Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up

This article needs some major cleaning. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Biased article

I just read the article and agree it need "major cleaning". I removed "though not all SPLC listed groups engage in criminal activity" because;

• The words "not all" is controversial, misleading, and unsubstantiated. I read over some of the list included as "hate groups" and on the list are churches that have not, unless someone can provide reliable sources, been suspected or charged with any criminal activities. There are other unreferenced statements that I will address, tag, or both. Otr500 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not all, because some have. Typically, racist hate groups are more likely to be violent, which is where you get criminal charges. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Types of hate groups

I restored this section because it's extremely relevant. This article is not itself just a list of anti-gay hate groups, it's an article about the list. As such, it's useful to know how the anti-gay hate groups figure in to the total. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It could be reworked a bit but i don't see that as more of a priority than developing content on how this list was created and evolved. Insomesia (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

{{copypaste}}

Most of this has been copypasted from other Wikipedia articles without attribution. That a copyright violation and needs to be fixed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually all that is needed is this section noting where some of the content came from as all that content is under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. BTW the copypaste template is used for content copied from other sites, not Wikipedia. Insomesia (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in the copypaste template that implies it should not be used when it's Wikipedia's copyright that is being violated. I restored the template. Please do not remove until copyright issues have been fixed. This means that each article that was copied needs to be attributed either in the article history or on this talk page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the applicable guideline:

"When copying content from one article to another, at a minimum provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page. If substantial, consider posting a note on both talk pages."

Longer version

Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to the original author. For most pages, this is supplied by the page history, with exceptions associated with copying and deletion. In these cases, supplementary attribution must be provided by either a link back to the source page, if available, or a list of authors. At minimum, this means a linked edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving a note at the talk pages of both source and destination.

I think a citation linking back to each main article would be sufficient in this case. This is creative commons content and the content is all on enwiki, so there's no basis for considering this a copyright violation at all. Perhaps Nathan would be willing to help address the attribution gaps. – MrX 15:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It is very unclear to me what the complaint justifying the copypaste template is. This appears to be an exceptionally well-sourced list. Can someone please be specific about what text is claimed to be copypaste, or I advocate removing this template. -- Ryvr (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

An experienced editor removed the copypaste template because the text in question was reasonable use of parts of summaries from other articles used in appropriate ways. Another editor reverted that to put the copypaste template back in saying that it "does not look like it has been resolved on the talk page." Shouldn't he have made his case here on the talk page then, rather than reverting an experienced editor's judgment without discussion? I think that copypaste template needs to be removed unless someone makes a convincing and specific case here. -- Ryvr (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Questionable edit unlinking anti-gay?

An editor just unlinked "anti-gay" in an edit on 26 October. I think that is unfortunate, and I'm not sure what that editor's justification is since he only says in the comment that he did unlink it, and has not discussed it on the talk page prior to the edit. The link seems to have been very useful to me because the "anti-gay" article clarifies the categories and meaning of "anti-gay," which is important in this context where people who are not very familiar or relate to these issues might not understand what "anti-gay" is referring to here. I think the link should be restored. -- Ryvr (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Anti-gay goes to a disambiguation page, which is probably why it was unlinked. If there is a link to a more appropriate or precise article, that should be added. 72Dino (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the link provides helpful information because if someone wonders about the meaning of "anti-gay," that link gives a lot of good info like linking to Anti-LGBT rhetoric and Heterosexism. There is a template on top of the "anti-gay" page which suggests "should be converted into a broad-concept article." I would agree with that, and that perhaps would satisfy your concern more, but in the meanwhile, I think the linking provides useful info and should be kept. I don't think we can choose just one of the articles because the SPLC probably includes multiple types of anti-gay behavior like both rhetoric and heterosexism. I think it is important to discuss changes like this on the talk page. I'm surprised that editor just did it unilaterally without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryvr (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

An experienced editor has replaced the link, now pointing it to Anti-LGBT rhetoric, which is definitely a solid, encyclopedic article. Also, the information seems relevant, so I would agree that was a good resolution. -- Ryvr (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)