Talk:Warriors for innocence

extreme right-wing christian fanatics[edit]

not trying to editorialize here, just not sure what the correct WP:NPOV wording to convey their outlook should be, assistance requested CyntWorkStuff 19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in a related development the people who run the WFI website have now locked their blogs from viewing by non-approved visitors, so it is now only the word of the people who were able to visit the sites and report that they had up christian fundamentalist, neo-con, etc. comments, graphics and links. Don't know what to do about that now. CyntWorkStuff 22:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording - particularly the word fanatics and the italics/scare quotes around hunters - seems pretty non-NPOV to me. -Tacubus 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally my bad. It was not even close to being up to proper Wikipedia standards when I found it while looking for information on the controversy myself, So I was more concerned about getting some reference in place so that it would not be immediately subject to Speedy deletion. Please tell me if you approve of the new wording.

The other line seems to be taken directly from this groups title on it's website which reads "Warriors For Innocence-Hunting pedophiles on the web". Additionally the tag-line on it's graphic reads "Hunting Monsters On the Web". But I'm not sure how to site them. CyntWorkStuff 07:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the italics and quotes from around hunters and the POV tag. Seems all right now. -Tacubus 13:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the wikipedia entries for similar groups this entire section has now been changed, and should pretty much now be moot. CyntWorkStuff 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about Blogs being used as references[edit]

Since this story is literally still being updated as I type this I am having trouble finding nonblogish-type sources. I am aware of Reliable sources and have gone and re-read it several times. However, ALL of the action and the protagonists are on/is about blog sites, so I am being bold and deciding that this may be one of the exceptions that make the rule. CyntWorkStuff 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as I had supposed might happen if this story actually had "legs", as more time has passed other than blog-type media outlets have begun to picked up the story, so I have begun to add them on as references to supplement the more "anecdotal" ones that the article was started with. CyntWorkStuff 09:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware on WFI Site[edit]

I just clicked on the WFI site link from here, and it took me ten minutes to load the page and it froze up Opera. Clicking on some of the comments on the blog, it showed some commenters saying that they ended up with spyware because it was bogged down with it, and though I'm not affected because I use an alternate browser, I'm nonetheless concerned enough that we need to add a spyware warning template to the External Links section. Nate 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I just did CyntWorkStuff 01:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

probably one comment on this is enough putting it on every link makes it look klike people are being warned away from a "bad thing" instead of just informed. CyntWorkStuff 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Shouldn't it be Warriors for Innocence, with a capital I? -Tacubus 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it was like this when I found it. What do you suggest should be done? CyntWorkStuff 07:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for deletion[edit]

Hi Warriors for innocence editors! I believe I notified everyone who has more than 1 edit on this page of my listing it on AfD, if I missed you, I'm truly sorry. Kyaa the Catlord 07:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref check[edit]

http://firefox.org/news/articles/408/1/Six-Apart-Deletes-500-LiveJournals-Many-Fannish/Page1.html does not support what it is linked to as a reference. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 08:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quoted opinion(s) from other online sources[edit]

this quote gives the opinion of the author of one of the online magazine article cited as a reference in the main article LiveJournal: The blogging platform that gay sex built

A blog said the following about Warriors for Innocence's long term goals: "And while it's probably a given that a group called "Warriors for Innocence" is not super-likely to have the best interests of the gays at heart, it's also not far off from the truth to say that without homoerotic fanfiction, LiveJournal would have approximately six users."

Biographies of living persons tag?[edit]

Is this appropriate? This is an article on an organisation (yes, an organisation is made up of people, but that goes for all organisations, and we don't use this tag for other organisations). Mdwh 23:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] noone at the BLP board seems to agree with you. Kyaa the Catlord 03:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable?[edit]

Other than this one incident on LiveJournal, where only a small fraction of accounts were even affected, WFI seems to be a pretty small-time organization/blog no more worthy of being included in wikipedia as an individual article than any other small-time blog. Shall we start making individual articles for each of the affected journals and communities now?

Support the AfD request. Any relevant information can be included in the subsection on the LiveJournal article. Possibly recreate the article should they become notable. 206.255.127.192 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]