Talk:Family Research Council

Funding

I am going to change the wording of the funding section to indicate that:

1. The annual amount of $1,000 should be used to put the amount in perspective, and
2. Indicate that WinShape is not an arm of Chick-fil-A, but a separate entity (although they receive most of their contributions from Chick-fil-A and have and have common leadership)

This will put me at 3 reverts, I believe, but I wanted to explain why this version is the most accurate. The other editor, User:Jlechem, will not discuss their edits here or using edit summaries, and has blanked] my notice on their talk page, indicating they are aware they are at 3RR and that they have been asked to discuss their edits on this talk page. 72Dino (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the section entirely. Obviously $1000 is a pittance compared to FRC's annual budget; if someone wants to write something about FRC's bigger supporters, that's fine, but focusing on one very minor contribution just because the donor has been in the news lately is plainly WP:UNDUE. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And earlier I deleted the section, too, before somebody decided to edit-war for inclusion. It's irrelevant. Nothing but cruft. Belchfire-TALK 22:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Phrasing of their anti-homosexuality stance

First of all, the quoted section isn't FRC words at all. They are quotations from some statute or other.

Second, somehow there must be a way to report their homosexuality stance without resorting to their political enemies (e.g. Truth Wins Out) or pulling from an interview without a transcript. Surely there must be a normal, print media source which can be used. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Neutral sources are crucial (or, as neutral as can be found... there aren't many truly neutral sources for this sort of thing). Using material from their political opponents is non-neutral by default. And it bears pointing out that if the organization can't be shown to have adopted a position on homosexuality itself, then it can't be correctly branded as "anti-gay". Report what they've done, but don't impute beliefs to them. Belchfire-TALK 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"the preclusion of all . . ."

A careful reading of the first assertion in the opening sentence of the third paragraph, in the "Politics and policies" section of the article, should reveal that it is too sweeping to be supported by its sources, including the latest source from the FRC's website. Would the FRC oppose a law that protected a waiter, for example, from being fired from his job solely because of a gay sexual orientation (as opposed to practice)? Unless editors can demonstrate such a sweeping opposition to any such gay-ptotective government action, the assertion in question should be either deleted or reworded. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to speculate about what might happen. The FRC has opposed laws protecting people from being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. [1] [2] [3] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at the edit summary offered by the person who tried to insert this cruft after it got reverted the first time. It's quite instructive. Belchfire-TALK 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You people are hilarious. Inserted? Me? LOL. That statement has been there since 2011. I restored it after Badmintonhist deleted it on grounds that the refs merely implied it.

As for "preclusion of all" being WP:CRYSTAL, an argument Badmintonhist apparently inherited from Belchfire's edit summary, what? That doesn't even make sense. What about "lowering taxes" then. Is that crystalballing too because you never know if they might support raising it if it involved a waiter in the future? It's a goal. A self-identified mission. It's not crystalballing in the same way that defining what NASA's goals and scope of activities is not crystalballing. If anything else, you imagining scenarios wherein they might change their stance and support anti-gay discrimination legislation after all IS crystalballing. Here let me demonstrate it to you:

We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. - FRC

They talk more about it in detail in their pamphlet Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right. Here's one of their arguments which deals with your hypothetical waiter, Badmintonhist:

Civil rights laws that bar employment discrimination, however, place a restriction upon the action of private entities (such as corporations) in carrying out their private business. This is why Congress rested its authority to pass the Civil Rights Act not on the Constitution’s guarantee of the “equal protection of the laws,” but on its power to regulate interstate commerce. When such a “right” is extended (for the individual to be free from “discrimination” in employment), it infringes upon what would otherwise be the customary right of the employer to determine the qualifications for employment. The extension of historic constitutional rights is a “win-win” situation, but the extension of laws against employment discrimination is more of a “zero-sum” game—when one (such as the employment applicant) wins more protection, another (the employer) actually loses a corresponding measure of freedom. It is because of this that lawmakers should be exceedingly cautious, rather than generous, about expanding the categories of protection against private employment discrimination.

How is that reference not good enough for the sentence as User:Mangoe claims it is? As for my first edit summary, it's because FRC itself is notorious for their lobbying on these matters. Including the very recent Chick-fil-A controversy. With the removal of the sentence, the article now makes it seem like they barely even get involved in gay matters at all. Whitewashing, yeah? If you have problems with the wording, then discuss how to change it. Don't remove it outright, because actually it's the other way around, unless you can demonstrate to me why they'd be lying in their own mission goals, the sentence stays. Bring it to whatever noticeboard you like, but bear in mind, you're the ones proposing a significant change to the tone of the article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to use secondary sources, but you're right that the lack of weight given to their position on LGBT rights in the article's current version is a bad DUE problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of such secondary sources, like the Southern Poverty Law Center. But they wouldn't accept that either because it's biased. In outlining their own goals, it's best if it comes right out of their own mouths. That way there's no accusation of their words being twisted.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly not good enough, Obsidian. Reread the statement in question and note how sweeping it is. Saying that a legislature should be "exceedingly cautious" about expanding protections against private employers is not the same as opposing all protections against private employers. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Then go ahead, propose a way to reword it if you think it's too sweeping. Because virtually all of their activities DO reflect that stance. By removing it, you're contradicting everything they've ever done. And don't you realize that the pamphlet itself is already part of their campaign opposing gay civil rights? Read it in its entirety. Then go and read their website too, and all the other pamphlets linked within it. They have plenty more of that stuff: The Future of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for example, or Banned in Boston, or The Transgender Movement and "Discrimination" (Testimony of Peter Sprigg to the Maryland House of Delegates regarding "Gender Identity Discrimination"). Take your pick.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, though I'm not much of a Wikilawyer, hasn't Obsidian violated the three-revert rule here??Badmintonhist (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

e/c Gaming the system so soon? No. I haven't violated the 3RR yet. I'm still within the WP:BRD cycle and am assuming good faith here. If you want to break that and turn this into a bigger mess, that's your prerogative.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You exited the BRD cycle 2 edits ago, but if you would like to reinsert the material for a 4th time, I'd be happy to continue that part of the discussion with you at AN3. For now, it might be better to chill and wait for consensus. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL have we advanced to threats now? From a guy who falsely accused me of being the one starting all this? I provided a reference to better back up the sentence, remember? That's a more solid statement for a desire for consensus than you threatening ANI. I don't see any sources backing your own changes yet, except vague statements about it being too sweeping and accusations of crufting. Reword it then. No one's stopping you. That said, I'm genuinely tired of this bullshit happening every other day. Do what you want. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, it's stupid to fight over whether the FRC opposes LGBT rights... If we are going to have an edit war in the article, it'd be a lot more reasonable to have it over whether to call such opposition to "special rights" or "equal rights". Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. The problem here is the peculiar wording, the reliance on partisan sources, and the overinterpretation of the sources being presented. I've put in the pamphlet named above, which should be a lot better starting point that the LGF blog. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorta tired of the bullshit myself. "Don't start no shit, won't be no shit," as they say in the 'hood. Stick to the bare facts, and you won't encounter this kind of resistance to your edits. It's not complicated. Belchfire-TALK 21:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh god. How many times do I have to say that I never inserted anything in the article? I merely reverted Badmintonhist's edits on a sentence that has been in the article since 2008. I also just discovered the origin of the weird wording. Its the exact wording from the Romer v. Evans case in 1996. Why that was used, go ask the original editor who inserted that five years ago, and quit insinuating I did anything other than react to the removal of sourced content. Here's a better tip: follow your own advice.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I support what our sources say, which happens to match what Obsidian is saying. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a hate group.

It's been an SPLC-designated hate group for a couple of years now. This is not controversial.[4] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be the editorial opinion of some news organizations, but not the SPLC itself. Please provide a link from SPLC stating otherwise if you disagree. Belchfire-TALK 06:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a press release from SPLC. Note the URL. Clearly, you are mistaken. I suggest that you politely acknowledge this fact and back down. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The whitewashing goes on I see. Tone it down some more and then maybe just maybe you can even make it sound like they love the gays.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you're being sarcastic, but from what I know of Christians they in fact do love gays: it is homosexuality where they have a problem. Does FRC subscribe to "Hate the sin, love the sinner"? Let's add it to the article. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Belchfire never did acknowledge that he was mistaken, but he did back down, so that'll have to do. I don't understand why he fells compelled to argue about things that are incontrovertible. Seems counterproductive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@Lionel: Haha. Good joke. How about the $25,000 FRC spent lobbying to stop the US Congress from interfering with the death penalty for LGBT people in Uganda? (Which is not even mentioned anywhere in the article, despite the furor it caused, but that's expected isn't it?) They immediately backed down when they were found out of course, saying it was only to change the wording... *chuckles* yeeeeaaah right. How about Sprigg's and Fischer's statements? Liar liar pants on fire? If there really is a God, these people will be the first ones to get thrown in hell. Funny way of showing love that. Anyway, do go on. It's amusing how evil people who claim to be saints can be. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, get a grip on your politics and stick to the sources. One has to wonder about the Southern Poverty Law Center sticking their nose into this particular issue, but it's amply documented that the roster they keep of those they deem "hate groups" contains the FRC. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice that I'm not the one touching the article. Anyway, like the FRC, the name for the SPLC is misleading. FRC has nothing to do with family, and SPLC has nothing to do with poverty. Both have a long history of controversy.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why we had a formal RFC on mentioning that in the lede (see archive 4), and rejected it: SPLC's identification is widely-reported (and often taken as authoritative), but it quite controversial. Mangoe (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know, the only ones who find SPLC designation "controversial" is named hate groups and their supporters. It is used by the FBI, the police, and in court. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the FBI really consider the FRC to be a hate group? I really doubt that; "citation needed", as we say. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. For example, see under "Resources" on the FBI's own hate crimes page here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the FBI does not. Do a search on the FBI web site and you will not find the FRC. The SPLC is listed under Resources, but if you click on it you go away from the FBI website. 72Dino (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether the SPLC is a source which the FBI trusts. This is not about putting "The FBI considers the FRC a hate group" in the article, it is about whether the SPLC is a reliable source for the FBI regarding hate groups. They are. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The question by Mangoe was "does the FBI really consider the FRC to be a hate group", and the answer to that is "no". The FBI does use the SPLC and they do consider them a reliable source, but that does not mean the FBI agrees with everything by the SPLC. The FBI is concerned with hate crimes, and FRC does not fall in that category. That is why you won't find the FRC on the FBI website as a hate group, but will find organizations that commit hate crimes. 72Dino (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Then Mangoe was asking the wrong question. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Could be. If the question was "does the FBI consider the SPLC to be a reliable source", then I think the answer would be yes. 72Dino (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be the more relevant question, given that we're discussing using the SPLC's designation in the lead but not talking about mentioning the FBI. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed. I thought he'd merely mistyped, and left out a few words. Since no one has suggested putting the FBI's assessment of the FRC anywhere in the article, and the only reason the FBI came up was because it was cited as an official organ which utilizes the SPLC as a reliable determiner of who is and is not a hate group, his question as phrased is pointless, sorry. I AGF'd and assumed he wouldn't bother with a pointless question. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out the fact that you highlighted "Poverty". You seem to be thinking it should be a charity organization doling out soup or something. It's not. Poverty Law is a legal term that includes laws relating to civil and human rights. SPLC isn't the only poverty law center in existence either. There are dozens of them. The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, for example, is another famous one. And do have a look at the list, its criteria and what the groups in that list actually do, and who uses the list as a resource, before claiming it's inaccurate.

SPLC is controversial, but not because its list is not authoritative.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how old you are, but I can remember the days when the SPLC was quite active in its original mission of working against Jim Crow laws, back in the days when the three black kids in all my school classes lived in a row of shacks on a back road because that was where they could live. The extension of that effort to coverage of homosexuality remains controversial, however you may want to deny that. The inclusion of the FRC in a list of violent racists remains controversial, however much you may want to deny that. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Too young and not even American. But old enough to know that every violent racist included in the list have claimed it to be controversial, both white and black supremacists, antisemites, xenophobic ultranationalists, etc. Why shouldn't this be any different? Are you saying their standards have changed over the years? Note that SPLC explicitly makes it clear that merely disagreeing with homosexuality on religious grounds does not put an organization into their hate list. It's the incessant propaganda that falsely conflates homosexuality with everything from pedophilia to Hitler that puts it and the others on their list. I can enumerate all they've done, but you're better off reading SPLC's reasons yourself and reading it on the news. Yeah yeah, free speech and all, but only an idiot would not see that all of those are meant to incite violence, and they do. That's why they're on the list. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be better off reading someone else's analysis, I would think, seeing as how the SPLC is not a neutral reporter in this kind of a dispute. Look, I'm not trying to defend the FRC, but you, OS,24+, et al., plainly are attacking it. Your participation in this discussion seems to have the intent of making sure that everyone is told, in so uncertain terms, that these are Really Nasty People. You are welcome to that personal opinion, but the larger truth is that SPLC's tagging of a bunch of trad family value groups as hate groups was quite controversial at the time, and people on the other end of the political spectrum complained bitterly. So did a group of black pastors; many black churches are quire socially conservative. SPLC is routinely characterized as a liberal advocacy organization. Mangoe (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No. My motivation is primarily because the article makes it sound like they are Really Nice People which, even though I'm not American, grates on my nerves given what they actually do in reality. True, I dislike them intensely but again, note that I have never added nor removed anything in the article ever. I'm doing this not out of a personal vendetta for FRC but because Belchfire et al. has been making it even nicer with impunity for months now (take a look at what started this discussion for example). Surely you can't deny that our article is vastly different from how the FRC is actually described by mainstream sources? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC categorizes it as a hate group. "Anti-gay" is listed as the type of hate group or the ideology. The SPLC counted 1,018 active hate groups in the United States in 2011. Click under DC at "Active U.S. Hate Groups" to find them listed. The listing is notable because it is used by law enforcement, newspapers and academics for understanding extremism in America. TFD (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Burying this in the controversy section is wildly POV. It belongs in the lead. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was against you. If you want to bring it up again, start a new RFC. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:CCC: Mangoe is correct; the Rfc found no consensus to place that in the lead. However, consensus can change; a new Rfc may be the best way forward with this, Still. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe, as a rule of thumb, you should never link anything for me unless you've read it, because I'm not just going to take your word on it. If you look at the RFC, it explicitly says:

However, the insertion that was previously in the lead was about the controversy, and the RFC is about whether the controversy should be included.

Emphasis in the original.

I'm not suggesting we mention the controversy; it's already in the article in its own section. I'm saying we should identify it in the lead as an SPLC-designated hate group.

This is a very different issue. In particular, much of the stated opposition to mentioning the controversy was the charge of recentism. This doesn't apply to stating its designation, as that is ongoing. Also, as Chihuahua pointed out, what was the consensus months ago is not binding upon us today. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's how the lead ends right now:

The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy, notably in controversy concerning its position on homosexuality.

Is there a WP:UNDERSTATEMENT? If not, there should be. We're not supposed to report the organization's views as if they were authoritative. I propose something more like:

As of 2010, the SPLC has listed this organization as an anti-gay hate group due to its research distortions and defamation of gays.

That's a rough draft, but I think it gets the point across. Comments? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think reconsideration of the broader issue is long overdue. Other articles on this issue do mention the FRC prominently, among similar groups, because adequate coverage of the topic demands it. It seems strange that an article about an organisation whose name has become a by-word for anti-gay provocation and distortion should not mention that prominently. --TS 23:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Tony. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfc on inclusion of Hate group in lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Should the fact that the FRC is designated a hate group by the SPLC be in the lead of the article? (formalizing Rfc begun by another editor. Please feel free to add categories.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose addition to the lead. I haven't seen anything here that makes me want to overturn the previously established consensus. If it were listed as a hate group by the FBI, that would be another matter, but a listing by the SPLC doesn't seem significant enough for the lead. StAnselm (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the FBI lists hate groups, they rely on the SPLC and other organizations. If they do, would you please link their list? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember something called WP:Notability. SPLC is is cited very frequently by news groups, often for expert opinion on American extremism, as in the case of the recent Sikh temple shooting. They're even in books and we even have an article on Southern Poverty Law Center. A long one. The inclusion itself was widely reported in 2010, again also passing WP:N. Hardly insignificant, innit?

I find it more telling that an organization which when you search in google is primarily described by the adjective "anti-gay" has a squeaky clean Wikipedia article that mentions their campaigns against homosexuality in only one or two sentences, and a paragraph shoved at the end.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As it relates to a matter of factual information used in your rationale, you may wish to consider the inclusion of SPLC/ADL at The FBI's hate crimes home page. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support addition to the lead (although not necessarily the precise phrasing suggested above.) The SPLC has been recognized as a reliable source for whether a group is a hate group by numerous groups, including the FBI, the police, multiple news media, etc, as well as on numerous Wikipedia articles. If you're designated a hate group by the SPLC, it stands up in court. To omit is to do a disservice to our readers by whitewashing the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It stands up in court? I'd love to see some evidence of that. StAnselm (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd also be curious to know more about what this means. Are you saying, KillerChihuahua, that the SPLC is generally accredited the status of an expert witness at trials? Do they do that? I'm honestly curious. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if they've ever been called as a witness, but in addition to the cases they bring to court, if a group is in court and is on the SPLC list, that is submitted as evidence by the opposing party. This is really off the subject at hand, though, and it seems I shouldn't have brought it up, as it is leading to a discussion which distracts from the topic at hand. It is not crucial or even important to their overall notability as an expert on hate groups. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support (since this has apparently become a vote) addition to lead and greater prominence of their actual activities as reported by the sources. I've already explained why elsewhere.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• On the understanding that this is not a vote, I support the proposal. Discussion should continue. --TS 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I thought we didn't vote around here. Anyhow, I'm not married to the draft sentence I tossed out, but there's no question that being an SPLC-designated anti-gay hate group is highly relevant to the identity of FRC. A brief sentence to that effect in the lead would go a long way to restoring the neutrality and comprehensiveness of this strangely incomplete article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - It is an important aspect of what this group represents and what it has become known for. It also distinguishes the FRC as extremist relative to other, more moderate, anti-gay groups with the word family in their name. Per WP:LEAD "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." The fact that the FRC is designated a hate group is a very important aspect. - MrX 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose While the designation may be important, has the designation received significant press? Is the group mainly or substantially known for being a hate group? Unless the answers to such questions are yes, it would be premature to place such in the lead. Ngchen (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you ask, the answer is yes. If anything, the Streisand effect made this even more well known. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

GNews isn't turning up much in mainstream news sources. It was in the Washington Times and the LA Times when it was first added to the list, but I don't see much else. What have you got for us? StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

When I google "Family Research Council", I get the org's site, its Wikipedia page, SPLC calling it a hate group, followed by TPM reporting on the fact that it's considered a hate group, and then an FRC affiliate site. In other words, all but the primary sources call it a hate group prominently. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some I can get quickly:

LA Times, [5], Washington Times, [6], [7], Christian Science Monitor, CBS News, Reuters, Time Magazine, CNN, [8], MSNBC, Daily CallerWashington Post, Fox News, [9], National Public Radio, The Seattle Times, Charleston Gazette, Falls Church News-Press, Boone County Journal, Hattiesburg America, The Plain Dealer (Sun News), ABC News (Yahoo! News), Metro, Yorkville Patch, Digital Journal, News Leader, Dallas Voice, KCEN-TV, Humanistischer Pressedienst, Idaho Statesman, Right Side News, PolyMic, Global Post, The Daily Journal, Colorado Springs Independent, The Inquisitr, Alabama, Digital Journal, Talking Points Memo, [10], The Record, The Concord Monitor, North Colorado Gazette, Florida Baptist Witness, Vermont Public Radio, Omaha World Herald, Sydney Star Observer, Christianity Today, Deseret News, The Daily Beast (Newsweek), Christian Post

Spanning from 2010 to 2012, all mentioning SPLC's designation of the FRC. Issues ranging from the 2010 hate group list itself, Apple pulling their apps, FRC complaining about gay characters in video games, the Chick-fil-A controversy (which is not mentioned in this article, big surprise), and the Uganda "connection", etc. I'm deliberately excluding LGBT media sources, though I'm including the the conservative sources. Anything else we can sweep under the rug?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, this is an impressive list, and may yet make me change my !vote. BUT I clicked on the Reuters link and read, The SPLC made its name partly by winning lawsuits against violent white supremacists. But conservatives criticized it last year when it labeled the Christian conservative Family Research Council as a "hate group". Which makes me think that if the "hate group" is mentioned in the lead, the criticism of the SPLC with respect to the listing must also be mentioned. I am still opposed to the draft sentence originally suggested. StAnselm (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You'd happily include that, as long as I'm ignoring the "liberal" sources. Figures.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying. I was basing it on Reuters, which seemed to be both the most neutral source, as well as the most important. StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note Last year's RfC on this, which rejected such an inclusion, is here. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, that RFC was actually about the entire controversy stemming from them being named a hate group. So, no, that RFC is not about the same thing as this RFC. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Actually, no. That was should the controversy over the naming of the FRC as a hate group by the SPLC be in the lead. This is whether the categorization of the FRC as a hate group by the SPLC should be in the lead. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but I was there and remember it. Upshot? No mention of it in the lead for 18 months or so, per that consensus. Changing the wording slightly or zeroing in on a particular facet of the closing statement doesn't change how the consensus has been implemented since that time. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but I wasn't there so I actually read it instead of trusting my memory. As a result, I'm not factually wrong about what issue the RFC actually resolved.

It's natural to forget these things, which is why you should refresh your memory instead of speaking off the cuff. I'll save you some time by quoting the key sentence, with original emphasis: "However, the insertion that was previously in the lead was about the controversy, and the RFC is about whether the controversy should be included." Hope that helps. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And I don't hate to break it to anyone that consensus can change, regardless of what the earlier rfc discussed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It's last year's news, that has had no particular lasting impact on the organization. No particular reason to include one group's POV in the lead of an organization that has lasted for decades--indeed, that would be the definition of UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Support in light of the recent shooting incident, which appears likely to generate additional RS coverage comparing the "hate group" label to the violence by an anti-FRC gunman, the combined issue clearly will have become a major part of the history of the organization (c.f. this, currently linked from the Drudge Report). Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. If we find the cure for cancer, we're not going to leave that out of the article because the disease has existed for decades and this is a new thing about it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Last year's news? There are currently more than 72,000 Google search results for "family research council" and "hate group". I really don't think this is going away anytime soon. - MrX 01:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If FRC had been labeled as Hate Group for a Day, then perhaps you'd have some point. Instead, it's been labeled a hate group ever since that announcement. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

... And how many of those are NEW reporting on the designation, vs. how many of them are just trivially mentioning it on background in pieces about other topics? It should be obvious to all that as the time progresses, yes, the number of raw mentions of that past event will increase. Also, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking for or why you're asking for it. You seem to be implicitly referring to some unspecified but impossibly high standard that is nowhere to be found in Wikipedia policy. Being mentioned in the context of Chick-fil-A as a hate group is exactly what we'd expect if our secondary sources considered this fact to be noteworthy, yet you bizarrely write it off in advance as "trivially mentioning it on background in pieces about other topics". Huh? What? Trivial? As opposed to? Where in WP:RS are you getting this from?

The bar is not where you seem to be placing it. I'm certainly not going to pretend that your leading question is relevant to this discussion. Ask a question that has some basis in Wikipedia policy, and I'll do my best to answer it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:INDEPTH: The event was covered in depth when it was first announced, notably resulting in several interviews and specials by national TV programs (e.g. the coverage in Hardball with Chris Matthews which resulted in another notable statement by Spriggs mentioned in this article).
• WP:EFFECT: The event resulted in the FRC running full page ads (which again was also covered). It resulted in Apple withdrawing apps used by the groups included by SPLC. It also resulted in an online petition famously signed by 20 members of congress, Jindal, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Boehner, and DeMint (all republicans).
• WP:GEOSCOPE: Event was nationally covered.
• WP:DIVERSE: Covered significantly both liberal, conservative, mainstream, specialized, Christian, and secular sources.
• WP:PERSISTENCE: Event resulted in coverage lasting for months, and has definitely exceeded the normal news cycle. After which it resulted in repeated mentions in light of their activities after the fact, notably the lobbying against the condemnation of the Uganda "kill the gays" bill in connection with the Chick-fil-A controversy, and the "It gets better" project. Both liberal and conservative groups still routinely mention it as a fact. 18 months and it's still in the news should be enough evidence of lasting, historical significance isn't it? I've never heard of this "increasing coverage" rule, can you point out the specific policy?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• somewhat opposed; if mentioned in the lead, the controversial nature of the listing needs to be mentioned there too. Mangoe (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not controversial, except that (duh) FRC rejects it. You think Stormfront admits to being a hate group? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, there is an impressive list of "twenty members of the House of Representatives, three U.S. Senators, four state Governors, and one state Attorney General" who also reject the label. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, these wouldn't all happen to be conservative Republicans who actively oppose gay rights, would they? I mean, if they were, that would certainly explain why they don't see any problem with FRC's bigotry. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To say it's bigotry is, as they say, begging the question. StAnselm (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no question: it's bigotry. This is one of those times when reality has a liberal bias.

And since you didn't answer my question, I went ahead and looked at their full-page ad, signed by the who's who of the American religious right. Just like I said, the politicians were all conservative, and I didn't see any Democrats, either. The text even complains that the SPLC used to just stick to racial bigotry but now it's branching out to include homophobic bigotry. Yeah, poor FRC. They have my sympathy.

The most we can say in the lead is that the FRC and notable members of the religious right objected to this designation, not that there's a controversy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, so what? They're conservative, you and the SPLC are liberal, and where does that leave us? With a controversy. Mangoe (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This really isn't about liberal/conservative. It's about an organization objectively recognizing a hate group. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The controversy, rather baldly, is over whether their identification is objective. That is something that can be objectively determined from the sources; your assertion that they are being objective merely places you in the liberal camp of this dispute. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You seriously consider the SPLC "objective" in this area? StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, they're not a gay advocacy group are they? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what you want that word to mean. They are widely considered to be an advocacy group for liberal causes, and homosexuality certainly qualifies as one of those. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is a generic civil rights organization whose authority on these matters are respected by the FBI. And homosexuality is a sexual orientation. You don't seem to have much of an idea about what you're talking about and your bias is showing. --Scientiom (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the word "generic" could possibly apply here, given that they are being pushed forward on the thesis that they have some special expertise. And as you are someone whose editing hardly encompasses anything beyond articles on conflicts over homosexuality I don't think you have standing on the bias accusations. Finally, as we've been through before, there's no evidence that the FBI endorses the SPLC identification of the various "pro-family" organizations as hate groups. Indeed, the first article in this newsletter gives a perspective on hate groups which the political lobbying organizations we're talking about here would not seem to me to fit into. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See page 21. And the biggest lie of all, just because an organization has "family" in its name does not means it's "pro-family".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pages 1, 21, and 22 mention sexual orientation as one of the irrational bias for hate crimes - have you read it yourself? Also, this document is about hate crimes specifically - the SPLC lists groups as hate groups for defamation using outright lies to incite hatred against particular groups of people based on core traits such as race/color, sexual orientation, etc. --Scientiom (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly "LGBT rights" is one of their key areas of work. StAnselm (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Same with other Poverty Law Centers. And the Human Rights Commission. But are they gay advocacy groups? I find it uniquely American how an organization that primarily deals with violent racist groups and human rights can be dismissed as "liberal". Does that mean conservatives support racism? Why am I even asking.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

St.Anselm's "an action that drew criticism from conservatives" sounds good (though his "on the basis of defamation and research distortions" is not as that is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia's voice). Overdetailing becomes a problem, since if we have to mention opposition to the listing, then we're also obligated to mention support for the listing. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) See below.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Suggested sentence for discussion: "In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group,<Washington Times, LA Times> on the basis of defamation and research distortions,<???> an action that drew criticism from conservatives.<Reuters ref>" StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"on the basis of defamation and research distortions" <- and you came to that conclusion from Reuters alone? Massively ironic wording for an organization that calls gay people pedophiles from "research" by the American College of Pediatricians. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I should have included the attribution in the text, though I did in the edit summary. I was modifying the proposal Still-24-45-42-125 had made in the previous section. "Defamation / research distortions" are his phrase, not mine. I don't know who said it and where, hence my question marks. I must say, I don't like the tone that this discussion is taking. StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That comma splice is problematic. It makes it sound as if it's the SPLC doing the defamation and research distortions, instead of listing FRC based on defamation and research distortions.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to drop the phrase altogether: In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, an action that drew criticism from conservatives. StAnselm (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really fussed with the wording, as long as its demonstrably neutral and gives correct context.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly support StAnselm's second phrasing of "In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, an action that drew criticism from conservatives. " KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that wording seems good enough, though SPLC should be spelled out and linked.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The "hate group" designation is a fictional construct concocted by the organization's political opponents. Wikipedia already gives far too much credence to this particular style of political attack. It's fine to mention it down in the body of the article somewhere, with attribution, since it's nothing more than somebody's opinion. However, we must avoid presenting this as an empirical fact in Wikipedia's voice, and it does not deserve mention in the lead of an article, ever. Belchfire-TALK 07:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, a fictional construct that the FBI endorses as valid. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course, everyone knows KKK and neo-Nazis are love groups in reality and unjustly labeled. Calling people pedophiles and criminals with no basis is also just a sign that you love them. I don't think anyone has proposed that it be said in Wikipedia's voice.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct: we want to attribute to SPLC. Frankly, this gives it more authority than using Wikipedia's voice while simultaneously avoiding POV. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support - The SPLC is a good authority on this issue - their listings are used by the FBI. This fact is also stated outside of the United States in the rare instances that the FRC is ever mentioned in the global media. Furthermore it is an overwhelming sourced fact, and the stating of this fact in the lead is required per WP:WEIGHT, because it so notable. --Scientiom (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support. it is an entirely appropriate inclusion because it comes from a reliable ource and is also used by many neutral newspapers. Pass a Method talk 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support The SPLC is the leading researcher on these types of groups and their opinions are widely reported. TFD (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose SPLC is notable for its opinions, and the classification of any group as a "hate group" is an opinion ascribable to the group holding the opinion as an opinion, and is not a fact of sufficient note (in fact - not a "fact") for inclusion in the lede. I suggest in the case at hand that the subject of the article is not the Nazi party, so the Godwin's Law invocation should not be used.. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying we don't include opinions on Wikipedia in article leads? You know that's not the case. Am I not following your rationale? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinion? So you think the FBI is going to respect and use the listings of any random political group? The SPLC is not what you seem to think it is. It also issues these reports very carefully - only after the existence of abundant evidence does the SPLC list any organization as a hate group. --Scientiom (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, sorry, what you're opposing doesn't seem to address the actual RFC question: "Should the fact that the FRC is designated a hate group by the SPLC be in the lead?" It's not being proposed that the FRC should be described as a hate group in Wikipedia's narrative voice, but rather that the SPLC's classification of the FRC as a "hate group" should be mentioned in the lead. Does this change your !vote? Zad68 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Godwin's Law because the FRC president Tony Perkins has had widely reported dealings with the Ku Klux Klan and the Council of Conservative Citizens (both white supremacist groups). Anything else?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support including SPLC's classification, and attributing it to the SPLC, in the lead, per WP:LEAD. A review of reliable sources shows the opposition to the FRC is just about notable as the FRC itself, and so the question is not whether the opposition should be discussed in the lead, but how? Within Wikipedia, when there's a subject that has significant opposition, the way we handle it is to mention the position of the most notable opposition groups. Take a look at Fred Phelps for example, where we have "The church is considered a hate group and monitored by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center." and the KKK where we have "it is classified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center." The list of source mentions provided by Obsidian Soul above includes many WP:RS mentions (also some garbage mentions, like blogs, which I'm discounting)--enough WP:RS coverage to show the classification has had a lasting effect. Obsidian Soul's subsequent post covering the Wikipedia policy- and guideline-based reasons for notability are also compelling. There are many groups that have voiced opposition but the SPLC's classification clearly looks to be the most notable. Zad68 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The better question would be whether or not the SPLC designation of the Family Research Council as a "hate group" should be in the heading of an article subsection. The whole notion of "hate group" applied to organizations such as the FRC is subjective and, in the current political discourse, largely used for propagandistic purposes . . .kinda like calling an organization "anti-life" or "anti-woman." Badmintonhist (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Or calling gay people pedophiles and criminals? Let the reader decide whether it's subjective or not. But being labelled a hate group itself is notable and should not be hidden, whatever our opinion of it is. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant, but . . . by the way, when did the the FRC call all gays pedophiles or criminals? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You really should learn more about the subject you're voting on. Didn't we just discuss this two headers back? Download the PDFs.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, first time I've heard of notability being dismissed as "irrelevant". -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Maybe you should allow people to respond to the RFC without making a stink over every single comment that doesn't meet with your approval. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

An RFC is a discussion, not a vote. If you want to argue any of the !votes, no one's stopping you. Besides, do read the policies you link to first. WP:NOTAFORUM only applies on OT discussions. We are discussing this article's content. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support FRC is more notable for being designated as a hate group than for many or most of the things mentioned in the lede. It's certainly more notable than, say, the fact that FRC advocates against global warming. MsFionnuala (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Streisand effect, anyone? Belchfire-TALK 20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So I see that global warming has been now pulled from the lede. Hmmph.  :) MsFionnuala (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The SPLC is a widely quoted and respected arbiter of who is and who is not a hate group. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's kinda like calling Joan Rivers a widely quoted and respected arbiter of which celebrities dress inappropriately. The SPLC's listing of "hate groups" (a propagandistic formulation to start with) is basically its schtick, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia should take it seriously. A number of bona fide lefties think that the organization is largely a scam. Moreover, the SPLC.s designation of the FRC as a "hate group" is already in the article. Putting it in the lead gives the SPLC far more weight than it is entitled to. One questionable organization's comments on another questionable organization shouldn't be in the lead.Badmintonhist (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD tells us to summarize main facts found in the article. The SPLC designation is a main fact. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support after a review of sources. SPLC is considered a go-to-reference on hate groups and crimes by the FBI, by a preponderance of research I found on Google Scholar, by a preponderance of mentions in Google Books references,and in a preponderance of neutral Google News Archives references. I think the most serious policy-based objection here was that of Jclemens, and that is the due weight issue, and that's a serious question. I frame the question this way--the inclusion of any sort of hate group labeling, which is more extensive than simply SPLC listings, merits the current weight or so in-text and, as a result, a brief mention in lead. Where the SPLC comes into it is that attributing that label (which most, but far from all) sources do to SPLC, is in my view far more neutral than putting such a contentious view into Wikipedia's voice. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support The FRC positions itself as a Christian organization yet this is held in tension with it's activities which are so profoundly hateful that the nation's leading authority on hate groups has named them as such. This is among the chief notable criticisms of this group and is done so by the SPLC after extensive research and reporting. This notable criticism is earned by FRC and should be the leading notable criticism in the lead. Insomesia (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue in the lead. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Simply adding the SPLC makes this claim and that some bitterly opposed this designation doesn't take away the designation tags FRC on the same level as the KKK and stormfront.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you may be mistaken. SPLC lists many organizations but reserves hate group for only those it research bears out that it deserves the designation. This is what they do, this is what the SPLC is known for. Beyond the label they don't seem to grade how hateful a group is but they do offer reports on why specific groups are considered a hate group. So the extraordinary claim has extraordinary evidence (again what SPLC does). Many of the hate groups don't like the designation but over time this hasn't changed much at all how the SPLC operates. Insomesia (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Balderdash. The perception of what a hate group is, is drastically different than SPLCs definition. Readers that only read the lead will be given the impression FRC calls for open violence or worse.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support per KillerChihuahua. The FBI uses SPLC's hate group definition as well as many reputable media sources. Plus its omission in the lead is quite odd considering how widely publicized it is that the FRC is categorized as a hate group. Search "Family Research Council" + "Hate group" and you get 73,800 hits from a wide variety of sources--including those who are against the "hate group" designation. Whether or not you agree with FRC being labeled a hate group the fact that it is labeled as such is notable and should be included in the lead along with FRC and other sources disagreement with the label. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose All political groups get disagreements from other political groups. To be balanced, the SPLC article should contain more criticism. Roger (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I have started a thread at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#Neutrality to discuss this issue. StAnselm (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: this is one organization criticizing another. Completely undue. Furthermore it is a controversial label--rejected by many. It must be described on the body where the controversy can be covered with adequate detail.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's easy to let our own sociopolitical opinions get in the way of objective, factual writing, and I think that's what's happening here. We should mention this classification within the article, but putting it in the lede is undue emphasis on a controversial, negative term. ThemFromSpace 15:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly support - Multiple sources say the same and their behaviour as an anti gay lobbying organization makes this obvious: 123456.

They are most definitely a hate-group by multiple accounts and sources and sticking it in the lede just reflects WP:WEIGHT. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support StAnselm's wording of "In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, an action that drew criticism from conservatives." - but with SPLC spelled out as i believe Obsidian Soul suggested. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (in part) - A lot of the 'voters' here are simply looking at secondary sources for guidance on whether this is called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Of course, it *is*, so that question is settled. The question at hand now, is whether this belongs in the lead of this article. This is a really a matter of editorial judgement, and honestly I believe the way we describe it is going to entirely be driven by the political perspectives of the editors here. I went and looked at the primary source here, via the website http://splcenter.org and looked at their map of "hate groups", at their list of groups in general, and specifically read a few of their pages describing what they feel makes each entity a hate group or hateful person. The divide the groups into general categories, some are what would generally be considered "hate", some are just "anti-gay". Here's a quote from the "anti-gay" subsection, where FRC is found: "Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling."

Additionally, this subsection opens with the following quote "some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family moderate their views", going on to contrast FRC *specifically* from the "hard core" groups that are also in this category.

While browsing their interactive map of 'hate groups', I noticed that a church in my area had been added for speaking up against adding homosexuality to a protected class for a local muncipality. I guess the conclusion I am drawing from reading this is that while SPLC may actually have some value for tracking 'truly' hate-filled groups, you shouldn't just use the same broad brush strokes they use for a NPOV Wikipedia article. From the SPLC website, "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." and "Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity." Without question, a lot of the groups in their list are terrible, but I think that SPLC likes the 'guilt by association' that they can paint a group with as a threat to make them change their behavior. In short, while they are honest in some ways, they are also quite biased.

I guess I'm saying that it would probably be more honest to indicate a balanced perspective of the Family Research Council in the lead. A pro-homosexuality group won't like FRC, so using a phrase like "hate group" is just a way to portray them in very strident and shocking terms. In our Wikipedia article, we should not necessarily leave out such information, but we should take care to present a balanced lead. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe this misses the point. I read all of this analysis of SPLC and I just can't see how this is anything but original research on your part. Even if, for the sake of argument, SPLC is 100% wrong to call FRC a hate group, this changes nothing. The mere fact that it was designated is one of the first things readers should see because it's just that important. Not important to SPLC or you or me, but to the public at large, which is why our secondary sources bring this up for context. This is an issue for NPOVD. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

While you might call my next statement original research, I think it can easily be supported by sources. Why do so many of our secondary sources like to quote organizations like SPLC in stories? Because it makes it easier to sum things up and it sounds more shocking and sells more papers, advertising, etc. SPLC themselves say in the quote I list above, that FRC is a "moderate" compared with some other "hard core" groups in the anti-gay subcategory. So the question is not whether SPLC called them a "hate group" (because it is true and unequivocal), but whether we moderate our lead in such a way that the nuances here are demonstrated, and in such a way that a WP:DUE balance in tone is upheld. -- Avanu (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the shooting incident, the entire article has been "moderated" extensively by certain people here that anyone reading the article would get the impression that FRC only rarely deals with anti-gay lobbying. There's a huge difference between moderation and whitewashing. What you're proposing is the latter. And yes, arguing it's because it's to sell more stories is unjustified OR as it implies that SPLC is just a random organization borrowing notability from its designation of the FRC. SPLC is notable in its own right for their past activities against extremist groups, for instance it was a major media source in the recent Sikh temple shooting incident which is unrelated to this. SPLC designated FRC because it's an organization that spreads false propaganda that gays are pedophiles. How is that not provoking violence? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be overstating what I said. And, a lot of what you just replied with is outside of what I stated. Obviously, SPLC is WP:Notable, and people running around shooting others is not the same as someone saying 'homosexual behavior is an affront to morality'. I can say that you shouldn't cheat on your wife, but I hardly see how that is a provocation to violence. What I did say above is that media organizations love bright-line contrasts -- Democrat vs. Republican, Conservative vs. Liberal, and Gay vs. Straight. When SPLC paints a group, in many cases, it is a very obvious color that didn't even require SPLC to declare it. But for some groups, it is a bludgeon, intended to work via guilt by association. Not all SPLC 'hate groups' are equal. I never advocated a featureless tone, but a neutral presentation of sources is required by Wikipedia. We don't add our bias to theirs, and we don't carry others' bias for them. We present it, and we walk away. -- Avanu (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Again, being merely against homosexuality on religious grounds does not place you in SPLC's list. The Mormon church isn't on it, is it? Read SPLC's rationale. And be aware that FRC does more than just say "homosexual behavior is an affront to morality". They actually accuse LGBT people of being pedophiles even on national television. If I publish pamphets, books, and articles and go on national TV calling you a pedophile, such that millions of people would believe me, would you also call that "hardly a provocation to violence"? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of a red herring. FRC does not make a distinction between pedophiles that molest children of the same sex versus homosexuals. Whether a same-sex pedophile is *also* a subset of homosexuality is a bit like asking whether a different-sex pedophile is a subset of heterosexuality. These seem like outdated notions in today's society, but it wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was classified as a psychological problem just like pedophilia. Like I said, this is a red herring. A pedophile *is* a pedophile. FRC claims to have research justifying their beliefs. If society changes its attitude on pedophilia, will that make those who hold to the older views hateful and bigoted? I'm not justifying whatever it may be that FRC believes in, but the question before us now is whether we mention SPLC's designation in the lead, and how we do it. I'm just not interested in a forum-ey debate on whether FRC is justified, whether SPLC is justified, whether homosexuality is a choice or whether its genetically or environmentally determined, or whatever else. The statement of "merely against homosexuality on religious grounds doesn't place you in SPLC's list" is a bit untrue. As I stated above, a city government was voting whether to grant homosexuality protected status. A church spoke up against this and ended up on SPLC's list. SPLC can decide when and where a group violates its standard enough to get on the list, it isn't cut and dry. For some groups, it is a well-deserved public shaming. For other groups, it is likely just a bludgeon to get them to fall in line. At this point, I feel like I've explained and overexplained. Let's focus on the actual issue, not all these sidelines, please. -- Avanu (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that statement? FRC does make a distinction, and they do specify that homosexuals aim to molest children, citing dubious studies by political groups masquerading as scientific ones. Have you read the SPLC rationale? Read it. Then read the booklets hosted by FRC in their site. When we're on the same footing, come back here and discuss instead of making personal rationalizations that's not based on anything the FRC has stated regarding their views.

And please specify which church? I can bet you they aren't as pure as you claim they are. Traditional Values Coalition? They also claim that gay rights activists aim to legalize adult/child sex. Abiding Truth Ministries? The latter claimed gays were responsible for the Nazi party (apparently not aware of the pink triangle) and were responsible for the introduction of the death penalty for homosexuality in Uganda. Chalcedon Foundation? The latter is one of those "Christian Identity" groups, and is on the list for more than one reason. They seek to reimpose white rule and a policy of eugenics, with a death penalty for the "incorrigible children"? Which?

These are the issues, since your opposition rationale is that the inclusion by SPLC is arbitrary.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Avanu eloquently stated what I have been thinking all along. This is one organization stating what they believe. Whether the FBI uses their listing or not isn't really relevant. The FBI uses multiple listings. This even seems to be a misrepresentation of what even the SPLC is saying. There a different 'degrees' of organizations on the list. Just being listed, doesn't make you one of the nebulous 'hate' groups. Anyone with a rational mind will not think FRC and the KKK are on the same scale. Leave this for the body where it can rationally be discussed.Marauder40 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:LABEL. The same reason why we don't call al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. But you could say that they are referred to as a hate group by <insert organization name here>.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the idea. See the proposed sentences below. None of us are proposing that it be done in Wikipedia's voice. But that SPLC be explicitly mentioned as the organization that designated the label, which has proven notable again and again, most recently in light of the shooting.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't say is an American conservative Christian hate group and lobbying organization. That would be labeling.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No. The [current version of the] single sentence to be added is the following: "As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which has drawn criticism from [some?] conservatives [/conservative leaders]." -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support. Per my arguments in the previous RFC,a nd the cintinued mentioning of the fact since then.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a neutral organization, but rather a left wing group. Including its opinion in the lead would violate both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Discussion in the body of the article is fine, however. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  the FBI thinks the SPLC is neutral. Why do you not trust the FBI, Torchiest? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  Can you show me a statement from the FBI saying they consider the SPLC to be neutral? Also, please don't cast aspersions on my motives. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  Go to [11] and scroll down to the Resources section - the FBI usings SPLC's listings for tracking hate groups. --Scientiom (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  The FBI web page does not say that the SPLC is neutral. It merely lists the SPLC as a resource, along with the ADL, another 1-sided political group. Roger (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

By listing it as a resource, the FBI is saying it's reliable. Absolute neutrality is impossible; even the FBI isn't "neutral" towards the KKK, is it? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the FBI is only saying that it is a resource. Roger (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It goes totally without saying that the SPLC's position on the subject is going to be biased. I feel that putting anything about this being a hate group in the lead would be fantastically divisive and undermines the credibility of the project. People and organizations say nasty things about each other constantly, we don't need to lend undue weight to them. I also agree with Obsidian Soul Jojhutton... there's is a reason we don't call al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. Referring to soemthing as a hate group resides on the same slippery slope. Trusilver 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that, heh. You mean User:Jojhutton. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

heh, thank you :) noted. Trusilver 20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain how it's biased if the SPLC is used as a resource in hate crimes studies by the FBI?

People use biased resources all the time. I use Wikipedia, even tho it has biases. That FBI site also cites ADL, also a biased group. Surely you agree that the ADL is biased. Roger (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So? Bias does not always preclude reliability does it? All these arguments stemming from "SPLC being liberal" fails to ask the real question: how does SPLC's rationale for the classification fit with the actions of FRC? The answer to that is perfectly. Point out one thing mentioned in the SPLC designation that FRC didn't actually do, and you'd have a case of bias getting in the way. Otherwise, the argument has no value whatsoever. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as long as it's clearly attributed to the SPLC along with the classification (i.e., "anti-gay", not supremacist or racist, etc). The reader can draw their own conclusions as to what that means, including whether or not they perceive the SPLC to be biased. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section make it clear what should be included in the article lead. It states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The body of the article has four sections that have narrative text -- the second largest of these is the controversy section. If the material deserves the attention it is given in the body of the article, then the MOS requires that it be included also in the article lead. A single sentence in the lead (as proposed) is a very minimum effort at meeting this requirement. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support SPLC designations are highly reliable and well cited by secondary sources. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of the SPLC's classification of the FRC as a "hate group" in the lead, per zad68's reasoning above, in a form something like Since 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group. The classification is notable in and of itself, reinforced by the public attention given to whether the classification contributed to the shooting. I'm troubled by the proposed appending of the weasel clause an action that drew criticism from conservatives, but see that there's a separate discussion on the exact wording. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The SPLC's information is used by the FBI, which speaks to the notable importance of what the organization publishes and researches. Also, the designations of "hate group" or "anti-gay hate group" have particularly specific criteria in designating those classifications. The lists are neutral and are comprised of groups labeled "hate groups" due to their own behavior against groups of people, laid out plainly and concisely. FRC says that gays are deviants and pedophiles, strongly promotes "pray-away-the-gay" therapy, calls for the criminalization of gay people, and says that homosexuality is destructive to society. Everything listed is supported by reliable secondary sources and statements from FRC itself up until even just recently. I think the "anti-gay hate group" label is more than worthy to be placed in the lead. However, noting that conservatives criticize the label is also supported by me. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 03:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Point of order: According to WP:RFC and WP:CLOSE, when the time comes, we should have a neutral admin formally close this RFC, as there appear to be a number of !votes that fail to ground themselves in Wikipedia policy and must therefore be ignored in any sort of count. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support As per WK:LEAD; "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Misha Atreides 05:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the best support rationale I've seen yet. I would change my !vote to support if then addition were to focus on the controversy of the labeling instead of the label itself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't have any reservation, being that the addition is only one sentence and will contain both parts. ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 16:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It remains to be seen how this will be accomplished. The controvesy IMO is that that labeling paints FRC in the same light as "traditional" hate groups ala KKK. If this can be addressed, I'll have no problem switching to support. If the consensus goes through without it, I'll be bold and add it myself which might lead to another RfC. But I'd very much like to avoid that because for some readers the damage will have been done and it is often irrepairable (which is what I think the POV pushers want) And interestingly enough here is a brand spanking new RS which corrobrates this sentiment. I'm sure there are others out there.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The more you characterize others as "POV pushers", the more you violate WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Look at Ku Klux Klan; that's how we should mention hate group status. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Were your ears burning? We always should try to assume good faith, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you ask, I was yawning, and not from sleepiness. Nothing is more boring than a POV pusher calling everyone else a POV pusher. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea what my views are. You blithely assume that because I oppose your blatant POV pushing I'm "on the other side". I'm not here to push an agenda, I'm here to build an encyclopedia.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. Why were you here the last time you edited Wikipedia, when you had another account? What was the account named? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Stay on topic you two and quit the sniping, it adds nothing to the main discussion. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Red herring & adhomniem with a slice of troll. Well done.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) (sorry Jen, you are correct however)

• Support It's a reliable source; it also has significant due weight, evidenced by the sheer number of secondary sources as shown by Obsidian soul. User:IRWolfie- 22:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unless a few more organisations (and anything synonymous with that) classify it as such. Otherwise it is undue weight that may direct the reader to an opinion of the FRC that is held by only one organisation. Basically, wait and see if others classify it as a hate group. Acoma Magic (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You realise Obsidian has listed about 40 at the top of this section that refer to it as a hate-group? That's far above and beyond what is considered reasonable. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

News sources don't count. The language I'm after is something like: "The SPLC, ...., ..... and ..... classify the FRC as a hate group." An opinion article by the LA Times doesn't fit in. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How many organizations are in the business of monitoring and identifying hate groups? Off the top of my head, the only other one I can think of is the ADL, and it has somewhat different, though overlapping, criteria. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Whether one likes the fact FRC has been so listed or not (and certainly FRC have so far made no attempt to refute any of SPLC's specific findings which led to that listing), clearly the organization has been widely noted for that listing, and so it is a legitimate part of any NPOV summary of that organization. Alfietucker (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support strongly including in the lede (and body, of course). It is a very significant fact. SPLC is not a political organization. It is a well-known, non-profit civil rights group whose data is widely used by law enforcement, educational institutions and the media. Here is the list of all the anti-LBGT organizations that are labeled as hate groups by the SPLC. 15 of them have full WP articles. 8 of the 15 have it in the lede. But all of them should have it in the lede. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pending close: Oppose = 16, Support = 25. Consensus leans to support. Will close as "Consensus: Support" but someone else will have to make any changes itself, I'm just closign the RFC ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I know 25 versus 16 is not consensus. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Shooting incident

A section has just been added about a shooting incident[12] - IMO this is a bit hasty. We don't know if this is an act against the RFC FRC or if it was random violence. If it was an act against the FRC, it is notable for inclusion, but if it isn't, then it isn't even relevant to this article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean FRC, not RFC.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I typo a lot, sorry.KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, reverted. Zad68 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reinserting momentarily. According to Fox, "The suspect "made statements regarding their policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard," a source told Fox News. WJLA-TV7 reported the suspect was also shot. Authorities were treating the attack as a case of domestic terrorism."[13] Belchfire-TALK 17:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

e/c: Fox News reports that the shooter "expressed disagreement with the conservative group's policy positions"; BUT Washington Times is more conservative in simply saying his motives were unknown. Not enough detail yet, but it certainly makes the situation gnarlier isn't it? Good old Fox News, predictable to a T, it's terrorism now, but the Sikh shooting wasn't. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with this. It still fails all of WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Read the current history section--it is a very general, 5-sentence overview of the organization's 30-year history. A paragraph about one violent event which will not have any lasting effect on the organization is undue. Do you really think this shooting will be a significant part of the FRC's historical identity even six months from now? Probably not. And if it does, we'll add the info about it at that time. Zad68 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not recentism. Within the context of the organization's history, the shooting is significant and will remain so in the future. Editorial decisions will need to be made concerning precisely which details belong in the article, but at this point there is no serious question that it should be included in one form or another. Belchfire-TALK 17:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, but that seems like an absurd thing to claim. This shooting happened hours ago, and the target was a security guard. It's pure WP:CRYSTAL to guess "the shooting is significant and will remain so in the future". If the target were one of the FRC board members themselves, or if the FRC released a sudden statement declaring a significant shift in policy because of the incident, I'd agree with you. But we (you and me together, as Wikipedia editors) right now do not have any reliable sources to back up an assertion that this will have any lasting effect. And it's strange to claim there is "no serious claim that it should be included in one form or another" when there are three of your fellow Wikipedia editors arguing just that in this thread. Zad68 17:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just let time shake things out. The basic significance of the incident will probably come out over the next few days.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If the shooting is politically motivated against an organization listed as a hate group, then I would say it is noteworthy and should be included. If it was something random or a personal dispute with an employee, then it should not be included. I think we should wait to find out if there is a connection to the FRC's hate group designation. And the victim was the security guard, but he was not necessarily the target. 72Dino (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Fox report is uncorroborated at this point, I'll agree that more time is needed to let things settle down. Probably hours, not days. The notion that a "shift in policy" is needed to establish notability is just silly. I'm prognosticating here, but it seems like a no-brainer that FRC is going to be beefing up security. Furthermore, it also seems likely that SPLC itself is going to come under attack for creating the climate that led to this (which is actually already beginning to happen). Belchfire-TALK 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

e/c: Agree. Once the details come out in the next few days, we can determine if it's related or not. Its lasting historical significance and the due weight required can be determined later per WP:Notability (events) depending on the coverage.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

topic-related sniping
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ohoho. So now you're admitting SPLC's designation was notable? Since you've become a bleeding heart all of a sudden, the guard got wounded in the arm. Compare that with the climate FRC and AFA created: Violence against LGBT people#Criminal assault, take special note of the FBI reports.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I never said SPLC's pronouncements aren't notable. What I said is that SPLC's pronouncements are political opinions that don't deserve lead space. Officials at SPLC are on record admitting their political motivation. That SPLC has gradually become a hate group itself is a gathering storm that borders on sufficient notability for inclusion in the appropriate article(s). Belchfire-TALK 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC) One thing I like about Wikipedia is that nothing gets lost. Quoting you: "That seems to be the editorial opinion of some news organizations, but not the SPLC itself. Please provide a link from SPLC stating otherwise if you disagree. Belchfire-TALK 06:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)" See what you did there? And now a U-turn. I can actually see your mind spinning right now, gloating at the PR possibilities of making FRC smell even better. But whatever.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC) You have a vivid imagination, and perhaps a reading comprehension issue. But whatever. Belchfire-TALK 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Unless you're speaking Martian, you just said that SPLC never called them a hate group there. It's what started the discussion in the first place. Ah, the joys of selective memory. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Would both of you please stop the sniping. Review WP:TPNO and WP:CIVIL. This is incredibly unhelpful. Zad68 19:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If anyone would like me to take a picture for use in the article, this is one block from my office. All the police cars and camera crews are out there. :) MsFionnuala (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, take pictures. We may not need them for this article, but better to have and not need, etc. And they may be useful elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

topic banned editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are you people kidding me? The sources are clear. Instaurare (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Still no word regarding motive except from FOX and those citing FOX, and several sources say the FBI says it is too early to tell[14] so this is not "clear" at all. Wikipedia is not news, and the world will not end if we wait for the dust to settle. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, are you on an LGBT topic ban??? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Yes...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instaurare (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 August 2012‎ Then you're not supposed to be editing this article. Revert yourself before you're violated. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC) How so? Instaurare (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Because this article is part of LGBT. You're violating your ban. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Look at the top of this page. See the big banner that says "WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)" ? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Any article tagged by the wikiproject I am forbidden? The way I've understood "broadly construed" means if I was TB'd from PlayStation, I could still edit Sony. That's how I saw it explained to someone else on ANI once and haven't seen anybody saying something to the contrary. FRC's work is not limited to homosexuality/abortion. If the enforcing admin says I'm over the line here, I'll revert, but I believe I'm on solid ground. Instaurare (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I beg to differ. If there is a big LGBT banner at the top of the talk page, you're not supposed to be editing the article if you're under an LGBT ban. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Frankly, I don't give a flying fig how you interpret it; I see that you've already contacted HJ, so I'll wait to hear from him and him only. Instaurare (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC) That is regrettable, I am an administrator with considerable experience with topic bans, including at WP:AE and I have never had a decision of mine overturned; that is not to say that it might not happen but to let you know I do know a bit about this subject. That you have now edit warred to reintroduce your addition after it was pointed out to you that this is an LGBT article makes things worse. I think you are making a mistake. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WaPo also now reports the shooter made statements regarding an anti-FRC motive, and includes that he was carrying something related to Chick-fil-A on his person: [15]

CNN generally corroborates about the shooter's statements: [16]

Even The Advocate is willing to mention the shooter's motive: [17]

I'd say it's firmly established that this wasn't a random act. And with that, it follows that there can be no serious claim this is not a notable event. Belchfire-TALK 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say it is moving closer to that, yes. I still think need to let the dust settle before adding this, and discuss where it goes in the article, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think enough sources have indicated that the shooting is connected to the views of the FRC. And as we have seen today, you are going to be spending a lot of time reverting other editors adding it in anyway. I think the dust has settled sufficiently and now it's just a matter of where in the article to put it. 72Dino (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree about adding the shooting, I'm less convinced about the motive, y'all might recall that based on NBC, CNN and NPR sources we reported the death of Gabrielle Giffords. Breaking news makes for crappy sources. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Some interesting details are emerging: Shooting suspect was volunteering at LGBT center, corroborated here: Suspect in wounding of guard at Christian lobbying group had been volunteering at LGBT center Belchfire-TALK 22:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

*nodnod* (Not "corroborated", though, those are the same AP report.) --j⚛e decker^talk 22:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, but we are generally pretty safe going with an AP report. It beats out local TV stations for fact-checking and credibility. Belchfire-TALK 23:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need soundbites

Is it really important to have quotes from 25 LGBT groups or NOM in the article. There will no doubt be many quotes over the next few days as various groups try to co-opt this event for political gain. I think the article would be stronger and more encyclopedic without these soundbites. - MrX 01:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed hate group mention in the lead.

I'd like to propose the actual sentence, based on what was discussed above.

As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which drew criticism from conservatives.

The grammatical change was to show that the designation is ongoing. It's "as of" and it's a "decision", not simply a one-time action.

In keeping with the compromise, I retained the mention of the fact that conservatives did not like this at all, which acts as a nice foreshadowing of the whole he-said/she-said section below. I think this is pretty close to what we need, but I'm always open to suggestions. Comments? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but it should say some conservatives. - MrX 19:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. You have a point. It's not that some conservative people complained, it's that notable conservative leaders (I accurately called them the who's who of American conservatism) complained. Let me try to adjust the sentence based on this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again:

As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which drew criticism from American conservative leaders.

Better? Worse? Is "American" really needed? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No. SLPC classifies FRC as a hate group due to their positions on homosexuality, which is already mentioned in the lead. Lead sections are supposed to be concise. Furthermore, SLPC is the only organization that I'm aware of that makes this classification, so therefore adding it to the lead gives it undue weight. I suggest you be careful with continued POV pushing. You appear to be attracting unwanted attention.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than violating WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEFIELD, do you have anything to contribute here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No. FRC was included because of its false correlation of homosexuality with pedophilia in their numerous campaigns which endangers people's lives. They were not included simply because of its religious stance against homosexuality. There are plenty of Christian lobbying groups that oppose gay marriage, etc. that SPLC hasn't included in the list. Lead sections are supposed to summarize the most notable aspects of the subject. SPLC may be the only organization, but the classification is demonstrably notable and thus due. And lastly, a week old account having been similarly involved with Belchfire in changing the wording in related articles without consensus, that warning on POV pushing comes off a bit hollow, don't you think? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a statement that implies unanimity by a political group where it probably doesn't exist. Limiting it to American conservatives, or American conservatives leaders doesn't solve that problem. How about some, many, a few, several...? Or better yet, leave out 'conservative' and say "...a decision which drew criticism from some." - MrX 20:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "some conservative leaders"? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's much better. - MrX 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad we could come up with something mutually acceptable. --Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This section is purely academic and quite likely a waste of time. There is no consensus to add any of this language to the lead, per the ongoing discussion above. Belchfire-TALK 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, definitely not, at least on your planet. On ours, there's a clear consensus, even if you're not a part of it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's the working draft. As you can see, I really am open to constructive criticism.

As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which drew criticism from some conservative leaders.

More feedback, please. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go with it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not like the compromise because it implies that there is parity between the views of the SPLC and a supporters of the FRC. How would this sound, "the SPLC has designated the KKK as a hate group, a decision which drew criticism from some conservative leaders." Also, I we need a secondary source for conservative leaders otherwise it is unimportant. TFD (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The petition signing by Huckabee et al. was quite prominently mentioned in news sources.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

NOPE. We don't revert a year and a half old consensus that took about a month to reach in 2011 with a less-than-day old Rfc which hasn't been closed yet.Badmintonhist (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How about no RfC's at all? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just adjusting the grammar slightly:

As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which has drawn criticism from some conservative leaders.

The secondary source is the Reuters link further up this talk page. But I agree that we shouldn't put it in just yet - the RfC should run its course. It's just nice to have a wording ready. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it really ought to just have "conservatives", since that is what the source says:

As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which has drawn criticism from conservatives.

StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that wording (if consensus goes toward inclusion, of course.) --j⚛e decker^talk 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OBSIDIAN†SOUL, I cannot find the petition mentioned in any news sources. Also, per WP:WEASEL and WP:OR, we need a reliable source to say "some conservatives". TFD (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See Fox News. There's also a mention of it in the article. I'd also support StAnselm's wording, btw.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I added "leaders" to make it clear that these weren't just random conservatives pulled off the street. We have no citations to support the notion that the conservative rank and file criticizes this decision, although I suppose they might.

In any case, there's a finite amount of quibbling that's worth the effort. I'll accept StAnslem's version. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• While digging through history for something else, I found this version from November 2010, which had the verbiage "In 2010, the Family Research Council was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. [3][4] FRC President Tony Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as the result of a political attack by a "liberal organization" and "the left's smear campaign of conservatives".[5]". Just putting this into the mix to see if it helps resolve wording. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't fit for a variety of reasons, the largest of which is that it's not about the SPLC designation, but about the initial back-and-forth after it went public. And it doesn't say "anti-gay", even though the SPLC does. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

How about a simple rebuttal by the FRC:

As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, which FRC President Tony Perkins dismissed as a political attack by a "liberal organization".

Seems like a easy way to keep the neutral tone because it frames it simply as one group vs. another. -- Avanu (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It was neutral to begin with, but now you're making it about the back-and-forth of the initial declaration instead of the ongoing status. This is what the original RFC rejected and what the current RFC has marked as out of scope. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the ongoing status seems to be that SPLC called them "moderate" compared to other "hard core" groups. I'm not sure what you mean. -- Avanu (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There had been an RFC a while about about including a sentence regarding the controversy stemming from the SPLC's initial categorization of the FRC as a hate group. The consensus was that it didn't belong in the lead. The current RFC isn't about this at all. It's about mentioning in the lead that the SPLC designates the RFC as a hate group. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I arrived at this discussion unexpectedly, so forgive me if I don't immediately recognize what the real obstacles are. I'm puzzled as to why a rebuttal by the FRC, a primary source, meets the standards of RS, which require a third-party source. The SPLC classified the FRC as a hate group, based on certain criteria; we need a source that refutes or rejects those criteria. Problem: The sentence in the lead should reflect the content of the section, but to me the section on the "hate group" designation is itself unbalanced and non-informative.

• The SPLC gave specific reasons for the classification, based on excerpts from FRC documents (here and here). The grounds for the classification are omitted from the section.
• The FRC response as presented here is bizarre: The FRC doesn't seem to be saying "the SPLC is lying or misrepresenting us because they have a liberal bias"; they don't deny the claims or repudiate the statements, as far as I can tell from either what we say here or the cited sources. The verb "dismissed" strikes me as non-neutral, as if Perkins' words just make it all go away. I can't follow the logical construction. It seems to be "yes, the FRC holds these views, but the SPLC is liberal, so the FRC can legitimately claim not to be a hate group, because … " What's missing is a third-party source that explains why the SPLC's criteria for designating a hate group are applied incorrectly to the FRC.
• In trying to track down what Boehner et al. were signing off on, I found that the citations in the section are confused. The "intolerance pure and simple" quotes come from this pdf, not the WSJ article that's linked to. (There may be other misplaced citations as well.) Boehner and company seem to be supporting the FRC and similar groups in general in opposition to gay marriage. They neither refute nor embrace the specific reasons the SPLC made the classification.
• Finally, the section concludes with the statement SPLC issued a response by Mark Potok in which he emphasized the factual evidence upon which SPLC had taken the step of making the designation. Potok may have emphasized the evidence, but our article ignores it entirely. Moreover, in allowing the FRC to assert that it's only interested in supporting "Judeo-Christian moral views," we don't balance with the SPLC's explicit assertion that Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups (here, in a source cited in the article).

It just strikes me that the difficulty with the sentence for the lead springs from the dodgy way the section's constructed. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No, your analysis is spot on. The basic argument of the FRC and its supporters is that the SPLC is illegitimate because it's liberal, so anything it says is illegitimate. If a liberal says the sky is blue, it's obviously a political attack that we can disregard without ever showing evidence about the sky. You can see this echoed here among conservative editors who speak of SPLC as being the enemy of FRC, as if that explains everything. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC says Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups because of two things. One is that not all Christian groups interpret the biblical passages the same way with regard to homosexuality, and two, it would seem overly intolerant of SPLC to call an entire major world religion "hateful". They've developed a reasonable set of criteria for putting people into the category of "hate group", even though it seems like an unreasonable phrase for a few of these groups. I think everyone has put too much into deciding if the Southern Poverty Law Center gets to be mentioned in the lead of this article. Just flip a coin and decide already. -- Avanu (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the real issue here isn't whether SPLC gets top billing, but whether, like Ku Klux Klan, this article clearly identifies the subject as a hate group. To do so, however, we would have to attribute to the SPLC. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

LuckyWikipedian BRD

This is a section to encourage discussion of their suggested changes. I'd prefer that we reach some consensus before implementing any of them, as they seem to contradict our sources. In fact, a citation was removed for no clear reason. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you adding in the global warming bit? Show me a single source from their website that suggests that they believe that: http://www.frc.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, you keep on changing "opposition to SSM" to "LGBT rights". Why are you trying to conflate this organization with supporting the death penalty for LGBT persons (as they do in Saudi Arabia). It's clearly not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea would be for you to talk instead of edit war, not in addition. I'm going to report you now. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The global warming language was simply a lie. Neither of the sources given say anything remotely similar to what was stated in the article. Belchfire-TALK 21:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I see where in WP:3RR it says that it's ok to edit war as much as you like, so long as you're convinced that the article isn't the WP:TRUTH. No, wait, I misread. It says the exact opposite! Who would have imagine?!

I'm going to recommend that you disengage. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's always good to do some research before making claims that other editors are conflating issues in an article. For example, Family Research Council Lobbied Congress on Resolution Denouncing Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill.

The removal of the global warming content was disruptive and a simple Google search reveals that it is very well documented. Perhaps it would be better for all of us to try to improve the article rather than simply removing information that we disagree with. - MrX 21:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reported them. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah MrX, it's a good idea to READ what you research. The article says:

"FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality - nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct," the group adds.

I have no idea why you are running a smear campaign here. It's extremely dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Honesty is on page 3.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs better sourcing. Nothing on Scribd is usable. Belchfire-TALK 00:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The United States House of Representatives? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• [CBS]
• [Washington Post]
• [Huffington Post]

-MrX 00:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been buffing my crystal ball, and I predict that LuckyWikipedian will never be seen again. After all, his entire record is a bunch of edits here, followed by a block. If he returns, it'll be under a new and hopefully more original name. I can only hope that he acts more moderately. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• This may also be relevant to the Uganda bill. Sure sounds like they're supporting and defending the bill (or at least opposing opposition to it.) I would also ... suggest that a careful reading of the claims there vs. a careful reading of the bill itself would prove instructive. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I came across that when I was doing research for the Ugandan Resolution section that I added earlier today. I was not able to find any secondary or tertiary references though, and I did not want to introduce original research. — MrX 03:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is "Shooting Section" right at the top of the article?

Why is the "shooting section" right at the top of the article? It's not the most significant thing about this organization. I've usually seen recent events such as this one added near the bottom. Codenamemary (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it once. Viriik moved it back. I'm getting pretty tired of this muscle-arming. While we're here talking, Belchfire and pals can apparently can do anything they want with it. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not a controversy. [18] ViriiK (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And because it's part of FRC's history. This isn't complicated, nor should it be controversial. Belchfire-TALK 00:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The motive for the shooting is, notably the Chick-fil-A section you removed a while ago which is now figuring prominently here. I can't help but notice just now that you, Viriik, and Lionelt have really been at this for months. That just tops the cake more or less for me. Have a great day propagandizing. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. If you want, we can always have it as a separate category outside of history. See Luby's and have a fork. ViriiK (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter anymore. Tag teaming beats consensus any day. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're still personally attacking. ViriiK (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Take it to ANI if you think you have a valid complaint. Otherwise, please refrain from flinging poo. Belchfire-TALK 00:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a Chick-fil-A sammich in your talk page. I know I'm flinging poo right now, but Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is just the pot calling the kettle black. I'm unimpressed. PAs are unconstructive, end of story. Back to work... Belchfire-TALK 00:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Dear editors - if we could get back to the topic, please. I have just added a quite important detail to the shooting incident, given what might be otherwise read into the incident because of Corkins' volunteer work with the DC Center for the LGBT community. It also seems to me that the shooting incident makes more sense in the context of FRC's published strong-line statements against homosexuality and, notably, its subsequent listing as a hate group by SPLC. The latter is surely just as much (if not more so) notable in FRC's history as is the shooting: shouldn't the section "Listing as a hate group by SPLC" be moved and made a subsection preceding "Shooting incident"? Certainly that's the logical sequence which would make more sense of that incident. Alfietucker (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

However there is an issue with that though. We don't know his rationale for this shooting incident since it is still too premature. He apparently had a backpack full of Chick-fil-A bags and related accessories so it could belong in the Chick-fil-A under the same qualifications too. ViriiK (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Alfie's idea has a lot of merit, so I rearranged the sections thusly. Belchfire-TALK 01:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Belchfire. Just to repeat that, regardless of Corkins' motivation (whatever it turns out to be), I think there's still a case for placing "Listing as a hate group" as part of the history, which it undoubtedly is. Alfietucker (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound callous, but the fact that the organization had a security guard shot in the arm doesn't REALLY seem significant enough to me to be listed BEFORE their policies and other central information such as that. I mean, um... Codenamemary (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well what do people think of shunting the entire history part so it follows policies? Alfietucker (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a regular contributor here, so I don't want to horn in on people who've spent a lot of time editing this article...I was just surprised to see an event that happened TODAY detailed so high up in the article. Usually, I'm just accustomed to seeing a subject and it's distinctions laid out first, then you eventually get into it's current events, etc. So given the choice, I would put "History" below "Politics & Policies", myself. Codenamemary (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I tagged this section. These events happened approximately 12 hours ago. I think everyone ought to settle down and let events unfold before making radical changes to the article, although that seems to already have happened. MsFionnuala (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by National Organization for Marriage

A statement by NOM in response to the shooting was included in the article: since, as a non-US reader, I wasn't familiar with that organization it was only when I did a bit of research that I discovered it had also been criticized (albeit not quite as severely) by SPLC. It seemed to me rather crucial for the sake of WP:NPOV to include this information (which makes clear NOM's statement was not from a disinterested party), but it has just been edited out as 'Not appropriate in this article'. My feeling is that if the nature of NOM's statement can't be clarified, then it has no business being in the article at all: otherwise it looks like a very POV addition. Any other thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No objection here. Belchfire-TALK 01:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. See my comments above. I think the 25 LGBT groups condemnation should go as well. - MrX 01:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: no objection to the addition that Alfie suggested. I'm not consenting to the removal of the reactions. Belchfire-TALK 01:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I see that both this and the NOM statement have now been edited out, but I still feel that the LGBT statement is significant enough to be included. The reason I put in the joint statement by the LGBT groups, as I explained in the thread immediately above, was because it balances out any implication that might be read into the fact Corkins did volunteer work with the DC Center for the LGBT community. Any other thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We are in agreement, Alfie. It just took me two edits to get it back to where you had it earlier. I think the reactions are important, and your addendum concerning NOM's status is an important bit as well. Belchfire-TALK 02:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Belchfire - I actually was trying to amend my previous post, but hit an edit conflict. Anyway, glad we're agreed. Alfietucker (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is getting confusing. I agree that the NOM statement should be removed. Does anyone want it in? StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait - belchfire. I think I read his or her initial statement as "I'm not contesting..." BUT you can't say "there is no consensus to take it out" - there was no consensus to insert it. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I think both the soundbites should go. StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious to understand why these reactions are important. It seems to me that it's a lot of detail with no real significance. With regard to Alfietucker about needing balance the implication that somehow Corkins represents the LGBT community (paraphrasing), I think it's unnecessary. This was one person's irrational act; not much different than Aurora, CO. and other recent shootings. - MrX 02:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The reactions are important for context. If nothing else, they help establish the notability of the event. And by the way, somebody needs to put the quote marks back in. That's a direct quote, and the quote marks are in the original. They aren't scare quotes per our MOS. Belchfire-TALK 02:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll go with the flow on this. - MrX 02:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous - you can't have a one-word quote like that. StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I notice that the NOM has been mentioned in a CNN article, which makes me think their statement should stay BUT it would be much better to go with CNN's designation of them ("has actively campaigned against same-sex marriage efforts") rather than mentioning the SPLC. StAnselm (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention SPLC, because they are at the root of this. But what's your reasoning? Belchfire-TALK 02:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning is that it is original synthesis to connect it to the SPLC. That is, it might not be the listing in particular, but the comments of the president, the recent coverage concerning Chick-Fil-A, etc. etc. With the CNN article, we have a reliable source putting it in the context of opposition to same-sex marriage, and we should adopt that, and not go beyond it into more specific connections. StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and yes that should probably be addressed. Well, we could accomplish the SPLC tie-in merely by expanding the NOM quote: "Today’s attack is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. “The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Family Research Council a ‘hate group’ for its pro-marriage views, and less than a day ago the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement calling FRC a ‘hate group’ – they even specified that FRC hosts events in Washington, DC, where today’s attack took place.” Belchfire-TALK 03:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be an improvement on what we have, but it turns into rather a long quote from a small organization. I still prefer using the CNN article. I realise the NOM press release mentions the SPLC, but perhaps we have all been reading the incident in the light of the hate group listing, having been in the middle of discussing it, while CNN fails to mention it at all. StAnselm (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

CNN is certainly far more notable and noteworthy than NOM, as well as more neutral. NOM has, shall we say, intense partisan bias here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I only did a quick search and i'm quite late to this discussion, but here's a few sources i found with the "hate-group" bit thrown in and mentioned: 123456. Hope that's useful in some way ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding a bit Jenova. The issue on the hate group designation is a separate discussion above. What Belchfire wants to do is link the shooting to the SPLC designation, which is not supported by any sources other than NOM. Which is not exactly a neutral party here.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that would be some stretch. NOM is not the least bit reliable on these matters. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: NY Times article, Perkins has mentioned SPLC saying "Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center". And SPLC has denied the connection saying Perkins is "using the attack on their offices to pose a false equivalency". -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So now it's not just NOM by itself any more, we also have AFA and FRC itself, and the criticism has been sufficiently well-reported that it has its own notability. What's your next argument? Belchfire-TALK 02:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What? You should be thanking me for even pointing that out. Next argument: don't say it in Wikipedia's voice, make it clear that it's the allegations of the said groups, and include the rebuttal. But that's me. Ask the others what they think first, because if I know you, you'd be adding this just about now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing what out? The comments that I added to the article 2-1/2 hours ago? Um, thanks, I think. Belchfire-TALK 02:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, sweetie pie. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that since i first gave my opinion. If NOM isn't neutral enough, what about NARTH or the Vatican? =P They're neutral on this lol. For argument sake i'm actually going to point out that this is sarcasm ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Very wise. When I'm sarcastic, it gets reported as a personal attack or legal threat. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Slow down everyone!

Without prejudice as to what changes were made and by whom, I've returned the article to the state it was in at 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC). I believe these changes have been far too rushed - they should only be implemented after a period of time sufficient enough to allow all editors of this article to participate - allow only roughly half a day cuts off editors living in several time zones from participation. --Scientiom (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not going to help. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Scientom, it has not been rushed. It has been discussed and there has not been issues except for a certain user. Plus there has been clear headed discussion prior to that. Please do revert it back to the latest version. ViriiK (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That has to be the most preposterous excuse for a disruptive edit that I've yet to see. "Hey, stop! I wasn't here when you did all that stuff!" Please. Belchfire-TALK 08:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. --Scientiom (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire is being uncivil, but I think it's pretty clear that your bold edit is unpopular. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't revert a whole day's worth of edits without reason. You've offered no rationale for this other than "I wasn't here". That's not nearly good enough, and I think you know that. Belchfire-TALK 08:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Scientom, am I to understand you are reverting ALL of the changes made because you weren't here to discuss them? It's like saying that Obama's speech on "You didn't build that" and there's a wikipedia about it and you reverted all the way to 0 bytes because you weren't there to discuss it. ViriiK (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• It seems StAnselm has reverted my reversion - I don't object, but I still think that these changes were far too rushed. --Scientiom (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You're free to bring up an issue that you have. Here's your chance. ViriiK (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresenting FRC's position on climate change.

Here's the bogus claim being made: "The Family Research Council opposes... the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for global warming..."

Based on the several sources brought forward, this is simply false. Let's begin here, with the primary source [19]being used to push this horseshit:

Little wonder, then, that evangelicals who dispute the cause of and remedy for global warming are critical of fellow evangelicals who signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) statement last year. They have three complaints, outlined in a March letter to L. Roy Taylor, chairman of the board of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). First, they believe too many evangelicals are uncritically joining the global-warming campaign. Second, they criticize the campaign for adding another priority to our crowded agenda, shifting emphasis away from "the great moral issues of our time." And third, they argue that evangelical leaders lack "the expertise to settle the controversy, and that the issue should be addressed scientifically and not theologically."

FRC isn't disputing anybody's theory on global warming here. Rather, they have 3 specific complaints: (1) that other evangelicals are joining a political campaign, (2) that evangelicals already have enough on their plates, and (3) that the whole thing is not a religious issue. It is original research, and a misrepresentation of this source, to claim that FRC is taking a position against anthropogenic global warming.

The next source, CNN [20], similarly outlines that FRC's position is NOT opposed to global warming, but rather that it's an internicine conflict over priorities and agenda.

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives...

And finally, in a rather silly and desperate attempt to push this false information, an editor has brought us that mighty edifice of journalism... yes, The Greenville News[21]. (I tremble at it's awesomeness.)

Other groups, however, such as the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, have questioned climate science and said human efforts to stop it are “largely futile.” Adherents included figures such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

As we can clearly see here, at most FRC's position might be said to that humans can't stop global warming. They take no clear position on what is causing it. They simply don't want to see other religious organizations spending their time and political capital worrying about it. There is zero evidence that they "oppose the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for global warming".

Now that we can all see how preposterously some editors are misrepresenting their sources, I think it might be a good idea for them to simply admit that they are wrong and self-revert. Belchfire-TALK 17:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No. They are complaining that other evangelicals are supporting man-made global warming. FRC hosted a policy discussion on global warming in 2007 as an effort to bring the Evangelical Environmental Network (which were arguing for man-made global warming) panelists back into their "fold". Which is listed on their policy page, unfortunately I can't seem to access the audio. Perkins has posted several official FRC blogs critical of government attempts at mitigating global warming. And there's one "prayer" that criticizes EEN for joining the "liberal" cause for global warming (note that he does not criticize those who are against man-made global warming, and specifically describes it as "alarmist"). There's also Chris Gacek.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. We don't have a source that supports the statement being made in the article, which is the result of original research. Belchfire-TALK 18:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this particular content has invoked so much ire, and I apologize if I have not acted in good faith as an editor.

I concede that the first reference is weak, although I do think it supports the idea that the FRC has a stated position on the anthropogenic global warming debate.

"One of the men who signed the letter, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, said global warming was part of a leftist agenda that threatened evangelical unity." This is from the CNN article. The statement that "global warming [is] part a leftist agenda" seems to me to be consistent with "The Family Research Council opposes...the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for global warming." from this Wikipedia article. My interpretation, however, may be wrong.

From The Greenvile article, "Other groups, however, such as the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, have questioned climate science (emphasis added) and said human efforts to stop it are “largely futile.” Adherents included figures such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council."

Is there a rewording of "opposes...the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for global warming" that would reconcile your concerns with these cited sources that clearly document that the FRC has at least taken a contrarian position in the global warming debate? — MrX 19:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

MrX, you provide further evidence of original research, in that you must apply your own reasoning in order to reach the conclusion that exists in the article. Your "interpretation" has to remain on the sidelines. If interpretation is needed, that should be your first clue that you are substituting your own judgment for that of your sources.

With the sources that exist, FRC's "contrarian position" can only be shown in opposition to other evangelicals taking their current positions. It is an error of logic, as well as a violation of core policies, to carry that a step further and assign a position to FRC that the sources to not clearly elucidate. Stating that something is part of a leftist agenda is a far cry from taking a position on the putative man-made causes of climate change. "Questioning climate science" is NOT the same as "opposing" anything. A leap is required in order to reach the statement being made in Wikipedia's voice. Belchfire-TALK 19:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I found the video. So change the wording to FRC opposes attempts to address global warming and environmental issues by other evangelicals because people dying speeds up the second coming. Sounds better right? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So BelchFire, is your proposal to change the wording to "The FRC questions the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for global warming and opposes other evangelicals who affirm the validity of global warming."? — MrX 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not offering any specific proposal; I'm just insisting that we don't use OR to pile on fictional derogatory claims about FRC. If we have reached the conclusion that FRC doesn't verifiably hold the position that some are attempting to assign, then I think we need to ask why there would be any mention of it at all, especially in the lead. Belchfire-TALK 19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it in the lead? In any case, a re-wording is probably in order in light of your well-articulated concerns. I will offer my previous re-wording as a first draft, and perhaps other editors can help with this. — MrX 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My bad, it's not in the lead right now. I believe it was in the past, maybe as recently as yesterday. Of course, I'm open to your proposal for compromise. Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have re-worded it to align with the cited sources. It could probably benefit from a little tweaking, to avoid sounding awkward. — MrX 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think removing the offending text is the first step, and worry about new text later.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The offending text has been removed. — MrX 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not crazy about it, but it's definitely an improvement. Belchfire-TALK 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Did FRC question climate change via official statements, or was it leadership making personal statements? More importantly the new language needs to indicate why FRC is displeased with other evangical organizations. If BF is correct (I haven't read the sources) then the reason seems to be with respect to resources and not because FRC does not support anthropogenic climate change theory, which the current text implies.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The closest approach that's been demonstrated so far is that FRC "questions the science" behind the theory of AGW. Saying "we aren't sure about this" is a far cry from saying "we think this is wrong". My reading of the sources is that we are talking about official positions, not personal, which may help to explain the caution that is evident. The position against other evangelical organizations taking sides is less ambiguous. All of it raises a question of general relevance. To be sure, FRC has positions on a number of matters, controversial and non-controversial, that we have not seen fit to include. I have not seen a satisfactory explanation - nor any attempt to provide one - as to why the new, altered wording constitutes something that merits mention in the article. Belchfire-TALK 22:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no doubt whatsoever that FRC is on the Republican bandwagon against admitting that global warming has significant human causes. They stated:[22]

The crisis du jour is global warming, but even that is just another excuse to fund "Planet" Parenthood and similar groups.

That's their own admission. We also have no shortage of reliable secondary sources that confirm this: [23]

Founded in 1983, the Family Research Council opposes same-sex marriage, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and disputes that global warming is the result of human activity.

I chose the Chicago Tribune, but it's actually Reuters, so it appears all over the place.

I think you need to drop the stick and back away; this isn't something you can sweep under the carpet. Really, the only thing I don't understand is why you're even trying, given that FRC is hardly shy about it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The shooting doesn't belong under "controversy."

Which is why it got moved to "History" earlier yesterday. But, it doesn't really belong there either. Yet, this shooting isn't worthy of its' own section in the article; nor is it worthy of its own article. So, where should it be? I think in the end, in some time, it will be out of the article altogether. I think that folks like Tony Perkins, NOM, and others are using this shooting to go on the attack against groups with which they disagree, and I don't think Wikipedia should act as his mouthpiece. A nut job walked into the lobby and wounded a security guard. It's in the news now, but in the big scheme of things, I'm not certain how notable this is going to end up being. With that in mind, I think the section is large enough, if not too large already. MsFionnuala _T^L_C 23:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur, the event is arguably in the "History" category. I think it's clear that the shooting would never rise to the level of notability in its own right, but in the context of FRC's history, it isn't hard to see the lasting significance. Belchfire-TALK 23:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If Fox News' breathless allegations turn out to be true, then the shooting was based on FRC's controversial policies. Thus controversy section. It lacks context because Belchfire above removed the Chick-fil-A section a few months ago on specious grounds. Lasting significance is determined later, as the case with SPLC listing which has turned out to be demonstrably lasting. This event might not, despite the current media flurry (which is more because of the recent spate of gun violence), there wasn't even any fatalities.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If the perpetrator is convicted of a pro-LGBT hate crime, it will certainly be of lasting significance. StAnselm (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I'd certainly agree with that. But there aren't enough details yet.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Inconveniently, it isn't just a Fox News allegation any more. Belchfire-TALK 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It was when it first hit the press, and we both know Fox News isn't exactly neutral. How much of that is media osmosis, we don't know.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nor does it matter. Belchfire-TALK 01:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion, but it doesn't seem to have any basis in Wikipedia policy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post destroyed your position on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide a link.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  11:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I just moved it into its own section. It doesn't hurt for it to be at that level, and if you guys get it settled as to what *other* section now named, or under a future rename, it will be ready to move. -- Avanu (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC Response

The article now reads as follows:

FRC president Tony Perkins issued a public statement calling the shooting "an act of domestic terrorism" and criticizing the Southern Poverty Law Center for being "reckless in labeling organizations as hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy."[49] Mark Potok of SPLC called Perkins's accusation "outrageous" and said that "Perkins and his allies, seeing an opportunity to score points, are using the attack on their offices to pose a false equivalency".[48] SPLC's statement reads: "The FRC routinely pushes out demonizing claims that gay people are child molesters and worse - claims that are provably false. It should stop the demonization and affirm the dignity of all people."[49]

The boldfaced part was added by one editor, restored by two different editors, and removed twice by a fourth editor. Discussion appears to be in order. The fuller response is in order because Perkins makes a specific charge against the SPLC when he says that the SPLC is "reckless in labeling organizations as hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy." Simply reducing the SPLC response to the first sentence by Potok leaves unaddressed the issue of how the SPLC determined that the FRC was a hate group. Both sides of the issue need to be adequately addressed and a reader should not be left with the idea that nothing but "public policy" is at dispute. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems quite clear to me as well. The false equivalency comment says nothing about why SPLC considers FRC to be a hate group in the first place, which is why we need that quote from written statement. Given the amount of space given to NOM and FRC on this matter, it doesn't seem out of place to give SPLC a chance to at least address both claims against it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC

Nope. The reasons for the the SPLC's designation of the FRC as a "hate group" are ALREADY GIVEN in the article. We don't need to give the reader a refresher course each time there is a hostile exchange between the two organizations. If you feel the need to more fully explain their reasons then suggest additions to the Listing as a hate group. . ." section, but don't make it too long; this article is about the Family Research Council, not the Southern Poverty Law Center's take on the Family Research Council. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And the FRC charges against the SPLC are also given elsewhere. If the charges are worth repeating then so is the response. It's the reader friendly thing to do. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The section on the shooting should be focused on, you know, the shooting. The text I removed is not related to the shooting; it's related to SPLC's justification for listing FRC as a hate group. That makes it irrelevant to the section. It should go. Belchfire-TALK 20:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Perkins' statement IN THIS SECTION on why he wants people to believe the FRC is classified as a hate group makes the SPLC response IN THIS SECTION relevant. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC)And if we're going to carry a serious accusation from one party, then if there's a response reported in the media then we include this for NPOV. As for Badmintonhist's point about repeating info, fair enough: I have replaced the quote from SPLC's recent statement with another (as quoted by a reliable third party) which is still pertinent but doesn't rehash SPLC's case against FRC. As to adding to Listing as a hate group, Cynwolfe has already pointed out earlier in the "Proposed hate group mention in the lead" thread SPLC's case was insufficiently outlined there. So yes, I think it's time to do some work there. Alfietucker (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good compromise. I also agree with Cynwolfe's analysis. Part of the problem is that specific SPLC criticisms appear in other sections of the Criticism attributed to other sources who reached the same conclusion. Perhaps the separate SPLC section should be merged. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a double non sequitur, Tom. Try to remember, the section is about the shooting. Belchfire-TALK 20:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it's about the shooting, which is why we must allow the SPLC to reply to the charges leveled at it as a result of the shooting. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I must say, I kinda get a kick out of editors who in the article on the SPLC don't want to include any response from any of the numerous groups it condemns, but who, on the other hand, want to provide the SPLC an elaborate forum when it is mentioned negatively in an article on any other organization. Shilling anyone?Badmintonhist (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The FRC isn't mentioned at all in the SPLC article, is it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's because editors such as yourself, particularly yourself, in fact, fought long and hard to keep it from being mentioned. And you fought to keep it from being mentioned so that it wouldn't have the "right to response" that you so eagerly champion for the SPLC. 21:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Badmintonhist (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not true. I suggested adding the SPLC rationale at some point, but your side wanted to reduce the SPLC argument to a single sentence in order to create a false equivalency. If both sides were represented, then you would have an SPLC argument with numerous specifics and an FRC response that addresses none of the specifics and simply attacks SPLC motives. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It probably would be if you hadn't defensively begged for page protection, Tom. Your ownership issues with that article really aren't relevant here. We've included the segment of SPLC's response that is relevant to the shooting, and nothing else is needed. Let's move on. Belchfire-TALK 20:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protection is an entirely responsible action when folks decide to ignore discussions and add material to a stable article (beyond merely BRD) without consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point for me, very helpful of you. There simply is no such thing as a "stable article" on Wikipedia, our editing policy does not support your continued insistence on gaining permission before editing, and your actions are highly symptomatic of ownership. Let go, Tom. It doesn't belong to you. Belchfire-TALK 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure there is. It's already been explained to you on the SPLC discussion page that "stable article" is a common wikipedia term. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Policy link, please. Belchfire-TALK 21:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my view the wording in the Shooting incident section of the article is quite adequate now. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

On second look, while the wording of the individual sentences and basic info in the section is okay, I think the order of the information should be rearranged so that the objective stuff about the crime and the legal handling of it is in one place and the political snipings by the various organizations are in another.Badmintonhist (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Badminton, I think the sequencing could be improved.

And I'm still waiting for Tom to show us the "stable article" policy, by the way. Belchfire-TALK 04:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC case

I've now worked on Listing as a hate group by SPLC, making clear that much of their case was based on the statements made by FRC representatives earlier in 2010, as described in the previous section, as well as touching on the evidence presented by SPLC to justify some of its other claims. I hope that's gone some way to address the concerns raised earlier by Cynwolfe in Proposed hate group mention in the lead thread. Alfietucker (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That pamphlet

The pamphlet entitled "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys" is mysteriously unavailable at the FRC, but don't despair, you can read it in all of its original glory at http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf. Hope that helps. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Statements on homosexuality

I'm a bit confused about the last sentance

The opinions expressed by Perkins are contradicted by mainstream social science research on same-sex parenting[32] and the likelihood of child molestation by homosexuals,[32][33] and some scientists whose work is cited by the American College of Pediatricians, a small conservative political organization formed when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed adoption by same-sex couples, have accused the FRC of distorting and misrepresenting their work.[34][34]

The first part about mainstream science is clear, but what point is being made about the likelihood of child molestation AND the ACP?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a very awkward sentence that probably should be split in two. If somebody else doesn't do it I'll work on it when I've had some more coffee.Badmintonhist (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Quite a confusing sentence. The information which is being conveyed here is basically three points: (1.) That Perkin's opinions are contradicted by social science research & (2.) That the American College of Pediatricians, which is a small conservative political organization which was formed when the AAP endorsed LGBT adoption, has misrepresented the work of scientists & (3.) The FRC has also misrepresented the work of scientists. --Scientiom (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alfietucker made a nice fix. I removed one blurb about the ACP, but I think is a major improvement.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That detail should not be removed - it acts as an explanatory sentence to readers. --Scientiom (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to label them "small" or "conservative". Matter of fact since ACP is blue-linked, there is no reason to label them whatsoever.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is verifiable that they are small & conservative - and they were formed specifically because a small group of people in major professional organization, the AAP, were not happy with an action the AAP made. We need to look at this from a reader's perspective: the sentence helps readers understand the paragraph in question better - they are not likely to click on a link to go to another page. --Scientiom (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

However it is undue/not neutral. We are not labeling other orgnaizations in this article. Should we be labeling SPLC as leftist? I wouldn't prefer that myself.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is neutral and due because the ACP was formed for a singular purpose and have distorted scientific research. The SPLC is a civil rights organization and no mainstream source calls it "leftist". --Scientiom (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So now we only use mainstream reliable sources? A RS is a RS. Why aren't we tagging SPLC a "civil rights" orgnaization? It too further clarifies its function for the reader. The graph currently states that ACP distored research and that FRC frequnetly cites them. It should be left to the reader to draw their own conclusions about ACP instead of stating it in wikipedia's voice.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can call the SPLC a "civil rights organization", no problem there. I am in favor of brief explanatory descriptors applied to blue-linked terms or groups—such descriptors help to keep the reader here at this article rather than ping-ponging around the encyclopedia trying to understand who is who. However, the SPLC is definitely not "leftist". Sheesh. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think taging SPLC leftist is over the top, though I did see a RS that defintly used that term. I'm not even advocating labeling SPLC as liberal, left-leaning or one of many spectrum related tagging which has been applied inconsistently to ACP. I'm asking for ACP to get the same neutral treatment that other organizations in this are getting.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that we should say that SPLC is a civil rights organization to readers - if it's helpful to readers then it's a positive addition. --Scientiom (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to earlier stuff. I don't see a problem with calling the ACP "small" -- the 200 to 60,000 membership ratio with the AAP pretty much says this. However the source doesn't" call the ACP "political" as we now do in the article, and, as far as I can see, it doesn't mention the FRC at all.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the L-word for SPLC? If the sources back this, the same logic would apply as that used to label ACP.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but in my last comment and my last edit to the article based on it, I'm merely going by the article in the Twin Cities' newspaper, the source of the last sentence of the section. That article doesn't mention the FRC or the SPLC.Badmintonhist (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at American College of Pediatricians, you'll see that it's identified as conservative. Since nobody's fighting over this, it's safe to say that the article's sources must back this up.

I noticed that Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't identify that org as liberal, so maybe we should think twice before doing so. Again, this is based on the assumption that this issue has come up on that article and been resolved in this direction.

Obviously, a previous consensus is not eternally binding and we should consider all reliable sources. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

On the FBI as an authority in this case

I've been back and forth over the FBI pages, and I don't think that they are making the kind of endorsement that people here have tried to invoke them for. By and large the FBI is concerned with hate crimes, and they are largely interested in hate groups, it appears, as organizations for committing those crimes. I don't see how any of the traditional marriage advocacy groups fits into this picture, and I have yet to see anything on the FBI website that specifically addresses this sort of group. They do not point to the SPLC as the keeper of a definitive list of hate groups. The SPLC seems to believe that trad marriage rhetoric incites violence against homosexuals, but I don't see the place where the FBI endorses this theory. Mangoe (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in this article about FBI endorsement of the SPLC. Some editors on the discussion page however have mentioned that the FBI uses the research of the SPLC and links to them on their page about hate crimes. Note that the FBI recognizes hate crimes based on sexual orientation.[24] TFD (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

At least half a dozen people in this discussion have justified the SPLC designation on the basis of the FBI referring to that group as a resource. Mangoe (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have no idea as to why the SPLC listed the FRC as a hate group - you should first read through their reasoning. It's not for their opposition to same-sex marriage, but for spreading lies, hateful propaganda, and distortions of scientific research. --Scientiom (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This "if you were not either unreasonable or ignorant you would agree with the SPLC" approach to the argument isn't even vaguely neutral, but just to be on the safe side I reread the SPLC page on the FRC. And I find your analysis irrelevant and indeed a potential part of the problem here. The question of what is "hateful" is subjective in the extreme. I am uninterested in the question of whether what the FRC says is true or accurate, at least in this narrow context; the proximate question is whether the FBI is interested in this supposed hatefulness. And I see no sign of that interest. All evidence I see is that the FBI is only interested actual violence or actual advocacy of violence. The SPLC page admits, by omission, that the FRC does no such thing, so I don't see how to even deduce an FBI endorsement on this basis. I would also remind you that deductions are not what we are supposed to be doing anyway. Mangoe (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the article says that the FBI relies on SLPC hate group definitions. Only here in the talk page is that mentioned. So my only conclusion so far would be to disregard using this rationale as for whatever proposal it's instantiators are putting forward.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Then would you like to tell us as to why you're bringing the FBI up here? The FBI is not being mentioned in this article - it's only been said that the FBI uses the SPLC as a resource - this is undoubtedly true - this shows that the SPLC's listings are clearly well respected. On the other point at hand, spreading negative falsehoods about entire groups of people are no doubt hateful - surely you don't disagree with that? --Scientiom (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered this above. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't know why the FBI is being brought into the discussion here. If there is no good reason for it then the whole thing is WP:NOTFORUM. The FBI website lists the SPLC as a resource on "hate groups," however it does not specifically endorse the SPLC's list of such groups. Since the FBI is not even mentioned in this article, however, why bring it up? Badmintonhist (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Unless this is in reference to the RfC above where at least one editor mentions the FBI as a reason for using the hate group label.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is in reference to that, it still doesn't matter, because all editors are saying is this is notable because the FBI and dozens upon dozens of sources respect SPLC listings, and they are widely cited and used. --Scientiom (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oft cited by many sources, yes. Respected? That's opinion. One would think that they would be respected just by being cited but that's not always the case. And In this instance Mangoe challenges whether the FBI uses SPLC data then simply refers to the SPLC as a resource.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of what should be in an article's lead here on Wikipedia, all that matters is the fact that it is widely cited - as you too agree that it is indeed widely cited, should you not be supporting it's inclusion in the lead per Wikipedia policy? --Scientiom (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Red Herring. I was speaking to the question addressed by Mangoe, which asks about the FBI reliance on SLPC data, not whether SPLC is a RS.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I have a direct response to my question regardless? --Scientiom (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Only if the inclusion indicates indicates the labeling is controversial due to the nature of the label. Saying only that conservatives are opposed to the label is not due because of the nature of the label which is commonly associated with violent groups like the KKK. Stating they object to that implicit comparison would be satisfactory.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)