Talk:Moms for Liberty/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rather one-sided article

This article seems rather incomplete. It invokes some very good sources, but apparently mainly for the notability they confer; it tends to ignore all negative content in those sources. I'll be adding some salient sourced details for a broader perspective. Meanwhile, I have removed the sentence "The organization advocates for limited government, personal responsibility, and individual liberty". It's sourced to this interview and is blatantly self-description by the organization — not anything that independent secondary sources have shown any interest in. Therefore I'm removing the statement per WP:ABOUTSELF as being unduly self-serving. It's making the organization sound merely benevolent and uncontroversial, as indeed tends to be the case when all political organizations describe themselves. (That's why we don't use those self-descriptions, but instead use secondary sources.) Bishonen | tålk 16:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC).

Update: I've added a few sections, which have turned the original article into, layout-wise, the "lead". Although very well-written, it doesn't quite function as a lead (=a summary of the whole), so it will need changing, and maybe some of the material in it will need moving down. Later.. unless some helpful editor gets there first. Bishonen | tålk 21:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC).
Done. Bishonen | tålk 11:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

Astroturfing

The article devotes a paragraph to explaining that this is a typical astroturfing operation, like the Tea Party movement. But if fails to actually use the tern astroturfing. Why? Dimadick (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Because I didn't see the term in any source, or rather, I didn't notice it. It may still be there. Bishonen | tålk 07:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

A lot of additions have been removed

Perhaps we'd better do this one thing at a time. I have restore the "Finances" section which was apparently removed because of "sources with no consensus on reliability". How so? Washington Post is a reliable source, while Media Matters can't be used for statements in Wikipedia's voice but is OK with attribution, which is the way I used it. (And not just for opinion, either, but for facts about MFL's sources of income.)See WP:RSP.

Or maybe two things: as I pointed out in the section "Rather one-sided article" above, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, and I made it so. With X-Editor's changes, it definitely isn't a summary any more. Bishonen | tålk 11:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I apologize for my misinformed edits. I've added back all the content I removed. X-Editor (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, X-Editor! A problem remains: that the lead is now not a summary of the content, as it's supposed to be. I'm not sure what to do about it, though; the little section for "Founding and structure" that I created[1] was too short for a section, really. Any ideas about that?
A detail: I see you have reinserted your phrase "received harassment", which I had removed with an explanatory edit summary.[2] To me it doesn't sound like good style, or, quite frankly, like English style at all. Also it makes a strong claim in Wikipedia's voice - that the harassment actually came from MfL members— a claim not found in the source. But never mind, I've already explained this once, and if you think your way of putting it is good English, I don't care enough to make a big deal of it. Bishonen | tålk 11:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC).
@Bishonen: The WaPo article says "Jenkins said members picketed in front of her house, followed her to her car shouting epithets after school board meetings and sent threatening mail to her home and office.", which all sounds exactly like harassment to me, so it makes complete sense to summarize it as that. I would also like to know why you don't think the lede is a proper summary anymore. X-Editor (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. You quote the WaPo article, but you don't seem to take into account what it says. It says "Jenkins said members picketed in front of her house", etc. Do you not see the difference between a statement that Jenkins said she was harassed by MFL members, as WaPo carefully and cautiously puts it, and a statement by WaPo that Jenkins was harassed by MFL members? I don't know how to put it any more clearly. I give up. As I've already said, I don't care enough.
The lead is not a summary of the article because it contains the text Moms for Liberty was co-founded in January 2021 by former school board members Tina Descovich and Tiffany Justice, and by Republican activist Marie Rogerson. As of November 2021, the organization has 142 chapters in 35 U.S. states and as of October 2021, it has 56,000 members and supporters. Moms for Liberty is headquartered in Melbourne, Florida. This text and this information does not exist in any form in the article proper (=the part with headers, which was below the table of contents when the article had a table of contents, i.e. before you combined two sections into one). Bishonen | tålk 19:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC).
@Bishonen: I fixed the sentence to make it clear that it is just her claiming harassment. I also readded the section about founding and structure. X-Editor (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(
)

5x expanded by Bishonen (talk) and X-Editor (talk). Nominated by Bishonen (talk) at 11:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC).



General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: —valereee (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm a little concerned about the descriptions of the group being based on those by left-leaning groups like MMfA. We may need to tone down some of this language. —valereee (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

—valereee (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Striking, I think we've fixed this. —valereee (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  • CommentI don't see much of a neutrality problem. We can attribute the "far-right" labels, and a quick glance suggests we don't need all the MMfA uses if that's really a problem. I note that Valeree changed a sourced statement about the police crackdown during the Selma demonstrations to suggest that the police only criticized. As a participant I can attest that the use of police horses, truncheons and teargas was much more than criticism. Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest as I was recently asked to write a short piece about my experiences and they are all now all to fresh in my mind. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The article, as it stands now, does not violate neutrality policies. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no one pinged me, so this is the first I'm seeing these comments. —valereee (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • According to RSP, The Daily Beast is a bit of an online tabloid, and HuffPost is a bit eh when it comes to factually describing American politics. Are we sure that we want to cite the hook to either of these sources alone? I understand the point of the hook is to get someone to click, but if the sources themselves are clickbait then I am not exactly sure that we want to put statements sourced solely to them on the front page of Wikipedia. I’d also hesitate to attach labels of “far-right” from partisan groups where reliability is questionable, even with attribution, since that can very easily run into a WP:WEIGHT issue. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Another smaller thing—the article currently describes Megyn Kelly as conservative. Her own Wikipedia page doesn’t use this characterization (it says she has said she as an independent who votes for candidates in both major parties, but there is no wikivoice characterization of her political stances). The Washington Post source cited in the relevant sentence doesn’t mention Kelly, while the MMFA source doesn’t actually call her conservative. This feels a bit odd BLP-wise. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
      • The Hill calls her conservative,[3] perhaps that should be in her article. I wouldn't call the Huffington Post or the Daily Beast clickbait, the statement " HuffPost uses clickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any HuffPost article is considered more reliable than its headline' is ridiculous because we should always ignore the headline and use only the article as the source. Most news organisations have headline writers whose job is to attract the reader - I did that for the Miami Herald at times. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Brilliant of you to find the letter from MfL to the Tennessee Dept of Education, Valereee![4] You may have noticed that the quotes in the Daily Beast's article, and in Moms for Liberty, don't appear in that letter. That's because the quotes are apparently taken from an 11-page spreadsheet attached to the letter. The Daily Beast's Kelly Weill writes: the scope of the proposed book ban is even broader and loonier than MFL’s June letter suggests. Accompanying that letter is an 11-page spreadsheet with complaints about books on the district’s curriculum, ranging from popular books on civil rights heroes to books about poisonous animals. She then proceeds to discuss and quote from the spreadsheet. Which I can't lay my hands on... there's a .pdf link to it at the end of the letter, which I tried to follow, but either I made a mistake in laboriously copying it by hand, or it's not available to just anybody. Could be the GDPR or the district's privacy policy or whatever. I don't suppose anybody can find it? (If it's supposed to be found. If it's hidden for privacy, I don't want it.) I was unsure whether to put this query here or on Talk:Moms for Liberty, but I'm hoping there may be clever techs here that can get hold of the .pdf. If I'm taking up too much space here for such a detail, please just revert me and I'll put it on article talk. Anyway, here is my own attempt to type the .pdf link: https://ww.greatminds.org/hufs/Review%20Files/Florida%20Review%20Files/2020%20Wit%20and%20Wisdom/WW_FLORIDA_Grade2_Module3.pdf. It won't work. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC).
Bishonen, yes, I tried to find it, too. I'm guessing it's a google doc or something that a whole bunch of people contributed to and that the group didn't even intend to include in the letter of complaint, as it's not mentioned as an attachment. Ooops. —valereee (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
The pdf is a standard Great Minds module that the group complained about. I doubt we’ll find the spreadsheet but we don’t need it. The template at the top is broken, by the way. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Good to go now. —valereee (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

ALT2 to T:DYK/P5

"prohibited concepts in instruction"

I've redlinked 'a new state law' because as far as I can tell we don't have an article on this, although I would have thought we'd have something by now on the several similar laws. The TN law is the addition of "Prohibited Concepts in Instruction" to their "Rules of the Department of Education" document. —valereee (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I would expect that also, but then I was surprised to see that Lebanon, Ohio doesn't mention that it's run by 6 white supremacist who passed a law banning abortion. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Warren County, which includes Lebanon and South Lebanon, was a national center for KKK activity. In the 90s the Klan used to erect a big white cross on Fountain Square every Christmas. Also not mentioned in the articles about either the county or those two towns. —valereee (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Toning down the language?

Police criticizing Selma-to-Montgomery marchers?

@Valereee:, thank you very much for reviewing the article for DYK (above) and improving it. I have some concerns with a couple of edits that you presumably made to "tone down [the] language", though. This change tones down, but it surely does not serve neutrality. I cannot think it's your opinion that the police merely "criticized" the Selma-to-Montgomery marchers. Was there something unclear in my original text that made you misunderstand it..? "Crackdown" is the word used in the source, and it accords a lot better with actual events.

I'm also not sure this edit, which you describe as "get[ting] rid of scare quote for neutrality" does improve neutrality. "Catch" was the word used by MfL themselves, in the referenced tweet "We’ve got $500 for the person that first successfully catches a public school teacher breaking this law", which is quoted in full in the next sentence. You changed "caught" to "reported". More neutral? Frankly, I think it's just less accurate. Note also that it was a Republican governor whose spokesman called the bounty offer "wholly inappropriate". I have reverted those two edits. Bishonen | tålk 12:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC).

Oh, @Doug Weller here it is, I see. I was going from the top down on my notifications, so I didn't see this one first. If you both think the edits weren't an improvement, it's fine, just revert them. I do think we need a statement using language that strong be directly cited. To be very clear, I'm not questioning whether there were crackdowns; of course there were. I'm asking what exactly the sources are saying the letter writers were objecting to.
Re: "caught", I do object to the scare quotes. We don't need them. Yes, I do think it's more neutral to say "reported" unless we are attributing an actual quote in a reliable source. Yes, the group themselves said catches. Still doesn't need a scare quote, IMO, but if both of you think it does, it's fine, just revert it. —valereee (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, so it wasn't a misunderstanding, @Valereee: you actually meant to have our article say the MfL complained about the kids getting to read an article with "criticisms" of civil rights demonstrators, and you thought "crackdowns" was strong language? I'm surprised. When you say the language needs to be "directly cited", do you mean the cite, now at the end of the paragraph, needs to be at the end of the sentence with the word "crackdown" and the quote ""negative view of Firemen and police" as well? You'd probably be right, since the sentence contains a direct quote (i.e. The Daily Beast directly quoting "negative view of Firemen and police" from MfL's letter to Tennessee's Department of Education), and also it's The Daily Beast that uses the word "crackdown". I've added the note there, and to all the other sentences with direct quotes from the MfL letter in the same paragraph. Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC).
No, no, definitely at least partially misunderstanding! It's been a couple weeks, but I think I initially read that crackdown sentence incorrectly. But yes, I'm saying the citation needs to be at that sentence. We don't have the actual language MfL used, I don't think, or exactly what it was they were talking about? Just that they objected to the criticism of the police/firefighters. For all the reader of our article knows the firefighters were being called Satan Incarnate who knew they were doing evil and the MfL were saying, "Well, you have to consider the mores of the period and the area in assessing their behavior w/re whether they were actually bad people or just going along with what everyone around them was saying was okay." So do we actually know they were actually defending things like peaceful protesters being sprayed with firehoses as reasonable and would be even now in 2021? What we seem to know for sure is that The Daily Beast is characterizing what MfL was saying as that firefighters and police doing such things were being treated too negatively in whatever book. I'll clarify that my assumption is that MfL are a bunch of nutjob Qanoners, but they're also living people.
I feel like I'm explaining myself really badly here, and I apologize for that. In no way am I saying MfL has a point. I can't even seem to find what the MfL were actually saying about it. I suspect it's something I'd roll my eyes at, as pretty much everything I can find that they've written is an eyeroller, but were they actually saying that firefighters turning firehoses on protesters was okay and that firefighters shouldn't be criticized for that? Based on our sources, I don't know. The sources aren't given until many sentences later, and there are three of them, and I don't know which one I should even check. So based on our article and our sources, I'm not sure whether the source might be overstating what MfL were actually saying. The Daily Beast is happy to overstate for clicks. So if it's TDB saying that's what MfL were saying, we need to put the citation at that statement so that the reader can assess it. —valereee (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't have access to the original letter from MfL. But The Daily Beast presents it with quotes, in quote marks: "negative view of Firemen and police" (and many other direct quotes with quote marks from the letter, I suppose because it's not easily available in itself). Are you suggesting the DB can't be trusted to quote correctly? Or that they cherry-pick quotes and leave out context?
Incidentally, you also complain that all the sources are liberal. Sorry, but I haven't been able to find any conservative media that take an interest in this group. (Tranga Bellam is suggesting another source below, but that's clearly also what you call left-leaning.)
Another point: You say The sources aren't given until many sentences later, and there are three of them, and I don't know which one I should even check; yes, that was a problem. But I did mention just above that I have now added the Daily Beast as a reference for all the sentences with quotes from the letter in them. Please see also the currently last edit in the article history (my last edit). It gives a bit of a pepperpot effect, but at least it's clear where the quotes come from. Nobody else except the DB quotes that letter. Or, well, HuffPo does, but the DB is obviously their source. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC).
The problem with all the sources being on one side or the other of a political topic because no sources on the other side are even discussing the topic is that's a clue that the topic may be being overstated. Yes, DB quotes the letter, but we have zero clue of the context. We don't even know what the book they're criticizing even is. Again to be clear: I'm sure it's a perfectly harmless book, just like the seahorses book, and that these women are just exactly as reactionary as they're being painted by our sources. I'm sure these books, which almost certainly were chosen with care by a trained librarian, are completely appropriate for a school curriculum.
Since I'm a progressive myself and have a kneejerk reaction against anything that smacks of banning books, I try to take steps to make sure I'm not allowing my own politics to affect my assessment of neutrality, and one of those steps is to question a topic that is only provoking outrage from my own side of the political spectrum. I try to go find coverage of that topic from the other side. And when I don't find it, when I can't even find coverage in WSJ or Christianity Today, it makes me wonder if the subject is being neutrally covered and whether we may be amplifying that non-neutral coverage.
So when I can't get to the letter myself, when no one who is discussing it is doing anything more than quoting certain phrases out of context, it makes me very suspicious. If Fox and The Daily Caller were covering something Ilhan Omar had said by quoting her out of context, and no one on the left was even discussing that quote, and I couldn't even get to the actual thing she had said in context, I'd have the same kinds of questions.
That said, I'm not sure what we're arguing about any more. As you said, you reverted and added a citation to the phrase I was concerned about. You reverted the other, and I made no objection. My concern was that the article may not be neutral, I still have that concern, but if you and Doug Weller and TrangaBellam feel the article is neutral enough to pass DYK, I have no objection to you requesting someone else to finish the review. Consensus is against me, that's fine, it happens. —valereee (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I changed the crackdown language again because it was actually a copyvio. With the citation, which is to DB using the word "crackdown", I'm not objecting to that word itself, just couldn't figure out an alternate wording that used the word but wasn't a copyvio, so I paraphrased to "actions against". No objection to someone adding "crackdown" back in if you can do it without too-close paraphrasing. —valereee (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • And I changed it yet again, here, because I think your "actions against" isn't just paraphrasing, but also watering-down both the history and the source. "Police brutality" seems to me to be a better paraphrase for "crackdown". But it's not easy to navigate between the requirements to a) say exactly the same thing as the source, so that nobody complains about that, and b) not copy the source. Bishonen | tålk 14:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC).
    I have no objection to that language per se -- IMO it's valid language to describe what happened, and it avoids the copyvio -- but isn't that from the spreadsheet anyway, which we don't have? We don't know what DB was commenting on that the spreadsheet was talking about. I really think unless we can find that spreadsheet to check that our paraphrasing of what DB is saying the spreadsheet is saying is accurate, we probably need to delete for now everything that's coming from the spreadsheet. If no other RS is mentioning what was in the spreadsheet, maybe it's just undue weight for the length of this article? I mean, this is one spreadsheet created by a one chapter of this organization and apparently was just a working document for their planned complaint to TN. How important is that spreadsheet to understanding the organization as a whole? —valereee (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it's important, and adds both depth, understanding, and interest. If you seriously want to remove all that stuff, I might as well withdraw my DYK nomination, I guess. If that is possible? DYK is such a jungle of rules and bureaucracy, frankly, that I've little idea what I can and can't do. Bishonen | tålk 18:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC).
    Bishonen, it's absolutely possible, but don't withdraw it because of my concerns. Removing from DYK won't solve my concerns, and there's no deadline; a DYK nom can sit for as long as it needs to for editors to work through their differences. I'd rather discuss why you think this stuff's important, really. If only DB is mentioning it, and if we can't provide even a link to it...I kind of question how noteworthy it is.
    DYK is, IMO, primarily helpful as a way to get other editors' eyes on the article, which again IMO is always a good thing. It also can be, um, reeeeeeeally annoying when other editors have concerns you don't have. (Which is true for all our peer review processes.) So, yeah, you can end up in longer discussions than you really wanted when you've got an article on certain kinds of topics. But in the end, if we're assuming good faith about one another, which I am with you and I'm sure you are with me, we end up with a better article. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    I've given it the tick. —valereee (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Quote

Bishonen, if this source is of any use:

The outrage directed by parents in 2021 at K-12 school boards and teachers and (mostly Democratic) politicians in the name of protecting their children similarly linked attacks on CoVID-19 vaccines, masking during the coronavirus epidemic, the purported teaching of critical race theory, and LGBTQ rights. Moms for Liberty, founded by Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich, both white and former school board members in Florida, coordinated local and national activism targeting school boards and generated support for Republican candidates, particularly from suburban white voters.
— Reagan, Leslie J. (2022). "Preface to the 2022 edition". When Abortion was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States. Oakland: University of California Press. p. xxxi. ISBN 9780520387423.

Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

June letter

After I found the actual letter and reread the DB article, I think there are two different things being conflated. The letter doesn't mention anything except the 2nd grade Civil Rights module, I don't think? I think it sounds like among several attachments was an accompanying spreadsheet that the rest of that stuff is coming from. The spreadsheet may have been the source of those quotes, which we're attributing to the letter of complaint. The complaint is just about the civil rights module and argues the module violates the new law. The spreadsheet is just a list of comments on books the group read and (most of which?) they disapproved of for one reason or another but didn't think rose to the level of violating the law. I don't think we can attribute all those quotes to Steenman's letter. —valereee (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No, exactly, it needs to be reformulated. I have it on my to-do list, I'm just very busy. I do wonder how the Daily Beast got hold of the spreadsheet? You'd really need a mole inside MfL. Maybe that's what the DB journalist has. Bishonen | tålk 14:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC).
I'm wondering if it was accidentally attached, and now the group has made private their google doc. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Likely enough. I've tried to clarify that the quotes in the third paragraph come from the spreadsheet, please take a look. Bishonen | tålk 17:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC).
Okay, to make it clearer that we were talking about two different documents, I broke it out. And then I realized the spreadsheet is most of the section. It's like three times as long as the letter of complaint, and like half the advocacy section which I feel like should be about the organization rather than a single chapter. So we're putting all this emphasis on something that we can't find, we can't verify, and is only being covered by a single source which is itself kind of iffy for RS, and it's got a BLP aspect to it. I dunno. This is not looking great to me. —valereee (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Valeree: you know we don’t have to verify it. And it’s really a stretch to suggest there’s a BLP issue. There’s no criticism of Steenman that I can see. And the four examples given in detail are a great illustration of the breadth of their complaints. But we shouldn’t mention the spreadsheet twice, once at the end of a paragraph and then the next paragraph starts with “Additionally, a spreadsheet….” Doug Weller talk 18:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, I copyedited to remove the reference to the spreadsheet in the first para, I think all that stuff was actually in the letter?
I disagree that we don't have to verify that at minimum the spreadsheet is saying what DB is saying it says. This is not a highest-level source that we can say, "Oh, if NYT or WSJ says it, we're good." And how can we call it a stretch to say it's a BLP issue when we're naming this person, then until basically just now, attaching her to these batshit comments that we have no idea whether they're actually hers or not? —valereee (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I started the para with an attribution to DB. Does that work for everyone else? —valereee (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
That seems ok. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, good idea. As for naming the person and thereby creating a BLP issue, I was never really happy about that; another editor added the name.[5] I'd just as soon remove it again. Bishonen | tålk 22:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC).
If we could remove it, that would solve the BLP issue for me. —valereee (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: fine with me also. I would be extremely surprised if the information, batshit or not, was inaccurate. If it was, it would be libel and I'm sure there would have been a lawsuit. And it does sound like the sort of views they take. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt the spreadsheet is an accurate reflection of various group members' viewpoints, and I doubt DB is presenting it actually incorrectly. I just didn't want it attributed to Steenman when that wasn't clear, and I still think it's undue to spend that much space in an article on the national group in detailing what almost certainly isn't any kind of an official statement by even that single chapter based on what's being covered by DB, which we generally consider biased, and HuffPo, which we consider needs to be used cautiously w/re politics. You'll notice Reuters does not cover the spreadsheet stuff. —valereee (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
According to this tweet, the full list was indeed publicly available. It's since been removed. I dearly hope the national organization will put out an official list so we can make sure every book on that list has an article lol... —valereee (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

More recent sources

[6] and some of the links from that, eg [7]. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The first one is behind a paywall for me, does it mention any of the books they're objecting to? The second one...how can you caption 24 photos with "Moms For Liberty attends a school board meeting to fight for the removal of books in school libraries they deem to be pornographic or sexually explicit" without once mentioning any of the books they're objecting to?
If this objecting to books is becoming their thing, I'm wondering if that could be a subsection? If it's happening in several groups, the spreadsheet is less of an undue weight thing. —valereee (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I tried that out, see what you think. —valereee (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Valeree: I don't know why I can read it, but anyway it's a USToday network article, so it's also here and other places. And not for the article, this is interesting about "All boys aren't blue", "The Young Adult Library Services Association recently released its list of the top ten teen books for the year of 2020. All Boys Aren’t Blue placed #1, beating out an installment in the wildly popular The Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins" [8]. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, three e's for the ping to work. :)
The problem is these women are suspicious of elites telling them what their kids should be reading. I saw a quote where someone had pointed out that (LA Times?) had called a book one of the year's best for the age group, and their response was basically 'so now we're letting California tell us how to raise our kids?' :D You just can' persuade these people. —valereee (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: apologies, I know how you spell it and usually preview, but clearly failed. I think you could also say they are suspicious of well-educated people telling them what they should read. Or people who don't agree with them, but this is all speculation of course and probably inappropriate here. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Not at all, just wanted to let you know that the ping hadn't worked! :) Yes, it's all speculation and probably inappropriate. :) —valereee (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

spreadsheet

Screenshots of parts of the spreadsheet. —valereee (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"With comments on the far right". I don't doubt it, but I can't really read them. Bishonen | tålk 20:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC).
If you open it in a new window, it'll let you zoom. Or at least my macbook will (right click). —valereee (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Koch family

Isn't this organization funded by the Koch family? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-LGBT sentiment" category

@Grachester I removed the "Anti-LGBT sentiment" category because the "Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States" category makes it redundant. Jenny Death (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jenny Death: thank you, I appreciate the explanation. I will revert myself and restore your removal of the category. Grachester (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thanks! Jenny Death (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Jenny Death, I've made a lot of similar category removals, and I highly recommend an edit summary like "removing a category, article is already present in a subcategory (see WP:CATSPECIFIC)" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Will keep that in mind for the future, thanks. Jenny Death (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Good. Because I truly know of NO group who opposes LGBT 100%. THEIR only issue is teaching it in schools, especially without parental consent. It's pretty simple. 66.153.158.5 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Should be a hate group not a non profit

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/moms-for-liberty-designated-as-anti-government-extremist-group-by-splc/3048823/?amp=1 NWHIT07 (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hate group is the opinion of an organization, however correct. Nonprofit is an objective legal term. So it's probably safer we stick with that for the opening sentence, at least until reliable sources overwhelming start describing them as a hate group too. --Pokelova (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2023/06/21/moms-for-liberty-hamilton-county-indiana-quotes-hitler-in-newsletter/70344659007/ --Ncr100 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the M4L group untrustworthy? A denial was given by M4L after publishing a quote by famous hate group and genocide proponent / perpetrator Adolf Hitler. (Is this article fake-news?)

Hate Group Qualifier

Wikipedia defines a hate group as : A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other designated sector of society. Moms for liberty meets this criteria. It needs to be listed as such. Carldefillipo (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

We need a source for that, not our own opinions. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's your biggest hate group!!! If we want to see what a real hate group looks like, here's a link to SPLC's internet page. Our government and millions of dollars from our tax money goes to support this group! I'm honestly shocked that any government or person would support this group with their exaggerations and half truths.
https://www.splcenter.org/year-hate-extremism-2022/introduction 66.153.158.5 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
SPLC is not a reliable source. See tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/splc-klan-hunters-to-smear-machine. WBracey (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia has decided otherwise. See WP:SPLC. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia has decided? That is subject to revision, too. See also https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html WBracey (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
If you have new arguments that have not been included in the earlier decision, then you can go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Not here. And they really need to new arguments. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

remove repetition and work toward objective neutrality

First paragraph, change the last sentence from "The group began by promoting disinformation and conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic by protesting COVID-19 protections in schools, including mask and vaccine mandates." to "The group began by protesting COVID-19 protections in schools, including mask and vaccine mandates."

Delete the second paragraph that is repeated entirely in the "Ideology and Republican party connections" section.

I am no friend of Moms for Liberty, but many more changes are needed to make this an objective article, including references to sources less biased than SPLC, Vox, etc. I cannot edit as I am not an "established" user. WBracey (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Being neutral is not the same as being a centrist or doing both-sideism. If reliable sources describe M4L as spreading disinformation, then iitd be a violation of objectivity editing policies not to say so in the entry. 177.134.220.205 (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem is the you cannot limit "reliable sources" to the ones you agree with. The language should also be more like Joe Friday's "just the facts, ma'am" rather than so polemical. I don't want to see Wikipedia become so politicized that it starts to look like https://rationalwiki.org, in which case it would not longer be itself a reliable source. WBracey (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not polemical to describe a falsehood as a falsehood. Wikipedia has many entries describing hoaxes, conspiracy theories, and legends as such. You also haven't presented any reliable sources that defend M4L's truthfulness record, so you're jumping the gun by accusing editors here of cherrypicking.
RationalWiki does not adhere to tge same RS policies as Wikipedia. 177.134.220.205 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not consider any Wikis reliable sources, including itself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023

Hi. The statement after the introductory paragraphs stating that the group began by distributing disinformation and conspiracy statements about covid 19 is not sourced. It seems to be one of the partisan statements this page is locked in order to prevent. 69.113.136.56 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

President Biden public execution threat incident

I think there should be a section that mentions the President Biden public execution threat incident, which involved Moms for Liberty speaker Kaylee Campbell Layton calling for the public execution of President Biden, as this was a known incident involving Moms for Liberty and involved a violent and terroristic threat.

Sources:

https://thespacecoastrocket.com/moms-for-liberty-speaker-calls-for-public-execution-of-president-biden/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/31/2172402/-Moms-For-Liberty-Speaker-and-Wife-of-Marine-Allegedly-Calls-for-Public-Execution-of-the-President PastelLobster (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Ping PastelLobster. I have never heard of thespacecoastrocket, and investigating their main page they accept story submissions from random idiots on the internet, a big red flag for Reliability. I did a thorough search of Wikipedia[9] and found one Talk page where it was described as unreliable,[10] and I found a single article citing in in a ref. I removed that single usage as both a dubious source and an overcite (it was part of a four ref overkill).[11]
WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources rates Daily Kos as should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available. In any case the Kos story is heavily loaded with "alleged" and "accused" and "not independently verif[ied]" making it an especially weak source. I would be more than happy to have this content in this article, I'll enjoy schadenfreude if this turns into a legal case, however my Google search isn't currently finding any good sources usable for a Wikipedia cite. I'm about to delete the content from the article but I invite anyone to restore the content if/when some solid sources report the story. Alsee (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Christian Nationalism

Moms for Liberty promotes Christian nationalism and openly advocates for political advocacy by pastors and churches. Biblical Citizenship training is a recurring feature of chapter meetings and training materials are provided at the national level. 2600:1003:B133:4DD9:5115:3A84:DB81:4274 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation meant to cause division

this is not an accurate article. It is opinion only and very incorrect and misleading. Books are not being banned. Books are being put in the age appropriate categories. They are not anti LGBTQ they are for age appropriate material. They are not divisive. It is a different opinion than what you have so you cannot handle it. Think of the children and not your own personal selfish agenda. 108.56.187.122 (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you say so, then the article should be changed. After all, Wikipedia is based on the opinions of random people on the internet such as you.
Oh, no, actually, it is based on reliable sources instead! Go read that. Also, WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, it's certainly written from a Democratic mindset. No other details of what else the group has done. Only very minor issues by the very fe w. One-sided for sure. Bye bye WIKI!! 🙄 66.153.158.5 (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources for what else the group has done, bring them. If not, "bye" is a very good idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
books have absolutely been banned. The group has gone so far as to ban any books that mention sex, or violence in any way. Just so happens the Bible is one of them. The Bible is now currently banned along with thousands of other books because of the legislation they have been pushing. They are mad because they got the Bible caught in the crossfire. 2604:3D08:948C:3A00:B181:D8D4:D0FB:4F0F (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
You are so wrong on the books that have been banned. There are banned books showing real people showing how to have same gender sex and more You need to do a little more research. 66.153.158.5 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
You need to give reliable sources. Research is forbidden here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree 100%.. Honestly, I always thought Wiki was one of the trusted places you could go for information. Live and learn!! This article is very closed minded and serving the writers agenda... That's very sad for Wiki!
If we want to see what a real hate group looks like, here's a link to SPLC's internet page. Our government and millions of dollars from our tax money goes to support this group! I'm honestly shocked that any government or person would support this group with their exaggerations and half truths.
https://www.splcenter.org/year-hate-extremism-2022/introduction 66.153.158.5 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Copy and paste propaganda from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) isn’t a great way to make a case against SLPC. ADF is a leading anti-LGBTQ organization that works directly with white supremacy advocates such as Bogdan Stanciu in Eastern Europe and Alexander Dugin. 2600:1003:B133:4DD9:5115:3A84:DB81:4274 (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This article contains accurate information. This comment however contains blatantly wrong information.
Book banning, according to Encyclopedia Brittanica includes removing their access from libraries. So Moms for Liberty has worked to get hundreds of books banned across the country. They even banned a book on seahorses because it threatened their ideal notions of gender roles. https://www.britannica.com/topic/book-banning
Moms for Liberty is in fact VERY divisive, otherwise there wouldn't be groups like Defend of Democracy and STOP Moms for Liberty that were created to combat them and their takeover of public education. Skinnypanda (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Anti-LGBTQ

I think this organization should be added to the category of "Organizations that oppose LGBT rights." That would be a very factual addition given that this organization seeks to suppress information about LGBT lives and thereby conveys the message that it is bad to be LGBT. They seek to suppress LGBT rights to live openly and freely and have freedom of speech and lead happy family lives. Flyfiles (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Flyfiles: I've added the category Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States to the article. It seems like a reasonable bold move considering that there's a section header called Opposition to LGBT rights and alleged violent threats. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 04:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
You are wrong. They don't want the lifestyle shared/taught in young children's classes. 66.153.158.5 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Which is literally being anti-LGBT+. Queer kids exist. Families with Queer parents exist. To ban any mention of LGBT+ is inherently anti-LGBT. See Anti-LGBT curriculum laws in the United States Skinnypanda (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Revert of Vice source claiming unreliable

This revert claims Vice is not a reliable source "Vice isnt considered reliable per WP:VICE and shouldn't be used for such contentious claims", which is incorrect. Per RSP it says "no consensus" on reliability. If anyone wishes to restore it please be sure to attribute it to Vice accordingly or perhaps just use a different "reliable" source. DN (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is correct. In order to keep things tidy, I reinstated some of the information from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Inadequacies

The passage raises several concerns that do not meet Wikipedia's standards. Here are the main issues:

  1. Lack of neutral point of view: The passage takes a strongly critical and negative stance towards Moms for Liberty, failing to present a balanced perspective or to even acknowledge and address counterarguments.
  2. Unsubstantiated claims and biased language: The passage includes several unsupported claims presented as facts, such as the group's alleged connections to right-wing extremist organizations and its labeling as a "far-right extremist organization." The use of biased language, such as "harassment" and "extremist," without clear evidence or attribution from truly neutral sources, goes against Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral tone.
  3. Inadequate sourcing: The passage lacks proper neutral sourcing and fails to cite reliable and verifiable references that do not a have a biased motivation to smear such groups. Statements regarding ties to certain groups, allegations, and other controversial actions should be supported by credible and truly neutral sources.
  4. Lack of context: The passage does not provide enough context or background information about Moms for Liberty, its objectives, or its activities. This omission results in a distorted and incomplete understanding of the organization.
  5. Promotion of negative views: The passage is filled with blind spots and unquestioningly places significant emphasis on criticisms, controversies, and negative incidents associated with Moms for Liberty, while downplaying any positive aspects or accomplishments. This creates a biased and one-sided portrayal.

ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"The passage takes a strongly critical and negative stance towards Moms for Liberty" Then Wikipedia is working properly. They are a far-right hate group. Dimadick (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
No, this is an example of why Wikipedia is irreparably seen and known as an unreliable source itself. There is zero proof that this small group of individuals is anything near what biased, equally unreliable sources say about said group. Then there are the people who support such bias and are nothing more than parrots, easily dismissed. This article does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Not in the slightest. Dysfunction and low-information presentation isn't Wikipedia "working properly". Fail. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is irreparably seen and known as an unreliable source itself by far-right hate groups and by people they have fooled. Again, that is how it should be.
Your edits to this page are unhelpful. You need to point out which parts you want to change and which reliable sources you have for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
So according to you, those who see Wikipedia as unreliable - are pawns of the far-right. That is an accusation unsuitable for this discussion, bordering the levels of "gaslighting" i.e., not refuting unreliability, but making absurd claims. An editor like yourself is doing no good to present Wikipedians as "reliable." Zilch-nada (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I did not say that. But someone who says this on the Talk page of an article about a far-right group has obviously been fooled by it. Other people who see Wikipedia as unreliable have a similar motivation: they have certain other stupid ideas, and Wikipedia calls those ideas stupid (knowing your type, I have to add that I am obviously paraphrasing here), and instead of having another look at the foundations of those ideas, they simply dismiss Wikipedia. Same here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I have not been fooled by any group. I don't even consider myself right-wing. The fact is that some people do indeed see Wikipedia as "an unreliable source itself"; to dismiss concerns about the reliability of Wikipedia, you referred to the far-right; there are many - and you know this - valid reasons for criticizing Wikipedia, regardless of politic. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
You undeniably said that people who see and "know" Wikipedia as "an unreliable source" are either far-right hate groups, or the people they have fooled. That is utter partisan drivel. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered reliable on the topic of hate groups. It has been attributed as such. As for balance, given what the sum of sources say, it would be unreasonable to give a false balance. There is a greater consensus towards its less than reputable actions and beliefs (to put it -undeservedly so- kindly). If there is anything positive in the news that they have done, then I'd like to see it for myself. I hate seeing completely unnecessary maintenance tags, so I am going to remove it. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't dispute anything I have said. There is no doubt that SPLC-described-hate-groups distrust Wikipedia. Editor above claimed that distrust in general is from far-right hate groups, or people they have fooled. We've gone to the point where we're not even talking about the article; I simply pointed out what I believe to be editing malpractice above; I don't deny the way the article is written - the SPLC, etc., are important to include. But, of course, as I have seen it being brought up so often before, I am "an inexperienced editor" and must respect 20-year editors as perfectly reasonable. Zilch-nada (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
If we were getting into what I believe the flaws of Wikipedia are, that would be another discussion. But we cannot simply dismiss people who distrust Wikipedia as either being part of far-right hate groups or pawns of them. Zilch-nada (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I conflated some of what I was saying with that the original post said about balance and whatever. I think what could be at the core of this is the fact that even if you were to say nothing about the organization from a personal standpoint, is there any major mainstream reliable source that has anything positive to say about this organization? What I mean is that even if you were to say nothing about the far-right, personal beliefs, or Wikipedia, or anything, the state of this article and what we are discussing probably wouldn't change that much. I'm not going to try and speak for what Hob was trying to say, but this article's state is where it probably should be. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the original post. Taking a "strongly critical and negative stance" is obviously supported by reliable sources. It goes without saying that that would never necessitate a "balance." Zilch-nada (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
You undeniably said No, I did not use that implication. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Actually, Wikipedia regards itself as an unreliable source, in the sense that it cannot quote itself. See WP:WIKI. But we get daily complaints by people whose opinions differ from reality, from reliable sources, and from Wikipedia, and who blame Wikipedia for that discrepancy. This is obviously such a case, and that is why I wrote that. The point is not the known as an unreliable source itself statement but the goal of the statement: whitewashing of a far-right hate group.
You are misusing this Talk page as a forum instead of trying to improve the article. See WP:NOTFORUM.
If you want the "far-right" description deleted, you will need reliable sources saying MfL is not a far-right hate group. Reasoning by random people on the internet, such as you, won't cut it. It's the rules, see WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't care less of whether or not MOL is labelled far-right. I strongly condemn any skepticism of Wikipedia as relating directly and solely to the far-right. And yes, fellow "Random person on the internet", I think your conduct in this discussion is likewise unhelpful. We're clearly drifting farther off topic, so let's leave it at that. Zilch-nada (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Still putting words in my mouth, but aside from that, yes, let's leave it at that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

FMSky, you added and re-added a neutrality template, but haven't explained your concerns here. Can you please do so? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There have been a couple of complains about the neutrality of this article (some of these were, weirdly, removed, like this one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moms_for_Liberty&diff=prev&oldid=1166041803 ). its obvious by just reading through the lead that this article isnt neutral and was written from a biased perspective. it doesnt include any positives whatsoever --FMSky (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Positives aren't necessarily neutral either, but could you be more specific? DN (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, can you find any reliable sources that indicate that this group has done anything positive? I mean, it's certainly possible that they have gone around kissing puppies and helping folks cross the street, but that must be beneath the heap of sources that describe it as "extremist", "far-right" and "anti-LGBTQ". This is just what pretty much every major source says about it, so... Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 22:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm just affirming my support for Hemiauchenia's removal of the tag. It's not appropriate to place it unless there are actionable, specific issues identified for improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Grassroots

Grassroots is indeed inaccurate when describing it, and the statement about it in the lede is fine. The organization supposedly calls itself such, but the AP as called this into question. [12] So has USA Today. [13]

Additionally, the Inquirer also doubts the claim [14], and it cites an article by the WSJ as a source. [15] While I couldn't view the WSJ article, the Inquirer reads: "While it bills itself as a grassroots organization, Moms for Liberty has ties to prominent Republicans. One of its former directors, Bridget Ziegler, is married to the chairman of the Florida Republican Party...Moms for Liberty’s cofounders, Tina Descovich and Tiffany Justice, started working with Republican campaign consultant Marie Rogerson, who is also a leader in the group."

Media Matters for America also doubts the claim. [16] I know they aren't exactly neutral on this subject, however.

I would say that there's certainly enough evidence to leave the statement in as it is. If you really need to source it, then the AP and USA Today articles are more than enough to substantiate it. Alternatively, put it into the body somewhere. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moms_for_Liberty/Archive_1&oldid=1190363284"