Talk:Independent Gay Forum

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 articles

Organizations

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Withdrawn, 13 November 2023, see discussion.
no consensus, 23 January 2007, see discussion.

feb 2005

NPOV: f you agree with the neo-conservative and conservative wings of the Republican Party, except their position on gay issues then you may find the Independent Gay Forum helpful. Otherwise you find it fitting to call the Independent Gay Forum, the Conservative-Republican Gay Forum. Radiant! 16:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article looks great, and does not have any NPOV. Browned

notability

Reprinting notability info here, from the AFD.

I expected this to be easy to source considering how often Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch blather about it. But, not so easy. It appears their popularity has tapered as of late, and much of the direct sources of notability have been sucked away by media companies who don't like to host their own content after three months. However, using WP:WEB criterion 3, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster", we have reliable sources that attest this has occurred. First, the New York Press tells us that "The WSJ’s online Opinion Journal went even further, pulling in a piece by gay writer Paul Varnell on the gay conservative site Independent Gay Forum."[1] I don't see an explicit date on that piece, but it says "Pim Fortuyn, who was brutally assassinated last week", so that gives us an idea. Second, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance are using a citation to a piece from the Independent Gay Forum titled "Punishing gays under Islam" which, according to their citation,[2] was published in the Chicago Free Press on 21 October 2001. Chicago Free Press doesn't have their own Wikipedia article, but they do get their content republished by Lynn Conway at the University of Michigan,[3] so they would pass WP:WEB themselves (although it is never a requirement for any source to be WP:N enough to have its own article to nevertheless be used as a WP:RS). So that's two instances of satisfying WP:WEB criterion 3, and either one of those instances alone would be enough.

Also this coverage in the Indiana Daily Student might be somewhat useful.[4] — coelacan talk — 11:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countercriticism

Is this the countercriticism section really necessary? I thought the criticism sections of some articles were there in order to provide balance and equilibrium to controversial issues, not in order to criticize just for criticizing, since that would violate the demand that every edit be the most free from personal views. Because of this, I believe the countercricism section to be unnecessary and counterproductive to wikipedian standard of editing, for it obliterates the reason why some articles have a criticism sub-section -- to offer balance -- by creating a section of argumentation (clearly the case of the Independent Gay Forum's entry), which implies that the criticism section is also about argumentation, which is not what Wikipedia stands for. To create such a section is obviously side oneself to the party that is being criticized. So I'm going to remove the "IGF response to the criticism" content.

Political labels

The article identifies governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative". The governor approved of the execution of Tookie Williams, supports parental notification, opposes involuntary preschooling, and vetoed California State Senate bills giving students "integrated tolerance training" [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55852 link title]. He significantly increased education spending and invested thousands of state dollars in embroynic stem-cell research. Google has 417,000 articles linking him to the word "moderate" and only 189,000 to "libertarian". As a Keynesian, social conservative Schwarzenegger supporter, I'm sick of seeing him pegged as a "libertarian".

Hypocrisy

The Independent Gay Forum is opposed to censroship, but regularly censors people from its own message board. Hypocrisy, much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.142.188.27 (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]