Talk:Illinois Family Institute

Re: Christian Reference

Regarding the description of the Illinois Family Institute, the "About" page on their website ("About") does refer to "Judeo-Christian" teachings at the top, but later references to the organization refer to them as a Christian organization (cf. "educate Christians," "consistent with Biblical Christianity" and "relationship with other Christian ministries," all of which are in the third graf). I would like to solicit other editors' opinions on whether this is sufficient to call the organization a "Christian organization." Thanks!

Windchaser (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'd only seen the Judeo-Christian ident on top, a bit hasty on my part. In view of what the rest of the page says, I'd say it's enough, and that you had it right the first time. However, knowing that such labels are contentious, I'd appreciate any other input on the question too. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?

Illinois Family Institute has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism? Insomesia (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Include in lead, with context of why they are labelled This is a small article on a not large group and they have already earned the distinction of being labelled a hate group by the nation's leading authority of such groups. It has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with spreading lies about a minority segment of society. If they spread lies about women, another race, or even against a political party they likely would have earned the same designation. This is the main criticism against the group and it is a notable criticism from the leading authority in this area. Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude from lead. If we put in more about the organization in the lead, we could possibly include the "hate group" designation, but not the "reason". (And "reason" does need to be in quotes.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the hate group designation with the reason has to be in the lead as notable criticism with the reason they were labelled as such, not because of what they believe but in the actions they took. I agree the reason likely should be in quotes so it's not in Wikipedia's voice but remains why SPLC felt the hate group designation was earned by Illinois Family Institute. Insomesia (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The detailed reason should not be in the lead, unless the detailed tenets of the organization were in the lead. It's undue and misleading to do so. The fact of the designation should not be in the lead, unless the general tenets of the organization are. (That would be an improvement.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Could you explain why you feel it's misleading or undue? I don't necessarily agree about the tenets of the group but typically, unless they are very brief, those are not included in leads of organization articles. Insomesia (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Include in lead - This is a key fact about the organization. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Include - That they are called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center should definitely be in the lead. It's a very important piece of factual content per reliable sources. The reasons why should be in the body only. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude Criticism belongs in an article, but not in the lead. That space is for listing the topic's most significant achievements or attributes, not for one organization or person's opinion of it. Reliable sources have designated George W. Bush a fugitive war criminal and Dane Cook terribly unfunny but, like here, the issue is with undue weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually notable criticism belongs in the lead as well. Per WP:Lead, "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." SPLC is the nation's leading authority on hate groups, this is the very definition of notable criticism. Likewise if we had the nation's leading authority of religious groups or activist groups putting Illinois Family Institute as one of the best organizations I would support that being part of the lead as well. Insomesia (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree with InedibleHulk, but I do like his name a lot. It's great. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Include per WP:LEAD & WP:WEIGHT. --Scientiom (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude from lead. Include mention, exclude proposed rationale. I have removed the rationale from the body of the article. It's a general rationale that applies to many of the groups on the SPLC's list, but, not, it seems, to this one. The main reason, it seems is calling for the repeal of all laws that ban discrimination against gays, and speaking of the "need to find ways to bring back shame to those practicing homosexual behavior." (18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda). However the "propagation of known falsehoods" doesn't seem to be as much of an issue - the group has "occasionally embraced the groundless propaganda" of the other groups. I don't like these knee-jerk RfCs - more research should have been done. Indeed, RfCs are usually posted after considerable discussion, when a consensus has not been able to be reached. StAnselm (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually a quick search shows a 100 results of the Illinois Family Institute being discussed by the SPLC showing a range of anti-gay activities. The Southern Poverty Law Center writes that the Illinois Family Institute is "a particularly virulent anti-gay, religious-right organization." Insomesia (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a 100 results of citing discredited research. Certainly that's the top result - maybe they only did it once? The article I cited is, significantly I think, using the word "occasionally". In other words, this is not the main reason they have been listed. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• include The lead is meant to summarize the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Include per insomnia Pass a Method talk 14:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Include' in lead section; very important and prominent fact about IFI. We would be burying our heads in the sand if we ignored it in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude - It's debatable whether a bare statement of the listing should be in the lead. Considering how small the article is, going into a lot of detail as to why it is classified as such is undue weight. It's the opinion of one organisation and having half the size of the lead regarding their opinion is a violation of WP:Lead and WP:Weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoma Magic (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If you're basing your argument on WP:LEAD then it would have to be an "include" !vote. LEAD says to summarize important article contents in the lead section. The article spends considerable attention on the hate group designation, so LEAD directs us to summarize that with something, not nothing. WP:WEIGHT is about the article body, mainly; when applied to the lead section it would be about whether the SPLC designation gets one sentence or more. WEIGHT does not tell us to have nothing about the hate group designation in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the language that's attached to mentioning the designation: "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." That's undo weight for inclusion in the lead of such a small article. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I understand your position now. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include The SPLC is the major recognized authority on this type of organization. TFD (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include The SPLC listing is significant and an important part of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude anything based solely on SPLC as a source. If it's factual and relevant, there should be other sources. If SPLC is all we have to work with, then it's questionable by default. Belchfire-TALK 23:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Regardless of the RfC, there is no way the diff in the current edit war can be used because it is in Wikipedias voice.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  23:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This article describes the actions of living people, as such care needs to be taken to ensure it doesn't turn into a WP:ATTACK article. The SPLC designation and related criticism is already a substantial part of the article and any further expansion needs to balanced by non-negative content. I suggest a history section and details of politicians and others they may have supported. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No one is preventing reliably sourced content from being added. Insomesia (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude only because the article is currently so short that it's not necessary to have a long intro that includes that information. If the article is ever expanded, this question can be revisited. Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • So just so it's crystal clear, you think WP:Lead should be ignored, and notable criticism doesn't need to be presented up front? I ask because studies have shown that readers often only read the introduction so would never find out this fact about the group that some arguably feel is the most important facet of the group. Insomesia (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the applicable sources. Do any of the RS make note of the designation in more than a passing manner? While the SPLC is a RS for their reporting of facts, their hate speech tag (usually justified IMO) is opinion, which doesn't belong in the lead unless that opinion has received coverage of appropriate weight.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It is more than just a listing and the issue of the anti-gay groups was huge news. Here's a couple of recent Google News hits showing that Illinois Family Institute is caged as a hate group, and noted that designation is from the SPLC. Insomesia (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If it was more than just a listing and it was huge news, one would expect there to be several RS covering this with some indication of weight. The google search you provided does not seem to fit the bill. And search result "hits" aren't necessiarly indicative of weight. Can you provide direct links to some sources? Such sources would IMO make a strong case for inclusion in the lead.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You say "I haven't read the applicable sources" and then you ask for sources. Why don't you read the ones in the article and on the talk page first? Why don't you search for sources yourself? Anybody professing ignorance of the sources will exert less force on this RfC. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Horse puckey. Here at wikipedia-en we require sourcing to include information. The fact that Insomesia's testimony consited of a google search undermines his/her ratonale on this RfC. Asking for a direct source on my part is to assist me in making a determination, and i resent your ad hominem attack.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This page has multiple sources presented by several edits and my Google search was to save you the drudgery of typing a few search parameters, now all you have to do is read the the other sources already posted on this page or click the handy link that I added just for your use. Of course anyone else is also welcome to do so. I have no doubt all this information will be added and some will be opposed to every step of the process and throw their weight into stalling the inevitable. But we are in no rush and it's fine to allow everyone to have their say and develop the end product. Just have a look at the sources and see where they lead. Thank you for you time! Insomesia (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include - this article really needs to be expanded, but given that the majority of available sources are likely to be about their extremist political views it seems silly to exclude one of the most well-respected organizations that tracks that data. eldamorie (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment  This reference states,

“ Articles published in The Nation, Harper's, and even the SPLC's hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser all make the same assertion: the SPLC exaggerates, and manipulates incidents of "hate"... ”

Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  There is a problem in that this RfC is about a comment whose only current sourcing is the statement of an SPLC author (Schlatter) who in 2010 indirectly mentions that the label was assigned in 2009.  The statement is, "Both [videos] were removed in response to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s 2009 listing of IFI as a hate group, which was largely based on its use of Cameron."  Yet I have not been able to WP:V verify from the splccenter.org web site that IFI was designated a "hate group" in 2009.  Here is a Google search for such.  Are any references available in archives, of the "hate group" designation in 2009?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include - Almost half of the article is written about this topic, mandating its inclusion according WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. There are other sources, as well:

• "Family Research Council named 'hate group' by watchdog organization.(PEOPLE & EVENTS)." Church & State. Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 2011.
• Wertheimer, Aaron. "Crimes target gays." Chicago Jewish Star. Chicago Jewish Star. 2010.

– MrX 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide a blurb from either of these new sources?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Church & State Blurb
Among the other Religious Right organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC were: the American Family Association, the Illinois Family Institute and the Traditional Values Coalition.

Chicago Jewish Star Blurb

Intelligence Report compiled data in the same issue on 18 anti-gay groups, two of which are located in Illinois: Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (HOME, in Downers Grove) and Illinois Family Institute (IFI, in Carol Stream). Both groups are classified by the SPLC as hate groups, "based on their propagation of known falsehoods." ...(omitted content about HOME) IFI calls for repeals of all laws protecting gay rights; touts a groundless claim that the median age of death for gay men is 42; and their director for school advocacy, Laurie Higgins, last year compared homosexuality to Nazism, states Intelligence Report.

• Include if sources cited above are used.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  02:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include per Insomesia.--В и к и T 08:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The current wording, added here, has In 2009, IFI was designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center on the grounds that it is "heavily focused on attacking gay people and homosexuality in general." StAnselm (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing this RfC

There is backlog in AN/RFC. I think it's safe to say that 13 Include vs. 6 Exclude constitutes a rough consensus. That's even before discounting BelchFire's comments, which no longer apply since there are now three sources. – MrX 02:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is a consensus to include, but I don't see a consensus about the specific wording - that is, the generic rationale that User:Insomesia proposed. I think User:Belchfire's point is fair enough - that's the reason you referred to the Church & State and Chicago Jewish Star, wasn't it? But the former doesn't have a rationale at all, and the latter has "based on their propagation of known falsehoods" but not "claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities". StAnselm (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: If there is as yet no consensus about wording, it shouldn't be too hard to obtain it. There seem to be three options:

1. based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities."
2. based on "their propagation of known falsehoods".
3. on the grounds that it is "heavily focused on attacking gay people and homosexuality in general."

I think, in fact, I would prefer (2), since it is backed by the Chicago Jewish Star. (3) would be my next preference, then (1). StAnselm (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, the The RfC is: Illinois Family Institute has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism?

So choice number one it is. I see no reason to obfuscate this any further.

Your additional comment on the RfC (above) might be interpreted as an attempt to delay closing, by someone less trusting than myself. – MrX 03:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case, you miscounted the !votes - one "include" !vote explictly excluded mentioning any sort of rationale. In fact, only one "include" !vote did support the rationale. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you have not convinced me that this was not a landslide for Include, in spite of your unique interpretation. – MrX 03:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And in the absence of further consensus, I think it is to be included without a rationale. Which is the case with many similar articles. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Cameron

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A version of proposed text was added with sources after discussion and noticeboard involvement

---

I think the deleted information about why SPLC considers Illinois Family Institute a hate group should be restored fully.

In it's Hatewatch, the SPLC states the designation was based on the association with Paul Cameron, a researcher who has been disassociated from professional organizations American Psychological Association, the Nebraska Psychological Association, and the Canadian Psychological Association, the later for "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."

Thank you for ceasing your edit war. This article is not about Paul Cameron, and the above paragraph is basically a coatrack - that's the BLP issue. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for continuing it after you got your way, it helped me see the playing field being offered for collegial editing. The sources disagree with you, SPLC named the group a hate group, which is one of the few notable things about the group and they directly cite the association with Paul Cameron as the main reason. The SPLC called him a discredited researcher but we need to use more NPOV language so we can simply note the disassociation with professional groups he's worked with in the past and let our readers decide what to think. I think the quote

The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality.

is explicit and avoids the use of Wikipedia's voice making declarations but let's work through this word for word. Insomesia (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This explains the SPLC designation, so it's relevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted to the "pre-BLP" version because of the BLP claim. Can we talk about the BLP concerns?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to here those concerns as well. Please keep in mind we have an entire BLP devoted to the man where this goes into great detail. Insomesia (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So would I. I've asked StA to comment on them here. The reason for my revert was that no one even talked about his BLP concerns during your brief edit-war. BLP concerns trumps most everything. If someone raises that flag it has to at least be discussed. I suggest you give him some time to respond here or at BLP/N.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I addressed those concerns and stated so in my edit summary using different terminology and references. Insomesia (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure everybody in this discussion is already familiar with the problem, as this same issue was recently encountered elsewhere. SPLC is not a reliable source for contentious material on living persons because it lacks editorial oversight and because it has a clear conflict of interest. See WP:NOTRELIABLE, which provides three separate tests: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. SPLC fails two out of the three outright. Belchfire-TALK 04:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. The SPLC is considered reliable in almost all statements and numerous agencies and media cite the as reliable for their information. They do fact-checking and are a legal resource so work to ensure their material holds up to legal scrutiny. So the SPLC has an excellent reputation for fact-checking, they also have editorial oversight and the only conflict of interest is the one alleged by social conservatives who object to some of the groups that have been designated as hate groups. Insomesia (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just partisan bilge. You've shown us no evidence of editorial oversight beyond your own self-serving opinions. And if you can't see the conflict of interest, I don't know what to say other than "LOL". Belchfire-TALK 06:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your snarky response as you have no policy-based reasons to leave this content out. If you decide to act more collegially then by all means. Insomesia (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You can take it for whatever you want, but you have not provided a policy-based reasons to include the content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

These consistent efforts against the SPLC need to stop. It seems only editors within wikiproject conservatism think it's unreliable. The consensus of RSN was that it is reliable for facts. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If that is the consensus of RSN (which isn't apparent), then it seems to be against policy, unless we wish to amend WP:NOTRELIABLE to remove the requirement for editorial oversight, as it's clear that there is no oversight at SPLC except for the quarterly magazine. And I am not a member of WikiProject Conservatism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How many editors in chief do you require for something to have editorial oversight? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I need to respond here, although I stand by my point of the insertion being a coatrack. The offending text was about a third of the article. That is massively undue weight - talking about the doing of someone who has no affiliation with the organization. But also, the current statement relies on the Intelligence Report, whereas the insertion in question relied on the Hatewatch blog. Whatever our opinions of the reliability, neutrality and significance of SPLC criticism, I'm sure we'd all agree that blog statements are not going to be as good as the Intelligence Report publications. I draw your attention to WP:SPS (emphasis original):

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Although the Psychological Association sources may be reliable, the only way we can connect Paul Cameron to this group is through a blog post. So I don't know why we're even having this discussion - it simply doesn't belong. Also, I'd like to see evidence that Potok is an expert - does he have "reliable third-party publications"? StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC) StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Please do not add this material back in, as it is a potential BLP violation. I have reverted an IP who has tried to put it back. StAnselm (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with IRWolfie that the consensus at RSN indicates that SPLC is a RS. Inasmuch this is a factor for this BLP "issue"' im not sure. I think the claims of BLP are a little weak.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  13:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Correction Regardless of any consensus, RSN lacks the authority to negate BLP policy.

Responding to Insomnesia's remark above: I made the policy-based argument crystal clear. SPLC cannot be used as a source for this purpose because (1) it lacks editorial oversight (which you did not refute) and (2) it has a conflict of interest (which you did not refute). Saying that "SPLC has an excellent reputation" (which is dubious) is merely a statement of your (biased) opinion which does not demonstrate fulfillment of these requirements.

I will repeat the same challenge I posted elsewhere: show us some examples of SPLC retracting an error. They've made well over 1000 of these hate group designations, surely there have been mistakes. So when have they ever admitted one publicly? If the response is that they've never made a mistake, that should tell us everything we need to know about their credibility. Belchfire-TALK 14:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP/N would be the next logical step.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, fallacious arguments will just get the circular discussion in limbo, perhaps that's the goal? The RSN has been effective and they are happy to get others involved if needed. Insomesia (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but whatever this is, it's not a BLP issue. It would be a BLP issue if, for example, we made false and negative statements about Cameron. This is, at most, some quibbling about relevance combined with attempts to ignore the fact that SPLC is considered a reliable source. So, since it's not a BLP issue, I trust that nobody here will be trying to edit war under cover of "oh, I had to revert that because BLP".

Now, as for the issue, I don't see any plausible argument for excluding Cameron. If there's one buried in this discussion, I'd like you to summarize it below. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes controversial statements about Cameron. "False and negative" is irrelevant. It's "unsourced, controversial" statements that are forbidden.

It's subject to BLP, unless the sources are BLP-reliable. Any rational person would see that SPLC is not BLP-reliable, but I haven't checked the other sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed that no-one has responded to my point that we're not looking at SPLC as a reliable source here, but at an SPLC blog being a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I need to back off here. If the statements about Cameron, other than the connection to IFI, are reliable sourced, we could use them, even if negative. And if the connection is that SPLC attributes IFI's actions to Cameron's then, that would be allowed if it's an SPLC statement. (If it's an SPLC blog, we would have to check to see whether it's reliable for SPLC's opinions.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this needs to go to WP:BLPN. StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP/N would at least be the proper venue. RS/N is not. Belchfire-TALK 02:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, it's already been through RSN and other editors viewed it as reliable. Don't make me go there again to have them repeat back to me that it's reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]]}. My recollection is that there is no statement at RSN, other than a statement that it was previously decided, that SPLC can be BLP-reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The highly respected Intelligence Report carries the information connecting Paul Cameron's hate speech and Peter LaBarbera's hate speech to the hate group designation of IFI. See "18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda", Evelyn Schlatter, SPLC Intelligence Report, Winter 2010, Issue Number: 140. There's no reliability issue here, no BLP issue either. No coatrack issue if Cameron's faulty work and hateful analysis is simply connected to IFI rather than described in detail. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be OK then, although there's still little indication of editorial control, other than its use by (other) reliable pubications. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 31 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.

Canvassing

Note that Mr. X was canvassed to come here and interfere with the RfC.[1] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Libel?!

I just reverted this change because it's based on the mistaken idea that it's somehow libelous to state that the IFI was designated as a hate group by the SPLC. We state this for many other hate groups, from the FRC to the KKK, and we do so in safety because our reliable secondary sources are comfortable doing the same. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the correct quote before reverting?  It doesn't say that SPLC did or did not designate IFI as a "hate group".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 September 2012

Please add the {{LGBT}} template to the article per designation by the SPLC. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

- Balph Eubank ✉ 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that this request has been made, this is a good place to talk about if it belongs to all the other articles to which this user has added the template. StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Done? Already?? You don;t think this is just a little controversial? StAnselm (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

IFI is an anti-gay hate group. I don't understand why it would be controversial to add the LGBT template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revanneosl (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it's appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's claimed to be a hate group, certainly... StAnselm (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a hate group, and the reason it is one comes down to its anti-gay statements. As such, an LGBT template seems relevant, since the group is dedicated to LGBT-related issues (from the anti-LGBT side). Arthur typical inability to see relevance notwithstanding, this is a pretty obvious fit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the editor expanding the {{LGBT}} template is the one who has no understanding of relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Do I really need to point out that an unsupported conclusion is unpersuasive? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't. That applies to Revanneosi's "argument", as well. In fact, no valid argument has been presented in favor of inclusion, although yours appears (at first glance) to be valid, unlike Revanneosi's. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My argument appears to be valid precisely because it is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Earlier references

I've been trawling through google looking for references that aren't dated 2012, to avoid Wikipedia:Recentism. I've found a couple. Same-old: [2] [3] [4]; creationism / evolution: [5] [6] [7] [8] Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Scientific claims and WP:MEDRS

There appears to be an issue here about claims by the IFI regarding life expectancy by gay men. If those claims are false, we should have a WP:MEDRS confirming the falsity (and, ideally, giving the true life expectancy), rather than just a statement from a law firm that the claims are hateful. A possible addition is "scientists who calculated these life expectancies object to the use of their data by conservative organizations" ([9]). -- 202.124.75.42 (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)