Talk:MassResistance

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1

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

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

---

MassResistance 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) 19:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Include in lead with context of why they are labelled a hate group. This is considered notable criticism of the group and it needs to be conveyed as part of the lead per ... WP:Lead. Insomesia (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose inclusion. It's entirely too long for the lead, and much less "important" than what they actually do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC) How do you get around WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD? Expressly "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. [ ... ] While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." Insomesia (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC) NPOV requires inclusion of what the organization claims to do, before criticism of that can be included. The quoted "reason" should not be in the lead unless all the organization claims to do is included; it's just too long. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I think you are mistaken in that assessment. However, I do agree that the lead should also include what reliable sources purport that MassResistance does, or claims to do, which is already in the lead. Insomesia (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, the quoted "reason" is not sourced. Call it "anti-gay". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Are you sure? I think it's the second cite (Shocker: Mass Resistance declared a hate group). We could also use "A blatantly anti-gay organization" (Scott Brown’s ugly friends: In Massachusetts, the GOP candidate for Senate draws some support from the far right), "anti-gay hate group" (Memo links Mass. couple to Prop 22, Mormon strategy), MassResistance perpetuates lies and smears (Unraveling the Right's false attacks on Kevin Jennings), "which pointedly opposes gay and transgender rights" (Some social conservatives may sit out election), MassResistance makes more tired anti-gay stereotypical comments, etc (Anti-Gay Haters Plan Press Conference Today at SPLC). There's a lot to choose from. Insomesia (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC) SPLC declared/designated it as an "anti-gay hate group". That's all we can say, even with those soruces. The detailed description would have to be in an SPLC document, and all we have is that's their usual criteria for an anti-gay hate group. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Not really. Mass Resistance leader Brian Camenker has claimed that groups that back anti-bullying school programs actually want to lure children into homosexuality and, very possibly, sadomasochism. In 2006, he said that gay people were trying to pass legislation that would allow sex with animals. Camenker has falsely claimed that no gay people died in the Holocaust and that the pink triangle that the Nazis forced imprisoned gay people to wear actually signified Catholic priests. He has also repeatedly linked homosexuality and pedophilia despite the falsity of that claim. In 2008, he claimed without any evidence that “skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence” since same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts had cost that state increasingly large sums of money. Anti-Gay Haters Plan Press Conference Today at SPLC As president of yet another group, the Interfaith Coalition of Massachusetts, Camenker spearheaded the drafting of a bill that passed in 1996 and required that parents be notified of any sex education in their children’s schools. That same year, Camenker claimed that suicide prevention programs aimed at gay youth actually were “put together by homosexual activists to normalize homosexuality.” Later, MassResistance charged that groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which support school anti-bullying programs, actually want to lure children into homosexuality and, very possibly, sadomasochism. At a 2006 religious right gathering in Washington, D.C., Camenker insisted that gays were trying to get legislation passed to allow sex with animals. "One bill in Massachusetts takes away all the penalties for bestiality," he claimed. "This is where this [homosexual] agenda is going." A little later, he added, "They [gays and lesbians] are pushing perversion on our kids." In 2006-2007, Mass-Resistance pushed for an amendment of the 1996 statute that would have required that parents be notified of any discussion of gay or lesbian issues in the schools. The group proposed language that lumped sexual orientation (which includes heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality) in with criminal behaviors like bestiality and polygamy. During legislative testimony supporting the amendment, Camenker falsely claimed that no homosexuals died in the Holocaust and that the pink triangle the Nazis forced imprisoned gays to wear actually signified Catholic priests. The amendment did not pass. Camenker, who has long focused on the purported “homosexual agenda” in the schools and frequently claimed gays are dangerous to kids, has repeatedly cited discredited claims from organizations like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality that link homosexuality and pedophilia. In 2008, Camenker made another accusation for which there was no supporting evidence at all — the claim that the state of Massachusetts had had to spend more money every year since same-sex marriage became legal in that state. That, he said, was because of “skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence” and because of the “extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships.” This year, MassResistance called Boston Gay Pride events a “depraved” display that featured “a great deal of obviously disturbed, dysfunctional, and extremely self-centered people whose aim was to push their agenda.” 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda The religious right in America has employed a variety of strategies in its efforts to beat back the increasingly confident gay rights movement. One of those has been defamation. Many of its leaders have engaged in the crudest type of name-calling, describing LGBT people as "perverts" with "filthy habits" who seek to snatch the children of straight parents and "convert" them to gay sex. They have disseminated disparaging "facts" about gays that are simply untrue — assertions that are remarkably reminiscent of the way white intellectuals and scientists once wrote about the "bestial" black man and his supposedly threatening sexuality. Anti-Gay The first two are specific to Mass Resistance while the third gives the general reason why groups are consider anti-gay hate groups. At the very least we should in the group's leader actions and then cite why the group itself is credited with hate group actions that belie their "pro-family" stance. Insomesia (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC) You can't get there from here. We can synthesize the statement from the three splc quotes, although there are potential problems with the sources you quote. (The first is an Spicenter BLOG entry; we'd need to confirm that it really is reliable, which may require that it's in the newsletter. The second quote doesn't mention MassResistance, only Camenker. The third doesn't mention MassResistance, at all; it simply states the usual reason a group is declared an anti-gay hate group.) We cannot source that SPLC's reason for declaring it an anti-gay hate group is that "default" rationale. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I don't share you views but we can go through as many RfCs as needed until it's clear to readers why the MassResistance group was designated a hate group. Insomesia (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Include in lead - This is a key fact about the organization. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:07, 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) 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Include per WP:LEAD & WP:WEIGHT. --Scientiom (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Include per Scientiom (I have nothing to add). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - If the SPLC is the only critic of the organization, then it doesn't belong in the lead. However, if there are multiple critics, and there are a significant number of sources on the criticism, then it could be in the lead. Also, per A. Rubin, the amount of negative/critical material in the lead should not be comparable to the neutral/descriptive material. Therefore, the neutral/descriptive information in the lead should be beefed up also. If the organization is so small that there are not many sources on it, then the SPLC assessment should not be in the lead. --Noleander (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC) This article is made up of one and two sentence sections. Any weight concerns can be addressed by removing superfluous formatting. We don't leave out the most notable criticism just because reliable sources otherwise don't talk much about the group. It may be the most notable accomplishment is that there are designated a hate group. Insomesia (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Comment I consider that it should be included, although a little rewording may do the trick to keep the article as neutral as possible. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Another comment - Elaborating on my thoughts above: Have any gay-rights organizations criticized this group? If not, why not? Is the SPLC the only outspoken critic? If mulitple groups, including gay-rights organizations have criticized it, then there could be a summary of the collective criticism in the lead (but no reason to single-out SPLC). On the other hand, if SPLC is the only critic, that is telling (why are gay-rights groups silent?) and so it should be omitted from the lead (but okay to be in body). --Noleander (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC) We can only go by what reliable sources state. If there are other notable criticisms they too could be added, likewise if there were notable accomplishments and accolades of the group. Insomesia (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Response to comment - It wouldn't shock me if other civil rights groups had criticisms, but even so, we should single out the SPLC for two reasons: 1) it's the SPLC 2) the SPLC is the one designating it a hate group as opposed to just criticizing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Include per scientom Pass a Method talk 15:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Does anyone object to my closing this as resolved in favor of inclusion? If so, does anyone object to getting an admin to close? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Hmm - yes I do. It is not a simple yes/no question, and should be done by at least an uninvolved editor. Include simple statement, exclude proposed rationale. I don't think the general rationale is acceptable. In fact, the relevant phrase doesn't appear in the article, nor even the reference from whence it came.[1] This says "Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods". It would be editorializing on our part to say that MR is one of those organizations listed for that reason. StAnselm (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Include per Scientom's statement and definitely include WHY they are labelled a hate group. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Include I also agree that WHY should be added to the reference in the lead. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Exclude Not notable enough for the lead. Peppy Fazoo (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Could you please explain why you feel this way? Discussion has held this up as one of the few notable things about this group at all. Insomesia (talk) 23:28, 17 September 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.

Hate group designation section

I have revised this section based on the last unjustified revert. There did not seem to be any attempt to revise the content, so I have done so. Comments are invited.

If a general statement is made about a set of organizations, followed by more specific (non-contradictory) statements about one of the organizations, then I think a reasonable inference can be made that both the general and the specific statements apply. – MrX 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm - we have a lot of statements here about claims that MassResistance have made. Have we checked the claims out? Do we have access to primary sources? Yes, I know we are all about verifiability rather than truth, but this is all from a single source. StAnselm (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel compelled to check primary sources rather than the reliable sources provided you can do so. It's not the job of content providers to rely on self-published sources. Insomesia (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should engage in original research to check one reliable source against another. On the other hand, if two reliable sources contradict each other, that may provide a reason to check a third source. – MrX 00:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I think the case for the addition of the generic reason is very weak - and the addition of MR's opinion (an addition which is fine in itself, in my opinion), if used to back up the generic reason merely produced original synthesis. StAnselm (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement applies generally (not generically) to all of the 18 groups. It is cited in two sources and is supported by even a basic reading of the sources, including the organizations web sites. Common sense is needed.

It was also not appropriate to tag the section with a one source tag, when there are four sources.

– MrX 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No other source cites the reason. The Sacramento Examiner article (blocked by the spam filter) says an organization called an "anti-gay hate group" by Southern Poverty Law Center, while the Bay Windows article has added Mass Resistance to its list of anti-gay hate groups. Neither of them have the reason you mentioned. And so, I count three sources, but two of them are merely backing up the text of the designation. Everything we know about MR's statements comes from a single source. StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no synthesis involved in reading the lead of the document we're citing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You are merely asserting that no synthesis is involved. There is, as yet, no consensus to include this addition, that I can see. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So am I. This tired argument has failed to gain consensus before and seems to be POV pushing. – MrX 02:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

2nd Source:

Prop 8 opponents argued throughout the campaign that no one taught Joey Wirthlin more about same-sex marriage than did his parents, who were part of the Mormon heirarchy (Grandfather, Joseph Wirthlin, headed the church for decades), members of MassResistance , an organization called an "anti-gay hate group " by Southern Poverty Law Center, and were believed to have enrolled their son at the embattled Estabrook elementary school...

I believe consensus has been reached, based on the weight of the respective arguments and the preponderance of reliable sources. – MrX 03:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

All of you need to stop with the edit war. There is no consensus at the moment, and I'm not seeing any resolution anytime soon. How about opening a new incident at DRN?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this approach is working all that well. Perhaps StAnselm and Arthur Rubin could compile a list of guidelines that they believe should apply to all gay-related articles, them we can take that list to dispute resolution, formal RfC, or whatever, and determine consensus without having to suffer this protracted death by 1000 paper cuts. I, for one, am quick approaching WP:IDONTGIVEAFUCK and will simply disconnect from this topic if the community is unable to move toward some stability in these article. – MrX 03:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My take I hadn't really paid attention to the content of the EW until now, I just noticed the series of reverts. I think we've covered this issue of the "general" characteristics of SPLC hate groups in another article already. I think it would be a poor decision to use the general reasons, especially when there are specfiic SPLC complaints against the organizations in question. Yes the SPLC is a RS. We rely on them to present "facts" that we can take at face value. However let us not forget that their "hate group" label is NOT fact, but rather opinion and it is the reason that other RS (and here at wikipedia) always attribute this label to the SPLC. Are the "general" attributes of a specfic anti-gay hate group opinion, or a fact as researched by the SPLC? I'm comfortable with SPLC reporting that if they say "Group X published a leaflet advocating the death penalty for homsexuals" I can believe it. I'm not comfortable using their editorial voice as staement of fact. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is why we should use the specific reasoning per group, and not the general.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC does not pretend to be a neutral voice, they present a POV.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you also notice the tags that were in that section? Then when that was addressed with multiple sources, another objection materialized. Two issues I see that prevent this from being fully addressed here;

1. Inordinately high standards for inclusion imposed by a few editors
2. Shifting goal posts. One argument is addressed, only to reveal another, ad infinitum.

I don't wish to repeat what I have already written on Talk:Parents Action League and I really don't want to have this specific argument again, only to resolve it and have it pop up tomorrow. I think it needs to be addressed at DRN, RSN or some other process (but probably not ANI). – MrX 04:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Template:why that was in the section? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind your "shifting goal posts" claim. As I see it, there are ongoing issues, because there is an ongoing addition of dodgy content - first calling groups anti-gay in Wikipedia's voice, then adding dodgy templates, then adding POV categories, etc. So it may seem like one issue is addressed only for another to be raised, but that is because you and a handful of editors keep on damaging the article. Now, I'm still convinced of your good faith - I know you don't think you're damaging it. You think you're improving it. Hence the ongoing talk page discussions. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that the Washington Times used the phrase

anti-gay "hate group"

and the point is that it is the term "hate group" that should be most avoided in Wikipedia's voice.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Having said that, the WT article does seem to take the "propagation of known falsehoods" to apply to all 13 groups. I can see how it does apply to MR, but I don't think it applies to American Vision or Chalcedon Foundation. I am OK with your edit as a compromise position here, but I wouldn't be comfortable with the sentence in every single article, since its relevance will vary from group to group. That is to say, it doesn't always apply. StAnselm (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion on the reliability of the SPLC

By the way, I note that the WT says Mr. Perkins‘ group, according to SPLC, has repeatedly pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia. That is correct. We should be no less neutral here in Wikipedia, and if we talk about "false accusations", we need to qualify it with "according to SPLC". StAnselm (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Uh, no, because the SPLC is a reliable source on whether those accusations are false. You seem to want to report that opinions on the shape of the Earth vary, while WP:UNDUE instead requires us to favor mainline views and exclude the fringe. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC) No. SPLC, is not a reliable source that the accusations are false. Never has been. (I'm sure they are false, but we would need, and could find, a WP:MEDRS source.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not even sure of that. The scientific community is unlikely to label something "false" - "unsupported" (or even "discredited") would be more usual. StAnselm (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC) MrX has referred to an ongoing conflict - this probably sums it up. Now, I haven't followed all the WP:RSN discussions concerning the SPLC, and the folks over there will probably take a dim view of the SPLC being raised there again. But I don't think this point was covered. SPLC is a reliable source in reporting what the groups say and do. But "false accusation" is an evaluation, and "hate group" even more so. I don't think the RSN was asked to comment on these issues. But if the issue is what we can say in Wikipedia's voice, perhaps WP:NPOVN is a better place to raise this matter. StAnselm (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Arthur, this is one of those cases where you're entirely mistaken with regard to policy. As a civil rights organization that deals with anti-gay hate groups, the SPLC is a reliable source on when the claims of a group constitute false allegations about homosexuality. It's their job to know this and that's why we accept them as expert opinions, which is to say, reliable sources. I recommend that you read WP:RS very carefully. If that doesn't explain it to you, perhaps you could visit WP:RSN and see if you can convince anyone of your very special interpretation of policy. Good luck with that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC) RSN has already found SPLC unreliable, followed by assertions it was found reliable. Perhaps if it's brought to RSN enough times, a real consensus might emerge. And StAnselm is obviously correct in his interpretation of guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Diffs or it didn't happen. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Arthur, to be very clear, while I'm not calling you a liar, I am questioning the accuracy of your summary. If you believe that RSN has found SPLC unreliable, you're really going to need to show us some diffs so that we can see for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. Can you do that for us? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative editing

The latest change by Unscintillating addresses the issue quite well, and I believe is an great example of how articles should be edited. Notice, he or she did not simply delete a chunk of content, but instead took the sourced content and presented it in a neutral fashion. Well done.

I think there needs to be much more willingness to compromise, negotiate and sometimes yield by all concerned, but especially editors who have strong biases on the SPLC, sexual orientation, politics, religion, civil rights, etc. In my opinion, content from reliable sources should not simply be removed; if it poorly presented, it should be rewritten, or if it's removal is challenged (usually for POV), then an alternative proposal should be offered by the deleting editor, and a discussion should ensue.

I acknowledge that in my attempts to expand these related articles, and to connect and organize information, I sometimes/often/always(?) introduce content that is not presented in a properly neutral way, and may unintentionally reflect my biases. When I research, I collect information from several sources, and I try to stay as close to the source as possible. Then I hope for other editors to read the content and the associated sources, and make incremental edits to improve the article. When an editor instead removes material or tag bombs an article, or a section, it communicates that there may be another motive afoot. There are editors who, via their user pages, talk page posts, or the topics they typically edit, have articulated strong political, religious, or social/cultural viewpoints. It's been my observation that the more extreme that these viewpoints are, the more likely that an editor is blind to them.

As a partial solution going forward, I humbly propose that we all take more measured steps when editing, especially when deleting. Also, tagging should be used as way to coax other editors to improve the article, not to brand it as dubious. With the exception of citation needed tags, I think most tags should have a corresponding topic started on the talk page by the tagging editor. If there is not a consensus that the tag is valid, it should be removed in a week, in my opinion. – MrX 13:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I disagree with you about when a tag should be removed. However, except in BLP cases, tagging is probably better than removing, but I think a tag should not be removed (without also removing the tagged material) unless there is a consensus that it be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:39, 19 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 16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How to creatively misinterpret an RFC and use it to justify edit-warring.

Here's what the closing note to the above RFC says:

No consensus on including the SPLC's general reason for such designations—propagation of known falsehoods ...; two editors object to WP:SYNTH in going from the "generally this is why the SPLC designates ..." statement in the source to the specific case here; objection has not been rebutted strongly enough to be considered a virtual consensus.

No consensus means no consensus. It doesn't mean a consensus to remove. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It means no consensus to include. Insomesia's edits here and here, and your edit here constitute Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point" . StAnselm (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what an astonishing leap of bad faith. I guess we'll have to do another RfC to stop this latest round of deletions. Insomesia (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the anti-gay hate group designation in the lead be explained at all?

In the lead of the article we already reveal that MassResistance has been designated an anti-gay hate group. It was decided in the last RfC that this information was notable to be included. Now there is disagreement if we should explain why this group has been designated an anti-gay hate group. Some feel this has no place in the lead while others feel this is a statement that needs explaining why exactly they were designated as such. Insomesia (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Include explanation, even if it's brief The Southern Poverty Law Center is the nation's leading authority on hate groups and their reasoning, even if generalized is better than no explanation. Insomesia (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Include explanation, as much as fits comfortably in the lead The complaints keep changing as old ones are knocked down, but the current version is that it's SYNTH. Really? Read the source and tell me that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Include explanation - To not include a brief explanation of the general reason why the SPLC lists MassRestance in the category of anti-gay hate groups defeats the purpose of the lede, and leaves readers wondering why. Note also that nothing in the previous RfC closure prevents the explanation from existing in the lede. No consensus for inclusion ≠ Consensus for no inclusion, so I will be returning the lede to its original, stable version per WP:STATUSQUO. – MrX 14:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to a diff of the version that you mean? This version lasted from the 20th September to the 30th September and did not include the text. WP:STATUSQUO is one reason not to include it at this present time. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was incorrect. I retract my statement about the status quo including the reason. – MrX 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude information, unless sourced. The statement there is not sourced in the lead or present in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Note that the "stable version" is not to have the designation in the lead. The RfC found that the designation should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, the stable version is the one that existed when the RfC closed, right before another editor popped in to remove this relevant and necessary content. – MrX 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  The stable version is the one that existed when the RfC opened, which did not have the material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  The stable version only exists without the explanation as the RfC was opened to avoid more edit-warring. Ergo there was no stable version because it was edit-warred over until this process started. Insomesia (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I fail to see the point of this RfC if its result is going to be ignored they way the previous one's result was. StAnselm (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is noted. Insomesia (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• include explanation, per stillstanding and mr x. Pass a Method talk 02:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Omit at this stage. As with the similar RfC at Talk:Chalcedon Foundation#RfC: Should the explanation of why the Chalcedon Foundation has been designated a hate group be omitted from the lead?, deciding in principle without deciding on a wording is fraught with difficulties. StAnselm (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Include explanation, per stillstanding and mr x. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Everyone should please refer to the section directly below this one for the discussion about the specific text that will be used in the lead if and when this RfC concludes that the explanation should be included in the lead. – MrX 15:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems a bit inconsistent with your approach elsewhere. Obviously, all the above comments are only for an inclusion in principle. I have a feeling we've been through all this before at Talk:Illinois Family Institute and Talk:Family Research Council. No, logically, another RfC would be necessary to determine the specific wording. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Only if you continue to engage in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Otherwise Mr. X has proven to be quite competent at sourcing and writing, as well as discussion language. No reason to waste the community's time in - yet another - month long dispute process. Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one posting all the RfCs. In any case, I have already spoken against the use of the generic reason. StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to be more clear on this. Your editing tendentiously is at the heart of many of these RfCs. If it wasn't for your eagerness to delete until you get your way-until-forced-to-accept-concensus is the recurring pattern. Insomesia (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Include explanation The only valid reason to omit it, I believe, would be if the lead were too long; that's certainly not the case here. Miniapolis (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Propagation of known falsehoods—claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities—and repeated, groundless name-calling

There's still no source associating that reason with MassResistance. The SPLC source says that that's generally the reason for declaring a group an anti-gay hate group. The San Francisco Examiner gives no reason. Added {{failed verification}} tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly.

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. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.

The attributes apply generally (as a rule, usually, typically) to all of the groups. A simple review of the sourced article corroborates that MassRessitance

1. propagates of known falsehoods
2. [makes] claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities
3. [engages in] repeated, groundless name-calling

A common sense interpretation is required. Failing that, we can substitute this text:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has designated MassResistance as an anti-gay hate group. "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. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups."

Please feel free to substitute in this text, without the multiple 'reason not there' tags. – MrX 16:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That would clearly be undue weight, and of questionable relevance. Unlike lgr, I think a reason should be there if sourced and if it would fit in one sentence. It's your choice whether to include the unsourced reason (with appropriate tags) or just the fact of the listing, as I would prefer in the absence of an actual source.

Alternatively, we could double the length of the lead by including information from other sections of the article in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(added) "Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups" should clearly not be in the lead. It's about SPLC, with no likely reference to MassResistance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the weight is more than appropriate. I don't really care if we include the last sentence, but some form of the first is required in my opinion. The alternative I proposed in the green box more than addresses any sourcing issues. I really hope that there is not an intention to hold the lede hostage with the three tags placed there. I'm really striving for a compromise here, and I seem to be getting intransigence in return. – MrX 18:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the relevance of the proposed "explanation" is in question, as well as weight. If SPLC declares MassResistance to be an anti-gay hate group, and (even in the same source) the reason for declaring a group to be an "anti-gay hate group" is generally the specified criteria, that does not even imply that SPLC declares that MassResistance meets the criteria. To even make that implication is original research, not just synthesis. And if we're not making the implication, there's no reason for including the "reason". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple matter of good writing to attribute the statements made with due weight. There are proficient editors available to help with this if needed. Insomesia (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I think you may want to review WP:SYNTH and especially WP:SYNTHNOT. Especially "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition.

All we have to do is use the text in the green box and your synth argument vanishes. Your assertions of 'clearly undue' and 'questionable relevance' are simply not supported by cogent arguments. Also, to claim that it is unsourced, and then completely ignore the SPLC as a source, reveals a bias against the community's already-well-established consensus.

Once again,

1. The SPLC publishes a list a hate groups
2. At the top of the list are the general reasons for inclusion in the list
3. Wikipedia editors (those who have written the article and done the research) see that clearly all of the general reasons are validated by other sources and common sense interpretation fo the actual published statement and article by the MassResistance.
4. Shazam! We have the text in the green box, or the less weighty text "The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated MassResistance as an anti-gay hate group for their "propagation of known falsehoods—claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities—and repeated, groundless name-calling." " – MrX 13:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The only reason for including "Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups...." is for the reader to determine that the reason applies to this group, when it would be WP:SYNTH for us to make the statement. Juxtapostion of statements where the reader is invited to make a conclusion is still WP:SYNTH, even if we don't say it in Wikipedia's voice.

If a reason is to be included in the lead, as indicated by consensus, we must use a reason attributed by SPLC for this particular group. Summarizing the detailed reasons given in the SPLC reference would be acceptable; using SPLC's general reason is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

To quote another section from WP:SYNTHNOT: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." That's exactly what we would be doing if we were to include the proposed subsection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This would be a misapplication of WP:SYNTH, as we're not talking about "two or more reliably-sourced statements". It's a single article which includes a broad explanation at the top and a more specific one for each hate group. There is no synthesis is repeating the broad explanation alongside the specific one; that's how our source did it. Rather, you would first have to separate the two in order to claim they're being put together. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. As usual. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Your disagreement, without explanation, is deeply unconvincing. Your incivility doesn't help. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

<redacted what SS would consider a personal attack, even though it only describes his edits, not his intent or knowledge.> Your "reason" has few phrases which are correct, so there's nothing to explain. However, the correct approach would be to use what the article actually says about MR, rather than the "general" reason at the top of the article, which we cannot necessarily use against MR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you write something that you reasonably expect to be taken as a personal attack, don't redact it with a message, just omit it. It was never posted, so there's no reason to comment on it. Leaving a "<here's where I would have said you have a small penis so you should be glad I'm redacting myself>" message amounts to a personal attack on its own; it's transparently disingenuous.

The correct approach is to stick close to our sources. Our source for the hate group listing offers a general explanation that we are free to use, so long as we make it clear that it's general. No synthesis involved; we just quote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I think it would be best for us to acknowledge that this comes down to an interpretation of what constitutes unacceptable synthesis, and we have failed to convince each other of our respective interpretations. Ultimately, this will be decided by (local) consensus. I hope that you would agree that there is no strict policy that could possibly be applied here. – MrX 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. Attributing the statement, without saying "generally", would be a WP:BLP violstion. With it, it's fairly clear it's synthesis; the "generally" statement has no relevance to the article unless it's intended to imply that it refers to SPLC's view of MR, and saying that would be synthesis. If you're willing to keep an "irrelevant" tag on the statement permanently, I have no objection to including it. Otherwise, I still think it's pretty clear synthesis. Perhaps it should be brought to the OR board for more general discussion.

Still better would be to use or summarize the specific (sourced to the same SPLC document) reasons given in the body, then to use the inapplicable "general" term. The "generally" seems marginally allowable in the body, but not in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you disagree that we disagree? :P

I agree that we should take it to a noticeboard, and the OR board seems fine to me. As far as I can tell, there are no published specific explanations that would not require some level of interpretation, and certainly none that would meet your's and StAnselm's rather rigorous criteria for inclusion. So let's get more eyes on it and try to get it resolved once and for all. Note that this "general" criteria question applies to 18 hate groups, so let's not leave that out of the equation. – MrX 01:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it should go back to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as they are used to this nonsense and would be fine helping arbitrate some language. Insomesia (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem reasonable. The dispute is not whether the source is reliable, but whether we can combine two sections of the source to imply a conclusion. It seems closer to the OR/SYNTH board. And the "general" question does not necessarily apply to all 18 of the groups for which this reference might be used, especially those for which there is consensus the reason should not be in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is well equipped to address those concerns, as I think you are well aware. Additionally they are familiar with the ongoing SPLC anti-gay hate groups arguments and objectors. Insomesia (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Robocalls

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.

Per a request at WP:AN/RFC, there is no consensus whether this article should include or exclude the discussed material either on this talk page or in the article history. As this discussion is less than a week old and not particularly unique, there was no reason to request closure. I would encourage all parties to continue discussion to work toward consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

A section on Robocalls was added. This doesn't appear to be a MR activity, but an activity of "Jews and Christians Together". MR says that JCT "asked Brian Camenker of MassResistance to be a part of it." They also say that "Millions of emails and robo-calls with MassResistance's information went to voters in key states leading up to Super Tuesday" - which falls far short of organizing the thing. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That primary source itself supports that MR partnered with the group to produce robocalls. I think based on the source you provide they material can be replaced and simply a word or two needs to be tweaked. This is a fairly common pattern whereby you delete an entire section of prose when really a small editing adjustment would be less confrontational. Insomesia (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Camenker is MassResistance, and he was a part of the robocalls. I will give you a moment to study the sources more carefully, and then I will look forward to you promptly self-reverting. – MrX 00:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let's drop this "deleting large amounts of text" rhetoric. This was a very recent edit - MrX added a large amount of text to the article, which I have challenged on the basis of relevance. Tweaking sentences isn't going to help. Secondly, I reject the idea that "Camenker is MassResistance", and I object to any editing that attempts to turn this article into a biography of Camenker. Thirdly, the section would definitely be relevant for an article on the 2012 Super Tuesday robocalls incident, if that were a notable event; probably relevant to an article on Jews and Christians Together, if that were a notable organization; and possibly relevant to an article on Brian Camenker, if he were a notable person - but none of that implies it is relevant to this article. Fourthly, and getting back to the sources, as [2] states, the ad was paid for by JCT, and featured Brian Camenker, who "runs the hate group MassResistance". It does not imply that MR organized anything, nor does it imply that it was an MR activity. [3] and [4] both clearly indicate that MR "material" was used, but not that it was an MR advertisement or activity. There is no implication that MR "partnered" with the group, as Insomesia claims. StAnselm (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a pattern we are used to. It seems more eyes will be needed to gain consensus on what is relevant and how to NPOV portray the MassResistance role in this. Luckily we have their website bragging about the accomplishment so this shouldn't be too difficult. We're in no rush here and time and time again we've seen how Mr. X's excellent research has helped these hate group article really show them for the work they do. No matter if it takes a few extra discussions to get the obvious reinstated. Insomesia (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to address each of StAnselm's comments.

First, here is the relevant text that was removed, with some additional citations

Anti-gay robocalls in support of Rick Santorum In March 2012, MassResistance and the anti-gay organization, Jews and Christians Together made a series of robocalls endorsing U.S. Presidential candidate Rick Santorum and opposing U.S. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney for the Ohio Super Tuesday Republican primary. The robocall said: “ Hi, my name is Brian Camenker; I'm a Jew from Massachusetts. And, this is Darcy Brandon; I'm a Christian from California. If you believe as we do that marriage and sexuality should only be between a man and a woman, please help us stop Mitt Romney. As Governor, Romney signed 'Gay Youth Pride Day' proclamations, promoted homosexuality in our elementary schools, and unconstitutionally ordered state officals [sic] to make Massachusetts America's first same-sex marriage state. Romney supports open homosexuality in the military, the appointment of homosexual judges, and the ENDA law, making it illegal to fire a man who wears a dress and high heels to work, even if he's your kid's teacher. When you vote tomorrow, please vote for social sanity and Rick Santorum, NOT for homosexuality and Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum is the ONLY candidate who can be trusted to uphold traditional marriage, a straight military, and the rights of American children to have both a mother and a father. This message paid for by Jews and Christians Together.org and not authorized by any candidate. To get the facts before you vote, visit Jews and Christians Together.org. ” Camenker, one of the robo-call voices, remarked in a press release that "Mitt Romney would be the most liberal Republican ever nominated for the Presidency. Romney is so far left, he spoke against the right of the Boy Scouts to screen-out homosexuals. Mitt Romney proved during the January 8 Meet the Press debate that he's still as far left on the gay agenda as always. He proudly announced, 'a member of my cabinet was gay. I appointed people to the bench regardless of their sexual orientation.' Asked when he last stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights, Romney said 'Right now.'" References

1."This doesn't appear to be a MR activity, but an activity of "Jews and Christians Together"

It was a joint activity, as indicated directly by sources 1-3, and supported by the other 8 sources. In fact, the audio clearly features Camenker's voice. Camenker owns, runs, represents and is paid by MassResistance.

2."They also say that "Millions of emails and robo-calls with MassResistance's information went to voters in key states leading up to Super Tuesday" - which falls far short of organizing the thing"

Straw man. There is no such claim in the text that you removed, nor would that be a required criterion for inclusion.

3."First of all, let's drop this deleting large amounts of text rhetoric."

I will be happy to stop warning you not to edit war, when you stop edit warring. I think your reverts were hasty, impulsive, draconian, tendentious and repetitive. You removed 18.8% of the article was removed; that's a large amount of content. As I've said before, I believe this is a pattern, however, that is not a discussion appropriate for this venue.

4."Secondly, I reject the idea that "Camenker is MassResistance"

Your rejection is noted, but not at all valid, as clearly demonstrated in the sources of the article. Camenker, formed, owns, runs, is the president of, speaks for, and is indivisible from Parents' Rights Coalition dba MassResistance. He is the only employee, works 60 hours a week for the organization and draws a salary of $91,750, fully 70% of the organizations gross revenue for 2010.

5."Thirdly, the section would definitely be relevant for an article on the 2012 Super Tuesday robocalls incident, if that were a notable event; probably relevant to an article on Jews and Christians Together, if that were a notable organization; and possibly relevant to an article on Brian Camenker, if he were a notable person"

Red Herrings and attempted WP:POVFORK. The notability of the robo-calls to MassResistance is well-established by the diversity and number of sources. See blue box above.

6."Fourthly, and getting back to the sources, as [3] states, the ad was paid for by JCT, and featured Brian Camenker, who "runs the hate group MassResistance". It does not imply that MR organized anything, nor does it imply that it was an MR activity."

Including this for completeness. Point already refuted in (1) above.

7." [4] and [5] both clearly indicate that MR "material" was used, but not that it was an MR advertisement or activity. "

Sources 1-3 are evidentiary. Carmenker, as spokesperson for MassResistance co-produced the robo-call. It is his voice and his words. He brags about it on MassResistance.com.

8."There is no implication that MR "partnered" with the group, as Insomesia claims."

Not to speak for Insomesia, but I think the word 'partnering' was a logical inference. Given the sources, and the audio of the robo-call, I would say that it is a very sound logical inference.

Your central argument seems to be that the robo-calls were not an MR activity because of the involvement of 'Jews and Christians Together'. I think I've aptly demonstrated that it was a joint, co-operative activity, and one that is notable and very relevant to this article. Hopefully, all involved editors are here to improve this article, and not simple whitewash it of all unfavorable content. – MrX 14:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of your points are red herrings. Point 4 is solid. However, if the sources actually say "Carmenker, as spokesperson for MassResistance" rather than "Carmenker, spokesperson for MassResistance", there is some connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You've gone firmly into the land of ridiculous here. News articles rarely, if ever, put an “as” there, and you know it. Furthermore, refusing to discuss the large amount of evidence amounts to failing to participate in the discussion. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  18:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(copyedit my previous sentence; I need to get some things done before noon (in 43 minutes)). This is just a quick comment, and I haven't read all the supporting material. However, on it's face, most of MrX's points are red herrings or straw men. Point StAnselm's point 4 is solid, and your "refutation" is just wrong. However, if the sources actually say "Carmenker, as spokesperson for MassResistance" rather than "Carmenker, spokesperson for MassResistance", there is some connection, and something (considerably less) might be appropriate for this aritcle. Kerfuffler's comment is not really on point, because we don't know that the media are reporting he is acting as a spokesperson for MR. They frequently give affiliations without any attempt at implication that the organization can be credited with the individual's acts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's BS. When the media says “Joe Bob, spokesperson for John Doe Industries, …” they are usually, if not always, writing it that way to emphasize that Joe Bob is speaking on behalf of John Doe Industries. I'm sure there are lesser news organizations that will insert unwarranted associations, but that's why we have standards for reliable sources. You're creating a strawman which you know can't be satisfied, because you have a strong objection to including the material. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  18:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

We've gone down this road before. Please actually read the sources that are the basis for our articles. We follow where the sources lead not what we prefer they state. Or what we believe they should be stating. Insomesia (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have gone down this path before, and consensus at RSN has always been we cannot use incidental comments, or comments for the purpose of identification, as an indication of further association. We might as well attribute Lyndon LaRouche's actions to the Democratic Party. I haven't yet read all the references here, but the arguments presented do not yet justify inclusion. It's possible there is wording in the sources which would make the relevance clear, but none has yet been presented in this section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A few responses:

1. You are claiming "It was a joint activity, as indicated directly by sources 1-3". Do you have a direct assertion for this? I can't find any. You also said "The notability of the robo-calls to MassResistance is well-established by the diversity and number of sources." Again, which sources do you mean? The closest thing I can find is the Towle blog ("Santorum-Supporting Hate Group Launches Anti-Gay Robo-Call Attack on Romney in Ohio") but I don't think that's a reliable source.
2. You claim that "Camenker... is indivisible from Parents' Rights Coalition dba MassResistance". I think that's just plain wrong.
3. With regards to the spokesperson thing, it's not just the phraseology - it doesn't sound like that from the MR report. JCT asked Camenker to participate, presumably because he was both Jewish and an anti-gay activist. He's speaking for himself, not merely for MR. StAnselm (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you (collectively, except possibly StAnselm) have rarely read articles about people you know, or you'd know (almost) all news media like to imply inuendo which they cannot prove. If sued for libel, they can say they didn't indend to imply the connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Notably, every argument for exclusion has so far been refuted. If you are able to come up with there are any valid arguments that substantively exceed the above refutations, after actually reviewing the sources, then I'm sure that your insistence that this content be omitted would be duly considered. – MrX 21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You well know that we do not require word for word literal statements for inclusion in WP, otherwise we would all be plagiarists. Please tell us how you one would characterize MassResistance's involvement with this Robo-calls, based an reading the sources, their web site, their press release and the linked video? – MrX 21:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Notably, no arguments for exclusion have been refuted. That being said, we don't require word for word literal statements, but we do require statements which require interpretation to be interpreted by the source. I shouldn't need to repeat my comment that the media has no reason to avoid implying titilating statements, as long as they don't actually say it, but you apparently don't understand it. Inuendo sells "papers", and implication is not subject to defamation laws, unless one of the statements is false (or libel per se), at least in the US. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

From source 2: "Featured in the ad is Brian Camenker, who heads the Massachusetts-based anti-gay group MassResistance." By the way, if you listen to the robo-call, you will hear him introducing himself. – MrX 21:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Characterizing MR's involvement is easy: "its president accepted an invitation to participate, and he employed its material in doing so". StAnselm (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

...and he participated and then bragged about it on his MassResistance web site. Nice try at disconnecting the dots. – MrX 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Those quotes indicate a connection; why didn't you use them previously, rather than the ones you did use which did not indicate a connection. If those quotes are correct, it does provide adequate sourced evidence for the connection; although there is no evidence MR was invited, Camenker used MR resources and reported it on the MR site, so, in this instance, Camenker is acting for MR or MR is acting for Camenker. I have to head out to visit a dying friend, so I haven't had time to check the sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I'm very sorry the hear about your dying friend. This is far less important and can certainly wait. – MrX 00:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In light of this comment, it is very sneaky of you to add the section back. It is just your opinion that "support leans toward inclusion". If you really don't want to wait for Arthur, and you have said all you think you need to, post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. StAnselm (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, your opinion is noted. You have fallen far short of providing any kind of valid reason for again removing this sourced content. This disruptive, process-abusing pattern of editing is very unhelpful toward improving the encyclopedia. I would ask you to please restore the 6,074 character section that you removed, and discuss any beneficial changes to that content here. – MrX 23:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. If you think that you have established consensus for including the section, you really ought to ask someone who is uninvolved to close the discussion. Of course you think that your arguments are sound. As I have argued above, the "most beneficial change to that content" to remove it. The fact that it is such a large amount of text isn't an argument for keeping it - if anything, it suggest a WP:UNDUE argument against it. You have proposed an inclusion, and another editor has objected. You ought to know by now that the next step is to seek consensus. If you think we have consensus, ask an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. If you think I am "blocking" consensus, you ought to know that this cannot happen in Wikipedia - if someone merely objects, that objection does not affect the consensus. The fact is, I have provided arguments against the inclusion. Naturally, you feel you have adequately answered the arguments, but I think you are biased. Hence, the need to ask for an uninvolved admin. StAnselm (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for any perceived personal attacks, or if I have offended you or Arthur Rubin. I have redacted my comments that drift from the content discussion. Again, please accept my sincere apology if I have unintentionally breached our norms of civility. – MrX 12:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are referring to StAnselm's quote or my quote further up, from source 2. I don't think StAnselm's quote is a direct quote from any of the sources, although I may be wrong. In any case, if we desire a clearer explanation of exactly to what extent MassResistance was involved, as reported by the sources, then I'm sure that can easily be accomplished. – MrX 11:57, 7 October 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.

Robocalls redux

My edit summary got chopped off, but it's probably better to post on the talk page anyway. I have removed the Robocalls section. The primary reason is the lack of relevance, as I have argued above. The secondary reason is that there is no consensus at this stage to include the section. WP:CON says In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. I note the word "commonly", but I think it is interpreted by the following sentence - with contentious BLP issues, the statement does not apply. In any case, our lack of consensus must mean the default is not to include it. I am very happy to re-start the discussion to see if consensus can be achieved, but the section should not be added back in until that happens. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The wording of that line in WP:CON may be ambiguous, but the following sentence by contrast makes it crystal clear that it's referring to “discussions of textual additions” that have already occurred—in other words, no consensus means that the information is not removed. There's already been an edit war and RfC over this; stop removing it inappropriately. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  20:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)