Talk:ProtectMarriage.com

Distancing from fringe groups with the same aim

Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said he was trying to distance Prop 8 defense from its partners in getting Prop 8 passed, calling the "fringe" groups (such as Liberty Counsel who say homosexuality is a disease) "strident or combative". Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Added. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lost court case over logo parody

ProtectMarriage.com sent opponents Courage Campaign a cease-and-desist letter telling them to stop using a parody of the "Yes on 8 Protect Marriage" logo, the parody reading "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" with two female figures flanking two children instead of one male and one female flanking the children. Observers noted the irony of the ProtectMarriage.com legal team's argument which asserted that their image with one man and one woman with children was not substantially different than the image of two women with children. Courage Campaign's defense that their image was a parody was what won them the case. MediaBistro.com SF Bay Times Calitics California Watch This loss in court should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Added. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems more newsy than encyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWS Lionel (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? The lost court case was a bit more than a year ago, and was widely commented upon. WP:NOTNEWS advises us to avoid recentism, or breaking news—not a problem here—and it says to avoid routine news such as the daily doings of celebrities, or sporting event results. The guideline aims far lower than what we are looking at here. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This case is currently referenced in the thumbnail, but not anywhere else in the article that I see. Either the thumbnail should be removed or a small blurb about the actual case should be added to the section the thumbnail is in. --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The case makes up the full third paragraph of the section in which the image appears. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Explain tags please

Could whoever placed the "Neutrality" tag explain where in the article they see a problem? Personally I don't see any spin here in any direction.

Likewise, the "Coatrack" tag doesn't seem to apply. Can someone explain their concerns so we can address them?

While the article needs work (nothing on the campaign itself, their funding, the interesting question of their legal status to defend the law), it doesn't appear broken. Uberhill 17:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume the coatrack tag refers to Prop 8 information which does not relate specifically to actions by the ProtectMarriage.com people. I am removing both the tag and the paragraph about Prop 8. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

ONN editorial

Are editorials not RS? Lionel (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Only for attributed opinions, not facts. That citation wasn't really needed anyway. If we want the definitive source we can cite the press release from which the quotation was taken.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Defunct

Since same-sex marriage is now legal in California, and since their website hasn't been updated in over a year, are they a defunct organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE08:C8D0:257B:EE8:EE9E:59DE (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, by all indications defunct. The website is defunct, and Right Wing Watch has not posted an article on the organization since 2010. I've changed "is" in the lead sentence to "was". BlueMesa171 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on ProtectMarriage.com. 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/20101229193251/https://www.californiafamilycouncil.org/CommonSenseWithoutCompromise to http://www.californiafamilycouncil.org/CommonSenseWithoutCompromise
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101229013642/http://www.californiafamilycouncil.org/about-us to http://www.californiafamilycouncil.org/about-us
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715123651/http://protectmarriage.com/about/our-programs to http://protectmarriage.com/about/our-programs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100113064629/http://cnsnews.com/news/article/38818 to http://cnsnews.com/news/article/38818

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 18:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Website dead?

The website, while still registered, is non-responsive at the moment. This could be a temporary outage, but if it is unavailable for an extended time, then it is a dead link and the links must be addressed as such. (As to whether it is a dead organization, that's a separate question.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Around April 2017, the site was "under construction" and apparently has not been online since November 27, 2018. It would be safe to say that it is permanently offline.[1] - MrX 🖋 19:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)