Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alliance Defending Freedom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 6 months

Christianity: Charismatic Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creationism: Intelligent design Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Low-importance).

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Abortion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic.

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic.

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to abortion, a contentious topic.

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Opening Section

I'm seeking consensus on changing the edits of Valjean here, since it's gone a few rounds from his edit, my revert, his revert, my attempt at consensus, and his last revert.

There are three issues with the change of "works to oppose what it sees as threats to conservative's religious liberty" from the previous "protect religious liberty".

1. The two sources cited describe the ADF's goal as "the defense of religious freedom", or "promot[ing] religious liberty".

2. While the ADF unquestionably is an organization within the sphere of American conservativism, its litigation has often been in support of individuals and organizations without particular political ideological attachments (for example, Good News Club v. Milford Central School, and definitely Rosenberger v. University of Virginia). Reliable sources have not described it as refusing to defend Democratic or libertarian Christians in cases related to prayer at public meetings or adoption by same sex couples or similar.

3. The grammatical error.

- TurnipWatch (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TurnipWatch, you mention "Good News Club v. Milford Central School, and definitely Rosenberger v. University of Virginia". In both cases, ADF defended the Christian side, not the public's side. They are indeed defending a "particular political ideological attachment", the Christian one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For other reasons, largely stylistic, I made a minor change before I saw this talk page comment. The previous text seems illogical and borderline tautologous . ADF sees the freedoms they defend as universal 'core' christian values, they don't see them as conservative. Others see the things they defend as being at the conservative end of christian values. We either say one or the other about what they are defending (how they see themselves, how others see them) and since it is already stated that they are conservative, in the opening sentence, I chose their self-image.

Regarding TurnipWatch's specifics, the issues raised are substantially conservative christian positions and issues and AFAIK they have never defended more liberal christian/other religious/non-religious values - all of which are aspects of religious freedom.Pincrete (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you don't want to write "conservative", even though they are described as "conservative" in the lead, and it is those values they defend, then try a bit of OR (and be aware you are now engaging in OR...and the consequences for doing so!!!) and write "Christian", which would be "threats to Christian's religious liberty". Is that better? It's certainly accurate, but "conservative" is even more accurate, as there are many "brands" of Christianity, not all of which are "conservative". Something needs to be there. They are not defending the religious liberty of "all" Christians, only of conservative Christians. Certainly not the religious liberty of non-Christians. On the contrary. They wish to force the values of their conservative brand of Christianity on everyone else. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring that it says "works to oppose what it sees as threats to religious liberty". You can't frame the text in terms of what ADF sees as its mission and then demand a balaced/objective account of how others, or WP sees their activity. That is like writing that Donald Trump sees himself as a blustering racist, sexist clown. He doesn't - others do.

It is precisely because they are described as as conservative in practically the previous phrase that repeating it is redundant apart from being illogical in that phrasing. Conservative christian groups advocate for conservative christian views and policies, it doesn't need saying repeatedly. Detailing those views and policies - as we do - makes more sense IMO. Pincrete (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you. Your objection to the wording here doesn't make sense: "works to oppose what it sees as threats to religious liberty" is not comparable to "that Donald Trump sees himself as a blustering racist, sexist clown." The first is about whose religious liberties they are protecting (their own, and not other's). The second is about his image of himself. We would never write that as it's patently false. He doesn't see himself that way. You'll have to try a different comparison.

Instead, let's deal with what's actually there now: "works to oppose what it sees as threats to ~~conservative's~~ religious liberty". Without the word "conservatives" (you removed it), it's a false statement, because they do not oppose threats to the religious liberty of others. Instead, they actually are a threat to the religious liberty of others by seeking to use the law and politics to impose their own religious beliefs on others. With the word "conservative's", it's an accurate statement that is not offensive. We can't just use their unnuanced wording as if it's accurate because it isn't. In fact, do they even write it that way, without any nuances? (It wouldn't surprise me if they did because such groups are often ignorant of the real impact of their own actions.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was fairly obvious that if you use the wording "what it sees", you have to follow it with their own view of this topic, not that of 'outsiders'. It certainly isn't untrue that they see themselves as defending "religious liberty" - it is others who see them as only defending certain "religious liberty" for certain groups. But I endorse Avatar 317's comment that we don't need their self-image. Though I'm not sure what RS say they oppose and their is a clumsiness to saying a conservative organisation that defends conservative views and practices - what else would they do? Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, we should not be stating what their point of view is "what it sees as...." and instead say what RS's say it does. That said, I don't know enough about them to offer a suggested wording. (Brings lawsuits promoting conservative-Christian policies maybe?) Or how about simply remove "oppose what it sees as threats to religious liberty," from the lead.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The newsweek source states clearly "The ADF is a conservative, Christian nonprofit that fights against what it sees as growing threats to religious freedom, the sanctity of life and the traditional family". We need to follow what the sources say and not our opinions. Regards Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek is not a reliable sources. Our entry at WP:RSNP says

Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles.. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a summary of the article and its text doesn't necessarily have to be directly supported by specific sources (certainly not this particular one) if it is an accurate summary of the body. The Newsweek article also says much else about the character of ADF, apart from its 'self-image', so regardless of its reliability, which quote would we actually use? To me the primary question is how to most clearly describe ADF to a non-partisan readership. I believe present text does a reasonable job, but may well be improvable.Pincrete (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Human Events

Apologies if I missed something, but why is the Human Events article cited three times in this article? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Biron

Lisa Biron's links to ADF are tenuous in the extreme IMO. It seems that "according to court documents, she represented the Liberty Assembly of God church in Concord earlier this year in a tax dispute with the city, working alongside the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Arizona-based group of lawyers.", yet we describe her as an "ADF lawyer", implying that she worked for ADF, rather than with them on a single local tax-status case, rather than on any of their more controversial agenda.

There have been previous discussions on this topic. Personally I think the connection is too trivial to include here (and btw no sources refer to "The Lisa Biron Affair" as we do).

As a UK citizen, I'm no fan of ADF or similar orgs, but indirectly making ADF complicit in the personal immorality/illegality of a lawyer who appears to have once worked with them briefly on a single tax-status matter seems like an attempt at "guilt by association", rather than being pertinent content about ADF itself as an organisation. WP:DUE seems to imply that the content doesn't belong here. Pincrete (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think she could be mentioned in the list, but that's all. Loads of mentions of her working with the ADF and see this[https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/anti-gay-activist-lawyer-convicted-child-pornography/.. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]