Talk:Family Research Council

POV Dispute

I've added the POV header to the article. As currently written, the article reads like an advertizement for FRC--which is a very controversial organization, frequently in the national spotlight for their strong opinions in the culture wars. Looking at the discussions above, it is apparent that there was at one time a section on controversies surrounding the organinzation; later, the contents of that section seem to have been merged into the rest of the article; and now no information at all regarding controversies appears in the article. This is not NPOV, and relevant (and appropriately sourced) material needs to be added to the article before the POV header is removed. MishaPan (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much just lists their positions without comment. What, specifically, would you like to see added? Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to know why the information was removed. Second of all, I'd like to know why the discussion referred to above was archived after I added the POV header. Is there a gatekeeper who is not permitting anything negative about the FRC to appear on these pages? MishaPan (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the above discussions were old, so I didn't see anything particularly unusual about archiving them (although the user who did it can comment on his own motivations)--you see the Archives: 1 button, right? You don't specify what material was deleted when. Right now, the article appears quite NPOV, in that it simply describes the FRC, and neither praises it or condemns it. It would be entirely plausible to add both, per WP:YESPOV, but adding solely critical material would likely unbalance the article. Jclemens (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to your second concern, I was simply archiving the talk page per WP:TPG. If you would like revisit any of the previous discussions, you can reference them in the archive as Jclemens suggested. As to your primary concern, I agree with Jclemens that the article is fairly neutral as it stands. The FRC's policies and political views are going to be viewed negatively by those who disagree with their agenda. I think there's enough information in the article to let readers draw their own conclusions. If there is anything specific that you would like to see added to the article, please post it here and we can discuss it. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

MishaPan, you know what, you raise a perfectly valid issue. I have made the exactly same observation about other groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, and as a result I get tomatoes thrown at me for adding a bias tag. SO I support your addition of the tag.

In the SPLC case, it's a huge article that has a single sentence of criticism 4th from the last sentence.

Now I have looked at this FRC page and I see, in its own section entitled Criticism, "In its Winter 2010 Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group on the grounds that it has perpetuated "discredited junk science".[16]" Shall I assume that was added after the POV tag was added? I also see the category Opponents of same-sex marriage. I view that as criticism. Some language gives the impression of criticism, like when it says, emphasis mine, "Its function is to promote what it considers to be traditional family values."

That said, it does otherwise appear a little lacking in sufficient critical commentary. Alternatively, it appears to be overweight on promotional material. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with this: "I agree with Jclemens that the article is fairly neutral as it stands. The FRC's policies and political views are going to be viewed negatively by those who disagree with their agenda. I think there's enough information in the article to let readers draw their own conclusions." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/Family-Research-Council.aspx. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning SPLC designation as "hate group" in the lead section

Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." The SPLC's designation of the FRC as a "hate group" (see ref's included in article, like this) is certainly important given the profile of the SPLC. Removing this material[1] from the lead is POV. I suggest an article RfC if agreement can't be reached here. --Groovyman1969 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's try a survey here from active editors: Should mention of the SPLC's designation as a hate group be in the lead? (Please include brief rationale if you like.) --Groovyman1969 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

INCLUDE. Highly important aspect of the organization, therefore belongs in lead. (FRC obviously hate gays; the shoe fits with respect to SPLC's criteria[2]; so why would they object anyway, other than that sunshine exposing hate never works very well for haters?) --Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed, get consensus first as this appears to be out of place in the lead. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I hear you saying "remove because there is no consensus". How about working toward consensus? Do you think the material belongs in the lead, and why or why not? Thanks, Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Here's why. "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." A single reference to the SPLC page, which, by the way, is used by the SPLC to raise funding per messages on the page, is enough in the text of the article, not the lead also. Further, repeating the same claim in the lead is not "a summary" and it is not one of the article's "most important aspects." We are writing a page on FRC. We are trying to make it encyclopedic. We want to then summarize its most important aspects. A fund-raising reference from a politically motivated organization inserted into the article is that organization's message, not ours, and should not be repeated in the lead as it is not one of the most important aspects of what we have written. I totally understand that people are motivated by POV to take that SPLC page, insert it into each article the SPLC targets, then place it into the lead to trumpet the SPLC's claims even further than the SPLC could by itself, but Wikipedia is not to be used for that purpose. Fortunately, Wikipedia has guidelines and policies that help Wikipedia be encyclopedic and not be a soapbox to rebroadcast the claims of various organizations, no matter how truthful or not that information may be.

By the way, thanks for bringing this to the Talk page, although 2 people removing your adding the SPLC to the lead may have helped. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi LEAC, thanks for your reply. It's disappointing that your initial response includes a blanket accusation of bad faith editing, i.e.: "I totally understand that people are motivated by POV to take that SPLC page, insert it into each article the SPLC targets, then place it into the lead to trumpet the SPLC's claims...." Please assume good faith. We all know that WP has guidelines and policies to help resolve content disputes. Now, we know that the lead should cover the subject's "most important" aspects. What are these, in an article this size? Quite simply, the topics already appearing under their own headers, which of course includes the SPLC designation under "Criticisms" (a section that probably should be renamed, at some point). The section on the SPLC comprises a couple of paragraphs; relative to the rest of the article, a sentence or two in the lead is not undue weight. This will only get bigger as more news articles are written (see Google News).

It doesn't matter that the SPLC, a non-profit, fundraises; nor does it matter that they haven't given more than a couple of paragraphs to their designating the FRC as a hate group. The SPLC is "big" and suffices as a primary source, per WP:SOURCES. Much more importantly, the story has been picked by various media including CNN and the Washington Post. It's a big story with a bigger context, i.e. the struggle for equal civil and human rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, in the US and worldwide. More news articles make our job easier, and certainly moot the question "is this big enough for the lead". cheers, Groovyman1969 (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Groovy, I'm actually responding to the problem of you repeatedly adding the material despite objections. Per WP:BRD, it was acceptable to make the initial change, but once it was challenged by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, the proper course of action is to take it to the talk page and resolve it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per LAEC above. The SPLC hate group designation is not a defining characteristic of the Family Research Council. It is simply the opinion of one interest group that is seeking to marginalize the influence of an opposing interest group with whom they vehemently disagree. The lede already includes information about the FRC's opposition to homosexuality, which should be enough to let the reader draw their own conclusions about the organization. Uncle Dick (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment We're not just using primary sources here. This is a developing news item. The existence of multiple stories in news media is one of the best ways for WP to determine which aspects of a topic are most relevant. This may have been SPLC's intention; they aim to focus attention on what they consider expressions of hate and bigotry. As far as WP is concerned (see WP:SOURCES), they've succeeded. --Groovyman1969 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Include. It strikes me that the real question here is whether or not "hate group" is a factual or accurate description of the FRC; if the question is about wikipedia standards for inclusion of such information in a lead, it's a soporific debate. Articles on the Aryan Nations and the Ku Klux Klan both mention in their leads that the organizations have been labeled as hate groups, terrorist organizations, etc., and I don't think it's at all out of place here. The question then becomes whether or not the FRC simply is an 'interest group' with an 'opposition to homosexuality' or is actively engaged in a disinformation campaign against homosexuals using junk science, discredited research, calumny, etc. In my mind, that issue is pretty clear: the assessment by the SPLC seems accurate. Please include. Snackycakes (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What happens in other pages has little bearing here. I think there's a policy about that. Be that as it may, the KKK page lists a number of sources, and the AN page lists one, the impeccable FBI. That is totally different from what is being proposed here. Here, the SPLC is not impeccable. Here, there are no other references saying what the SPLC is saying. So the attempted equivalence between the FRC and the KKK/AN fails and may represent POV, OR, SYN, SOAPBOX, or something along those lines. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Include. Didn't even realize there was a vote on this until I found it here just now. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a prestigious organization that monitors the activities of hate groups in the United States. Its listings are highly relevant. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Not in the lead SPLC lists both real hate groups who work through violence and intimidation and conservative organizations who seek to use the political process to enforce a world view the SPLC doesn't agree with. Is the SPLC's tagging of the FRC one of the top things people need to know about it? I hardly think so. It's appropriate criticism, but lead inclusion is UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Practically overnight, the hate group designation has become by far the most notable thing about FRC. SPLC is a very deeply-entrenched organization in the mainstream civil rights movement, and its official listings are far more relevant than ordinary opinions. Keep in lead, don't trivialize the designation. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Note Again, I'm not taking a position on inclusion or exclusion. However, given that there appears to be disagreement as to its appropriateness for the lead, we should wait for the discussion to conclude before restoring the text. I've moved it here for discussion purposes:

"In 2010, the Family Research Council was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to antigay statements made by its leaders, including their view that "homosexual behavior" should be outlawed."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 04:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Include. The FRC uses nonfactual and misleading rhetoric, passing it off as scientific research and mainstream biblical interpretation, to continue discrimination and oppression of one particular minority. Its tactics are no different than the historical rhetoric of the KKK or similar organizations. Historically, KKK chapters rarely if ever publicly acknowledged they were in favor of violence against blacks and other minorities, but they are now known for the bombing of black churches and lynching of innocent blacks and civil rights workers who would help them. Their identity as a radical, violent right wing organization is relatively recent (last 30 years or so) but extremely significant - keep in mind that the Klan had former members on the Supreme Court and in the Congress (see Hugo Black, Robert Byrd and others. I believe the gentle treatment of the FRC and other such groups is merely a byproduct of being in the same time frame of these organizations. 30 years from now, they will most likely be viewed with the same disdain held of other such groups, but possibly much sooner. Simply because the SPLC was perhaps the first organization to publicly acknowledge the basis of the FRC's existence does not make it insignificant. I would argue that, in fact, it makes it more so, especially given the SPLC's past reputation on such matters. I feel that the controversy generated by the two groups' views is historically significant, even if it is only recent history at this point in time. I would further argue that simply stating a summary of the FRC's beliefs without pointing out their scientific and sociological fallacies shows bias in favor of the FRC; stating that the group is "socially conservative" or believes in "traditional values" does not necessarily equate with using false scientific data to support a world view, which the FRC does. "Conservative" and "traditional" are both loaded terms that mean many different things to many people and clarity is needed. - tdd4000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

Not in the lead The SPLC, unlike a group like the ADL, targets only one side of the political spectrum. That targeting includes the tarring of mainstream conservatives and conservative groups primarily because of differences in views from the orthodoxy of the left-wing, as opposed to actual promotion of hate. If other less ideological groups characterize the FRC as a hate group then this issue can be reexamined. Drrll (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Saying the SPLC targets "only one side of the political spectrum" is not at all true. They have registered the New Black Panthers as a hate group and have criticized Louis Farrakhan, for example; also, they have published articles in the Intelligence Report critical of Cynthia McKinney (who is almost always associated with the left) due to McKinney's ties to Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, etc.

I should have said "largely targets only one side." I think it would be quite revealing to see just what proportion of hate group designations go to the political right vs. the political left, just as it would be helpful to see the breakdowns of their criticisms of individuals as far as political affiliation. My guess is that it would be something like 90-98% for the right, with the token rest going to the left. Note that their very active blog, Hatewatch (published by the "Intelligence Report") is subtitled "Keeping an eye on the Radical Right." Drrll (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that says more about the right itself than it does the SPLC. While racial, religious, and anti-gay bigotry can sometimes be found on the left, it is generally more common on the right, at least in the United States. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat true as far as groups go, but I think there is a sufficiently large amount of anti-Semitic and especially anti-religious bigotry by individuals on the left to warrant a significant evening of the right/left breakdown in the SPLC's criticism. Drrll (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

as far as I know, this is a page about the Family Research Council, and not the SPLC. The SPLC is generally seen as one of the most reliable sources for hate-group designations. They are very open to information about hate groups, and I think that if you would submit that to them, they would take it serious. I for myself am curious about leftish groups that are anti-religious hate groups? Could you provide some credible links to that kind of groups? If they are so obviously around, that should not be that hard..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source(s) demonstrate that "the SPLC is generally seen as one of the most reliable sources for hate-group designations?" I was referring primarily to the SPLC's criticism of individuals that they do regularly, rather than their hate-group designations of organizations. I do think that their designation of groups like the FRC as a hate-group is a highly political move, as opposed to on the basis of true anti-gay bigotry by the FRC. If they are going to tar the FRC as a hate group, why wouldn't they tar a group like People for the American Way as as a hate group for its supposed anti-religious bigotry? Drrll (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, do you have some citations of this claim that the People for the American Way is a hate group similar as the FRC? Your unsourced criticism of the SLPC does not change the hate group designation of the FRC. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't claim that PfAW is a hate group; my point was if the SPLC can so easily tar the FRC as a hate group for their views of homosexuality, it's not a stretch to say that if the SPLC were consistent, they could tar PfAW as a hate group for their views of religion. Drrll (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC provides support for Drrll saying the SPLC easily tars the FRC. In the context of another organization the SPLC labels for political reasons, "SPLC hate group monitor Mark Potok reportedly acknowledged, 'what we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR.'" You know what? I am 100% certain Wikipedia is not to be used to further SPLC's stated goal to marginalize groups it opposes. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi LEAC - All political groups seek to prevail over their opponents. As long as political news is well-sourced, it is encyclopedic. Yes, it is possible to be both encyclopedic and political at the same time. That's because NPOV means covering all mainstream, sourced views on a subject (as opposed to some watered-down attempt to be "neutral by discussing nothing controversial). See WP:POV etc. (This is also why the Birther nonsense gets relatively little weight: it's fringe.) --Groovyman1969 (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

World nut daily still peddles the Obama Birther shit, and you want to present that as a reliable source to discredit the SPLC?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that the PfAW propagates known falsehoods — claims about religious people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop it. I did not say that. Stick to the issues, please. (I think you were talking to me, but I'm not sure.) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so that is now clear. And that means that you do not stand behind this statement "the SPLC can so easily tar the FRC as a hate group for their views of homosexuality, it's not a stretch to say that if the SPLC were consistent, they could tar PfAW as a hate group for their views of religion" because the SPLC used objective criteria to add the FRC to the hategroup list (The one I changed to reflect religious people), while you just admitted that the PfAW would not be on that list for those reasons. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Who cares? You keep getting off track. Stop putting words into people's mouths. Get back to the substance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am on the substance. What you are doing is trying to discredit the SPLC by trowing random claim of unfairness at them and then when you are called on it, you evade it. What I am doing is holding you to your claims, which you, as expected are unable to substantiate. Which is not surprising because your claim was false from the start. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What known falsehoods about gay people has the FRC propagated, and what name-calling have they done? Drrll (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

See article of the SPLC. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC article (I'm assuming you mean WP article) only mentions one specific thing (the Sprigg comment) and that comment, while notable, does not fall under either a "known falsehood" or "name-calling." Again, what specific known falsehoods have they spread and what specific name-calling have they done? Drrll (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I meant the article in question at their website. That you think their analysis is flawed is one thing, but inserting that to WP is original research. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. If viewed in context of the SPLC's criteria for a hate group, the sole qualification they provide is the FRC's views on gays and pedophilia. I wouldn't put in an article that I think their analysis is questionable, unless that is represented by a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you got ONE of the reasons. The full range is:

1. Linking homosexuality to pedophilia.
2. Advocating to re-criminalize homosexual behavior.
3. Homosexuals are violent (proclaiming increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults).
4. Links to other hate groups.

It is all spelled out there. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

At most, that would be two items fitting the SPLC criteria for a hate group (propagating known falsehoods and name-calling). The call by Sprigg to re-criminalize homosexual behavior is neither, as are the links to other hate groups (those links are weak and relate only to Perkins before he joined the FRC). As an aside, you have to wonder if they got something else wrong in their writeup of the FRC if they get a basic fact about Trent Lott wrong--he was not House Speaker. Drrll (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(partial de-indent) Continuing thread from Drrll's comment above at 22:47, 28 November 2020, ending "he was not House Speaker": Lott was Senate Majority Leader, not Speaker of the House; that's an easy mistake to make if you're writing about politics all day, and at most indicates that the SPLC needed a proofreader for that section. A simple error like that is insufficient evidence that the SPLC's analysis is "flawed" (or that they maybe meant to say something different .... I don't know what, like "the FRC is not a hate group"? I seriously doubt that). As to the validity of the designation, we're simply reporting what the SPLC says; they provide their considered opinion and their designation suffices. Moreover, their criteria are not absolute (my emphasis): "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."[3] So any argument that the SPLC may have violated their own criteria is not only original research, but is mooted by the stated flexibility of those same criteria. -- Groovyman1969 (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the big fat weasel word that the SPLC allows itself with "generally." So in other words, it really doesn't have an objective criteria in labeling a group with such an incendiary description as "hate group." It can tar mainstream conservative groups at will when the groups stray from the SPLC's bounds of political correctness. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't apply the label to any mainstream liberal groups that occasionally venture into anti-Semitic or anti-religious rhetoric. It should not be in the lead unless a wide cross-section of sources regularly mention the hate group designation when discussing the FRC (that shouldn't be difficult--most major sources are ideologically sympathetic towards the SPLC), not just the sources that reported on the designation as news (WP:LEAD: "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources.") Drrll (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Drrll - WP's policy on "weasel words" only applies to WP articles, not to sources; there is nothing wrong with the SPLC using "generally" in their criteria. And you are correct that the SPLC can call any group a hate group if it wants to. Absolutely correct. The only check on that is public opinion. If they become sloppy with it, they will probably become less respected over time. But as things stand now -- not in some hypothetical future when the SPLC has jumped the shark -- the SPLC's considered opinion is newsworthy, is encyclopedic, and has a great deal of weight, with over a dozen good secondary sources in the article. We're reporting what the SPLC -- not any other group -- said. We don't need other, SPLC-like groups to do that. (See my reply to User:Uncle Dick below that begins with "That is, in effect, a straw man argument".) We just need ample secondary sources reporting on the story, and with so many, it's certainly weighty enough to be in the lead. Is there anything else in the article with that many sources, other than perhaps basic descriptions of the FRC's mission? No, there isn't; this is highly notable. The SPLC indeed wants to call the FRC out on their homophobic bigotry, and based on the ensuing news coverage, they are succeeding. regards --Groovyman1969 (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Groovyman1969, yes I know that "weasel words" in WP apply only to WP articles, but it doesn't take away from the fact that apart from WP, their use of "generally" is very much a weasely word that frees them from the bother of sticking to objective criteria when using something so incendiary as "hate group." The fact that other groups like the ADL and the FBI have not designated the FRC as a hate group demonstrates that the SPLC has in fact jumped the shark here. Obviously stories that mention the FRC before the SPLC's proclamation on high do not mention the hate group designation, and obviously stories that give the news of the designation mention do mention it. What should be the guide for inclusion in the lead is whether a variety of future stories that discuss the FRC mention the designation--something like "...the FRC, designated by the SPLC as a hate group..." That would demonstrate its "relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources" as described by WP:LEAD. Drrll (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Include; it's notable and has been widely covered, and saying that the SPLC has labeled it a hate group is not the same as saying it is a hate group. Readers will still be able to make up their own minds. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Include The SPLC is generally considered the go to source for information about hate groups. It would be WP:UNDUE to minimize that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Generally considered" by whom? The SPLC is but one of many organizations that maintains a "hate group" list. The FBI, for example, maintains its own database of hate groups, which is more narrowly (and sensibly) defined as groups that commit hate crimes. We need to be very careful about peppering the article lede with the "hate group" badge of shame that has only been applied by one major political interest group. If multiple, independent sources begin to apply the "hate group" label to the FRC, then I would be more inclined to include it in the lede (see, for example, VDARE and KKK). Uncle Dick (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi UD -- That is, in effect, a straw man argument (I'm not suggesting it was disingenuously made, only that it's not germaine). "Multiple, independent sources" is what we have in the article already (see most of references 17-30 in current version of the article). Those sources support the language under consideration, which is that the SPLC designated the FRC a hate group, and also establish sufficient weight to mention it in the lead. Your argument would apply if we were discussing different language, e.g., if we were debating whether to say that the FRC is considered a hate group by multiple organizations. --Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand my argument. I'm not trying to make a policy-based objection to adding the content per WP:RS. Rather, I'm trying to determine a sufficient burden of proof for including the highly pejorative "hate group" description in the article lede to avoid WP:UNDUE. In other articles that include the "hate group" pejorative in the article lede, there are multiple, independent organizations who have made that assessment. Only one interest group has labeled the FRC a "hate group", and it is highly contested label, especially if you read some of the news reports which note, somewhat incredulously, that the FRC is now equated with truly notorious organizations like the Aryan Nations. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Include per Kim van der Linde and also due to extensive media coverage. Phoenix of9 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Include - extensive media coverage, generally accepted reliable source, the FRC misrepresents scientific research to continue discrimination and oppression of one particular minority. --Destinero (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tallying so far - The "includes" outweigh the "don't includes" by abnout a 2:1 margin, providing a supermajority that is sometimes taken as consensus on WP. The editors arguing "don't include" have presented a range of arguments, some of which are not well-supported by fact or reason, have been refuted by editors in favor of including the material in the lead, and have not (yet) been counter-refuted. Moreover, we have a large number of sources for the "hate group" topic, thus establishing that it is far from undue weight to mention it in the lead; see most of references 17-30 in the current version of the article. I would say these facts are pretty strong reasons to include the wording in the lead and move on. Obviously, no rush, and we can discuss more (hopefully avoiding some of the red herrings I've seen above). What do other editors think? --Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

They may outweigh in numbers, but not in reasoning. One side cites and applies Wiki rules to keep SPLC out of the lead but in the body, whereas the other side proclaims everyone knows the SPLC is the worldwide expert on hate crimes so whatever it says goes, and if it doesn't, we'll edit war to make sure it does, since the SPLC deserves to have its wonderful view in both the lead and the body. I see a major qualitative difference that outweighs the quantitative difference. I also love the MSM extensive coverage reasoning, like any media would ever report anything critical about the SPLC, so let's have Wikipedia join in on spreading how people should think about the SPLC. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see it the other way round, with the opposes not providing any substantial argument to keep it out of the lead. As long as the FBI considers the SPLC a reliable resource with regard to hate groups, I think we can lay that puppy to rest. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kim - yes, I agree. Outstanding catch re the FBI; someone should put that in the SPLC's article if it's not already there. LEAC, I don't know how you can reasonably say what you do about discussion here when you didn't even respond to my reply at the top of the thread (see comment starting with "Hi LEAC, thanks for your reply"). Every point made by editors who don't want the material in the lead has been addressed by one or more editors who do. The converse is not the case (although there are one or two editors who seem to have perfected the art of repetition (WP:IDHT) and going off on irrelevant tangents). As for the notion of liberal media bias, well, we might as well throw out all of WP:RS. Conservapedia has more or less taken that tack. Why should Wikipedia duplicate something that already explains, in great detail, how Young Earth Creationism explains everything under the 6,000-year-old sun? --Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Personnel needed?

There's a whole section consisting merely of a list of personnel, called Personnel. Is that needed? I don't think so. Further, it's part of the reason why this page looks like an advertisement and the BIAS tag is appropriate. I say remove that section, perhaps moving the significant ones where appropriate. What say you all? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What's the point of listing them? It already mentions that Tony Perkins is the president in the lead. Drrll (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll remove the section. If anyone reverts, no problem, we'll just keep talking about it here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Official policy of the FRC

Tdd4000 restored the sentence that the FRC supports as official policy that homosexual behavior should be outlawed and criminal sanctions applied for it. The single statement of a single staffer does not demonstrate that they support these as policy. If it can be shown from the FRC website or from a reliable source that this is their policy, then that's a different matter. Drrll (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is right to remove it from the official policy section because it is not documented. However, I think that it should be mentioned somewhere because publicly made statements by an staffer in his official capacity for the FRC are property of the organization until the organization officially and explicitly state that the standpoint was not theirs and that it was his opinion and not theirs. If they do not do it, they accept it as for their organization, and they can bear the responsibility for it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well-said, Kim. I completely agree about putting it back in with attribution to Sprigg. After all, why was Peter Sprigg on Chris Matthews? Because he's an FRC representative. Sprigg was wearing his "FRC hat" on that show, and organizations are responsible for what their spokespeople say. A rhetorical question for editors favorably disposed to the FRC: Do you think the SPLC would call the FRC a "hate group" if not for their spokespeople saying things like what Sprigg did? --Groovyman1969 (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with mentioning it in the context of the SPLC criticism unless the FRC retracts the statement. Drrll (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of legitimate critisim

User:Uncle Dick keeps removing [4][5] well sourced criticism related to Tony Perkins in his official capacity as the chairman of organization claiming he was not speaking for the FRC (see edit summaries). Here is the removed section:

Tony Perkins, president of the organization, in Face the Nation claimed the judge Vaughn Walker in Kristin M. Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger case ruling that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ignored a lot of the social science in his opinion. The plaintiffs' attorney David Boies replied "It's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens the right to vote, to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature or in debates where they can't be cross-examined. But witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court, you can't do that. And that's what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost."

What do other think, is this indeed personal commentary or is this FRC related? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Family Research Council is mentioned in the linked transcript only by way of association with Tony Perkins. At no point does Perkins represent himself as speaking on behalf of the FRC organization, nor does Boies' specifically direct his criticism at the FRC. To assume that Boies was directly criticizing the FRC is a violation of WP:SYNTH. The entire paragraph is a non sequiter in the context of the rest of the article and risks turning the article into a coatrack for criticism of the FRC and other associated interest groups. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If what Uncle Dick said is true, I agree with Uncle Dick. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not true. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Dick, he is introduced as "Tony Perkins head of the Family Research Council, a group that opposes same-sex marriage". That is pretty obvious that he is there in his capacity of head of the FRC. Nowhere does Tony say he speaks for himself separate of the FRC. When someone is introduced as head of an organization, he talks for them, unless specified. As such, the criticism is valid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Kim, I actually agree with you on this specific, but agree with UD that the paragraph shouldn't stand. Yes, if the president of an organization speaks on a topic relevant to that organization (and doesn't disclaim it), they're legally responsible as if they are speaking for the organization, unless he disclaimed, Perkins was speaking for the FRC. However, ... to the extent that that exchange exists, it's still unclear to me who Boies is criticizing (SYNTH), and more importantly, this is all relatively tangential to an article on the FRC. (COATRACK) That same material would seem more relevant to me in the context of an article on Perry or Walker. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, rethinking that second part, now abstaining. I do stick by "Perkins was speaking for FRC", am rereading the transcript myself before committing to an answer on the rest. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I think Boies is, arguably, talking at least as much about people like David Blankenhorn (etc.) as Tony Perkins, never mind the FRC. Perkins was speaking for the FRC, but it's way too much a stretch to be sure that Boies was talking about Perkins or the FRC, and in fact, I don't think he was, specifically. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing on the criticism section

Sigh, here we go again with the next spot of POV pushing. The following section was present in the critisim section, before User:Uncle Dick removed the bolded part with as edit summary "Removing POV synthesis from criticism section."[6][7]:

In its Winter 2010 Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the FRC as a hate group, saying that the organization "pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia." 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", but reiterated that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles despite scientific evidence to the contrary. While Tony Perkins has said that criminalizing homosexuality is not a goal of the Family Research Council, he has refused to denounce the statements made by Peter Sprigg.

I think this is just factual and I cannot see it as pov or synthesis. Any thoughts by third parties?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the examples at WP:SYNTH: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. The section I removed takes a statement made by Perkins on MSNBC (A) and the published findings of the APA (B) and synthesizes it into statement C: [Perkins] reiterated that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Clear-cut synthesis. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No. SPLC call FRC a hate group because they say homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles contrary to credible research. Perkins says the FRC is not a hate group and reiterates that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. Nothing synthesis. What happened is that Perkins on the air basically reiterated the reasons the SPLC used to label his group a hate group. There is nothing synthesis on that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Kim is correct. There is no violation of SYNTH - and Dick, you are edit warring against consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, how can there be a consensus when the discussion regarding the language has just begun and a resolution has yet to be reached? Second, can you please interact with my explanation above and explain precisely how I am incorrect to assume that the disputed section is a synthesis of two unrelated primary sources? Uncle Dick (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Listed at the OR Noticeboard. Uncle Dick (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I may agree with Uncle Dick. First, I want to see the articles for and against homosexual men being more likely to be pedophiles. I would guess it would be evenly distributed. But here, one side is saying x and the other side is saying y. So let's get x and y on the table and look. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A few references: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html and http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/explaining-pedophilia -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. This looks like it should go on NAMBLA (from WebMD): "Men and women who molest kids "for sport," as Hord puts it, are the most dangerous. They are also the ones who try to justify their sexual preference, arguing that pedophilia should be "normalized," just like homosexuality has been." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a different version that directly quotes the APA statement. Perhaps this retains the sense expressed in the original statement whilst also avoiding concerns that SYNTH is an issue? EdChem (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I like that much better. However, this might be the relevant sentence: "There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals or bisexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexuals." Uncle Dick, what say you? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added that sentence too... thanks, I missed it when I was looking. EdChem (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming from WP:ORN I believe that is a clear case of synthesis. It doesn't say anything about FRC it is something you added from your own research. This article is about FRC not homosexuality. I see no need for you to go sticking in your own arguments. The paragraph is much more reasonable without such stuff. Dmcq (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. Dmcq has a point. EdChem, what say you? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) In the Intelligent design article, mainstream scientific views are presented, because it places ID in context. Kitzmuller vs. Dover is reported on, because that case is relevant. In 1981 Irish hunger strike, a great deal of related, germane content is given, including Special status, previous strikes, etc. This is not synth; this is inclusion of relevant material. Synth exists only when a new conclusion is drawn which is not in either of the sources. Please note both of these articles are Featured articles; I can easily find a hundred more examples. You are attempting to exclude germane content which gives background necessary for full comprehension of the title subject, by calling anything not absolutely directly about the title subject synth. This is unfortunate and inaccurate. FRC makes a claim; that claim does not exist in a vacuum. Is it supported by mainstream experts, or not? It is a crucial piece of information necessary to understand the topic at hand. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, KillerChihuahua, well put. To expand on the issue, my version did not imply some synthesis beyond what was stated - that FRC advocates X and the scientific evidence has shown X is false. A synthesis would be something like "FRC is a hate group.[ref] Most hate groups espouse a neo-nazi philosophy.[ref]", which would imply that the FRC are neo-nazis despite no reference supporting that claim. (NB: I am not implying that the FRC are neo-nazis, and I have no idea what references would support about "most hate groups"; my example is simply an illustration.) To suggest that the statement "X is false" is only citable if it says "X, which the FRC advocates, is false" is absurd. The APA are not going to say "X is false. It is false when A claims it, and when B claims it. When C claims it, it is still false." etc covering everyone who has ever claimed X is true. They will just state "X is false", which they do. The quote makes what they are stating 100% clear. I'm not going to edit war, but I think the idea that SYNTH prevents us noting that a claim like homosexual implies pedophile is false in any article about an organisation making such a claim is ridiculous. EdChem (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There are articles about creationism that present the mainstream point of view. That's why the mainstream point of view is presented there. It isn't because it places ID in context. Same with the hunger strike, it has been written about with the context as relevant and that's what the citations show. I haven't the foggiest what Kitzmuller vs. Dover was about but that other articles have problems is not an excuse for putting problems here. If you want to stick something like that in it has to be a relevant citation about the FRC that talks about this issue and says they are wrong. You may think the policy WP:OR is absurd - if so argue your case there for changing it. I do not consider it absurd. If a secondary source does not consider it worth writing about then WIkipedia shouldn't. If a newspaper talking about this doesn't need to put in something saying 'but this is false because of xyz' then Wikipedia should not either. Wikipedia is not in the business of writing new stuff, it summarizes what is already written. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason I picked featured articles is precisely because they don't "have problems" - adding the mainstream view in an article when presenting a fringe view is required by WP:NPOV. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the FRC, it is not about anything else. That it has been described as a hate group because of its views is your NPOV piece about it. It is not a personal essay for people to push their own personal agenda into without reference to articles about them. The reason people look at WIkipedia is because they want an article about a topic, not because they want polemics made up by the editors without reference to relevant sources. If sources outside of Wikipedia haven't gone into thi then it should not be done in Wikipedia. Please read the WP:Five pillars for a summary of the basic principles underlying the policies. Note near the start of the very first pillar "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I assure you, I am quite familiar with policies. I have been editing her for six years, and have considerable experience. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Then you should know better. Raise your point on WP:NPOVN and lets see how quickly it is shot down as it certainly isn't going to fly at WP:ORN. Dmcq (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you do realize that the noticeboards are not binding, have no inherent authority, and are really for use to a) get more eyes on an issue when b) the talk page has failed to resolve the dispute? The first step in dispute resolution is to work with your fellow editors and discuss to try to resolve the issue - not to post on a noticeboard. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I rearranged things a bit to reduced the perception of synth, by bringing the supporting link to the claim of the SPLC, and leaving it separate from perkin's reiteration. Hope this solves it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't remove the synth. I'll raise the issue on the WP:NPOVN. The issue has been converted to a NPOV issue by an editor quoting their long experience to push their point of view. Perhaps they might take notice of some other experienced editors. Dmcq (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have started up a discussion at WP:NPOVN#NPOV being used to justify OR at Family Research Council Dmcq (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

After EC, which I see I was too slow in posting to prevent cross board spamming: Good grief, please don't spam any more message boards in some misguided thought that you'd be appeasing my concerns. Shopping around is not advisable nor indicated.

What precisely is the "original thought" you perceive? perhaps that would be a better starting point. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a genuine problem of synthesis which I believe Uncle Dick was right to bring up. As you see at the noticeboard, I think the problem is solved because I found a link to a full refutation from the original source. So there's no more problem of SYNTH. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue was more in the phrasing, rather than as actual synth; clearly there are differences of opinion here. However, delighted as I am that you (BC) feel that the issue is resolved, apparently it has not been resolved according to Dmcq, who has yet to specify his issue with the current content. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with the citation that Becritical found. Phrasing what is there now differently will not stop it being WP:SYNTH it should just be removed and what Becritical found should be put in instead. And NPOV does not justify doing synthesis. Dmcq (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

One last time: I do not think that NPOV justifies, or overrides, SYNTH. I have never thought that, I have never said that, I have never hinted at that. So stop arguing it. No one here has made that assertion. You are arguing pointlessly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You said 'adding the mainstream view in an article when presenting a fringe view is required by WP:NPOV'. Are you saying that sticking in something that's just picked out of the internet which doesn't mention the topic in any way is not original research or are you saying it is allowed because of NPOV? Dmcq (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "Mainstream view" does not equal "something that's just picked out of the internet which doesn't mention the topic in any way". Your query is an example of a loaded question. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Dmcq, I am having trouble comprehending your position. We have a source in which the FRC itself advocates the view that homosexuality and paedophilia are linked. We have impecable mainstream sources stating that empirical research does not show any such link. Given these facts, would you agree that there is a POV issue with simply stating the FRC view without any caveat? If you do agree, what do you think we need to support a caveat and what caveat would you propose? If you do not agree, please explain why an uncontested statement of a view that is falsified by RS is appropriate for an encyclopedia? EdChem (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The way to deal with a view like that if one didn't have sources pointing out it is a load of rubbish is to simply attribute what was said to the organisation and not state it as fact. It is not up to editors on wikipedia to research arguments against organizations when the sources don't bother doing so. making up one's own arguments is original research. Putting in the arguments that were actually used is doing the job properly. That's why finding a good source like Becritical did is so valuable. It is not acceptable to try patching over lack of information with one's own thoughts. Dmcq (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

Does the article really need that POV tag? Is there a current complaint that it's POV? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinions

Do any other editors have a problem with the sentence removed here and here? It could be attributed, and of course it is refuting a claim made by FRC Tony Perkins, that homosexuality is a risk factor in child molestation; the sentence is taken from this source, which is linked by this source when it says the following:

Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.” (emphasis added)

Under those circumstances re the sources, I think the sentence saying that men who molest boys are not necessarily homosexual is relevant. Other's input much appreciated (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Statements that imply / declare that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles are unsupported by relevant research, and should not be included without balancing material stating the mainstream scientific view. To leave such incorrect statements uncorrected is a violation of WP:NPOV. EdChem (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; this is a very clear cut case of a policy violation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 07:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The policy WP:NPOV says no such thing about balancing. It is about reporting the topic neutrally. There is no requirement to spend nine tenths of the creationism article on evolution because creationism is scientifically hogwash. What is relevant to a topic is what's been written about the topic which here is the Family Research Council. Going down a sideroad diverting an article from its topic is turning it into a WP:COATRACK. There are lots of articles about aspects of homosexuality without turning this one into another one. Do you really think people are so ignorant that one needs to stick an article about it wherever one of these homophobic organizations occurs rather than writing about the organization itself?

That said I believe it would be okay to put that stuff back in, it is cited well enough. However I thing that section should make it more clear that the Poverty Law Centre is pointing out these respected sources refuting what the FRC has said. At the moment they just look like what someone with a chip on their shoulder stuck in. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." WP:UNDUE (emphasis added). KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm the editor who last deleted the sentence in question I should probably weigh in here. As I said in the edit summary, there are quite a few things wrong with it. For starters, it stands out in tone like a sore thumb. A paragraph that seems to be neutrally presenting the claims of contending experts suddenly seems to take sides with a declarative editorial statement. It just doesn't fit in with the tone that an encyclopedia is supposed to have. Moreover, I would contend that the subject that these contending organizations are dealing with is inherently subjective. What is the nature of homosexuality (or heterosexuality or bisexuality)? Is it merely sexual desire for members of the same sex? Is someone who primarily desires sexual relations with members of the same sex but has never acted on it but has instead had relations only with members of the opposite sex (and there have probably been hundreds of thousands of such people throughout history) a homosexual? Is someone who would really prefer sexual relations with the opposite sex (a prisoner perhaps) but who instead regularly engages in sexual relations with members of the same sex a homosexual, or someone who seem to have an equal propensity for both sexes but instead engages with members of the same sex because of convenience? I don't feel we should have copy in the article that takes sides on the issue, especially copy that, frankly, seems to be written ham-handedly. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S> The deleted statement is also, as Dmcq points out, a COATRACK in an article on the Family Research Council. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you don't like the phrasing/tone. We can change that. As to your other objections, I have no opinion... but the source does. If the source has an opinion directly related to a statement made by FRC, shouldn't we include the info? Dmcq, if it were attributed to its expert, that be better right? It's not actually coatrack because it's a) just one sentence and b) directly from the source and c) relevant and d) part of a section on criticism. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it presented as that source's finding or opinion and not as a declarative editorial statement. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be fine. I just want it to report about the criticism and what each side said rather than start getting Wikipedia personally involved as it were. As I said before I'd like it more clear that the Poverty Law Centre pointed out these sources to support its case and counter what the FRC has said. Dmcq (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then people here would agree to put it in if it were attributed to the researcher? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to attribute the majority view specifically. Imagine if we wrote "Charles Darwin said life evolves" instead of "life evolves". The former might be acceptable if we were discussing the history, but otherwise it would leave us with the false impression that it's just what this one guy says.Dylan Flaherty 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You of course don't mean "majority," but rather "reliable source," as your example makes very plain. As you see with the attribution to the APA, attribution increases the forcefulness of the argument, it does not decrease it. I do not care from what perspective people are arguing here. I would use attribution because it is good encyclopedic writing and increases the persuasive power of the information. For one thing, everyone with a brain knows that absolute statements are the result of absolutist thinking, and that absolutist thinking is not data-driven and therefore often wrong. For another, if the attribution does serve to decrease persuasive power, then such is deserved. One can't use attribution when it increases the power of the argument, as with the APA, and then refuse to do it when one (falsely in this case) believes it detracts from the argument's force. Research by A. Nicholas Groth, writing for the United States House Committee on the Judiciary, found that it is not true that men who molest boys are necessarily homosexual." (Sexual Exploitation of Children: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives (pp 106). University Press of the Pacific. 2002.) And were it in some other case fact that attribution detracted from the persuasive power, that is something we'd have to accept. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 09:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I understand your point here. You've said nothing about the fact that we do not need to attribute every fact. Dylan Flaherty 17:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)The discussion abou

This article is about the FRC. The criticism should be in that context. There's lots of other articles about other things. That the Poverty law centre called them a hate group and provided their reasons is what the citations show and is relevant to the article and is what should be said. Providing facts without showing direct relevance to the topic is what WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH warn against. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is directly relevant to the topic, Dmcq. People in Wikipedia need to settle for what they can get under Wikipedia rules. In this case, though in Wikipedia we don't need to attribute every fact, we should attribute the statement we're discussing because it is controversial and, in this case, from a single source. It's not like evolution with hundreds of the most reliable sources behind it. In that case, the enormous weight of the reliable sources outshines the fact that it is controversial and not widely believed. If you read the Atlantic recently, there was a large article about how even the best blinded medical studies are wrong quite often. This is original research on the part of Groth. Attribution in this case not only strengthens the readers impression over simply stating it as fact, but it also is necessary for all those reasons that Wikipedia has a policy endorsing prose attributions. That is, use them whenever a statement is controversial, disputed, widely believed to be false, or concerns a matter of opinion. It's not Groth's opinion, but it's disputed. Even though FRC and its influence is despicable, we need to distance ourselves emotionally, and remember that good scientific/encyclopedia writing requires certain things of us... one of which is to remain distanced from the subject and not worry too much about the influence we're having, so long as we're doing things properly. Public opinion is not something to be considered. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to figure out what the 'it' at the start of all that referred to. Dmcq (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Killer Chihuahua--this is not an article about sexuality of any sort, it's an article about an organization. One which has controversial views on some things, however, but those UNDUE bits on those viewpoints should be hashed out in those articles, not here. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) UNDUE and ArbCom say otherwise - we are not to post a fringe view without also including the mainstream view. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? Enlighten me. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." WP:UNDUE (emphasis added)
• "In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Undue_weight (emphasis added) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct, in other words, the most reliable sources should not be ignored. Setting aside all terminology such as "mainstream," we rely on the best sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this is specifically about views not sources. We may be agreeing, but your choice of words is confusing in that case. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

More appropriately that is referring to articles about views, which this is not. I see no support for your statement above "we are not to post a fringe view without also including the mainstream view". I see plenty of support for "we are not to have an article on a fringe view without also including the mainstream view", which is what I'm arguing: discussion of a fringe view belongs in the article on the fringe view, and need not be repeated in every article which references the fringe view. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it clearly states "points of view on a subject" not "articles on a subject". In this case, the subject is whether homosexual are more likely to be pedophiles. The majority POV is no, absolutely not. The unsupported fringe view is yes it is. We cannot present the FRC's fringe view without also presenting, however briefly, the majority view, without running afoul of NPOV#UNDUE. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The subject here is FRC. The article is presenting the views on the FRC. The subject is not whether homosexual are more likely to be paedophiles. The point of view expressed by the Poverty Law Centre is that the FRC is a hate group. Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To KC: Yes, it talks about points of view. But the article doesn't need to describe points of view. It shouldn't. It should reference one of those battlefield articles like Homosexuality and Christianity or something. The difference is important, else every article on evolution in the 'pedia would have to mention its controversies--which is stupid and unworkable. Controversies over sexual orientation should be treated the same: a good NPOV approach worked out once and then referenced from everywhere else relevant, so we stop polluting articles like this with redundant debate material. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Evolution is not fringe; so your argument is flawed. If this article mentions the view, held and promoted by the FRC, that homosexuals are more likely to be pedofiles, we must add a brief note that this is not supported (not necessarily that phrasing.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Having it be about views would make a mockery of Wikipedia. Evolution, for example, is a fringe view. It's just not fringe in RS. Of course we aren't going to have a view/response format in Wikipedia. Rather reliably sourced views should always be presented when views which are not reliably sourced are being described. But you're right, it's on a per-article basis, not a per-sentence or per-paragraph basis. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

---> Becritical: excuse me, are you actually saying Evolution is a fringe view? Please confirm you meant to say that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course. How many Chinese, Indians, Africans, Americans believe in it? It's a mainstream view only among scholarly sources. But it is by far the minority view. Thus, I say that Wikipedia has its terminology very wrong. WP follows the scholarly sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to read up on WP:FRINGE. Really. Its not a popularity contest.

That's my point, which Wikipedia makes very difficult for new editors by not properly explaining that mainstream equals the mainstream of reliable sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not what UNDUE says. You're welcome to think that, but the problem with that is that following through with that approach turns every related article to an inconsistent rehash of debates. Far better to put the debate into a view article, meet UNDUE there, and link to that article from everywhere the fringe theory is mentioned. Thus, we can keep articles like this one focused on their subject, rather than the mainstream reaction to views held by the organization. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay explain to me what UNDUE says that I'm missing? I'm not saying that an article on a controversial "fringe" view should be about the RS view. I'm just saying that the RS view shouldn't be ignored. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)