Talk:MassResistance

Hate group

As a person who knows something about Mass Resistence group, I find the expression ” hate group” unsuported by a source, in the very begining of the article, unreal, offensive, subjective and inciting hatred towards the members of that group. The fact that Southern Poverty Law Center designated it as hate group is a one thing, the fact that the author calls it hate group is another ( the many parents concerned about LGBT activities in schools would agree Mass Resistence is not a hate group at all, and their opinion should count too ). The author should provide a source himself for his claim. I suggest he either does that ( by mentioning his name ), or deletes the word ”hate”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cichirmeza (talk • contribs) 09:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont hear from you, AVATAR317. It appears you can not or do not want to admit that, while trying to defend a certain group of people against hate, you incite hate against another group of people by bluntly stating, without mentioning your name, in the beginning of an article that can be seen world wide:” this is a hate group”. I am seeing this article from Europe, as a non American citizen ( which might explain my imperfect English ) who happens to know something about Mass Resistence ( specifically, the actions they take in the name of many parents concerned about what their children are taught in schools). And I tell you, that ” Mass Resistence is a hate group” by the incognito you is indeed offensive and inciting hatred. The fact that Southern Poverty Law Center designated Mass Resistence as a hate group is a different thing, because it is an accredited organization whose decisions can be legally challenged. But who are you...?Cichirmeza (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cichirmeza: in the lead sentence we summarize the article topic. One thing that makes this group notable is its designation as a hate group. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, summaries what secondary reliable sources say about the article's subject with a neutral point of view. In this case, we do ascribe that designation to SPLC. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir ”Mass Resistence is a hate group” sounds to me like the personal conviction of an incognito person. More correct would be: ”Mass Resistence is considered by some a hate group (...).”Cichirmeza (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a summary statement of the article (again, see WP:LEADSENTENCE). We don't use "considered by" or "some say" per WP:WEASEL. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Citing the link you provided: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." You are not doing that, you are summarizing a subjective description from a popular private association. And it´s especially convenient when that description comes from one of the group's main detractors. How is that a NPOV still baffles me. P.D.: I am not affiliated in any way with MassResistance. Sakuxon (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cichirmeza:1) *I* didn't write this article, or the specific content you don't like, otherS did; I just happen to watch this article and reverted your changes. 2) Per Wikipedia policy, statements properly supported by WP:RS can be stated in "Wikivoice" as fact. The SPLC statement is atttibuted, per policy. Please also see WP:SPLC. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317, all I want right now is to eliminate the word ”hate” from ”Mass Resistence is a hate group that promotes anti LGBT (...).” It is already used in the next phrase, with the proper citation. Do I ask for too much? I think it is fair, as long as I and a lot of people do not consider Mass Resistence a hate group, and our opinion is important. Will you revert and report me again if I delete the controversial word?Cichirmeza (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources? Also, who is "we" in "our opinion"? Pluralis maiestatis? Kleuske (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cichirmeza: Per Wikipedia policy, your OPINION (and my opinion), and your group's opinion simply DON'T MATTER. Anecdotes are not data. Opinions of editors are IRRELEVANT. We write articles based on what RS's say about subjects of articles. The very good reason for this is that if you claim to be an expert in some subject matter, and I also do, and we have differing opinions, there would be no resolution for our difference of opinion. Sticking to what sources say solves this problem.---Avatar317^(talk) 21:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

All right, Avatar 317, then add the source to the statement ”hate group” in the beginning of the article. Just to stick ”to what sources say”! I am asking you to respect Wikipedia”s policies and mention the source of ”hate group” expression in the leading sentence. Even if a source is mention in the second paragraph. Prove you are impartial.--Cichirmeza (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cichirmeza:It’s not a Wikipedia policy to duplicate sources in the WP:LEAD which you should have read by now. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, you should not try to write a separate article on the group. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Camenker's Residence - History Section Update

Brian Camenker moved to Westwood, MA sometime in past two years. He no longer resides in Newton. He is active in town politics in Westwood - citation from Office of Campaign Finance Reform (OCPF): https://ocpf2.blob.core.windows.net/pdf/filers/76601/76601-cpf101a-1-042822.pdf This Report to OCPF lists Brian Camenker's home address as University Ave in Westwood and lists Camenker as Chair of Westwood Republican Town Cmtee. Cliffthird (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Recommending semi-protected status

Persistent vandalism/unhelpful editing of the page. Recommending semi protection. Zenomonoz (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)