Talk:Kentucky Fairness Alliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kentucky Portal
Kentucky Fairness Alliance is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

[edit] Comments

Corrected: KFA does NOT "conduct training on a variety of topics including legal documentation for same-sex domestic partners, lobbying, and buying a home as a same-sex couples. I deleted this section because it isn't true. Nothing on KFA's website indicates they currently (or have ever) performed these services. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Added information about KFA's loss of the Bluegrass Chapter. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Added article, Bluegrass Fairness of Central Kentucky complete with history and references. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of material

So maybe we can reach a compromise rather than deleting and restoring the same material?

I suggest that the 2004 Marriage Amendment section is not necessary. Rights organizations often support and oppose legislation - specifying this particular legislation seems WP:UNDUE.

And perhaps the "Loss of bluegrass chapter" and "Condemnation" sections could be combined to a shorter "relationship with other KY rights orgs" section? That would lessen the attack-like tone, and still provide information that is encyclopedic. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to violate NPOV, considering that it expresses the viewpoint of one organization (KEF), but doesn't really express the viewpoint of KFA on the situation, or anything else for that matter. It could be written in a more factual tone, rather than seeming like it's there as a publicly viewable attack on the group. --Antcjone (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


I am removing the section discussion the dispute between the Kentucky Fairness Alliance and Equality Federation. After discussion with numerous other editors, it seems that a general consensus is that this section is listed as a direct attack on KFA, and not provided merely as informative. --Antcjone (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Condemnation by Kentucky Equality Federation

I am bothered by the reversion of the section that I have previously deleted. There was a great amount of discussion between several editors before this material was removed. It was NOT removed as censorship; rather, it was removed because as it was written, it expressed a point of view, and not factual information. I would welcome any further discussion on this section on how to make this section more as a factual tone instead of representing the statements from only one organization. --Antcjone (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unflattering information about other groups is placed, such as Andrew Sullivan's criticism of the Human Rights Campaign, criticism of the ACLU, etc. This is not a point of view, it is a matter of fact that it happens. I have viewed the websites of both organizations; see what you think of it now. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited and updated the Kentucky Fairness Alliance page. Review it now and give me your feedback. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the edited version. It seems to me to read in a more neutral tone. I have no issue with unflattering information being listed. Such information can be factual and relevant. However, it should also be framed in the most neutral tone that it can be. I noticed there was an edit between the version restored and the version now. I apologize that I did not get to read that edit. I am glad that this is resolved. Thank you for the rewrite of that section. --Antcjone (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)