Talk:People for the American Way

message: I made some pretty big changes to this... my source is the PFAW website, but I'm not sure how to create a citation...I need to figure out how to do that.  Also, all of the items in red are things that don't yet have articles, but I think may be deserving of them.  First major additions to Wikipedia, so feedback would be great.  Thanks!  --Njfellow 11:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: It seems as though in the rush to make this article NPOV, TazRebel overcompensated and added original research or claims about the organization. I believe these to be POV, and would like another editor to inspect the changes made. Of particular interest is the addition of the phrases "illegal", "liberal," etc. which I believe would constitute a stated conservative bias. Without these additions, I believe the article is no longer POV. Ipsenaut (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Politically active topics are notoriously difficult to make NPOV. I've made some fairly minor changes that avoid scare quotes and weasel-wording, but it's still clear that the organization is generally recognized as having a distinctive agenda. DavidOaks (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverse POV

message: This category appears to have been added incorrectly as this organization does not self-identify as liberal (to my knowledge).  One editor has been repeatedly adding this but has yet to show where they self-identify.  When asked directly they said "see the freaking website" in an edit summary.  Having seen the website, I find no such statement anywhere.  It's certainly not in their mission statement but I may have overlooked something.  Can you please quote and link directly to what this is based on rather than edit-warring?  Thanks.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22liberal+people+for+the+american+way%22 is pretty dispositive on this as reliable sources go.  If even the New York Times thinks you're liberal, you're liberal. THF (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for starters we don't use google searches as sources.  More to the point, none of those indicate self-identification. Please, please stop edit-warring on this.  If there is an organization that does self-identify and it was missed, mention it on the talk page of that article with a cite and it won't be reverted.  Short of that, you're editing against the guidelines for these categories (in an extremely tendentious manner).  --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop being tendentious.  If you bothered to click on the link, you'd see dozens of reliable sources.  You're the one who is completely misunderstanding the guidelines and violating NPOV. THF (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, can you provide one single example to support your claim that PFAW self-identifies as "liberal?"  If not, then the category is inappropriate.  It's as simple as that. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, pick any page on the website.  Again, there's no requirement for self-identification.  You misunderstand the purpose of categories.  This has turned into Argument Clinic, and you are being WP:TEDIOUS.  The Wikipedia consensus does not agree with your idiosyncratic definitions, and you shouldn't be relitigating an issue you've already lost multiple times at CFD.  Further discussion should be at WP:NPOVN since your disruptive editing extends well beyond this particular article. THF (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're argument has changed 180° here.  Ok, so you were lying when you repeatedly claimed they self-identified as liberal (and repeated this lie on various discussions, even claiming I removed the category even from organizations that self-identify).  Then when asked to provide evidence of this, you blustered and launched another volley of personal attacks but still didn't provide.  Then, when finally pinned down on that point you suddenly claimed self-identification wasn't necessary (unilaterally going against two years of consensus and practice).  Meanwhile, you're completely incapable of posting anything that isn't primarily a series of insults and attacks.  What a piece of work. You clearly have an ax to grind. I'm just trying to get these categories applied correctly, while you're on some kind of mission to label various organizations based on your personal opinion.   And you have the gall to accuse others of tendentiousness?  You know, there's an old yiddish saying, "when you point one finger at another, you're pointing three at yourself." --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

text: My argument hasn't changed.  Self-identification is sufficient, not necessary.  And PFAW self-identifies.  They regularly quote sources that call them liberal, and most recently released a press release calling themselves progressive, also.  My only mission for Wikipedia to adhere to NPOV. THF (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh) really? You're going back to claiming they do self-identify as liberal now?  And yet every time you were challenged to provide a single piece of evidence of this, just one, you were unable to.  So for probably the eighteenth time, can you provide a quote and a cite specifically demonstrating that they self-identify as liberal?  I'm not going to hold my breath....--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberal" category addition. 

message: Can someone tell me why Right Wing Watch redirects to this page. Was 'People For the American Way' previously called Right wing Watch, or is Right Wing Watch owned by them? Freikorp (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of PFAW's projects. — Wyliepedia 07:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right Wing Watch