Talk:Family Research Council

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, [1], Washington Times, [2], [3], Christian Science Monitor, CBS News, Reuters, Time Magazine, CNN, [4], MSNBC, Daily CallerWashington Post, Fox News, [5], 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, [6], 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 [7] 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)

Consensus is not about couting votes. The univolved admin looked at the strength (or lack thereof) of each argument in determining his/her closure. Whatever my opinion on this issue, I endorse this closure as correct.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The admin only pointed out the votes and said it meant consensus. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Acoma Magic: It's as Little green rosetta said - there's no point in wasting time by arguing the toss. Alfietucker (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If the closer is just counting noses, then the closure is improper, as 25-16 is in the "no consensus" for inclusion or exclusion range. If he's weighing arguments, that would be different, but he didn't say he was weighing arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to point out that I'm weighing the arguments (as I was), but that being said, I closed both on the strength of the supports and their number. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Support It is important enough for the lead. However, it should be clear who is calling it a hate group (i.e. not the government). I also think a sentence from the FRC perspective should be included. Casprings (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The government isn't allowed to designate hate groups. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Shooting incident

A section has just been added about a shooting incident[8] - 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."[9] 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[10] 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: [11]

CNN generally corroborates about the shooter's statements: [12]

Even The Advocate is willing to mention the shooter's motive: [13]

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. [14] 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 [15]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 [16], 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[17]. (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:[18]

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: [19]

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.[20] 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)

There are users that claim, mostly through Talkspace and Discussions, that the FBI relies on the SPLC for the Hate Groups list. The SPLC Article claims that the SPLC is a resource for the FBI on hate groups/crimes. Others claim that since the FBI uses the SPLC then the SPLC must be a reliable, factual, RS. However, the FBI listing of the SPLC as a resource is based on hate crime information from at least 45 years ago. The SPLC's assistance began in 2007 along with the NAACP and the Urban League to help the FBI's Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative. In essence they helped solve murders before 1967. The FBI Initiative was a success since it helped prosecute 3 out of the 108 cold cases. They are still working on it. SPLC did assist the DOJ in the 2009 "Training Guide for Hate Crimes" since some case studies were based on their monitoring of the KKK in the 1990's. The SPLC maintains its own Hate Group listing, but claims that the FBI uses them are simply out of date. I mentions this here because the RfC proponent (and you Scientiom used it above) uses the specious FBI/SPLC connection simply because the SPLC is mentioned on the FBI website. I think this is what Mangoe and Little Green Rosetta might have been trying to state since the SPLC and the FBI have no pertinent relationship, but I'll leave their voices to themselves. Yendor (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you ignore part of the evidence, you can certainly arrive at that conclusion. However, we also have reliable sources about recent and ongoing cooperation, including using the SPLC as a training resource. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Inadequately explained removal from the lead

Scientom recently made this reversion [21] with the edit summary the consensus was only clear in favour of including the classification, nothing else - I suggest a separate RFC/thread for your addition. However he/she has failed to address my point that the edit conforms with WP:LEAD which states (wiki markup removed, emphasis added in bold):

Introductory text. As explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Lead section#Introductory text, all but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs. The lead itself has no heading and, on pages with more than three headings, automatically appears above the table of contents, if present.

The RfC only disucssed mentioning adding the "hate group" to the lead, however per this guideline and the current text, the controversy of the label is not addressed. My proposed text is as follows:

The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy, notably in controversy concerning its position on homosexuality. In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center which drew sharp criticism due to the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

• Does this text fulfill the Rfc?
• Is the labeling of the FRC considered controversial?
• Does this text adequately and succinctly address the controversy?
• Is this text neutral?

While Scientom suggested an RfC, I see no need to bother the rest of the community at this time for what should be a trivial and guideline based addition to the lead. I'd much prefer to see if any of the watchers here see if we can work it out on our own first.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"notable criticism or controversies" here means criticism or controversies related to the subject of the article at hand - which is already included. --Scientiom (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

LGR, we already had an RFC on your version and it lost out. The consensus is to mention that it's a hate group, not to "teach the controversy". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Scientom, I have no idea what you menat. Are you disputing the fact that the label is controversial?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In part yes, in part no. Per WP:WEIGHT, the objections of certain elements to the classification do not deserve to be in the lead alongside the single sentence about the classification of the FRC as a hate group. It can be covered in the body of the article. --Scientiom (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "do not deserve"? If the labeling is controversial, it needs to be at least briefly described.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The addition of "...which drew sharp criticism due to the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan" is unwarranted in my opinion. It doesn't rise to the level of a major controversy justifying inclusion in the lead. It is merely the opinion of Dana Milbank, Opinion Writer. Also, it does not establish a neutral POV, but rather a dismissive POV, again, in my opinion. — MrX

With respect to the opinion aspect, I would agree with you if the sole source were Milbank's column. However this particular column by Milbank has receieved quite a bit of coverage in other reliable sources for his calling the SPLC attribution "absurd" due to the inevitable comparison to the KKK. It is undue NOT to mention the critcism of the label.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I do see now that Milbank's comments have been widely covered, a fact of which I was not previously aware. My remaining concern is that, if this is a major controversy, then it is a major controversy spawned by Milbank's op-ed comments, and should be properly attributed to him so as not to lead the reader to assume that the sharp criticism came from multiple vectors. — MrX 17:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed language suggests that there was an immediate uproar after the 2010 listing. If the language is based strictly on an article written two years after the listing (and there is nothing in the article to suggest otherwise), then this is really a new controversy and unrelated to the original listing. The fact is, that at the time the RFC was initiated, the article wasn't even written. What did happen back in 2010 was that the FRC objected to the listing. I suppose you could add to the lead the fact that the FRC disagreed with the listing, but that pretty much goes w/o saying.

As far as the Milbank article, the responses to his article have been both positive and negative -- the proposed lead language as well as the body of the article suggests that there was only support for Milbank. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Mr X, valid points. Any suggestions?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Tom -- excellent point. We need to capture that as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something along these lines:

"In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In 2012, the classification drew sharp criticism from Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank because of the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan."

I would prefer more brevity, but it's a start. — MrX 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

However that would be giving undue weight to the opinion of one author, whose opinion is used by very very few sources - which pale in comparison to the thousands of sources which cite the SPLC classification. This material would be fitting for the body, not the lead. --Scientiom (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

True. WP:UNDUE warns about giving undue weight to recent events, isolated events and criticisms. It also speaks of the importance of treating each aspect (Milford's criticism of the SPLC) to the overall subject of the article (Family Research Council). — MrX 18:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We should also include the 2010 response, how about:

"In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center which prompted a rebuttal critical of the designation by the FRC and 150 conservative leaders. In 2012, the classification drew sharp criticism from Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank because of the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan."

I'm still thinking about Tom's point of negative response to Milbank.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no rebuttal from 150 conservatives. TFD (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have the same problems of recentism that others have about adding Milbank to the lead, but also have a problem with the phrase "and 150 conservative leaders". This contradicts what the body of the article says -- it reads:

"A section of the letter supporting the FRC and certain other organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC had signers which included twenty members of the House of Representatives (including then soon-to-be Speaker John Boehner), three U.S. Senators, four state Governors, and one state Attorney General."

The point is that the open letter advertisement has two parts -- one part attributable to the FRC which specifically criticizes the SPLC and another part (the petition portion) that is signed off on by the famous folks. This is what Slate at [22] has to say about the petition and advertisement:

The extremely low-key statement they've [referring to the Congressmen] all agreed to:

We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans.

The famous folks offer general support for the FRC but avoid a direct attack, or even mention, of the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Tom, et al. Good point, the pols don't specifically challenge the designation. How about these 3 versions? Version 3 introuduces the shooting to the lead and ties in the Milbank incident, as those are what spawned the condemnation of the label. The 24hr new cycle has stopped caring about this event, so WP:RECENT isn't really relevant at the moment.

1. In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation which the FRC dismissed as a politcal attack .
2. In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation which the FRC dismissed as a politcal attack. In 2012 the classification drew sharp criticism from Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank because of the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
3. In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation which the FRC dismissed as a politcal attack. In response to the 2012 shooting of a security guard at FRC headquaters in Washington, D.C. by a LGBT volunteer, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank sharply critized the classification because of the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I could live with your first proposal or with AzureCitizen's. It is not clear to me whether this discussion will center on determining what people can live with or will become another polarized debate (as evidenced by the three reverts from St. Anselm already). — Preceding unsigned comment added by North Shoreman (talk • contribs)

Proposed text

After the RfC, I think the key points that are relevant here for brief mention in the lede are that 1) the SPLC designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group and 2) the FRC disputes the designation. When we start to add additional POVs and perspectives from other players in the lede, it becomes contentious figuring out where that should end and what the right balance is. If we add in that a number of conservative congressman have voiced their opposition, do we add in that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation uses the SPLC's list in tracking hate groups? If we add in that a journalist opined maybe it's a mistake, do we add in another journalists perspective that maybe it's warranted? Maybe we should just leave those items for the body of text, and keep the statement in the lede simple, something like this: -- AzureCitizen (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy, notably in controversy concerning its position on homosexuality. In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation the FRC continues to dispute.

• Comment: Please read the talk page, people. This was decided a week ago, at Talk:Family Research Council#Proposed hate group mention in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not true. How could you possibly reach consensus on how the SPLC would be mentioned in the lead when there was not yet a recognized consensus to place it in the lead. I have reverted your edit, but you are certainly welcome to submit it as a proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's rubbish. The discussion was specifically held so that when the RfC was closed, we would already have words to insert. I can't help it you missed out on the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever your alleged purpose was, the every existence of this discussion and the one above indicates that seven editors believe t is a live question. Stop your edit warring and join the discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I think you have to be clear why the SPLC named FRC as a hate group. It wasn't because the FRC had a controversial position on homosexuality, it was because of the lies the FRC spread about LGBT people themselves. It seems disingenuous to not accurately portray the FRC's actions, not beliefs, earned them the hate group label just like all the rest of those groups. Insomesia (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate the importance of answering "why?" for the reader. However, the body of text in the article gets into the issue of why the SPLC classified the FRC as anti-gay (e.g., leadership's defaming/demonizing statements) and why the FRC disputes the designation (e.g., liberal political attack). When we summarize it in the lede, we need to either explain "why" for both the SPLC and the FRC, or omit the "why" for both. The proposed text in the quote box above attempts to do the latter, for the sake of simplicity and avoiding lengthy editor contention over just exactly how to balance that equation (see threads above). AzureCitizen (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement opens with The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy, notably in controversy concerning its position on homosexuality. Then notes the hate group designation. This seems to be a false analogy that they have been designated as a hate group just because of their politics. Wrong, they have been designated as a hate group because of their actions. Perhaps open with the designation as a hate group then cite specifically why the designation and that the FRC dispute and why. I think 2-3 sentences can accomplish this. Insomesia (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have had to issue a 3RR Warning to St. Anselm -- he has reverted text three times over a 34 minute period. It is a shame that after a lengthy and controversial RFC that an edit war has broken out. I invite St. Anselm to revert his last revert and argue the merits of his proposal, Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: StAnselm is correct. This was decided a week ago at Talk:Family Research Council#Proposed hate group mention in the lead. The thinking was to have text ready in the event that the RFC supported inclusion. Why edit war when it is clear that (1) the discussion happened and (2) that StAnselm's text obtained consensus? Why not just try to form a new consensus? – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 00:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You're certainly right that nobody should be edit warring to push it one way or the other. I'm unable to see where there was consensus, however. Can you indicate the point at which consensus was reached? Looking over the thread, it appears to have been an ongoing discussion that hadn't yet culminated in a decision. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, I just read that section and I did not see any indication of a consensus. I personally leaned toward supporting a version that says some conservatives. BelchFire said: "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 (emphasis added), per the ongoing discussion [Rfc] above." TFD and Badmintonhist were vocally against it as well. Most of the others in that thread were either weakly for or weakly against the wording. Then there was further debate about the actually wording, but ultimately the thread fizzled out without any conclusion.

Is it possible we are talking about different threads? The one I am referring to is called 'Proposed hate group mention in the lead'. — MrX 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:LEAD we are supposed to list controversies. The hate group designation while in the lead, is not noted as a controversey.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  01:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• StAnselm's edit was neutral, necessary, and 100% appropriate. That edit should be allowed to stand, for the simple reason that this was one of the most controversial "hate group" listings SPLC has ever made, a fact that is richly sourced AND covered in the body of the article. Belchfire-TALK 01:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with his version in the interim. It is more in line WP:LEAD than we have now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What we have now in the article is exactly what the RFC decided -- nothing more and nothing less. It seems like you want to make this a referendum on whether or not consensus has already been reached. In fact, no such consensus was reached nor has any consensus been reached on any "interim" language -- especially since there has been no discussion here on the actual merits of the "interim" language. Besides, St. Anselm has raised the issue (frivolously to my mind) at AN/I. Let's see how that comes out. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article states what was decided in the RfC. Do you deny that WP:LEAD requires that all controversies be listed in the lead?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes -- I totally agree and that was an argument I made in the RFC. Rather than discussing whether additional language is appropriate (and I thought we were getting close -- I said one of your suggestions was acceptable), you and others want to argue about whether or not consensus had already been achieved elsewhere. This is nothing but a distraction that can only lead to polarization. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. I endorsed (and still do) the closure of the RfC.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't change the subject -- I recognize that you accept the RFC determination. What I object to is your apparent support for the bogus argument that some sort of consensus was reached in the thread that St. Anselm is pushing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I posted it at ANI because you were edit-warring. StAnselm (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You made three reverts in 34 minutes yet I'm the one who is edit warring? I try to adopt a 1RR restraint on myself, but in this case I allowed myself another one. I knew when to stop -- you required a 3RR warning. The bad thing is that we were close to narrowing the differences when you injected your bogus argument about a prior consensus into the mix as an unnecessary distraction. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My apparent support? What thread are you reading? I never said anything remotely supporting that his version of consensus was reached. I said his text was ok, not the same thing as saying that it was the pferred text of the rfc. Sheesh.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I took your support for adding the language "in the interim" as meaning that you agreed with adding it immediately while this discussion continued. If what you actually meant was that the language should be considered along with all of the other proposals and that NOTHING should be added until a consensus was reached, then I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did mean I found STA's edit to be acceptable in the interim and have no objections to it be added immediately because;

1. The edit satisfies the terms of the RfC
2. The edit somewhat satisfies my concerns about WP:LEAD

I have no problem with incremental change. IMO STA's edit is better than the current edit. I would prefer putting it in now and continue discussing even more improvements. Apparently other editors think the edit is fine, perhaps for different reasons. If there is consensus to add, then we add it. If not, we don't. I remind you the RfC is over and we are proposing new additions to the lead and not discounting the RfC. There is no requirement for us to come up with a final version.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• North Shoreman wrongly asserts that the earlier RfC somehow freezes the language. It doesn't. It merely addressed the generic question of whether a particular fact should be mentioned at a given point in the article. Most agree that the fact should be included, and it has been. His pedantic insistence that nothing can now be added, regardless of relevance, is simply incorrect. He conveniently forgets that consensus can change, and in this case there has been a major national news event (the FRC shooting) that changes the landscape of what is relevant. Adjustments to the article are necessary. North Shoreman has made his point - we all get that he wants to freeze time as of two weeks ago - but now he needs to stop resting on an outdated and not-especially-clear consensus to keep relevant and policy-compliant material that he doesn't like out of the article. Belchfire-TALK 03:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, is it. Rather than "freezing the language" I have actually voiced support for two different proposed changes -- changes we could be discussing if St. Anselm, with your support, had not decided to implement his own language (adding it three times) by making a bogus claim that it was sanctioned by consensus. I also reject your criticism of a just closed RFC as "an outdated and not-especially-clear consensus". It reflects extreme bad faith on your part to criticize a consensus decision simply because you disagree with it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

off topic sniping
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this the most civil you can be? I encourage you to be just a little more civil. Otherwise, we might imagine that you're just baiting poor, innocent Tom. He's not being "pedantic", and WP:CCC doesn't mean we can form a consensus through RfC and then immediately ignore it. You need to argue for your desired changes on their own merit, not by attacking Tom. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Yeah, we've all been highly impressed by your sterling example of civility during the relatively brief time you've been editing here, StillStanding. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I try! I only wish Belchfire would. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus has not changed in the four hours since the RfC closed. TFD (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying the consensus HAS changed, but that it CAN change. No one is saying that the just closed consensus which requires the the hate speech moniker has changed. The text is in the lead. No one is suggesting that a new consensus has formed that even hints at removing the moniker. AFAIK the only thing being discussed are MORE additions to the lead, of which the previous consensus was silent. So what is the problem? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know why people are getting heated over this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I support the wording previously discussed with St Anselm and others as the most neutral. But not the versions inserted by little green rosetta which seems tailored to make it seem like the designation was frivolous. He even inserts the criticisms by various writers yet failed to include those who support it, despite the fact that both are in the very same sources (The Advocate and the CNN blog) he uses. In fact both sources actually end with the distinct impression that they too support the SPLC hate group listing, contrary to how little green rosetta makes it appear. Now why is that? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual language that was inserted is "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." This implies that all conservatives hold this belief. The lead is supposed to summarize the article contents which list only the FRC itself, Dana Milbanks, and Jeffrey Berry as critics. A more accurate summary might replace the boldfaced text with from the FRC and some political commentators. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember, the reference we were going to use in the lead was the Reuters one, which specifically said "conservatives". I think we have to have a footnote in this lead statement, and I think the Reuters one is the best. StAnselm (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We use sources for more than mining quotes. The fact is that the Reuters article doesn't offer a clue as to who specifically has criticized the SPLC. The only sources we need are already in the body of the article and we should summarize those sources rather than writing the lead based on some other source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@Obsdian, I inserted that quote because it was made by a credentialed scholar and ignored a quote from a blogger with unknown credentials. Please try to AGF.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to AGF when the additions are all one-sided. Did you make the effort to find credentialed scholars who agree with the designation to balance it out?

@Tom and StAnselm, How about "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 politicians"? Or replace "politicians" with "leaders". That was the original wording agreed upon, wasn't it? It's a minor enough point to edit war all over again. I think we can all agree that it was certainly not all conservative politicians who signed FRC's online petition, but I also recognize that "some" might be too weaselly.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with "some conservative leaders", though "some" people might not like it. I think we should have either politicians or leaders rather than just "the FRC and political commentators". StAnselm (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is what we say in the body of the article about the petition:

"A section of the letter supporting the FRC and certain other organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC had signers which included twenty members of the House of Representatives (including then soon-to-be Speaker John Boehner), three U.S. Senators, four state Governors, and one state Attorney General."

We don't say that they criticized the SPLC because the portion of the open letter that they actually signed off on only offers support for the FRC. This proposal that started this section is IMO better:"In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation the FRC continues to dispute." Everything else (i.e. why the SPLC made the designation, why the FRC disagrees, and who agrees with who and why) is details better discussed in a proper context within the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

PS This is what Slate at [23] has to say about the petition and advertisement:

The extremely low-key statement they've [referring to the Congressmen] all agreed to:

We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying that Reuters got it wrong, Tom, just like the Christian Science Monitor did? It seems like an awful lot of reliable sources have been duped... StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I made myself clear. WP:RS requires us to analyze how sources are used. To repeat, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Obviously an article with a brief quote without factual backup is not an adequate source for what all conservatives believe about the SPLC. As usual, you don't address most of what I raised. Why is this? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The source(s) in question are all acredited news sources with editoral oversight and fact checking. That is all the reliablility we require. Seriously, if the AP told us the moon was made of green cheese, we could run with it. Though I suspect we wouldn't be using them much longer after that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In the original discussion I posted a link to the original Fox News (not that unbiased, I know, but ignore the rhetoric and focus on the listing) article which do list some of the leaders involved, also already mentioned in paragraph 2 of the "Listing as a hate group by SPLC" subsection. Note that we are referring to the original petition by FRC in 2010. Not the later additions by little green rosetta on the polsci professor and the columnist. Both of which I think should be removed if no balancing viewpoints are added. The more important thing here, is what then should be the wording? I'm still siding with StAnselm on this one, the signers did dispute the designation, even if the wording of the petition is the usual wishy washy deniable political bullshit. I don't think there's a better way to describe the actions of those signers than "criticized". -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:VNT is a policy, not a guideline. If we can attribute something to a reliable source (and in this case we can) it is eligble for inclusion, unless it has been retracted or corrected.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an actual quote from the policy's lead:

The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight.

This leads us back to the Reliable Sources guideline to determine appropriateness. It is not appropriate to state as fact in wikipedia's voice something that other sources (in this case Slate) disagree with. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So, both can be stated as point-counterpoint, no? (I'm out of here for the night. Gotta get up early)  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@OS I searched for as many sources as possible. I didnt find any other quotes either denying or affirming the label.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a pretty popular topic, even back in 2010. There's Chad Griffin of HRC. Wayne Besen of TWO, Brian Levin of CSHE, Burt Neuborne an NYU law professor, and dozens of other quotable quotes either pro or con, with varying levels of personal notability. Milbank and Berry are relatively minor talking heads and there are plenty of such opinions floating around including the ones I just mentioned, if we add two of them, why shouldn't we add the remaining dozens? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead "controversy"

Both of you two stop it. Talk. Here. Now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. I'll let someone else deal with it, if warranted. Teammm ^TM 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the fact is, we need to do something about the sentence. We agree in principle to the mention in the lead, but we have not yet approved any wording. A couple of editors who !voted in support of inclusion (User:Agne27, User:Teammm) specifically mentioned including criticism of the designation, so with such a finely balanced consensus, I don't think we can say that there is consensus for a "stand alone" statement. I am happy with both the versions present in the edit war ("controversially classified" vs " which some considered controversial") - they are both better than nothing. StAnselm (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's controversial because the incident meets the definition of 'controversy'. It's not a matter of opinion so "which some considered controversial" is struck off as an option. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My point wasn't to make it sound like a stand-off opinion or deny the controversy, it was to make the sentence structurally and grammatically sound. I like when things sound right when I read it. That is all. Teammm ^TM 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Teammm. Grammar talks. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion right above this one. Several versions are under consideration. An edit war is not the way to resolve this. I have no problem with "which some considered controversial" as a final resolution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The inevitable claims of weasel will be heard if that is left in. The sentance before it could have the word "some" applied to it as well, not that I'm advocating for that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoever said this before was spot-on: it's controversial, period. Saying that "some considered" it controversial is weasel-y and unnecessary. And if you don't want edit-warring, then don't edit-war. Belchfire-TALK 02:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• It was correct English. It's obviously because by labelling it 'controversial' and not attributing it to the opposition of conservatives, that a liberal/centre reader will be more influenced to have a negative opinion of the designation than they would have if it had mentioned that it just came from conservatives. That's a good position to take and adheres strictly to NPOV. However, I don't think that we can just say it came from conservatives. Just looking at the content on this article, we don't know what Jeffrey Berry's political leaning is. Also, "some considered controversial" is not an option. As I've said, it's controversial no matter your opinion on whether it was right or wrong. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How about discussing an issue without bringing up political labels? People like yourself seem to be consumed by your politics. That's the problem with many in America. And my comment goes to this discussion on the article's improvement. Teammm ^TM 03:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I know that the objections aren't based on grammar and that's the only other reason I can think of. It's an excellent reason though lol. I agree (I'm not American though). Acoma Magic (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It would've been an excellent reason if the sentence actually mentioned conservatives. "some" ≠ "conservatives". Teammm ^TM 03:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It could be changed to "opposed by [some/many] conservatives" but only if the only notable people who disagreed with it were conservative. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not proposing anything... Teammm ^TM 04:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead

Here's what it says now:

The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy, notably in controversy concerning its position on homosexuality. In 2010 the FRC was controversially classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

This is redundant. The first sentence says there's controversy. The second sentence says it again. If we simply remove "controversially" from the second sentence, it makes sense again. That's what I suggest. Comments? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Their position is controversial and their classification is controversial. Two different things, so we can't just remove the second use of the term, but how can it be reworded? 72Dino (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 72Dino, but "controversy/controversially" in two subsequent sentences is just plain silly-sounding. Let's please find a less bad sounding way of writing that, please? Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the composition could be improved. The word "controversy" can be omitted from the first sentence. That should resolve the awkwardness. Belchfire-TALK 05:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy" is also redundant because the first paragraph basically already tells the reader that. I also find "contoversy" and "contoversially" this close together rather awkward. I don't think the "hate group" classification by the SPLC merits being in the lead but if it is going to stay there I would recommend something like this:

The FRC has been involved in significant controversy, most notably over its position on homosexuality, and its classification as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2010. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can do better than "involved in significant controversy", but this is a step in the right direction. Mangoe (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We do, however, have two controversies to report. The first is the stuff that FRC has said about gays. The second is the designation of the FRC as a hate group. The last suggestions collapses those two controversies into one. StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion: drop the social policy sentence, and rearrange as follows:

The Family Research Council (FRC) is an American conservative Christian group and lobbying organization formed in the United States in 1981 by James Dobson. It was incorporated in 1983. In the late 1980s, the FRC officially became a division of Dobson's main organization, Focus on the Family, but after an administrative separation, the FRC officially became an independent entity in 1992. Tony Perkins is the current president.

The function of the FRC is to promote what it considers to be traditional family values, by advocating and lobbying for socially conservative policies. It advocates against LGBT rights, abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research, and pornography. The FRC is affiliated with a 501(c)(4) lobbying PAC known as FRC Action. In 2010 the FRC was controversially classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this suggestion, with one minor quibble: drop one of the two instances of "officially" in the first paragraph. Belchfire-TALK 05:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair quibble, although that wording had been there for years. I have boldly put this wording in, with your amendment. StAnselm (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Belch that "officially" twice is awkward. However, this version is not going to pass muster with certain editors who will want the FRC's policy on homosexuality, not just its "hate group" classification, to be labeled controversial. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Its also not acceptable to me for a variety of reasons, including the prominence it gives to the controversy angle. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, the reason I moved things around was to give greater prominence to "advocates against LGBT rights". I'm sure all of us here, at least, would read that and think "this group is controversial". StillStanding, I think there is pretty clear consensus that in some way the lead should indicate the disagreement with the hate group listing. StAnselm (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Find me a single hate group that admits to being a hate group and I'll agree that the lead should indicate the disagreement. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to. The reason that listing the FRC as a hate group is controversial is not because the FRC protests it. It's because folks such as Dana Milbank and Kenneth Jost and Rich Lowry and Rosslyn Smith also protest it. You don't find them protesting say . . . the Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi Party's inclusion as hate groups. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You have not even shown that they protest. TFD (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC

I left that for you to discover. Use your skills with Google. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not actually up to us to confirm your claims. Thanks, though. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The result of the RFC was for a simple declarative sentence that the SPLC labelled the FRC as an anti-gay hate group. The attempts to hedge that consensus by equivocating within this sentence is bad faith editing. Leaving the sentence intact and concentrating on what comes after it will simplify the path to consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The result of the RFC was also to leave a comment something to the effect that leading conservatives opposed the designation? And for the record, the SPLC provided the FBI with information regarding their Cold Case Civil Rights Initiative which the FBI created in 2006 to solve 108 cold cases from 1967. SPLC also provided some case studies regarding KKK hate crime profiling. The SPLC has no working relationship with the FBI anymore and never had anything to do with Hate Group designation, then or now. So basically the SPLC has self generated opinions. Yendor (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Need I remind everyone that the MOS requires that all salient points, including controversies, need to be mentioned in the lead. While the SPLC hate group tag has been applied to many organizations, (which to some is salient enough to be in the lead), in this case the tagging itself is controversial, therefore it needs to e indentified as such.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting policy. What goes in the lead is constrained by WP:WEIGHT. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and WEIGHT dictates that the controversial nature of this particular hate group label be mentioned. I'm glad we finally agree on something, Still. Belchfire-TALK 22:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted by poster to avoid pointless drama) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

[Placeholder for comment removed by StillStanding-247]

Actually, that IS what the RfC decided. It was decided via RfC that the SPLC hate group listing would be mentioned in the lead. But there was nothing about the RfC that precludes modifying the lead later (nor could there be), and there was certainly nothing about it that supersedes relevant policy concerning weight and providing an accessible overview (nor could there be). Bottom line, if the SPLC listing gets mentioned, then the controversial nature of the listing must be mentioned as well. NPOV requires it. Belchfire-TALK 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Whose controversy is it, anyway?

According to one WP:RS, the SPLC "under attack from ultra-conservative groups", of which FRC is named as an example.[24] The SPLC accurately sums it up as "attack by RFC, conservative Republicans".[25]. Another source says "Conservatives were outraged when the SPLC revised its list of hate groups in 2010, adding the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. The shooting on Wednesday brought the ire flooding back, as conservative journalists and bloggers insisted that the SPLC is the true hate group."[26]

I think this goes to show that the people who make the SPLC designation "controversial" are... conservative groups and their leaders. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is about the lead. Look at the edit history. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Saying that it was mostly opposed by conservatives is accurate. However, the shooting incident is part of the controversy and it wouldn't be included if it was changed from "caused controversy" to "opposed mostly by conservatives". Acoma Magic (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for the lead summarizing, but I don't want it to use bland and misleading terms. "Controversy": what does that actually mean?

So let's say that it was initially opposed by conservatives and later figured into accusations of complicity after the shooting incident. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How's this?

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has received opposition, mostly from conservatives. The controversy was exacerbated following a shooting at FRC's headquarters in Washington, D.C.. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to attribute the controvesy to conservatives, then let's attribute their reasoning as well. Which is being compared to violent groups like the KKK.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be best to just have that in the main body. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is needed to balance the opposed by conservatives statement, which belies neutrality. There are additional problems with that phrase as well that others will bring up, eg. all conservatives which leads to some conservatives which leads to shouts of weasel, etc.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not like we're short on space. If we can mention the listing, and we can mention that the listing was contested, we can surely mention why is was contested. Belchfire-TALK 01:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How's this?

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has received opposition, mostly from conservatives. Opponents objected to the SPLC grouping violent and extremist organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan with the FRC. The controversy was exacerbated following a shooting at FRC's headquarters in Washington, D.C.. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Change to Opponents to the label  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems WP:Undue to me. We should state why this surprising hate group designation was given to a Christian group. As conservatives seems a little weaselly, which conservatives? An "opponents"? Opponents who are in favor of hate groups? I doubt it. Perhaps we should stick more to what reliable sources state instead, perhaps

The SPLC has been criticized by some designated hate groups and their conservative supporters who say that an "overbroad definition of 'hate' vilifies innocent people and stifles vigorous debate about issues critical to America's future". Addressing this, Mark Potok stated that “we're not in any way suggesting that these groups should be outlawed or free speech should be suppressed ... but it's a kind of calling out the liars, the demonizers, the propagandists."

The exacerbation is a questionable finger-pointing to explain the actions of one violent extremist with a gun. Which itself can be, an is, gone into further detail in the body but is a prime example of Wikipedia:Recentism that will likely have no lasting impact changing FRC or how anyone views them. Insomesia (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That should be on the SPLC's article rather than the lead in this one. The shooting affected how the designation is viewed and it should be in the lead if we go into further detail than what the article currently has. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The shooting is a one-time event (we hope) so it would be recentism to give it top billing in the lead. The hate group status is an ongoing matter, recently invigorated by the shooting, so it does belong in the lead.

As for specific versions, the one that brought up the KKK had a serious NPOV problem, because it's a straw man argument without a refutation. As the SPLC points out, hate groups need not themselves be violent. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The shooting belongs in the lead if we go into more detail, as you suggested. I'm not sure what you mean regarding the KKK. The problem that they have is that the FRC is now grouped with the KKK. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's only a problem if you mistakenly believe that a hate group has to be violent. In terms of their rhetoric, the FRC and KKK are on the same page. That's the straw-man argument. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the FRC "grouped" with the KKK? I thought the SPLC had classifications such as "White Nationalist, Black Separatist, Neo-Nazi, Anti-Gay", etc. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree there. They dispute labelling the FRC as a hate-group. It is probably the strongest description possible and they now share that with the KKK according to the SPLC. Even on rhetoric the FRC is not on the same level as the KKK. Regardless of our opinion, that's the reason some opponents to the label have given so it goes in. Unless you prefer my first proposal which doesn't mention the KKK. Feel free to post your own proposal if you don't like any them. To Azure: the FRC is now on their hate-group list which it shares with the KKK, so they're grouped together on that level. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The shooting is a recent event. The criticism is not. The criticism generated from the recent shooting is just another instance of the controversy of the labeling. If we are going to point out controversial items in the lead as required, it behooves us to say WHY they are controversial, and not only WHO finds them controversial. Those who aim towards the latter are simply weasel-mongers.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The current options are to leave it as it is or to pick one of the proposals I made. Leaving out the shooting in either of my proposals isn't really an option if we go into this extra detail as opposed to what we currently have. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the shooting is quite WP:Undue, that's why i suggest The SPLC has been criticized by some designated hate groups and their conservative supporters who say that an "overbroad definition of 'hate' vilifies innocent people and stifles vigorous debate about issues critical to America's future". Addressing this, Mark Potok stated that “we're not in any way suggesting that these groups should be outlawed or free speech should be suppressed ... but it's a kind of calling out the liars, the demonizers, the propagandists." Insomesia (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't belong in the lead of the FRC though. It looks like it should be in the criticism section of the SPLC article. It doesn't even refer to the FRC. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

CNN blog & Tufts quote -- RS objections

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.

---

Regarding this diff [27], two editors feel that this is not an RS. Well, generally we don't consider blogs to be RS. But blogs from news organizations are often used as sources because, well they are blogs from a RS. We don't expect the same level of fact checking from such "news blogs" and we are more critical of using such content. However in this case, we have a direct quote. Are we challenging the ability of the CNN blog desk to get a quote?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding some text that Alfie posted to my talk page below (with his permission)

...I originally saw a raw URL placed against the quote from Professor Jeffrey Berry, and so began to fill out the citation details: I then noticed that the article - which I was checking for the Berry quote - actually confirmed the edit made by StillStanding which Belchfire had reverted. I must admit I had been in two minds since the article is a blog, but thought since it was already being cited in the Wikipedia article then it must be ok to cite to substantiate StillStanding's sentence (at least demonstrating it's not OR). So I did. Then it was reverted by Techbear, who affirmed that blogs are not reliable sources according to WP. Hence my removing the Berry quote. Then you reverted this.

I'm now confused. Is it OK, then, to cite blogs in some circumstances but not others? I thought it was a case either of a particular article being useable or not: i.e. if it's reliable for one citation, then it logically would be for another. Can you help clarify this? Alfietucker (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that simple. An editorial can be used as evidence of notability, but not for support of a fact. A person's personal page can be used as a source for what he said, but not for support of facts. Some nominally "reliable" sources can be used for support of facts, but not for what are clearly opinions.

I could be wrong as to whose blog it is; I thought it was Berry's post on the blog. If it was an anonymous third party's post on the blog, it would be wrong. If it was a reporter's blog post, it would probably be usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talking about this specific CNN blog, it appears to be a reporter's blog post (by-lined Michael Pearson), written like a straight forward report. That's why, as I wrote on LGR's talk page, I rather hesitated over this one. I'm still not entirely sure whether we can't use it as a citation regarding conservative support of FRC (thinking of the sentence in the CNN article: "While the SPLC defended its label Thursday, saying it was about the "demonization" of gays and a long history of anti-gay activism, the FRC and its conservative allies struck back."). But I can see perhaps we should err on the side of caution, unless other editors can persuasively argue/demonstrate otherwise. Alfietucker (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Alfie, I don't think the the quote from the source indicates conservative support for the FRC (maybe other parts of this source do), but rather that a credentialed scholar has issues with the FRC being labeled as a hate group. The inclusion of the reason for the SPLC labeling the FRC a hate group requires some balance. No one is suggesting we use fringe groups for balance (or I hope if they do I would like to give them a pre-emptive trout slap). Personally I think the 3rd graph in the Listing as a hate group by SPLC section has more weight then the 2nd and those two should be swapped.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

LGR - I'm not entirely sure I agree with you about swapping those paragraphs (I think that's what you mean by 'graph'). The third paragraph is quotes made after the shooting incident, and I think that context is important for the first quote in particular - I'll add to the text to make it clear. Alfietucker (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This is the reference that is being questioned as a RS. [28].  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The source (cached here) is not a standard wordpress-type blog—it is CNN's blog which makes it an op-ed piece. The opinion piece was written by veteran CNN reporter Michael Pearson who writes non-blog articles for CNN such as straight reporting on the death of Andy Griffith, the shooting at the Empire State Building, and the first woman admitted to the Augusta National Golf Club, to list just a few. In researching the op-ed piece, Pearson clearly called up Jeffrey Berry for an opinion, which Pearson then reported to the public in the normal manner. Berry's response to Pearson is perfectly suitable for inclusion here. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The relevant section of the verifiability policy can be found at WP:NEWSBLOG. 72Dino (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - that certainly clarifies the policy. Alfietucker (talk) 15:42, 29 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.

Request for Comment regarding controversy in Lead

Should the lead of this article make mention of controversy or objections to the designation of the FRC as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center? And if so, to what extent? In front of your !vote, please summarize your comment as either of the following: No mention (simple reporting of the fact that designation was conferred, as done in most, if not all, of the articles of groups designated as hate groups by the SPLC), Minor mention (report of designation and simple mention that it "caused controversy"), Major mention (report of designation and detailed mention of objections/controversy in the lead). --Scientiom (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Also medium mention (report of designation, who opposes and shooting). Acoma Magic (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are the no mention, minor mention, medium mention and major mention, in order.

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group.

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has caused controversy.

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has received opposition, mostly from conservatives. The controversy was exacerbated following a shooting at FRC's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has received opposition, mostly from conservatives. Opponents of the decision objected to the SPLC grouping violent and extremist organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan with the FRC. The controversy was exacerbated following a shooting at FRC's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• This RfC is defective, in that it attempts to artificially constrain all possible options to those agreeable to the RfC's author. Belchfire-TALK 17:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was definitely premature. Discussions above are ongoing. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• No mention - as done in most, if not all, of the articles of groups designated as hate groups by either the SPLC or other civil rights organizations. It goes without saying that a group would objection to such a designation, and why single this article out to mention objections to the designation. As this article's lead is also fairly small, it would be in accordance with WP:Lead and WP:Weight to make a simple mention of designation with additional details mentioned in the body as appropriate. --Scientiom (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning in your last sentence contradicts your vote at Talk:Illinois Family Institute. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Medium mention - This summarises the main body without going into excessive detail. The other options are okay, except for "No mention", as it isn't a summary of the main body and violates WP:Lead. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would support this: In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has received opposition, mostly from conservatives.--В и к и T 15:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So that's medium without the shooting being mentioned. The problem is that when we go into the 'medium' detail, the shooting is a detail that needs to follow per WP:Lead. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Minor mention - supported by further detail in the body of the article. – MrX 15:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Minor mention or No mention. WP:LEAD states that the lede should give a concise introduction. The lede should remain simple. The article is itself a medium sized article, hence the led eshould be of a medium size too. Even the minor mention proposal goes into unneeded detail which could be expanded upon in the body instead. I think the "medium mention" proposal is unneeded, but the "major mention" proposal is absurd. You might as well propose adding the entire relevant subsection to the lede. Pass a Method talk 15:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're quite selective in your votes. At Talk:Illinois Family Institute the article and lead are a lot smaller than this article, yet you want to include detailed reasons in the lead. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Its a matter of WP:Weight Such designations are not only made by SPLC. But SPLC is the most notable organization. Even many moderate newspapers mention such descriptions in their articles. This issue came to light again in this week when the GOP published its platform, which included remaining silent about violence against LGBT people in foreign countries. Its a matter of coverage and Due Weight. Pass a Method talk 16:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you worded your RFC in a deceptively POV way. Whats the point of the 4th "major" proposal? Its obvious that your "major mention" proposal was added to give more options to your version. Pass a Method talk 16:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning is still the opposite to the RfC you used regarding the IFI. I didn't start this RfC or add the major proposal; I added the medium proposal. Also, I came up with the 'major' proposal higher up when some users wanted the extra detail because my 'medium' proposal didn't go far enough. I also said that extra information was best left in the main body. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• 'Minor mention or more based on the RfC of August 14. Consensus and situations can change, repeating (in part) an RfC after nine days is procedurally flawed. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Minor mention. It's the perfect wording that keeps WP:UNDUE monster at bay. Acknowledging the extreme controversy surrounding the designation in the lead is an acceptable compromise. I still feel that the hate group designation is inappropriate for the lead to being with because of the same slippery slope by which we don't call the Taliban a "terrorist organization'. I'm already preparing for the laugh fest that will ensue when we discuss whether or not it's appropriate to put "anti-gay hate group" in the lead of the Chick-fil-A article. (I'm joking.... kind of) Trusilver 16:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Minor mention. The lede should say that, since 2010, the FRC has been designated as an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC. That's all; there's plenty of room in the body for the he-said, she-said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Didn't we already resolve this? Repeatedly? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine and any further changes can continue to be discussed further up. Maybe you should close it, as I can't since I'm involved. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think the current wording, perfected by the ever-gracious and persistent StillStanding, is quite good. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you want to close it then? We're just wasting our time at the moment as the current wording is different to all of the proposals and I don't even want the 'medium' mention instead of what we currently have. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Geez, I don't know the damned lead is changing every hour or so. I happened to like it precisely as StillStanding had left it a couple of changes after my edit. Might as well let everyone have their say, though. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mention the dispute Else readers will take the use of Wikipedia's voice to indicate that the group is factually a "hate group" when such is clearly an opinion which ought to be clearly cited as an opinion of the SPLC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• No mention Starting an RfC without showing reliable independent sources that show the "controversy" has any weight is entirely worthless.The CNN "belief blog" has dubious weight for claims there are a controversy. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to show sources here. Look at the article. It has a controversy section and WP:Lead requires us to give a summary of it. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Minor mention. Suitable weight in lead, following the LEAD guideline for summary of article content. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Minor mention. No need to mention anything beyond the fact that a controversy exists -- save the details for the body of the article.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Mention, I suggest - a designation that was opposed by some conservatives because they felt the SPLC was grouping the FRC with violent organizations. Insomesia (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't exclusively opposed by conservatives and the SPLC is grouping the FRC with the KKK because they are both on their hate list. It is not an opinion or debatable. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I think In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has received opposition, mostly from conservatives because they felt the SPLC was grouping the FRC with violent organizations. is acceptable. But you can edit war to get your way if you choose. Insomesia (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

They are grouping them with violent organisations. That isn't debatable either. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to be simply wikilawyering every phrase here. If we report the designation was opposed it does make sense to state why it was opposed and back it up with non-primary reliable sources. So let's see what they state and let the sources lead the content. Insomesia (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And that is the 500lb gorilla in this and SPLC related articles. The SPLC has for whatever reason, expanded their definiton of what constitutes a hate group. The POV pushers wish to have readers see hate group to tar these anti gay groups with a false equivilancy of that of the KKK or Westero Baptist Church.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just addressing the mistake of referring to a fact as an opinion (as was done earlier concerning the designation being controversial). The current wording is just a summary of the main body. There's nothing wrong with it - at least as far as sourcing is concerned. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Accurate medium mention. That is, the current lead, rather than the proposed "medium mention" here. (And, StillStanding, this was not resolved before. There was probably a consensus that the "hate group" listing should be in the lead, but no consensus as to whether there should be commentary on that listing in the lead. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation opposed by those who objected to the SPLC grouping the FRC with violent and extremist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Just a thought but don't you suppose many people in the LGBTQ communities feel FRC is spiritually violent and extremist? Insomesia (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Medium - my preferred option of the sentences listed at the top of this thread, though I can live with the "no mention" and "minor mention" options. The "major" option is, I think, unacceptable as it grandstands the objection by conservative critics and ignores the factual basis (primarily propagating slander against the LGBT community) on which SPLC made the listing in the first place, so potentially misleading readers into thinking the listing simply made a false equivalency with KKK and other such organizations. Alfietucker (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. Insomesia (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that the "mostly from conservatives" part of "medium mention" is gratuitous as seeks to taint the opposition, just as "supported mostly by liberals" would. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

• I agree too, but the "mostly from conservatives" is also grandstanding and should be removed. It is partisan code for "ignore this part". It is also weasly. We are supposed to mention cotroversies. To mention who finds something controversial and not WHY they find it controversial is undue.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we should be swayed by the argument that "mostly from conservatives" is some kind of "partisan code", any more than we should be if it were "mostly by liberals". If it has been reported by reputable sources that the support for FRC/protest against the listing has been mostly from conservative groups and individuals, so be it. Alfietucker (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, isn't that the point of avoiding WP:WEASEL? Should we change that to "mostly conservatives" and "some liberals" and "a few columnists"? It's a crying shame that some editors want to try and score political points by vandalizing our encyclopedia in this manner. I'm not including you in this list of editors Alfie. You have demonstrated that you are here to work collaboratively and for the good of the encyclopedia.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

LGR - Thank you for your kind recognition of my intentions. I must admit, though, I don't see how WP:WEASEL applies - the policy seems to be addressing phraseology which gives a spurious 'authority' by vague insinuations, or which subtly imply something contrary to the surface meaning of a statement. It seems to me that if reputable sources (I'm not saying in this case there are) confirm that most of the voices objecting to the SPLC designation are mostly conservative, then that isn't weasly according to WP, and we shouldn't dismiss it merely on the suspicion (for it seems to me no more than that) that it's some kind of partisan code. Or have I misunderstood your point? Alfietucker (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• No One politically motivated group calling another politically motivated groups a "name" isn't very notable, expected, but not notable. The two groups share opposite viewpoints and its typical for one group to attempt to "classify" the other as being "hateful" or "out-of-touch", in an attept to gain a political foothold on the national debate.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not that simple: the SPLC has clearly stated in its report why it has given this designation to FRC, and it's notable that FRC has failed to either reply or deny those specific points. Alfietucker (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, It's never that simple. And I'm afraid it is that simple. They oppose each other on vital issues and the SPCL uses its pulpit to try and discredit the FRC. Am I missing something else here? And why is it notable for this articles lead to add what one group says, that opposes the FRC?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it really is that simple. The SPLC has certain criteria, which the FRC met. The FRC complained bitterly, but never denied meeting these criteria. Those are the facts we have to deal with. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To Alfietucker and StillStanding: Actually, for the record, the FRC has replied to and denied the SPLC's specific charges. See [29]. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't know that FRC had offered what has been framed as a reply. Of course, having compared this with the original charges made by SPLC, it's not possible to put what I can plainly see into the article without violating WP:OR; but anyone who does this can see that FRC have in fact dodged several of the charges, either by raising a straw man (claiming that SPLC accused them of saying "that most homosexuals are child molesters"), or by focusing on incidental details and treating these as if they are germane to SPLC's evidence (e.g. "the question of whether we should "outlaw gay behavior" in U.S. civil law was raised not by an FRC spokesman, but by MSNBC's Chris Matthews"). So for FRC to claim they have refuted SPLC's charges is at best only partly true. No matter - I guess we shall have to see what reliable secondary sources have to say before any of this can go into the article. Alfietucker (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a reply but not a refutation, per Alfie's explanation. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think what JojHutton means is basically "So what if a group that doesn't like the FRC calls it a hate group?" Why should that opinion be in the lead? However, we're drifting off course here. We, although not me personally, have already decided that the SPLC's opinion about the FRC should be in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(EC) What one political organization calls another political organization is hardly notable, unless one is POV pushing, which is clearly what this is. Wikipedia isn't a playground for activism and should be as neutral as possible. Its core content policy and shouldn't be ignored simply because a RFC says it should.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Jo - 1) it's not a matter of name-calling by one political organization to another; 2) the fact is, even leaving aside the reasons for SPLC's listing, FRC's being put on that list has become an issue and therefore is noteworthy. Please take some time to look over the talk page before wading in. Alfietucker (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

JOJ's summary is inaccurate. The SPLC is a non-partisan civil rights organization, not a political one. It's characterized as liberal by conservatives, but that's only relatively true; they're liberal as compared to the far right that they report on. FRC is joined at the hip the GOP, yet it's technically non-partisan. So, no, calling it rival political organizations isn't just original research, it's bad original research. That sort of thing has no place in this article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be incorrect to call them opposing political organizations, but it would incorrect not to call them opposing organizations. (And the SPLC is characterized as liberal by all.)

StillStanding's statement is, to quote him, "bad original research". To report that "FRC is jointed at the hip (to) the GOP", is absurd, but only slightly more absurd than the statement (which, so far, no one has made) that the SPLC is joined at the hip to the Democrats. However, there's no one who would deny that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC is not about Democrats or Republicans, or Libertarians or Greens, it is about stopping hate speech and especially hate crimes. I deny the implied connection. The SPLC is political only in the sense that it is trying to change the social conditions in the USA—there is no backing of this candidate over that one. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that their actions caused a hate crime. Arzel (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-primary sources that some conservatives" object to the bundling with violent groups?

It would be nice to source this to non-primary sources. I'm sure someone's seen a good article, any leads? Insomesia (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Only place I've ever seen this is among certain editors on this article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To remind you...

My edit comment was: "(1) Claiming the FRC is NOT extremist is unsupported. 2) Mentioning the KKK appears to be synth.)"

This is still true. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I'll say once again, my favorite version of the last two sentences of the lead was just the way StillStanding left them. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not my favorite, but it's certainly an improvement over what's there at this very moment. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm mistaken. It was changed to remove the KKK thing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)