Jump to content

Talk:Human Rights Campaign

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: IWells.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Counter-Offense of Sane People

[edit]

You People Didn't Help Us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.255.86 (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trans-jacking?

[edit]

what is "trans-jacking" ?

Should Love Rocks and related CDs not be moved out to their own article, in accordance with Wikiproject: Albums? The Hooded Man 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section filled with POV and weasel words

[edit]
  • however sparking charges of "trans-jacking" from the far right. What does this mean?
  • Sometimes referred to as "Headed by Rich Caucasians" or the "Human Rights Champagne Fund", the HRC has often been the target of critics who claim that the HRC and HRCF do not produce any significant policy advocacy, and only serve the interests of a select minority of wealthy, white gay men. In the same vein, it is heavily criticized for its national, top-down structure instead of a local, grassroots focus. This whole paragraph is filled with POV and weasel words. Heavily criticized by who? Who are these critics?
  • The HRC is considered by some to be too cozy with the Democratic Party establishment. More weasel words.
  • Given that Kerry was a supporter of such state ballot initiatives [2], many questioned why he had received a "free ride" from HRC, and why more effort wasn't made to defeat the marriage initiatives.. And more weasel words
  • It is now clear that, with its change of heart with the ENDA bill, the HRC is now embracing the LGBT community's diversity while still keeping the community's public image mainstream. It doesn't get much more POV than this final sentence.

Ameltzer 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is one of who has criticized HRC, one could include Andrew Sullivan, who has recently published a number of critical items of The Daily Dish. OPen2737 03:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

[edit]

There is no backing to this section and just talks of a certain group of people who are not named. If citations were given, it would be ok, but it probably needs to be removed until then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.174.165 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Building purchase

[edit]

If there is something notable about HRC's purchase and renovation of its headquarters, that is not apparent from this article. If there is something notable, that should be indicated. If not, it may not belong here. --Dfeuer 01:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the event being in the media speaking to the event being a moment of transition from renter to a more permanent presence. Benjiboi 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a dishonest name

[edit]

This organisation's name is a cynical attempt to mislead people that it is a generalist human rights organisation, when it is actually a narrowly focused interest group. Surely this has been commented on before, and there could be something about it in the article. Greg Grahame (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems awfully POV but perhaps you could present reliable sources so others can see what might be added. -- Banjeboi 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please Greg, stay on topic. This is not a discussion to state your opinons about the organization. Before making accusations, do research to futher your belief. Azcolvin429 (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Greg's statements are too far-going and speculative, he does make one good point: A name like "Human Rights Campaign" is misleading (whether deliberately or accidentally) for a gay-rights movement, and depending on the exact circumstances it may well be worth commenting on.

(Consider instead, for instance, "Human Rights for Gays Campaign" and note the different associations.) 88.77.152.227 (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to offer, but leaving aside the tone of this topic's initiator, I have had similar concerns about the title. In this present moment, attempting to find answers to the origin of the name is what has brought me to this today. I may be a small sample size, but consider me as submitting my own case as testament to the notability of the question of HRC's name. 152.23.53.187 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not verifiable, article is POV

[edit]

Blogs are not verifiable references. You have to use the data and cite that source that the blogger got it from and present it without drawing a conclusion.

If Andrew Sullivan's column is an acceptable source, then I will use it for articles regarding National Organization for Marriage.

obviously the article states more criticism than content and is POV, so it shouldn't come as a surprise when it is edited.--DCX (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the propagandistic nature of the name of the Human Rights Campaign. Would be interested to know the roots of the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.88.217 (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trans criticism section misleading over HRC's lack of support

[edit]

The paragraph in the criticism section says that HRC did not support the 2007 ENDA bill. However:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/3543/

HRC has said it doesn't support the bill, but they have also said they support the bill. There wasn't a mountain of controversy over HRC's seemingly balanced "don't support - don't oppose" stance. People were criticizing their support of the bill. The article doesn't reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volfy (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add to this call for clarification. The section currently says that they didn't support it but one link says they did. The latter would explain criticism. Someone needs to work on the language or make the facts less confusing [to me, please].Czrisher (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted this back multiple weeks to undo an anonymous user's elimination of all suggestions that HRC cares about people who are transgender. I didn't love doing that, rather than going piecemeal, but it seemed appropriate. This seems to emphasize the need for more work beefing up the language on HRC's position vis-a-vis issues of transgenderism. I lack the expertise and time to put that in; I hope others do not. Czrisher (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the NOM

[edit]

Before this organization gets people in trouble by accepting contributions that are SUPER pac size please consider and/or post in article something to effect..How the HRC makes sure a big donor doesn't get in trouble when HRC funds are spent in accordance with campaign specific specialty interest election laws for individual states.

Talk to GLAD for clarifications they were involved in winning this ruling.

As demonstrated in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals January 31, 2012 ruling against the National Organization for Marriage, issue specific PACs are subject to the reasonable person test. .[1][2] [3] [4][5]

References

  1. ^ National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v McKee, The Judicial View, Case No. 11-1196, January 31, 2012
  2. ^ Anti-gay-marriage group loses Maine list appeal, By David Sharp Associated Press, January 31, 2012
  3. ^ Maine Gay Marriage Law Repealed, ABC News, by Devin Dwyer, Nov. 4, 2009
  4. ^ Repeat Performance: 1st Circuit Rejects NOM Challenge to Maine Disclosure Law, New York Law School, by New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard, February 1, 2012
  5. ^ Ruling National Organization for Marriage versus McKee (Maine), United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

Recent changes

[edit]
  • "protecting and caring for families through marriage equality and relationship recognition" - This is blatant POV.
  • "An extensive archive of HRC and HRC Foundation publications is available on HRC’s website." - Unnecessary.
  • "According to the terms of the repeal law, the policy will remain in effect until the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that repeal will not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period. HRC called on the Pentagon to expeditiously carry out the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal implementation plan." - Outdated.
  • "Through research, educational efforts and outreach, the HRC Foundation continues to encourage LGBT people to live openly and to support their ability to do so." - POV, unsourced.

NYyankees51 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is hopelessly biased. Only option is to start over from scratch and rewrite. Who wants to join me on a subpage?– Lionel (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I didn't finish that list, so again, point by point:

  1. Removed mission statement in lead per WP:MISSION.
  2. Removed last sentence of first paragraph of structure as POV.
  3. Reworded first paragraph of programs to remove POV.
  4. Removed "An extensive archive of HRC and HRC Foundation publications is available on HRC’s website" as promotional.
  5. Removed third paragraph of Programs as redundant.
  6. Removed unnecessary list of coming out publications.
  7. Reduced weight on hate crimes paragraph; links are dead.
  8. Discrimination is a legal term; added alleged, which is an appropriate legal term.
  9. Removed unsourced statement about work abroad.
  10. Removed outdated material about DADT repeal.
  11. Removed redundant ENDA paragraph.
  12. Removed POV unsourced last sentence in first paragraph of history; not pertinent to history.
  13. Removed unsourced statement on Americans with Disabilities Act.
  14. Removed unsourced DNC statement.
  15. Removed "recognizable" logo.
  16. Removed redundant headquarters sentence and unnecessary details about building.
  17. Reword unsourced statement about role of clergy in DC.
  18. Removed unsourced statement about pension bill.
  19. Removed unsourced hearing statement.
  20. Reworded paragraph on travel ban.
  21. Removed unsourced HHS memo statement.
  22. Removed years of speakers at fundraiser
  23. Reduce unnecessary detail to logo.
  24. Removed POV descriptions of Perkins and Dobson.
  25. Neutralize sentence on D'Amato
  26. Add $1 sentence per source.
  27. Cleanup of transgender criticism section.
  28. Removed unsourced and redundant criticism of presidential forum.
  29. Remove list of leaders already covered in prose.
  30. Remove unsourced section on music.

If you want to revert one or more, please respond below and justify your reverts point by point by using the numbers I have used. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logo color

[edit]

I've recently seen the logo showing up as a pink equal sign on a red background, rather than the longstanding yellow on blue. (Screenshot of their web site, taken just a moment ago: [1])Have they changed their logo color? cmadler (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just to support same-sex marriage for 1 day (I believe), when the US Supreme Court started to hear oral arguments on Prop 8. CTF83! 03:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is a permanent change. However, it is currently their in-use logo and this article should reflect that change and detail the highly publicized news/social media activism following the change. Rgrasmus (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to find out if they're rebarnding. Their website discusses at length the previous rebranding and describes the blue and yellow logo, but makes no mention of a recent rebranding. I assume it is just temporary, although the success of their campaign this week leaves that up in the air. Dmarquard (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The official blue and yellow logo needs to stay in the infobox, until they official change their logo to the temporary red and pink. WP:UNDUE CTF83! 03:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded lead

[edit]

Does anyone want to take a shot at expanding the lead? It strikes me as too short for an article of this length and an organization of this scope. Happy to help if anyone wants to take the lead (excuse the pun :) Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a whack at it. edit it again if you feel it needs it, or just bring it back to its starting point. I'll leave the lead notification up so that if anyone wants to do a better job they can certainly go ahead. Schnurrfles (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)sch[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human Rights Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership & Buzzfeed Controversy

[edit]

Wikipedians,

I'm moving the Buzzfeed controversy regarding the leadership atmosphere to the section where the various other controversies are discussed. This is standard WP format: We lay out the factual organizational structure first and then we tackle the various other points of view/controversies later.

I welcome comments/input.

GetSomeUtah (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human Rights Campaign. 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:

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) 10:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Human Rights Campaign. 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:

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) 12:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times source does not support a 1980 founding date

[edit]

I placed a failed verification tag in the history section where it states that the HRC was founded in 1980. The source, Endean's obituary, actually states that he founded the HRC in 1982. The HRC website also gives 1980. Interesting discrepancy. ThirdDolphin (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

terry bean

[edit]

his article says he's co-founder of HRC. why is he not mentioned anywhere?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.36.82 (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_Rights_Campaign&oldid=1207666415"