Talk:American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

I have expanded the article to make it more useful and I have changed POV comments. --Ebz 09:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


VfD debate[edit]

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

"pseudo-Catholic"[edit]

Offensive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

TFP is recognized broadly within the Catholic Church, especially those Catholic elements actually interested in the historical doctrine of the church. Its ideology is that of the actual historical ancient church, and not profane materialistic nihilistic self-ironic modernity. Leave it to the mocking Judeo-Trotskyite mob of wikipedians to distort everything beyond their own knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.150.83.66 (talk) 04:29, 09 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity please[edit]

Whoever edits this page - please at least TRY to be a little OBJECTIVE! When an article starts off quoting "ex-members" who verify "facts", it sounds like a biased agenda to start with. What person is ever objective about something/someone with which they have parted ways? And how serious is it when someone claims to speak on behalf of millions of Catholics around the world - whether for or against? The best practice for analysis is drawn from what an organization says about itself (without childishly using "claims" this or "claims" that to cast doubt on the most basic things). Just stick to the facts of what the organization IS, does, and says about itself, and be sure to get those right (the part on the Revolution indicated a poor understanding of basic details in RCR). I have attempted to clean it up a bit. As it was, it was an article against the organization rather than about it. Lastly - why include a large section about people (Tradition in Action) whose members may have at one time been associated but no longer have anything to do with the organization? Give them a completely separate space so they aren't confused with this organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.14.24 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 November 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Bishops[edit]

The post on the Brazilian bishops "condemnation" is totally POV. In order to be balanced, you must include the public and vocal support of the TFP of many bishops, priests, and laymen from around the world. Cardinal Jorge Medina, who announced the election of Pope Benedict XVI, send a letter of support you can read here. [1]

The Brazilian TFP was attacked by the Brazilian Conference of Catholic Bishops because of the former's fight against communist and confiscatory land reform which was being encouraged by the government and the Bishops. The defense and propagation of liberation theology by the Brazilian Bishops, a Marxist-inspired interpretation of Scripture condemned by Pope John Paul II, and the corresponding opposition of the TFP, was also a factor. Their "report," in addition to being devoid of factual evidence, was completely irregular regarding the dictates and procedures of canon law when dealing with suspect organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrb416 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TFP Standard.gif[edit]

Image:TFP Standard.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Crusade Magazine Covers.JPG[edit]

Image:Crusade Magazine Covers.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

Shouldn't this page just be called "Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property", the organisation operates internationally and the United States chapter is just one of many. The organisation itself is based in Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.29 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Name changed. Now, whether the article should be "Tradition Family Property" (without commas), "Tradition, Family, Property" (with commas), or "Tradition, Family, and Property" is another matter. What is best? Chonak (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is about the American TFP, not the TFP movement. Another article should be created for that. This article is about the American TFP, which is an independent organization with its own statues, board of directors, president, activities, etc. It is not a "chapter" nor is it "based in Brazil." Name should be changed back to "American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property". Jrb416 (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other TFPs[edit]

An article about the Brazilian TFP was recently created at Tradição, Família e Propriedade. I dePRODed it, but I'm not sure what to do with it now. Tradition, Family and Property currently redirects here. I thinking we might use that for a general article about TFP internationally, while leaving this article about the US organization alone. Alternatively, we might try merging these articles. Any thoughts?--Chris Johnson (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably not enough material on Wikipedia yet about the separate national TFP movements to require having distinct articles on them, so IMHO it would be fine to rename this article and expand it to include info on Brazilian, etc., TFP. Chonak (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Skomorokh  10:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition, Family and Property → American_Society_for_the_Defense_of_Tradition,_Family_and_Property — The article is about the American TFP, not the TFP movement. Another article should be created for that. This article is about the American TFP, which is an independent organization with its own statues, board of directors, president and officers, activities, goals, etc. It is not a "chapter" nor is it "based in Brazil." Name should be changed back to "American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property". Jrb416 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support One for the specific American organization and another for the international movement, or expand that part under Plinio Correa de Oliveira, since many organizations in the movement are not called Tradition Family Property Washinq (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The individual "TFP"s are actually autonomous organisations that work closely together. This article describes only one of those organisations, viz "American Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property". Futhermore, the umbrella is actually called "Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property" not "Tradition, Family and Property", "TFP" or any other such thing. These latter are merely contractions. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The alternative is to move to Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property and simply expand to include information about all the TFPs. Their publications are quite numerous and Catholic newspapers discuss their activies quite frequently, so sourcing should be no problem. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there an actual organisation called the "Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property" which acts as a global headquarters to the various national societies? --JN466 13:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • No objection in principle to articles on both: one on TFP as a whole ("Tradition, Family, Property") and one on American TFP ("American Society...", etc.). The Ideology section would be best moved to the "movement" article, as it contains material relevant to TFP as a whole, and nothing specific to the American TFP. Also, non-English-language Wikipedias' articles should link to the "movement" article rather than to this one, as those articles do not focus on American TFP. --Chonak (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of this seems to make good sense. --JN466 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, two articles as described. Quibble about names later. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remove from "New Religious Movements"[edit]

I propose this article be taken off the list of New Religious Movements, for the simple reason that its fails to prove the TFP is a "new religion" or "cult". The definition of a "New Religious Movement" on Wikipedia itself is vague: "Scholars...continue to try to reach agreement on definitions and boundaries". What?

To be a "New Religious Movement", this article would have to provide references for at least part of the following criteria from the article:

  • Novel approaches to spirituality or religion
  • Communitarian enterprises that demand a considerable amount of group conformity
  • Social identity that separates their adherents from mainstream society

"Generally, Christian denominations that are an accepted part of mainstream Christianity are not seen as new religious movements." Is the TFP not an accepted part of mainstream Christianity? Does the TFP dissent from the Catholic Church on Faith and Morals? Please provide references from their publications or activities.

I haven't found anything on their website to indicate this. If anyone finds references then we can keep it as it is. Otherwise, we should remove it.--Jrb416 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • TFP is not a new religion or cult, it is a subject of the Roman Catholic Church and is fully subservient to her teachings and practices, although it does call some of these into question. I only happen to know this because I have met several members and attended a few lectures at their HQ in Philadelphia. All references to New Religious Movements might actually be attempts to smear this organisation and should be removed immeadiately. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Properly sourced material should not be removed from the article, even if they make what we believe are false accusation.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the claim by the French government has to stay; you are quite correct. The List of new religious movements does not actually include this organisation, as far as I can see. However, Category:Start-Class New religious movements articles and Category:High-importance New religious movements articles do list them. I think that's what Jrb416 is referring to. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is beyond me how the supposedly secular French government determines what is and is not a cult, and therefore what is and is not a legitimate religion or movement. At most this should be posted on the article about the French TFP. Material that contains accusations without proof should not be kept. If anyone can find a serious, scholarly report on the group's activities showing this, then we can keep it. Jrb416 (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has at any rate appeared on the radar of anti-cult groups such as the American Family Foundation; see the entry in their Cult Observer [2]. Also see [3], [4][5][6][7] Also, a religious movement founded in 1960 is "new". That doesn't automatically imply it is bad. --JN466 13:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TFP was included in both the 1995 French parliamentary commission report and the 1999 report, which narrowed its cult/sect list down to just 30 groups. Given that the movement appears to have been quite widely discussed in this context, I am in favour of retaining the categorisation. --JN466 13:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! See your point. New Religious Movement is not nessecarily "New Religion"... Opus Dei are also listed in the cats, despite also being a Catholic organisation. I withdraw my objections. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, a chronologically "new" movement doesn't automatically mean "New Religious Movement." Opus Dei is accused of being a cult or sect by a lot of people, and their founder was canonized by John Paul II. Wikipedia has an article Controversies_about_Opus_Dei. They are not listed as a "New Religious Movement" nor should they be. Virtually all the "New Religious Movements" follow pre-Christian pagan/gnostic beliefs or publicly dissent from major beliefs of traditional Christianity. Again, it needs to be seen how the group fits into the three major points I skimmed from the New Religious Movements article at the beginning of this section. Jrb416 (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Lay Society[edit]

could this be classified as under the category of a Catholic lay society?--76.2.31.201 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NEGATIVE: No official approval. In fact, they have some conflicts with some other real congregations/groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.133.27.104 (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Sources[edit]

This article (and related articles concerning the TFP movement) have been flagged for being based on web sites and other sources closely related to the subject. A previous editor defended this practice with the comment "The best practice for analysis is drawn from what an organization says about itself." This, however, violates Wikipedia policy that requires that "topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." Wikipedia's verifiability policy further spells out that self published sources may be used for information about the subject itself, as long as these claims are not self-serving. but cannot make claims about third parties.

A recent edit changed a description of TFP's "protests against films and plays that it views as blasphemous" to "protests against blasphemous films and plays", thereby accepting the assertions of TFP and its sources as factual. I have reverted this edit, since no evidence has been presented that there is a general acceptance by independent reliable sources that these films and plays were, in fact, blasphemous. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism for virulence[edit]

Under the heading "Criticism for virulence", it states "The American TFP has been cited in several article by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for their anti-LGBTQ views. According to the SPLC the TFP is a “virulently anti-LGBT group." The SPLC is welcome to hold that view, but it makes no sense for this article to cite "Criticism for virulence". "Virulence" is an adjectival noun meaning to have the characteristics of a virus -- usually implying that it can overwhelm the defenses of the host. So it's nonsensical to criticize any group as "having virulence". I would suggest changing the heading to "Criticism for anti-LGBTQ activism/positions/whatever", since that is the thing the SPLC is objecting to, not its "virulence". Bricology (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Oxford English Dictionary and this is their first definition:
virulence, n.
1.
a. Extreme acrimony or bitterness of temper or speech; violent malignity or rancour.
The citations go back to the 17th century, long before the modern discovery of viruses. The definition fits the intent of the section and the SPLC argument. You may disagree with SPLC's description of TFP as a “virulently anti-LGBT group" but, in the light of the OED definition; claiming it's ungrammatical doesn't provide a basis for removing the description. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dated material[edit]

The paragraph talking about TFP Student Action specifies as their most recent activity events from 2009. Either that is not true, or we should be reporting on their demise. (The paragraph after that sources a claim about a school offering "traditional Catholic education" to the school itself; either we need a third-party source, or we need to cast it as being in the school's voice rather than ours.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Society_for_the_Defense_of_Tradition,_Family_and_Property&oldid=1204806110"