Talk:Human Rights Campaign
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human Rights Campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: IWells.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In Counter-Offense of Sane People
You People Didn't Help Us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.255.86 (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
trans-jacking?
what is "trans-jacking" ?
Should Love Rocks and related CDs not be moved out to their own article, in accordance with Wikiproject: Albums? The Hooded Man 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Controversy section filled with POV and weasel words
- however sparking charges of "trans-jacking" from the far right. What does this mean?
- Sometimes referred to as "Headed by Rich Caucasians" or the "Human Rights Champagne Fund", the HRC has often been the target of critics who claim that the HRC and HRCF do not produce any significant policy advocacy, and only serve the interests of a select minority of wealthy, white gay men. In the same vein, it is heavily criticized for its national, top-down structure instead of a local, grassroots focus. This whole paragraph is filled with POV and weasel words. Heavily criticized by who? Who are these critics?
- The HRC is considered by some to be too cozy with the Democratic Party establishment. More weasel words.
- Given that Kerry was a supporter of such state ballot initiatives [2], many questioned why he had received a "free ride" from HRC, and why more effort wasn't made to defeat the marriage initiatives.. And more weasel words
- It is now clear that, with its change of heart with the ENDA bill, the HRC is now embracing the LGBT community's diversity while still keeping the community's public image mainstream. It doesn't get much more POV than this final sentence.
Ameltzer 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If the question is one of who has criticized HRC, one could include Andrew Sullivan, who has recently published a number of critical items of The Daily Dish. OPen2737 03:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree
Building purchase
If there is something notable about HRC's purchase and renovation of its headquarters, that is not apparent from this article. If there is something notable, that should be indicated. If not, it may not belong here. --Dfeuer 01:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I remember the event being in the media speaking to the event being a moment of transition from renter to a more permanent presence. Benjiboi 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What a dishonest name
This organisation's name is a cynical attempt to mislead people that it is a generalist human rights organisation, when it is actually a narrowly focused interest group. Surely this has been commented on before, and there could be something about it in the article. Greg Grahame (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Seems awfully POV but perhaps you could present reliable sources so others can see what might be added. -- Banjeboi 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
And please Greg, stay on topic. This is not a discussion to state your opinons about the organization. Before making accusations, do research to futher your belief. Azcolvin429 (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
While Greg's statements are too far-going and speculative, he does make one good point: A name like "Human Rights Campaign" is misleading (whether deliberately or accidentally) for a gay-rights movement, and depending on the exact circumstances it may well be worth commenting on.
(Consider instead, for instance, "Human Rights for Gays Campaign" and note the different associations.) 88.77.152.227 (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have anything to offer, but leaving aside the tone of this topic's initiator, I have had similar concerns about the title. In this present moment, attempting to find answers to the origin of the name is what has brought me to this today. I may be a small sample size, but consider me as submitting my own case as testament to the notability of the question of HRC's name. 152.23.53.187 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Sources are not verifiable, article is POV
Blogs are not verifiable references. You have to use the data and cite that source that the blogger got it from and present it without drawing a conclusion.
If Andrew Sullivan's column is an acceptable source, then I will use it for articles regarding National Organization for Marriage.
obviously the article states more criticism than content and is POV, so it shouldn't come as a surprise when it is edited.--DCX (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with the propagandistic nature of the name of the Human Rights Campaign. Would be interested to know the roots of the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.88.217 (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Trans criticism section misleading over HRC's lack of support
The paragraph in the criticism section says that HRC did not support the 2007 ENDA bill. However:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/3543/
HRC has said it doesn't support the bill, but they have also said they support the bill. There wasn't a mountain of controversy over HRC's seemingly balanced "don't support - don't oppose" stance. People were criticizing their support of the bill. The article doesn't reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volfy (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to add to this call for clarification. The section currently says that they didn't support it but one link says they did. The latter would explain criticism. Someone needs to work on the language or make the facts less confusing [to me, please].Czrisher (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted this back multiple weeks to undo an anonymous user's elimination of all suggestions that HRC cares about people who are transgender. I didn't love doing that, rather than going piecemeal, but it seemed appropriate. This seems to emphasize the need for more work beefing up the language on HRC's position vis-a-vis issues of transgenderism. I lack the expertise and time to put that in; I hope others do not. Czrisher (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)