Talk:Bryan Fischer

Attracting attention

The article claims that Fischer has often attracted attention with his comments at public events or in print.

If that is challenged, a good example is "AFA: Medal of Honor Only Awarded For Being Gay In the Line of Duty Now" (at Wonkette). Tama1988 (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Feminization" blog entry

If this blog entry ever vanishes, a copy may be found at www.webcitation.org/5uKYCsvCp. Tama1988 (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I've not seen such a reaction since the glory days of Adequacy.org. Is everyone certain that he's not an agent provocateur? 71.248.115.187 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Superior alternative to this article

After doing a little work on this stub (which isn't bad, but isn't good either), I noticed User:Milowent/Bryan Fischer, the draft of a better alternative. Although some things in this article are better. I've invited Milowent to work on this. Tama1988 (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The more the merrier! Having an article on this guy seems like a better situation than not having an article on this guy. When a user comes across his name, there ought to be a place to go that explains him. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

PoV

But it was described as "a vast wasteland of stupid."

Wiki shouldn't express a PoV, but I think it can honestly express others' PoV.

Of course there's always the matter of balance. If I'd noticed news sources that by contrast praised Fischer's proposal for the acuity of its sociological critique, I'd have added references to these. Tama1988 (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In truth, wouldn't it be better to let the man speak for himself? That is simplier and cannot be challenged. If we do not hew very closely to NPOV, this page will fall apart into a bunch of sniping. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point. But of course there are tens of thousands of bloggers; this person is mildly notable as a blogger for being read and generating reactions from more well-known websites (e.g. MoJo or TPM) or bloggers (e.g. Sullivan). So we must at least link to some of these reactions.

I'm not sure though that he has got any notice in what passes for hard news other than that one CBS story. (He claims that he has, but Google News doesn't provide support for this.) So his notability as a blogger is marginal. And I can't see any notability elsewhere. So all in all I wonder if the page will fall victim to AfD rather than sniping. Tama1988 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's give it a go and find out. There was once a page, but it got deleted for notability. Somehow, on some mainstream sort of source, I heard of the guy. I looked here to find out about him and found nothing. It seems we ought to have something for people in the same situation. Since he seems to say something outrageous just about every day in his blog, I question if we ought to have an endless stream of his latest pronouncements. (But then, how can we exclude them?) Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

BIAS tag

I happen to come upon this page. While here I noticed the page is loaded with POV, with lots of things in quotation marks, and with a single section, other than References, entitled Controversy. It even had WP:BLP violation/s. Is the only thing encyclopedic about this guy controversy? There's nothing else that could be added to produce an encyclopedic page instead of a single controversy section? The application of Wiki rules is sorely needed on this page, and I made a few changes, but it's too much for me alone. Therefore, I am adding a BIAS tag to attract other editors to assist and to advise readers of the situation, the very things for which the tag is intended. The tag will say that it should be left in place until the dispute is resolved. Please respect that direction. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm hard pressed to see any notability of this person other than the reaction to his frequent expression of his views. Or in short his notability (if any) is a matter of points of view. (Of course I am willing to believe that there is much more to him that hasn't yet appeared in the article.) I think that either the article needs to summarize and link to this material or it should be deleted. Of course, even if the article is retained, the content should not be sensationalized. Tama1988 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the exact same thing. Deletion might be an option. I'm an inclusionist. But I'm not sure this page is wikiworthy. I see the page was created with this note: "02:44, 18 November 2010 PaulinSaudi (talk | contribs) (2,087 bytes) (OK, let's try again to have a page on this fellow, he is constantly in the news.)" Is "constantly in the news" enough? If so, I should get a Wikipedia page. No joke. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody could always have a go at writing you up.

One thing about Fischer: the expressions of his views that get him in the news (or at least into the blogs) are not slips of the tongue or unrehearsed answers to current affairs TV anchors' questions. He chooses to write them up in his blog, and then he chooses to leave them there. And he's putting himself forward (or the AFA is putting him forward) as a public figure. If Wiki has an article on him, this is arguably unfair to other people who lack articles but have, excuse me, legitimate and even compelling claims to greater notability. However, it doesn't seem unfair to him. Tama1988 (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I use that same LAEC joke all the time. You're the first I've seen to use it other than me. Thanks! Why not nominate the page for deletion, not speedy, and see what happens. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Half of me wants to see it deleted and half does not; see below. (What I really want deleted or anyway eradicated is not the article but ... no, perhaps I shouldn't say.) Tama1988 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see both sides of it. I heard about this guy and wondered who he was. There was no article. If a person wants to know who this guy is,, it is part of Wiki's mission to tell 'em. Now who is this guy? A professional rabble-rouser, a guy who purposely says silly things to get attention, I suppose. So maybe it would be best to not give him bandwidth. All in all, a very short page is called for. Just tell a reader this guy is an AFA blogger who says silly things. That about covers it. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and agree with it. But think of all the people like this guy. Wikipedia could get filled with thousands and thousands of pages that really would not improve on a Google search. Would you be opposed to deleting the page, following the proper course of action to do so, of course. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's really a matter of American civilization as amplified by the new bully pulpits of talk radio and the web: that great nation does appear to have thousands and thousands of people who vent their strong if not always well-informed opinions and are then paid at least fleeting attention. Pardon my immodesty, but I think the article is actually better than a list of Google hits, even if the main reason for this is simply the enormous degree of mirroring and automated bulk-quoting that goes on among many of the pages that appear in the list. OTOH, perhaps "PDFTT" is better applied not only to editors but also to subjects. Tama1988 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what does "PDFTT" mean? And this looks related: Notability in Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not spell it out here, but Google will quickly show you. Incidentally, I'd like to congratulate all the participants in this talk page for its welcome absence of trollery. We don't all agree all the time, but we can disagree in a constructive way. (Sanity rather than fear is being retained.) Tama1988 (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

O! TU! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not having a page on this guy seems unacceptable to me. But reprinting everything he writes also seems silly. We ought to give him five lines, lock the page and never look at it again. But of course, that is not the Wiki-way. We have a usable page on Peter Sprigg, why not this guy? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not saying it should be this or that. Rather, it may benefit from the communal application of various guidelines or policies, including those for notability or deletion. Curiously, we know this page was started by you because you hate the guy so much. "Now who is this guy? A professional rabble-rouser, a guy who purposely says silly things to get attention, I suppose. .... Just tell a reader this guy is an AFA blogger who says silly things." That's not a problem, I suppose, but it may indicate Wiki policy was not applied in the first place and may be needed now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I see Peter Sprigg has 2 publications. That might be part of the difference. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, I am willing to be corrected by the consensus. I still think it is a legit page as people may want to know who this fellow is. I do not hate this person. I have never even met him. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. To get more eyes involved here for building consensus (and hoping to attract people experienced in these notability/deletion/save page issues, because I am not), I'm going to readd the BIAS tag. It was removed by a guy harassing me so much he just got an indef ban. Cool? Hopefully more will join us. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You might consider starting an RFC it that fails; bias tags don't usually attract attention. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't recall if I've done that before. Um, let me check with the folks above if they would also like to do that. I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Really, I mean that. I'll go leave a comment on their Talk pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you said "if that fails". So I'll wait before I do what I just said. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Rather than throwing a collection of blocks out, I've protected the page instead. The length is a month, but I'll quite happily unprotect it if those involved can sort out their squabbles. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good. We are deciding in the section above [and now below as well] whether to delete the page entirely. I hereby invite you to join in. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

American Family Association now officially on SPLCs anti-gay hate group list.

Please edit the article to include that the AFA is now on the Southern Poverty Law Center's official hate group list (see: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/under-attack-gays-remain-minority-mos).Mykelb (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a "Donate" button right on that page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It also says, "Double the Value of Your Support; Make a gift today and it will be matched dollar-for-dollar with our Year-End Matching Challenge." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That aside, this article is not about the AFA. If this information belongs anywhere, it belongs in the article on the AFA.

Incidentally, if inclusion of this or similar information about an organization were justifiable (and I am not here talking about any particular organization), then the organization might I think be reasonably termed homophobic. Wikipedia has a category for the job: Category:Homophobia. However, in a surprising contrast with categories on other phobias and discriminations, the introductory text for that category warns editors: This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. Ah, the phobia that dare not speak its name! Tama1988 (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Looking at this now, I don't think the tag is appropriate. If Fischer is notable, he's only really notable for his extreme and somewhat disturbing views. So if he is to have an article, it will necessarily be slanted towards his his wacky pronouncements. I would be more tempted to replace the neutrality tag with a "notability" one. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I placed the original BIAS tag because the article contained only a criticism section. As the discussion has progressed, the issue of notability has predominated. I agree with Black Kite that the tag should be changed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Is he notable outside his position at the AFA, and if not could his article be merged there? I know he's already mentioned there, as I fixed the section about him the other day. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not know. I only happened on this page, and seeing it had only a controversy section, I applied the BIAS tag. I know nothing else about this guy except what I have been reading since being here. Honestly, this page doesn't tickle my fancy. I'm just trying to be a good Wikipedian -- see a page with only a Controversy section -- add a BIAS tag -- you know, that kind of thing. I sure hope other people get involved here and do the right thing. But if you merged into AFA, and left a redirect, I doubt anyone would complain--or even notice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK - tags switched. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Perfect. It has been a pleasure working with you. This is especially noticeable to me as on another page where I placed a BIAS tag (for the page being an advertisement) I'm being called a troll, a vandal, etc., by the same people protecting the page for a very long time. Really, thanks to you and the other editors here working on this. Pleasant working conditions is like a breath of fresh air for me. No need to respond. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Look what Tama1988 just wrote above: "Incidentally, I'd like to congratulate all the participants in this talk page for its welcome absence of trollery. We don't all agree all the time, but we can disagree in a constructive way. (Sanity rather than fear is being retained)." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Searches for the subject establish notability, so I will remove the tag. if LAEC believes that he lacks notablity then he should recommend an AfD. LAEC earlier expressed concern that the article was not neutral. In fact, people who take controversial stands will attract criticism, so there never was any POV issue. I notice that the proposal to merge this article into the American Family Association links here when it should link to the AFA article. Therefore I am changing the link to the correct article. TFD (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was short lived. To my friends here who just agreed we are working so well together, unfortunately, that's over. TFD has just joined us. Despite our working together, indeed despite Black Kite's effort regarding the neutrality tag, TFD singles me out ("people who take controversial stands will attract criticism, so there never was any POV issue") and removes the tag ("Searches for the subject establish notability, so I will remove the tag"). No consensus needed for TFD. No AGF needed either. Friends here should know TFD makes ad hominem statements about me regularly and was part of the group that recently precipitated a WP:LAME incident that resulting in my being banned until someone finally figured out what was going on. He is part of the reason I sincerely thanked you for our working well together. Please, as he makes persistent personal attacks on me, please do not let it sway you, and let's all keep working well with each other. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the notability, if he is indeed notable, but I think any merge should really be discussed at the subject's talk page; that's only my view, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The procedure for Merging says that the discussion thread should be in the article that will be merged into. I think this is because there may be multiple articles involved in the merge and the merged-into article would be the major article for the topic. TFD (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Medal of Honor controversey

Fischer actually stated that he believed that Giunta deserved the MOH. In the original article he said "it is entirely right that we honor this kind of bravery and self-sacrifice" and "we rightly honor those who give up their lives to save their comrades. It’s about time we started also honoring those who kill bad guys," and said in subsequent articles that Giunta deserved the award. I changed the article to reflect that, though if anyone can word it better, that would be appreciated. Gtbob12 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sections on views

Views which do not have secondary sources are probably not significant. This is not intended to be a mirror the subject's website, which is already linked fro the article. I suggest that those views which are not referenced in independent sources should be summarized more briefly, perhaps a sentence each in a "other views" section.   Will Beback  talk 

Several references from a People for the American Way blog were removed under the spurious claim that they violated SPS and BLP. I've just restored them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The miscreant should be horsewhipped. So... is PFAW RS? Lionel (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Insofar as they're a prominent organization, their reaction to Fischer's comments would seem to be noteworthy. On the other hand, I just re-read WP:RS, which does warn against "partisan secondary sources", so in the interest of maintaining best practices I'm going to revert myself (and look for mention of these quotes in other sources). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added tags to three sections that don't have any 3rd party sources. I'm sure we can find such sources for some of those views. If we can't then we should delete the material.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. [1], [2] (Turkish) , [3] are the best I could find on the "Gays gave us Hitler." view, I'll let y'all fight out whether they're reliable enough, but I figured I'd pass 'em along. Sullivan is an interesting source to me because he's never been very party-line, even when he ID'd GOP. --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, came up entirely empty on the other two. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I searched the Proquest newspaper archive for ["Bryan Fischer" + "Native Americans"], and there's not a single relevant hit. For ["Bryan Fischer" + "Illegal immigr*"] I found just one relevant source:

• Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, a national conservative Christian organization in Tupelo, Miss., said, "What my evangelical friends are arguing is that illegal aliens should essentially be rewarded for breaking the law." "I think it's extremely problematic from a Judeo-Christian standpoint to grant citizenship to people whose first act on American soil was to break an American law," said Mr. Fischer, who hosts a daily radio show on which immigration is a frequent topic. [..] (To which Mr. Fischer responded, "We don't want to break up families, so let's help them all return to their country of origin.")
  • Obama Wins Unlikely Allies In Immigration; Laurie Goodstein. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jul 19, 2010. pg. A.1

By contrast, ["Bryan Fischer" + gay or homosexual] gets 150 hits, and ["Bryan Fischer" + Islam or Muslim] gets 65 hits. I don't think his views on Native Americans or Illegal Immigration are significant by comparison. Unless someone can find sources to show their in the same league, those other sections should probably just be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Due to the lack of secondary sources, I'm going to remove those sections.   Will Beback  talk  05:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Judaism?

My apologies if I'm misplacing comments. I have seen the reference #7, and Mr. Fischer was talking exclusively about Islam. He did state non-Christians as well, but he did not mention Judaism by name.--Lrukieh (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the quote he included from Justice Story did specifically include Judaism in the part Fischer put in boldface. It's not like he chose to ellipsis it out or anything. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

POV criticism in lede

Content was just added from Mother Jones, Huf Post & Falls Church. The first 2 are blogs. The last, Wayne Besen, is described as "National Commentary." Besen is extremely partisan. There seems to be an emerging consensus here that we need to have solid sourcing in this article, it is a BLP afterall, and if these extraordinary claims are notable they will have been covered by reliable sources. In the spirit of recent removals (See Sections on views) I'm removing the content.Lionel (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Huck, Newt and Haley Palling Around with Anti-Muslim Extremist", Siddhartha Mahanta, Mother Jones magazine

The Mother Jones article is from Siddhartha Mahanta who is an "Editorial Fellow" of the magazine. He has written for National Journal and produced videos for them. He has worked for PBS NewsHour and he wrote freelance for Al Jazeera. On the Mother Jones masthead he's listed as a member of their Washington Bureau. He's a journalist. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Extremism Flying Beneath The Radar", Wayne Besen, Falls Church News-Press.

Wayne Besen is quoted all over the place, a very notable writer. Whatever he writes can be sourced back to him per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, if there's any question as to its neutrality.

Partisan sources are not disallowed on Wikipedia. There is no such guideline. All sources have some bias. Instead, Wikipedia goes by WP:V and WP:RS. Besen is reliable and verifiable. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Too much cut out?

Isn't this edit a bit over the top in deleting information? In the course of the current campaign, it's again widely published. --Pjacobi (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What is Fischer campaigning for?   Will Beback  talk  16:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, he uses his radio show to campaign [i]against[/i] gay issues, immigration, and the practice of Islam in America. Not that you'd know from this wikipedia page now that it's been whitewashed. --UltimateXiphias (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It'd be appropriate to discuss the views which he campaigns for or against, but we should limit ourselves to those which have been reported in secondary sources. We should not search through his website to find interesting quotations to post.   Will Beback  talk  18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of the coverage he gets in the context of the current campaign for the Republican presidential candidate. Just one of many examples: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/romney-on-stage-before-controversial-speaker/ --Pjacobi (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be an adequate source for a brief discussion of his views.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AIDS Denial:

Right Wing Watch has posted a clip of Bryan Fischer where he denies that HIV causes AIDS. How can this fit into the article? Should we wait until its picked up by a third party reliable source? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Best to wait until WP:secondary sources comment on it. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Allowing Gays to adopt is "a form of child abuse"

This should be included. Here's some reference material:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/los-angeles-gay-pride-preacher-poo-poo_n_1606317.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.80.28 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Statements on Hinduism

User:Bbb23 reverted statements about Hinduism put into the article by User:TechBear, citing WP:BLP concerns. Although "rightwingwatch" in many cases would not be a reliable source, in this case, they have a video of the subject of this article speaking. I think that the speaker is proud to say what he is saying, and certainly Techbear's reporting of it is accurate, so in opposition to Bbb23's assertion, I do not think that this statement is contentious. Other opinions? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPREMOVE, I am reverting your restoration of the material. Don't restore it again unless there's a clear consensus that it does not violate WP:BLP. First, the video appears to be a WP:LINKVIO. I don't believe that Rights Watch owns the copyright to the video. Second, to the extent there is anything similar on this talk page, if you look above at this section, you'll see that something similar was tried in 2012 and rejected. We need secondary reliable sources to include this material.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It was reverted by another editor before I could so so.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I put it back with another reference which is a secondary source. The fact that the link hosts a copyright violation is irrelevant; the video can still be cited so long as there is agreement that the video exists. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a copyright vio anyway. RWW seems like a large media outlet managing their legal affairs. This is a short clip and they retain notice of the video source. This is fair use. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop adding the material back in just because you believe something you did "solves" the problem. Your added reference is to another slightly more reliable source because it claims to be independent, but it's still a political website. Worse, it's essentially derivative of the RWW website as it says so in its brief article. As for the copyright violation, it's not up to you to decide what is fair use or for you to trust that the lawyers of a particular organization have either vetted the material or, even if they have, that their conclusion that the clip may be included is correct. Fair use is a tricky concept and is easily susceptible to differing opinions. Ultimately, courts get to decide in specific cases if a suit is brought. That is why Wikipedia has policies that err on the side of being conservative in these kinds of situations. Unless someone beats me to it, I will revert the material. Do not add it back. If you have something to propose that you believe cures the BLP violation, propose it here rather than inserting it into the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bbb23. The URL does not need to be linked. I could cite the articles like a book or journal article and not provide a link. To what extent would that satisfy your concerns about this being a copyright vio? Is that really why you do not want this content here? If you agree that the source content meets WP:RS then there is a way to cite it without violating wp:copyvio.

If you think the source does not meet WP:RS then assert that. Political websites can be cited if the bias is declared. I think both sources cited are reliable sources for the biased point of view they provide, and meeting WP:NPOV requires that all significant points of view - including all biases when labeled as biases - should be represented.

If the biases are labeled and the URLs are removed while retaining the links, then would that meet all your objections? If not, then what are you seeking? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think either of the two sources is reliable for the inclusion of this material. I also don't agree that just because an unreliable source declares its bias, that makes it citable. The linkvio came into the picture not just because the article contains a copyright violation, but also because you cited the clip as support for the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23- Okay, forget the video. Everything to be cited is just in the text of those two sources and the video is unnecessary. Is this a WP:RS problem? I feel that both of those sites are large-enough news outlets. They go through editorial process, are not self-published, and although it is not necessary, both of them are significantly larger than amateur publishing entities. Authors are named in both sources. The sources definitely have a bias, but it is well-declared and nothing about these sources purports to be anything other than for political advocacy. If I got feedback from WP:RSN on these sources and they were said to meet WP:RS for whatever political perspective they are espousing, and if that feedback was that these sources meet WP:RS, then would you agree that the proposed content should be added to this article? If not, what other concerns do you have? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought I already made clear my view that the two sources - which have to be particularly high quality for BLP issues - are not reliable to include the material. If there is no other feedback here, you can take it to WP:BLPN or to WP:RSN for more input.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information: Fischer himself Tweeted about it "Michelle invites demons into the White House" November 5, 2013 and linked to his own video of the show. So the link to the Right Wing Watch site for the text (not their video), the tweet, and Fischer's own video should quiet anyone's concerns about copyvio. But I agree that at least one RS should also report on this incident before inclusion. It hasn't been picked up in the mainstream media or on the pundit circuit because it's just not extreme enough(!). Seems a little desperate, really. --Lexein (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS for this content RFC

The following statements and references are proposed for addition into this article. The addition is opposed on an argument of BLP violation due to the sources not meeting WP:RS. Another opinion is requested.

On November 5th, 2013, Fischer described Hinduism by saying, "This is a counterfeit religion. It is an Eastern religion. It is, in essence, an occult religion." He then claimed that the Hindu goddess Lakshmi was a demon, and that by celebrating the holiday of Diwali, Michelle Obama had invited demons into the White House.

There are claims that these sources are not reliable for reporting this information. One source is a news organization managed by People For the American Way and the other is a smaller news organization which still has an editorial process and is not self published. The only bias being inserted here is assertion of notability of a quote which all parties agree is accurate; it seems that the block here is determining whether news coverage from these two sites is sufficient to merit inclusion into Wikipedia. I am stating that these WP:RS sites are reporting a perspective without which the article could not be WP:NPOV. Thoughts? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons why this material should not be included. I'd like to emphasize that I agree with Lexein's point above and Fat&Happy's similar point expressed in their edit summary. Without a secondary source, this material is not even noteworthy. Fischer says all sorts of things and continuously expresses radical points of view. We can't and shouldn't include all of them. Therefore, we have to be selective, and one way to accomplish that is if the mainstream media pick up what he said and reports on it. Unless you can find a source like that, that is yet one more reason not to include the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not yet. See my opinion above. Right Wing Watch is a biased and non-notable source, but used along with other independent generally-non-biased usually-RS sources to support claims about Fischer; example: Huffington Post (see usage in the article). Politicususa.com is also biased and non-notable and is not-yet-deemed-sometimes-reliable as a source. Without a non-domain (religion, "watchers") source, and without commentary from a WP:N notable person (writer, analyst), I don't think this item should go in yet. If it hits something mainstream, I'll certainly revisit this. Trouble is, it's about to miss the 24-hour news-cycle window. If it misses too many news cycles, it will never likely be reliably sourced enough for inclusion here. There's the other bias this item is facing: mainstream press has been accused of "protecting" POTUS from extremist opinion from scattered sources. --Lexein (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires that the material be verifiable, neutrally presented, and not constitute original research. Fischer's statements are most certainly verifiable; if Bbb23 objects to the sourcing, fine, we can very easily find better. I believe that the edits I made to the original addition are sufficiently neutral, but we can tweak the wording until we have consensus. Quoting directly from Fischer's own verifiable statements does not qualify as original research. BLP does not, and never has, required that otherwise acceptable material cast the subject in a positive light. I don't see that Bbb23's BLP objections have any merit. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"certainly verifiable" as discussed in independent reliable source(s) if you please. Wikipedia reports what reliable others have written about a topic. --Lexein (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

When quoting an individual, it is acceptable to use the individual's own publications, recordings or other similar material. It is one of the very few exceptions to the third party rule. Whether the reference points to Right Wing Watch or some other site, the quote is coming from a video that Fischer himself made and posted to the internet. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So I can add a new section to the article every day summarizing what he has said in his most recent column? Sweet! That sounds like a lot of fun. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I find the WP:DUE argument a lot more compelling than pointing to BLPREMOVE or RS (or COPYVIO). I mean the reason for special treatment of sources in BLPs is to ensure Wikipedia "gets it right." What does it matter what a site's broad political biases are if all that's used from them is verifiable via the subject himself and his documented words? Regardless, coming back to DUE: even if he expresses radical points of view on a regular basis this isn't just a new offensive way of referring to the president or re-presenting a known opinion in a more provocative way -- it's a judgment of an entire religion, which is not yet represented in this article. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So, if I understand you properly, the test for whether to include a publicly-stated opinion by Fischer is whether the statement is "new", or at least new in a significant way. We might just as well be an extension of Fischer's radio show rather than an encyclopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The presenting of this "judgement of an entire religion" (new or not) still requires coverage in independent reliable source(s) for addition to this, or any, BLP. --Lexein (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the questionable citations with the ultimate in reliable sourcing: Fischer's own broadcast as posted on his own website. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That did not address any of the problems with WP:UNDUE weight given to this issue. I think the bit should be struck until WP:SECONDARY sources are found to show that Fischer's opinion was not just one more case of a tree falling in the forest with none to hear (or care). Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. TechBear, you're not a new editor. You should know by now that in BLP's (especially), we don't add controversial claims without independent reliable sources. None of the sources added so far for this claim constitute that. We're not denying the fact that Fischer said it, or trying to keep out the truth about Fischer, we are, as always, waiting to see if anyone in the reliable source world noticed. If none did, we didn't either: because it's unimportant. Wikipedia "speaks" with the voice of independent reliable sources, not us, and not the subjects, like Fischer. If primary sources were enough for BLPs, Wikipedia would become Resumepedia, or CVpedia, or PRpedia, and we're really trying not to be those. Please don't make the struggle harder by shoving in controversial stuff of debatable importance without independent reliable sources. --Lexein (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The issues that were originally raised were about the quality of the reference and BLP. I was addressing those issues. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's undeniable that he made the statement, it's not undue weight and it's not an obscure fact that no one would be interested in. There's no reason to remove it. Sepsis II (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Except that it's not independently reliably sourced, which means it wasn't considered relevant by reliable others. He really does say a lot of things which don't make the news or RS analysts. --Lexein (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed the two sentences for cause: they are only primary-sourced. With zero mention in independent reliable sources, it's irrelevant for now. Be patient. WP:NOTNEWS. --Lexein (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read the above discussion you'll see there are a few independent RS; I've re-added it with full sourcing. It appears all complaints against inclusion have been dealt with so this is now over with. Sepsis II (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Rather than making categorical and unsupported statements, I suggest you wait for a clear consensus before adding the information back to the article. If this kind of approach continues, I will request full protection of the article (arguably can't do it myself or I would now).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Right right, wait for consensus or we have to do it your way and of course we will never have consensus because you don't approve. Your arguments against inclusion do not make any sense so there is no way to appease your demands. What do you want, for CNN and the BBC to report on this single statement that this man who hardly deserves a wikipedia article made? People For the American Way is a notable RS and the highest caliber of RS to waste their time on such a person. Sepsis II (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In the article, rightwingwatch.org is used twice: once along with CBS News, and once along with Huffington Post. At the moment, we have no generally reliable independent non-advocacy source with which to pair RRW. So yes, I want any of CBS, CNN, BBC, etc., to report on this. It's the standard practice at Wikipedia. Excuse me for wanting to stick with only the best sources, per WP:BLP. --Lexein (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reposed the question more specifically at WP:RSN about Right Wing Watch under BlueRasberry's entry. --Lexein (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Updated WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 159#Biased political article used for quotation link. --Lexein (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the RSN discussion closed (was automatically archived, anyways) with the observation "claims made are taken woefully out of the religious context of the presentation", and worse, seemed to be willing to misquote it for effect. IMHO, this may be the valid reason why reliable sources didn't pick it up. --Lexein (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

position on voting rights

Added the following: "On his January 14, 2014 radio show, he advocated restricting the franchise to property owners. [4] " This was reverted, citing WP:UNDUE and calling the source unacceptable. My view: for a professional pundit to take a public stance of this type is significant, and calling this source unacceptable would require us to delete it from 44 Wikipedia articles, for consistency. But I have no sense that this source, or its parent organization (People for the American Way) have been ruled non-WP:RS. 150.243.14.35 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The source is fine, the single sentence is by no means undue, and the view is being reported by a third party so I see no reason for removing it. The only problem I have is the wording, I, as a non-American, did not understand immediately what was meant by franchise, it should be stated more simply as voting rights. Sepsis II (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The source is not fine, especially for a BLP. It's a self-published blurb by an advocacy group; and yes, it probably should be removed in other articles – at least BLPs – where it is used. And even if the source were in fact an RS (which most "pundits" are not – else we could be overrun with commentary from, e.g., George Will, Rush Limbaugh, et al.), mention by one dedicated opposition source hardly establishes noteworthiness. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The source provides a video, in which Fischer states his views. I don't know how much more reliable a source could possibly get. It's a source with a bias, but we wouldn't be quoting their view on BF's words (that would be fine, as it would be fine to quote Limbaugh or Will, if *their* views on say Clinton or Obama were the subject of the article and therefore of the documentation). It's the purest kind of WP:RS. I'm taking the matter as settled. Fat & Happy, if you think those sources need deleting throughout, perhaps you'd like to start, and see if your policy gains support. 150.243.14.35 (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't put just anything into this biography, only those things that had a larger effect. The video proving Fischer said something does not prove that this pronouncement had any larger effect. It could be like the tree falling in the forest... nobody really took notice. If you find WP:Secondary sources commenting on Fischer's pronouncements then you have something. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded a little high-handed -- I meant I regarded the WP:RS issue as settled. I see the legit & open question about notability, and hence did not make the revert. I'll leave it to others. 150.243.14.35 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bryan Fischer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101117033029/http://action.afa.net/detail.aspx?id=2147486648 to http://action.afa.net/detail.aspx?id=2147486648
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140315044242/http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/201206170059 to http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/201206170059

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bryan Fischer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100108185530/http://www.afa.net/activism/aa061901.asp to http://www.afa.net/activism/aa061901.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bryan Fischer. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20011020025544/http://www.afa.net/activism/aa061901.asp to http://www.afa.net/activism/aa061901.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915011202/http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2010/11/13-new-organizations-added-to-anti-gay-hate-groups-list/22153/ to http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2010/11/13-new-organizations-added-to-anti-gay-hate-groups-list/22153/

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)