Talk:Freedom to Marry

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

"win marriage nationwide" and "marriage movement" are POV. And it's just ridiculous. Every person in this country can get married. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore unnecessary provocation that "Every person in this country can get married".Wikipedia is not a forum for political debates I changed the first sentence, and as for your other remark, I think it is not justified.--В и к и T 12:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your need to insert your personal opinion on same-sex marriage (which is wrong, by the way - IIRC, homosexuality is grounds for annulment) has invalidated any legitimate POV issues you might have found in the text. "I oppose this group and their aims" is not an actionable cause for a POV tag. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"working to win marriage in more states, grow the national majority for marriage, and end federal marriage discrimination"??? "win marriage" means nothing. Complete POV. In fact a "traditional marriage" type of person, and I know a couple, would say that they're trying to destroy marriage. Where's the balance? The rest of the article is more of the same. Puffery. Weasel. This whole article is made up of bumper sticker slogans. We need to rewrite the whole article, or delete it. The POV tag sticks until this mess is cleaned up.– Lionel ^(talk) 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - it would be more encyclopedic simply to say that this organization advocates for the right of same-sex couples to marry, rather than to use the language about "winning marriage" and ending marriage discrimination. In general, when dealing with advocacy groups, we should favor neutral descriptive language over a recapitulation of that group's talking points.

Incidentally, Lionel, while I think you're correct in this instance, your concern over "bumper-sticker slogans" seems a bit selective (for example, here you describe a pro-life advocacy group as "instilling, mentoring, and fostering a respect for human life in young girls", which is certainly the sort of bumper-sticker slogan we should be avoiding). That sort of dichotomy leaves one open to the charge of ideologically driven editing, and it's best avoided in the interest of credibility. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, Mastcel, that was a revert of a mass deletion w/out edit sum I think. I did that so that the editors at the page could hash out all of the POV problems. Of course that bit about young girls is completely unacceptable. I certainly did not write it. I would never ever ever ever write something as vile and disgusting as that. Whoever did that should have electrodes attached to their genitalia and given 120 VAC. If I were an admin, and I'm sure you'd agree that I would make an excellent admin, an admin amongst admins, an admin for the ages, or even a bureaucrat, or even grand poobah, I would delete and salt the accounts of all involved. I would revdel any trace that they had ever been here. I would, well, you get the picture. "respect for human life in young girls" -- yuk. Makes my skin crawl. TTFN – Lionel ^(talk) 05:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed POV template, see this edit.--В и к и T 09:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are still issues. I have made the following edits:

• "campaigns for the right of same-sex couples to marry in the United States" --> "which advocates for the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States": POV because it supposes same-sex marriage is a right.
• Removed "According to its 'Roadmap to Victory'..." per
  WP:MISSION
• Re-worded DOMA section regarding Mikulski, as the source does not directly tie FtM to Mikulski's decision.
• Removed sponsor count as it is tedious to update and not really notable, since the number of sponsors has no real effect on a bill's potential to pass.
• Neutralized New York paragraph. Reworded last sentence as POV and unsourced.
• Cleaned up "Say I Do"; removed list of celebrities as unnecessary and excessive. Conformed to source.
• Removed blatant POV ("Gay and lesbian couples want to get married to make a lifetime commitment to the person they love and to protect their families") from Why Marriage Matters.
• Removed POV, unsourced "anti-gay" description of NOM. Reduced weight of Eldridge quote.

POV issues are now resolved. If you revert one or more of these, please re-add the POV tag until we reach a consensus.

Article reads like a brochure. Adding the resume's of principals is unnecessary.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly? Be more specific.--В и к и T 11:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire senior staff section, "Why Marriage Matters", etc.

talk) 14:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I just removed the Senior Staff section, that level of detail isn't necessary here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.

talk) 15:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified one external link on Freedom to Marry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20111128133357/http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Oped_For_Evan_Wolfson_an_I_Do_Filled_With_I_Did/ to http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Oped_For_Evan_Wolfson_an_I_Do_Filled_With_I_Did/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]