Talk:Liberty Counsel

The water tower and the library

The recent re-addition of In 1990, Liberty Counsel, along with the ACLU, supported a change in Orange County public library rules which had excluded religious and political events from library meeting rooms. The organization also opposed removing a Latin cross from the top of a city water tower, even though no longer under "Activities", falls short for me in several ways.

1. The source does not say that the organization opposed removing a Latin cross; it says that Staver was against it. If we are treating the LC as indistinguishable from Staver, then their articles should be merged. If not, we should not treat their opinions as one and the same. If the chairman of Apple Computing says that the Big Lebowski is the greatest film of all time, it does not therefor mean that that is Apple's stance.
2. The organization actually did not oppose the water tower change, nor support it. It couldn't. The water tower was changed in September, the organization started three months later.
3. the phrasing that "Liberty Counsel, along with the ACLU, supported a change" makes it sound like they were two groups working together either on equal terms or with LC leading the way and the ACLU following along. That is not the case. This is a situation that the ACLU addressed with the library; the most we can say from this source is that the LC voiced support for its actions. (I don't have the date on this situation, so it may actually have predated the LC as well.)
4. All in all, this material seems trivial. We don't need to report on every thought that Staver/LC has.

As such, I suggest removing it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the water tower -- that was a Stever position not LC position although he started the group about that time. It should go in his article since it seems difficult to merge the two. I think I can salvage the library item by clarifying involvement as you said and tying to the group's later work on library meetings. Showing an agreement between two civil liberties groups is helpful and the article compares and contrasts in several places. I'll work on it. Thanks again for patiently commenting. Ihaveadreamagain 15:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

LGBTQ Nation source

@Ihaveadreamagain: I saw the deletion of material based on the fact that its source was lgbtqnation.com, over a reliable sourcing concern. As a source, that site passes at least a basic sniff test - it has a 10 year presence, and an editorial board. The site is used dozens of places in Wikipedia, and does not appear to have been raised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, although you are certainly free to. In order to assure that accuracy of the information they are used to cite, I added a first party source as an additional source - a page on the Counsel's site with the press release the LGBTQ Nation source is quoting, where MS refers to "concerned marchers" and states their involvement in "stopping the steal of our 2020 elections". Does that cover your concern? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a "sniff test" to allow for advocacy websites, but it's ok with me to use that as long as I can include any other 10 year old advocacy news sites that have editorial boards. :) Ihaveadreamagain — Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually after reading both the article and the statement, the sentence doesn't reflect what is said. The articles says: "Staver opened the email by calling the crowd that stormed the Capitol building while both chambers of Congress were in session “concerned marchers.” but the link to another site that quotes email they purport to talk about doesn't say that at all. It says "Throngs of concerned marchers filled Washington, DC..." That is not the same meaning as "the crowd that stormed the Capitol building" as there were many more people in DC that never went to the Capitol at all, per news reports. The email also says "Liberty Counsel condemns the violence that broke out..." so they could not be calling the violent storming crowd "concerned marchers." Thus, I do have a problem with using a 10-year old advocacy news source as a reliable source, when their own article links show their bias. Ihaveadreamagain 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're branding LGBTQNation as an advocacy site; it's pretty clearly a news site. Does it have a point of view and an intended audience? Yes, all media outlets do, and some even suggest them in their titles, but that doesn't make The Wall Street Journal or The Christian Science Monitor unreliable sources. And yes, having an editorial board is one of the things that is looked at for news sites when evaluating whether they're reliable sources; having one is not a guarantee that it is, but not having editorial oversight makes it a WP:QUESTIONABLE source.

As for your suggestion that it is not possible that Stavers was reflecting on a situation where concerned marchers committed condemnable violence, I'm not sure your logic holds. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what it is possible for Staver to say or not say, but I am saying the sentence in the source article does not match the email they link to. "Chairman Staver characterized the rioting crowd as "concerned marchers." However, in the effort to avoid further argument on this point, I'll just add "Staver said Liberty Counsel condemns the violence that broke out." Ihaveadreamagain 14:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)