaware of the Wikipedia policy that requires anyone who is quoted in an article to demonstrate "specific access to the internal efforts" of the person or entity s/he is talking about. 
72.224.119.207 (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "However, Caleb Price is an employee of Focus commenting on Focus' perspective."? Sez who? The article (as I recall it, the site seems to be down at the moment) doesn't make that claim. I've had articles written quoting me which have mentioned my employer, but what I was saying was not anything about the perspective of my employer. If the quote is in there to reflect the real agenda of Soulforce, we should have more to back it up beyond just some random person saying so. If the quote is in there to reflect the stance of Focus, then there should be some better information to back it up rather than just that someone who is employed by the organization happened to say so. And if the quote is just in there to have someone say something disparaging about Soulforce, then that reason isn't good enough. - Nat Gertler (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nat, I respectfully disagree with your analysis and I believe the quote should remain.01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus on the Family

message: I have deleted the Controversy section, not just because most of the article was already controversy, but because the content that was there was not generally supportable:
# It cited quotes from Caleb Price as representing Focus on the Family; while Price works for them, it is not clear that he is there spokesperson; the source linked to specifically refers to him as a research analyst.
# The quote did not accuse Soulforce of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, as claimed; if I say "don't eat that unwashed apple, because some unwashed apples make you sick", I am not saying that the apple you are holding will make you sick.
# The claim that Soulforce responded to Focus's accusations was not supported by the source given. The source given said that Soulforce was responding to Focus's statements about homosexuality, not about Soulforce, and in fact refers to events several years before the OneNewsNow article
# The supposed article (better described as a booklet) shows no signs of relating to any Focus/Dobson accusations against Soulforce; it merely relates to statements abut homosexuality. And while there is no publication date on the booklet that I could find, the sources they use finish at 2005, years before the OneNewsNow article (2008)
So once one strips the inaccuracy out of this section, there is little left of substance. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nat, the hair-splitting about whether Price is a spokesperson for Focus or not is just that--hair-splitting.  Unless you have some reason to believe that he went "rogue" and started making public comments on behalf of Focus without authorization, there is no reason to question the validity of the source.  I will modify this to include a direct quote from the article to address your concern about the "wolves in sheep's clothing" language, even though I don't agree with your analysis. 72.224.119.119 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I was the one that added more to the quote. I figured since some people kept demanding a controversy section and accoused this page as being POV toward the group I might as well show the quote isn't really controversy for what the groups have done, but rather just conservative religious groups opposing the ideaology of the group, and saying that what they do goes agianst their god and their religion. Dflav1138 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. As a general rule "controversy" and "criticism" sections cause problems and the content instead should we sourced and woven into the main text in context. For what you're stating a line that some socially conservative groups oppose them would seem to make sense but really that's not very surprising. If a reliable source sttaes that though it could be added.  -- Banjeboi 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A socially conservative source is reliable as to what a socially conservative organization has to say about an issue.  Does anyone disagree?  If so, please feel free to visit any Wikipedia pages relating to conservative groups and remove any material that is remotely critical of those organizations that cites to a liberal source.  Thanks. 
72.224.119.207 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is this individual (he is not listed as speaking for Focus, merely working for them) supposed to be important here, particularly important enough for the lede? What you have here is one person of dubious relevancy making unsourced claims. And no, being a socially conservative source does not of itself make it reliable on anything. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that there is some hairsplitting going on.  I think it's perfectly obvious that Price is commenting in the article in his official capacity as an employee of Focus.  If he were not, would not Focus have disavowed his comments?  And what do you mean by "unsourced claims?"  Speaking of unsourced claims, there are entire paragraphs in this article that are completely unsourced.  It is curious to me that editors have gotten so focused on this one sentence whenever it has been inserted or re-inserted, while apparently having no problem with the entirely-unsourced paragraph.  Regarding the notability argument, I have a similar response to the one I gave above.  If Focus on the Family is not a notable enough source to be included in an article on Soulforce, then liberal groups that criticize conservative groups or spokespersons should not be considered notable enough to be quoted or cited to on Wikipedia pages dealing with conservative groups.  
72.224.119.207 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "If he were not, would not Focus have disavowed his comments?" I don't claim to know whether they would've, and I don't claim to know whether they have. As for "unsourced claims", he's making claims about their "real agenda" - not showing any specific access to the internal efforts of Soulforce. If we were to have someone claim that the real agenda of Focus was to line up all homosexuals and force them to be strawberry pudding, we'd be saying "really? How does he know?" - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nat, if Caleb Price were a random individual commenting about Focus' perspective on an issue, you would be right.  However, Caleb Price is an employee of Focus commenting on Focus' perspective.  He is clearly referenced in the article as an employee of Focus.  On a different note, I'm unaware of the Wikipedia policy that requires anyone who is quoted in an article to demonstrate "specific access to the internal efforts" of the person or entity s/he is talking about. 
72.224.119.207 (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "However, Caleb Price is an employee of Focus commenting on Focus' perspective."? Sez who? The article (as I recall it, the site seems to be down at the moment) doesn't make that claim. I've had articles written quoting me which have mentioned my employer, but what I was saying was not anything about the perspective of my employer. If the quote is in there to reflect the real agenda of Soulforce, we should have more to back it up beyond just some random person saying so. If the quote is in there to reflect the stance of Focus, then there should be some better information to back it up rather than just that someone who is employed by the organization happened to say so. And if the quote is just in there to have someone say something disparaging about Soulforce, then that reason isn't good enough. - Nat Gertler (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nat, I respectfully disagree with your analysis and I believe the quote should remain.01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section again

message: There was a recent addition of Gary Nixon as one of the creators of the group. This has several practical problems. One of them, that it was added in such a way that suddenly all of White's history was listed as belonging to Nixon instead, was easily fixed by reordering. However, that leaves us with two problems:
*Nixon's involvement in the creation is unsourced.
*Nixon was described as White's husband. My flipping things around has White described as Nixon's husband. However, the two were not legally married until 2008. If they were not at least socially married by the time of the founding, then this needs to be rephrased to indicate that they later married, rather than imply that they were husbands at the time of the founding. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon addition problems 

message: You have restored "Reverend" before the name "Alba Onofrio". Per MOS:CREDENTIAL, Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not). As such, I am removing it again. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverend as Title