Talk:American Family Association

AFA

1. Show how the following sources are "unreliable" or "questionable":

• Anti-Defamation League
• Institute for First Amendment Studies, Inc
• American Jewish Congress
• National Conference of Catholic Bishops
• Mennonite Church
• Church of the Lutheran Brethren
• Media Matters For America
• Archdiocese of Denver

10px שועל (talk|contribs) 11:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Do not remove talk page posts. If an editor has an opposition to information included in the article - which you do, leading to your removal of that information - then to avoid edit warring discussion is necessary. The above organizations have been described by you as unreliable and questionable, and thus their statements regarding the AFA as somehow not to be trusted. They are all widely regarded organizations. I do not see what axe the Archdiocese of Denver, for example, has to grind and why it would lie. Please outline your objections to the organizations and the statements that they have made, and how highly respected Roman Catholic Archbishops are "far left garbage". 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I sense a bit of deceit. Actually, a lot of deceit. None of those were the source you used. The source you used was a far-left "progressive" website (with their laughably internally inconsistant "About" page) which proudly admits it engages in deceit to "expose" people like Wildmon. Jinxmchue 11:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

There are two sources shown, who make direct quotations from the other organizations. The ADL comments can also be seen reported at "Jews and the Christian right: Is the honeymoon over?". I'm sorry, but you can't pick and choose to shoot the messenger just because you do not like what he is saying. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 11:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Also, your link above is not to the IFAS at all, but to the site hosting the IFAS article. Notwithstanding, the page you do link to also points out very clearly: "We conduct research of the highest quality and methodological rigor, and are committed to making our research and analysis readily available and accessible. Our work is even-handed, fact based, reliable, and not over-dramatized. Our commitment to mutual respect means that in our work, we do not caricature or demonize the followers of right-wing organizations, and we recognize the abilities of the movement's leadership." I think that is somewhat fairer than someone who is perhaps ignorant of the wider picture to just label anything disagreeable as "left wing garbage." 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 12:01, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yes. You're right. It was two sources, with the other being... *snigger*snort*guffaw* ...Media Matters for America. Two bastions of reliable and unbiased reporting. *massive eye rolling* Jinxmchue 12:14, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I see. Well, if you don't wish to have a grown-up discussion, I'll get back to what we non-parodists do best: real edits. Thanks for stopping by! 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 12:17, 24 July 2008 (EDT)