Talk:Woodhull Freedom Foundation/Archive 1

I'm hoping

I'm hoping this is the correct place to put this comment. This article has been corrected, adjusted, edited, etc., in an effort to comply with all of the comments and suggestions. The notes at the top of the page that call the article into question remain. Can they be removed now?

RicciJoy (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs attention

I placed the {{citations missing}} and {{primarysources}} tags on the article. There are COI issues as well. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I modified to {{refimprove}} as the subject certainly seems notable but the article needs a lot of work and some good sources will certainly help.Banjeboi 20:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've begun adding sources because there is certainly enough out there to verify the premise of Woodhull. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. RicciJoy (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideal sources would be newspaper articles, references from books, magazines and scholarly sources. Banjeboi 23:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and NPOV

Per our policies on neutral point of view I completely agree that the text as is needs work. We shouldn't be serving as a soapbox for any POV. Instead these statements should be modified to show who's saying what, and why if they have also made that clear. for instance, we could state "according to WFF's mission statement ______" leaving them responsible for what is stated. I'll do some work on this as I have time and am happy to offer advice if wanted. Banjeboi 10:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, yes, please. I am new to Wikipedia and I am not neutral - I'm the Executive Director of this organization and I'm scrambling as fast as I can to make the changes you all are so kindly suggesting. They're tremendously helpful and any and all help will be GREATLY appreciated! RicciJoy (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I am trying to figure out how to "join" the portals. It's certainly not made easy! RicciJoy (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For "joining" a portal you might want to start with checking out the associated talk page of each, the activity level can rise and fall so adjust your expectations accordingly. Read through the NPOV policy and get a gist of what some of the concerns are - for this article, statements like "[t]hey have succeeded by developing a powerful master narrative" seems quite POV but can be salvaged in a few ways. WFF calls this a "powerful master narrative" might be one solution if you have a source that actually shows this. Another would be to rework it entirely keeping the focus on the subject of the article. WFF is reacting to conservative policies which _______ and ______ over through the 1990s and 2000s. Banjeboi 00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Overwikified

Please only wikilink each word once in an article at its first mention in the body of the article or in the infobox. Also, many of the wikilinks lead to disambiguation pages, for anyone who finds the time. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 20:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

arghhhh. I can't go back in today (time has run out for me) but I will go in during the week and remove the extra links. Boy, someone could make a fortune offering to do this work for folks like me who are struggling to get a page right!

When, by the way, do the other notes at the top of the page disappear? How do I know when I've satisfied the person who was having so much trouble with my site? RicciJoy (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Question addressed at user's talk page. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 23:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the comment on RicciJoy's talk page, a gentle reminder that it is not your "site". Once it's up on WP, it is everyone's article. – ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea. This is everyone's article if it's on WP. It isn't owned or hosted by any one person. It will continue to be edited and modified mercilessly as long as it's here, that's the nature of this project. It is not a platform, it's for people needing encyclopedic knowledge. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ummm...sorry about that. I realize this is a public resource and that the page can be edited by anyone and everyone. And I realize it's not a platform.

I'm trying, folks. Seriously. RicciJoy (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Issues tags

I added the issues tags. The sources and references situation is a little better, but the article needs references to coverage in reliable sources - press articles etc. Neutrality: IMHO this has not yet been dealt with. The third and fourth paragraphs are definitely non-neutral and need to be revised to deal with that. This is linked to the advertisement issue -- some of the article still reads like a press release rather than an encyclopedia article. I will take a look at it over the next few days and see if I can fix some of these. – ukexpat (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd really appreciate your help. RicciJoy (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Overwikifikation

Article remains severely OW'd. Many wl's lead to disambiguation pages and please don't wikify each word in a term like

[[individual]] [[human]] [[rights]]

Thanks. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 16:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous wikilinks to disambiguation pages

These must be corrected. Check all wikilinks to ensure that they lead to the correct article when you wikify a word. If it leads to a disambiguation page, then link to the appropriate article or do not wikify. Thanks. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 06:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In this regard it is always helpful to preview changes first using the preview button. I then user nav pops (which you can enable in the Gadgets section of Preferences) to check links to see if they are redirects or point to DAB pages so that I can fix them before saving. You can do the same without using popups if you have Wikipedia set up to open links in new windows or tabs (depending on browser). – ukexpat (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

personally I do it the old fashion way of adding a wikilink where I think it should be then click on it to ensure it goes where I thought it would. If it goes to a disambiguops page then modifting it to correct one is easy enough, rarely do I give up because I can't find the related article. Banjeboi 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

overdue

Platforming and misdirecting links removed per wiki Policies and guidelines after a period of requesting NPOV. Sorry, it's just way too much. If anyone disagrees, have a go. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors may wish to also see: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps posting the material to talkpage would feel less severe, at least they could more easily reference it for possible use in the future. Banjeboi 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally, that would of course be the right thing to do but that approach hasn't yielded any positive result here. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 02:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, I may have missed that, generally the main editor has been quite responsive to working on issues and seems to have registered a bit of concern of being picked on, let's call it "newby syndrome" - in any case they seemed to be making good faith efforts and I want to help them become a better editor rather than no longer editing at all. Banjeboi 02:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow - what has it been, days?? And I note, from googling the name Woodhull Freedom Foundation, that this page has the dubious distinction of having the most edits per unique editor in a set period of time. http://www.wikirage.com/wiki/Woodhull_Freedom_Foundation_&_Federation/

I'm a little puzzled as to how you, Mike, figure that it's taking too long and hasn't yielded any positive results. As for what you removed, I would debate that it's not from a neutral point of view and I put the word out to the board and membership of Woodhull to request documentation and citations that will verify the information, or at least provide non-Woodhull references.

I do want to thank those of you who have taken the time to try to help me with this. I assume that, as the page now stands, it meets your requirements, Mike, and I'm finished editing? Will the other tags now be removed? RicciJoy (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 content removed

“ Over the past several decades, conservative forces have advanced an agenda that criminalizes abortion services, adult entertainment, consensual sexual expression, including swinging, polyamory, BDSM, etc., attacks LGBT people and their families, and fosters shame and sexual ignorance. They have succeeded by developing a powerful master narrative that includes a values vocabulary and imagery that reinforces their narrow- minded view of good vs. evil in a forceful and articulate way. It is time that advocates for sexual freedom get off the defensive and develop a compelling counter-narrative. Woodhull seeks to shift the focus of this debate to principles that the majority of Americans hold dear in both their political and their religious traditions: individual liberty, freedom of expression, privacy, and compassion.

A multiplicity of groups exist today whose interests include some aspect of the sexual freedom struggle. However, these organizations tend to be fragmented and narrowly focused, unlike the right wing’s well-defined and coordinated agenda on sexual matters. While Woodhull believes that it is important for various communities to lobby and work for their individual rights, there is danger in allowing the emphasis to be placed on specific forms of sexual expression that our opponents can demonize. Instead, Woodhull believes that the focus should be on the fundamental right of individuals to make personal choices, whatever they may be, without undue interference from the government and society.

”

The above content was removed as being too POV. Before re-inserting please be sure content conforms to Wikipedia's neutral POV policy. Banjeboi 02:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just became more concerned after reading deeper into the section of the article noted above. That, and the fact that we're assisting the admitted executive director of the organization to make such edits has become a red flag, IMHO, but it's just integrity I have in mind. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 03:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, those two paras were my main concern, as I pointed out above. – ukexpat (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the "admitted" executive director was addressing inaccuracies in the article of some sort and used another not great article as a guideline. Let's assume good faith that just maybe they can write whatever they want on their own webpage and don't need to soapbox here but felt that it was appropriate. I don't fault them for following some other article's bad example. Let's keep editing constructively and I'm sure the article will improve accordingly. Banjeboi 11:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just bearing in mind that experienced editors are assisting new ones who are personally involved with the subject of the article to write a point of view . Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're accusing of what but regular editing should be able to deal with this. If something's violating POV then fix it. I would be more concerned if this were a BLP or on a more sensitive subject matter but I see this as a fledgling non-profit inserting too much POV not something warranting a great deal of concern. Banjeboi 21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of view articles diminish the integrity of the encyclopedia. POV is not something that is validated by boldness or ignore all rules. New editors should not be encouraged to edit articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And nobody is "accusing" here. It's really not that dramatic.Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI states "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests", it doesn't state that you can't and indeed many do, in this case it's obvious why people are encouraged not to and indeed, the editor was quite upfront about why they did. I didn't suggest that POV was in some way valid simply that we can be a bit more welcoming to encourage this new user to be a better editor. Many newbies simply leave rather than deal with an atmosphere of confrontation. Banjeboi 01:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing the name of the page and removing the comments

We have recently changed the name of our organization and I'd like to be able to change the big title of this page. Is that possible? If not, can I remove all of the text and just re-direct folks to the new name?

Also, I've made, over several years, all the suggested edits and changes I could make to the page. Can we get the comments removed?

RicciJoy (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article to the new name. The tags should remain in place until the issues have been dealt with, IMHO they have not yet. More third party sources are required and the tone is still an issue. In fact I have just removed a couple of paragraphs of uncited, unencyclopedic content. Also, the section about you is too detailed for an article about the Alliance. – ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this! I've added references, frequently using external sources. I'm happy to make whatever further changes you feel are needed.

RicciJoy (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources with alternate search terms and previous name of organization

• Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance = Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Woodhull Sexual Freedom = Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Woodhull Sexual = Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Woodhull Freedom Foundation = Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Woodhull Freedom = Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sister project, free-use images at category on Wikimedia Commons

Please see commons:Category:Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance for relevant free-use media related to this article.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

Most interesting how its stated purpose intersects with Freedom of speech. Will have to do some more research into that soon. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review passed

This article had a successful GA Review and was promoted to GA rated quality status. More info at Talk:Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)