Jump to content

Talk:American Family Association/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Designation by SPLC as a hate group

In 2010, AFA was designated as an "Anti-Gay" hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an internationally known American nonprofit civil rights organization. The lede content sentence in question is: In 2010 the Organization was added to the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Hate Groups. This sentence is appropriate per WP:LEDE as there is significant content describing AFA as a hate group, especially related to it's anti-gay positions, and SPLC is a very significant monitor of hate groups. I reverted the last removal and added additional references. — Becksguy (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess whitewashing the hate group, AFA, is easier than finding reliable sources that say they aren't a hate group. Probably because there are no reliable sources that state that. Well, I guess we'll have to fix it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
If this was whitewashing wouldn't I/other editors be trying to remove the criticism from the rest of the article? SPLC's commentary does not belong in the lead. - Haymaker (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
SPLC in the lede is WP:UNDUE. Additionally, there is no consensus, in fact substantial opposition, to add SPLC to the lede. Note that it is currently in the article because of protection. To add SPLC to the lede against consensus is disruptive. Lionel (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that it is undue weight in the lede, giving one sentence to SPLC's classification. The ruckus raised by SPLC saying AFA was a hate group was very prominent in the news, and is now a significant part of AFA history. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is fully protected for three days (as of 21:38, 21 April 2011 UTC) due to edit warring/content dispute. There is currently no consensus, as we are here to develop consensus, and encouraged to do so by the article being locked down. — Becksguy (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a consensus. BlueboyLI added SPLC to the lede yesterday. It was immediately reverted. The current consensus, based on article history, is that it should not be in the lede. Your efforts here are to change that consensus, and of course consensus changes all the time. But as of right now, as far as I can determine, there is no new consensus. See WP:CON, WP:BRD. Lionel (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Current consensus of....whom? Whitewashing AFA supporters? Just asking. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
OM, you know what I'm referring to pertaining to BRD, and please cease the soapboxing. Just because an editor feels that SPLC doesn't belong in the lede doesn't make them a "whitewashing AFA supporter." You have no right to call the good editors here names, nor question their motivations. As best I can, I always assume good faith. I even assume good faith with you, OM. I suggest you do the same. And btw, I am also against hate in all its forms and manifestations. I try to live by the Golden Rule. You do not have a monopoly on "hate." "Hate" is not a political term to be used to attack perceived enemies. Lionel (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify. There has never been a talk page discussion establishing consensus for the inclusion or exclusion of the SPLC statement in the lede, such as the one I started here. That is what I mean by consensus, per WP:CON, as there is an edit war over the content. However, the process is the same whether creating or changing talk page consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate summarization in lede

About 34 % of the article's content relate to homosexuality. About 25 % relate to the controversial anti-gay positions and activities taken by AFA and the responses to them. Having only six words in the lede ("..in particular its views on homosexuality") about that major controversial issue violates WP:LEDE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. And that sentence is buried at the end of a paragraph on the AFA budget in the lede.

Without the statement about the designation of AFA as a hate group, the lede reads like a travel brochure. No one would have any clue about the extent of the controversy related to homosexuality from reading the lede.

Quoting in pertinent part from WP:LEDE: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article and, if possible, its first paragraph should be able to stand alone as a concise definition. The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

The single statement about the designation as a hate group is actually insufficient. There should be a whole paragraph on that issue in the lede. It's our responsibility to reflect the reliable sources on the homosexuality issue in the lede, per policy and guidelines, as well as in the body. But as a bare minimum, the SPLC statement needs to be reinserted, at least until a new paragraph is written. — Becksguy (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I see that the SPLC designation has been reinserted as part of the last paragraph. That's a good beginning. But is it sufficient? — Becksguy (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. Becksguy (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no consensus for SPLC's mention in the lede: summarized or otherwise. Lionel (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Additionally, AFA has numerous campaigns it's involved with from the War on Christmas to indecency to the Ground zero mosque. Opposition to homosexuality is not it's only activity by a long shot. Criticism of AFA's position on homosexuality comes from several quarters. Singling out this pronouncement by SPLC, a biased source, in the lede is WP:UNDUE. The lede in the pre-edit war (stable) version is balanced. Lionel (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Of course the solution is to add the "several quarters" to the lead, to augment SPLC's sharp criticism. It does not matter that AFA does other works if they do not stir up so much response from the public. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. AFA getting tagged as a hate group stirred a giant hornet's nest of response. We must mention this event in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Calling the American Family Association a hate group in the introduction is unwarranted, especially because the Southern Poverty Law Center is also a political group that stands on the opposite side of a political debate. If one goes to the Wikipedia article for supporters of the same-sex marriage in the United States, one can see that the "Southern Poverty Law Center" is listed there, while the American Family Association is listed in the opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States article. Placing the assertion of calling the American Family Association a hate group is a violation of WP:NPOV. This criticism is already mentioned in the body of the article and does not need to receive special attention in the lede, especially when it's known that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not neutral on this issue. If we include this bit of information, than we must include the Alliance Defense Fund's criticism of the Southern Poverty Law Center on its article. Once again, it is best be neutral here. There is no reason to give an organization that supports the opposing point of view's position in the introduction of an antithetical organization. This issue was addressed already on the article of the Family Research Council and it was decided to remove the SPLC designation from the introduction. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. There are reliable sources that support the statement that the AFA is a hate group. Let's maintain NPOV and make certain the reader knows that right up front. We're not here to whitewash the exact nature of any hate organization whether it's Stormfront or AFA. And using a strawman argument that SLPC is or is not biased...well, then edit the SLPC article. Simple solution. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think it belongs in the lead unless you designate AFA a "hate group" without qualification. While it is a matter of one group designating another group as a "hate group" I think it belongs in the article proper, but not the lead. If there is demonstrable, widespread acknowledgement that AFA is a "hate group" then it should go in the lead. --Thepm (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, if this was whitewashing folks would be interested in removing the commentary from the article all together. Please stop making baseless assertions. - Haymaker (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The lead already speaks to the AFA's controversial positions. The SPLC is the be all end all of nothing. Their commentary is probably notable and belongs in the body of the article but does not belong in the lead. - Haymaker (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The SPLC is a highly respected and neutral hate group monitor that reports on documented positions and activities of hate groups. From the SLPC article (with cites there): "The [SPLC's] Intelligence Report provides information regarding organizational efforts and tactics of these groups, and is cited by scholars as reliable and as the most comprehensive source on U.S. right-wing extremism and hate groups." If the SPLC is a biased, advocacy or political group, then so is every news organization that also reports on the same subjects. About 34 % of the AFA article relates to homosexuality, and about 25 % relates to AFA's anti-gay activities and positions. It's a violation of WP:LEDE to fail to "...summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." There are only a few words in the lede to summarize 34 % of the article, clearly a violation of LEDE, NPOV, and UNDUE. SPLC is a reliable source for this article, and this discussion is not a referendum on SPLC, per se. — Becksguy (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Summation The 21 citations that Binksternet so awesomely provided are clearly way more than sufficient to support the hate group designation. That, and the clearly inadequate abstraction, by proportion and prominence, of the controversial content and hate group designation in the lede are more than sufficient to show consensus to include. There are 3 editors that support inclusion, and 4 that oppose, however consensus is not by headcount. I believe it's clear that the strength of arguments, clearly using policy and guidelines with extensively documented facts and citations, support inclusion. If those that oppose don't agree, then we need to include the wider community in the discussion, ask an uninvolved admin to determine consensus, or go to dispute resolution. I suggest that the protected version be kept until discussion is completed here. Note that no opposers have commented since the 21 citations were posted. All that really remains is to decide how to rewrite the lede. — Becksguy (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here. One group of editors, the opposed camp, keeps says "X probably shouldn't be in the lead" and you keep responding with links that say X happened. I have no doubt that X happened, but I don't think X belongs in the lead, providing links that prove that X happened does not release me of this conviction. I also think your faith in the SPLC as a neutral institution is misplace, mind you there is no neutrality requirement for inclusion but SPLC is a 501c3, just like AFA is. - Haymaker (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"Note that no opposers have commented." Did you stop to think that the commenters were at church and with their families? Friday was Good Friday, afterall; I think Catholics were kinda busy going to Mass, fasting and reflecting on Christ's sacrifice. And Sunday was the most important day of the year: Easter. Lionel (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
You skipped over Saturday. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
When in my editing zone, I tend to forget what time and date it is. — Becksguy (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Unfortunately, there is often a disconnect when debating controversial articles. To clarify, the major thrust of my argument is that the lede should fairly represent all significant views in the article. If the SPLC had designated the AFA as a hate group without any significant news coverage of that action, and of the reactions, then I would agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. However, as shown by Binksternet, there has been major coverage of that designation, and especially of the reactions, in the mainstream press and elsewhere. Interestingly, the reaction by the AFA, and other like minded organizations, actually added gasoline to that particular fire, for example, by calling for Congress to defund the SPLC, railing against the designation, and creating a media campaign against it. Basically they went ballistic. It's no longer really whether SPLC is, or is not, a neutral source, as the coverage related to that issue has ballooned to the point that it’s become fully notable in of itself. And that makes it a notable and significant part of the article. I'm restating the pertinent part of WP:LEDE here: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article and, if possible, its first paragraph should be able to stand alone as a concise definition. The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." If we leave out almost all mention of all the gay related content, and anti-gay activities, from the lede, we are violating not only the policy and guidelines LEDE, NPOV, UNDUE, but journalistic integrity, as the lede does not fairly summarize the article. Currently almost 42 % of the article relates to anti-gay issues generally (up from about 34 % before the rewrite by Binksternet), and about 13 % relates specifically to the hate group designation, by my count. How can we have a lede that does not adequately mention such significant and prominent points and controversies, and yet call ourselves neutral? Without an adequate summary, one could read the lede (which I suspect is all many readers do) and walk away without really knowing about the controversies swirling around the AFA. No one is saying that AFA is notable only for it’s stance or activities on gay issues (there is also Christmas, Islam, pornography, abortion, oil deregulation, and media morality issues, as examples), but it’s an enormous part of their totality (probably more than half), and certainly that part which garners much of the press coverage, and almost 42 % of the article. The lede needs to be rewritten to reflect that totality without favoring any one view. That's what I'm trying to say here, and why I titled this thread as I did. I’m not pushing any particular POV, only pushing neutrality and not leaving significant issues out. And that includes leaving the SPLC statement alone, as it is, without a counter viewpoint. It’s just bad journalism to leave the lede as it is. — Becksguy (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

SPLC hate group sources

The November 2010 SPLC designation of AFA as a hate group brought very strong responses. This was a major event in AFA's history, and must be included in the lead section. Here are some of the stronger sources found online, listed in chron order:

  • McEwen, Alvin (November 22, 2010). "The American Family Association must address Bryan Fischer's hateful comments". HuffPost Politics. Huffington Post. Retrieved April 22, 2011. But for the American Family Association to remain silent about Fischer's comments contradicts everything the organization claims to stand for – truth, virtue, decency, and morality. (McEwen's piece was picked up by Digg.)
  • McEwen, Alvin (November 23, 2010). "Family Research Council, American Family Association Named as Anti-Gay Hate Groups". HuffPost Politics. Huffington Post. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Yesterday, the Southern Poverty Law Center added five more organizations to its list of anti-gay hate groups, including some names that are long overdue. The new groups are: 1. American Family Association...
  • Eichler, Alex (November 23, 2010). "13 New Organizations Added to Anti-Gay 'Hate Groups' List". The Atlantic Wire. The Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved April 22, 2011. In the winter issue of Intelligence Report, the quarterly magazine of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Evelyn Schlatter takes a look at 18 advocacy groups that speak out against homosexuality. The report says that the groups, which include the American Family Association and the Family Research Council, are responsible for 'demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities.' Schlatter notes that 13 of the 18 groups will make SPLC's list of 'hate groups' next year.
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Defames Mainstream Pro-Family Groups as 'Hate Groups'; DefendChristians.Org Calls on Congress to Defund the SPLC". Christian News Wire. Christian Communication Network. November 24, 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2011. The Southern Poverty Law Center has released a new list of 'hate groups' that includes many highly regarded, mainstream Christian organizations because of their opposition to homosexuality. 'The Southern Poverty Law Center has utterly discredited themselves by this provocative attack on organizations that promote traditional family values,' said Rev. Gary L. Cass, of DefendChristians.Org, a ministry of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. 'Labeling mainstream conservative organizations as "Hate groups" is defamatory and is simply an intimidation tactic. We call on Congress to cut off their funding.'
  • Barber, J. Matt (November 26, 2010). "SPLC: The wolf who cried 'hate' – Self-marginalizing left turns itself into a punch line". The Washington Times. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Most notably, the SPLC has placed alongside the Klan and other neo-Nazi organizations, the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council (FRC) and the Mississippi-based American Family Association (AFA). Their crime? 'Anti-gay ... propagation of known falsehoods' (read: recognition of stubborn, politically incorrect scientific and theological facts that are beyond serious debate). I say 'most notably' because these two groups alone contain membership rolls in the millions.
  • Mantyla, Kyle (November 29, 2010). "Religious Right United In Outrage Over SPLC Hate Group Designations". Right Wing Watch. People For the American Way. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Many influential Religious Right groups found themselves placed upon the SPLC's updated list, including the Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women for American, National Organization for Marriage, and Liberty Counsel. And to say that they are not happy about it would be a massive understatement.
  • Banks, Adele M. (November 29, 2010). "Religion News Service: Hate group watchdog adds Family Research Council to its list". The Pew Forum. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Mark Potok, director of the center's Intelligence Project, said the groups were not chosen because of their beliefs that homosexual activity is sinful. 'The religious nature of these organizations has absolutely nothing to do with our listings,' he said in an interview Monday (Nov. 29). 'The listings are based on the propagation of known falsehoods and demonizing propaganda.'
  • Nelson, Josh (November 29, 2010). "Judge-ouster supporters blast 'hate' label". WCFCourier.com. Retrieved April 22, 2011. The law center, which has monitored extremist groups and hate speech for 40 years, is known for its successful litigation against white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations. The group said it listed groups like the American Family Association because they 'have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities.' The report said mere opposition of same-sex marriage isn't enough to get listed as a 'hate group.'
  • Rossomando, John (December 6, 2010). "Southern Poverty Law Center: Social conservative organizations are hate groups". The Daily Caller. Retrieved April 22, 2011. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says it will not back down from its decision to label the Family Research Council and other socially conservative groups as hate groups, on par with the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations, for their views about homosexuality. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins recently asked SPLC to retract the hate group designation, but SPLC Intelligence Project Director Mark Potok told The Daily Caller that will never happen. SPLC's Winter 2010 edition of its Intelligence Report magazine lists the Family Research Council as a hate group alongside the American Family Association, the Traditional Values Coalition, and 11 other social conservative groups.
  • "Start Debating/Stop Hating". Family Research Council. December 15, 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2011. We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans.
  • Potok, Mark (December 15, 2010). "SPLC Responds to Attack by FRC, Conservative Republicans". Hatewatch. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved April 22, 2011. This morning, 22 members of Congress and a large number of other conservatives signed on to a public statement attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for listing several anti-gay religious right organizations as hate groups. Published in two Washington, D.C., newspapers as a full-page ad, the statement was organized by the powerful Family Research Council (FRC) and other 'pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and the family.' The statement, whose signatories included House Speaker-Designate John Boehner and the governors of Louisiana, Minnesota and Virginia, ran under the headline, 'Start Debating/Stop Hating.' It accused 'elements of the radical Left' of trying to 'shut down informed discussion of policy issues' and decried those who attempt to suppress debate 'through personal assaults that aim only to malign an opponent's character.' The SPLC, it said, was engaging in 'character assassination.'
  • Weigel, David (December 15, 2010). "Boehner, Cantor, Bachmann, Pence and More Against the Southern Poverty Law Center". Weigel: Reporting About Politics and Policy. Slate. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Mark Potok is quoted as saying, "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."
  • Birkey, Andy (December 15, 2010). "King, Hurley sign letter of support for 'hate groups': Conservatives come to the defense of Family Research Council, American Family Association". Iowa Independent. The American Independent News Network. Retrieved April 22, 2011. The Mississippi-based American Family Association recently said Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should be disqualified from office because she's a lesbian (she's not). The group's director of issue analysis for government and public policy, Bryan Fischer, has said nearly all of Hitler's stormtroopers were gay, because 'he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after.' Fischer has also argued for laws making homosexual sex illegal, claiming it is as lethal as intravenous drug use.
  • Rayfield, Jillian (December 15, 2010). "Boehner, Cantor Back Family Research Council Campaign Against SPLC". TPMDC. Talking Points Memo. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Unsurprisingly, the FRC was not happy about the designation, and labeled the list 'slanderous.' And today they launched a 'Start Debating, Stop Hating' website, and took out a full page ad in Politico, Dave Weigel reports. The ad says: 'The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that.' ... Ironically, the ad argues that 'our debates can and must remain civil – but they must never be suppressed through personal assaults that aim only to malign an opponent's character,' right after it refers to the SPLC as 'the radical Left' that's 'spreading hateful rhetoric.'
  • Williams, Ken (December 17, 2010). "Commentary: Bravo to Southern Poverty Law Center for calling out hate groups like NOM, Family Research Council". San Diego Gay & Lesbian News. Hale Media, Inc. Retrieved April 22, 2011. But this week, the law center is under attack by conservative Republicans and right-wing groups that oppose equality for all Americans, especially LGBT people. Why? Last month, the SPLC published its list of the 18 anti-gay groups that are demonizing the LGBT community with lies, distortions and discredited claims. The notorious 18 were listed as hate groups and included the well-funded National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the Family Research Council (FRC) and the American Family Association. FRC quickly organized a public response to being included on the SPLC list of haters by promoting an online petition – ironically titled 'Start Debating, Stop Hating' – that accuses the SPLC for 'attacking several groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including marriage as the union of a man and a woman.'
  • Benen, Steve (December 18, 2010). "This Week in God". Political Animal. Washington Monthly. Retrieved April 22, 2011. In November, the SPLC, a respected source for decades on monitoring extremists and hate-based organizations, raised quite a few eyebrows with its updated lists, which included some leading religious right entities – including the Family Research Council and the American Family Association – along side mainstays like the KKK.
  • Martin, Martin, CBN News (February 28, 2011). "Family Research Council Challenges Homosexuals to 'Debate' not 'Hate'". Black Christian News. BCNN1.com. Retrieved April 22, 2011. However, the SPLC's recent inclusion of Christian and pro-family organizations as hate groups has drawn scrutiny. SPLC leaders label them as anti-gay groups spreading lies about homosexuality that could lead to violence against gays.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Coaster, Lefty (March 20, 2011). "Newt Gingrich channeled $125K to Hate Group targeting 3 Iowa Supreme Court Justices". Daily Kos. Kos Media. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Newt Gingrich gave the repulsive anti-LGBT hate group the American Family Association $125,000 to target three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of LGBT equality: Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, Justice David Baker, and Justice Michael Streit.
  • Mahanta, Siddhartha (March 25, 2011). "Huck, Newt and Haley Palling Around with Anti-Muslim Extremist". Mother Jones. Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress. Retrieved April 22, 2011. For GOP presidential hopefuls, it's become necessary to court the crazy. Earlier today, Tim Murphy told you about Newt Gingrich's remarks at an American Family Association forum in Iowa, where the former House Speaker – and likely Republican presidential contestant – lavished praise on Islamophobe conspiracy theorist David Barton. But wait, there's more: The Iowa Independent reports that Gingrich, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are scheduled to appear on Bryan Fischer's radio show today. Fischer, the AFA's issues director, has long been a leading basher of Muslims and gays and lesbians. He has said that inbreeding causes Muslims to be stupid and violent; he has equated gay sex with domestic terrorism; and he has claimed that Hitler and his stormtroopers were gay. Yesterday on his blog, Fischer wrote that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion does not apply to Islam. ... Despite Fischer's hateful rhetoric, GOP heavyweights continue to chase after him to win over social conservative voters, undeterred by the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center recently classified the American Family Association as a hate group.
  • Gressinger, Jim (April 8, 2011). "Gays, Muslims, and Hitler". Tucson Citizen. Gannett. Retrieved April 22, 2011. And while I can appreciate the AFA's and CAP's determination to save us from the scourge of homosexuals, Muslims, and other non-Christian types, who's going to protect our nation and our families from bigots?
  • Besen, Wayne (April 6, 2011). "Extremism Flying Beneath The Radar". Falls Church News Press. Falls Church News-Press Online. Retrieved April 22, 2011. On Sunday, The New York Times reported on a new Religious Right figure, David Lane, who is quietly organizing Pastor Policy Briefings in presidential battleground states. The invitations to his meetings come from Mike Huckabee, and presidential aspirants Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) have attended. The Times describes Lane as a 'stealth weapon for the right' who rarely gives interviews and 'shuns publicity as he crosses the country forming local coalitions under names like Renewal Project and securing outside financing to put on the pastor conferences.' It is hard to blame Lane for wanting to slither beneath the radar, considering much of his financing comes from The American Family Association, a Southern Poverty Law Center-certified hate group. Indeed, the AFA's noxious views were on full display this week, when the group's star radio personality, Bryan Fischer, insulted African Americans. 'Welfare has destroyed the African-American family by telling young black women that husbands and fathers are unnecessary and obsolete,' said Fischer. 'Welfare has subsidized illegitimacy by offering financial rewards to women who have more children out of wedlock. We have incentivized fornication rather than marriage, and it's no wonder we are now awash in the disastrous social consequences of people who rut like rabbits.'

This collection goes from SPLC mentioning AFA to classifying AFA as a hate group, to the launching of the reactionary Start Debating/Stop Hating website and responses to that, to Newt Gingrich giving AFA money to fight three judges in Iowa, and the connection seen between that act and SPLC's classification. There is plenty here to uphold SPLC being part of the lead section of the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Intellectual freedom subsection

What is this section referring to? Which of Wildmon's efforts and what boycott campaign is Tartikoff talking about? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Connection to 2009 hate crime law

NYyankees51 removed a connection I described existing between the AFA and Congress's 2009 expansion of federal hate crime laws (Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act) to include gender hate. A connection does exist.

The story arc goes something like this: For years the AFA fought against any expansion of federal hate crimes to include gays. In 2007 they issued false statements saying that such an expansion would make it illegal to speak out against homosexuality, and that the law would enable bestiality and necrophilia. In mid-2008 the AFA repeated the falsehood that the proposed expansion of hate crimes would make speaking out against gays into a crime. Same thing in mid-2009 when the AFA was involved in a campaign to stop the proposed hate crimes act. The act was signed into law November 2009. In early 2010 the AFA challenged the law in court but in late 2010 the suit was dismissed. In early 2011, the AFA appealed the dismissal.

There is plenty here describing the AFA's opposition to gays protected by federal hate crimes law. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A general connection may exist between AFA and hate crimes law, but the connection you established between the passing of the law and the SPLC's adding of AFA to their list is unfounded. Perhaps AFA's advocacy in the area of "hate crimes" belongs in another part of the article, but not in this section unless you can establish a direct connection. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality check tag added

I just finished reading this entire article. I don't know anything about this organization. I only found it because I Googled "One Million Moms." But it is obvious that this article is not at all encyclopedic and needs to be rewritten. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As the template documentation states, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." AV3000 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The 'criticism/controversy' section is WP:UNDUE and redundant. By contrast, the Million Mom/Dad section is barely one sentence. That's a significant subgroup within the organization yet it's given no weight. There is overemphasis on the SPLC designation as a "hate group." The SPLC is not anymore important than any other group. They have no legal authority and their so-called "designations" don't carry any legal weight. They're just name-calling. But that is not mentioned and the emphasis gives it more credibility than it deserves. That's not encyclopedic, that's negative POV. There is far too much use of selective quotes, taken out of context, followed by counter-criticism crafted to make a point against the group. That's nothing more than WP:OR. A neutral article would be about half the length. It's obvious this group is against homosexuality, and yes, that makes them sound out of step with the times. But the article shouldn't be an attack piece against them. The article should be encyclopedic. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The simple solution is to expand the Million Mom section. Regarding SPLC, they are a respected authority, definitely important in American culture, more than a great number of other groups. Their credibility is high. The article is not an attack piece, it is a neutral description of the SPLC designation of AFA as a hate group. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Binksternet. TFD (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
And to rewrite the article to remove the obvious bias and make it more encyclopedic. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Malke. SPLC section is excessively long and needs to be trimmed. And their "credibility" has come under increasing scrutiny as of late as they devolve into an attack group of their own admission.– Lionel (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The section is already the result of careful work by editors who initially disagreed and then worked out a compromise. There is no change in the designation or the published coverage of that, so there's no pressing need for change here. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Lionel. Definitely needs to be trimmed. I noted your work there, Binksternet. But what you probably don't realize, because you're so close to it, is that it reads as if the SPLC is some higher authority and they are not. The article can always be improved. Nothing's permanent. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
SPLC papers are cited by university scholars and professional researchers. The 2010 "Active US hate groups" report was cited by 13 subsequent papers. One very recent paper by a U of Chicago scholar discusses the exact issue we have in the article: "The Right to Name Hate: Utilizing Hate Group Designations to Reframe Political Challenges to LGBT Rights". There is no loss in SPLC's high status and reputation. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
If there's a concern that there's too little info on "Million Moms" then it'd be better to add more to that section than to delete material from other sections.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There is too much weight given over to criticism and the SPLC. There's also concern about the lack of neutral point of view. I explained all that above. There's too much SPLC here. They are just another organization. They are not anything special but the undue weight makes it sound as though being on their "hate list" totally discredits this organization. It does not and the article should not suggest that. It especially should not be in the lead. Also, Binksternet, the SPLC calls a Catholic Jesuit group a hate group because they use the Latin Mass. And the cites are all academics using the SPLC references to bolster arguments, etc. It's not like the SPLC is being cited in Supreme Court cases, and even if they were, they're still just another group. They carry no legal weight. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I get the impression your Jesuit group argument is founded on hearsay rather than a balanced appreciation of the case. If you can point to the case with a reliable source I would appreciate it.
I don't agree with any kind of SPLC reduction here in the article. The hate group section is smaller than the AFA's "Boycotts" section, and smaller than the section about the group's anti-gay stance. There's no undue weight here. Any reduction of the well-honed SPLC section would be a reduction of a very visible and prominent part of AFA's history. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The history about how SPLC promoted AFA from "engaged" to "hate group" is UNDUE. Kagan has nothing to do with the "designation" and is superfluous in this section.

Malke, may I suggest that you draft a balanced version of the section without the deficiencies and post it here. We'll discuss it and implement what the consensus decides.– Lionel (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The SPLC is the best source for describing this sort of organization and is relied up by mainstream media and academic writers. TFD (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Lionel. Drafting a version to review is a good idea. Also, TFD "this sort of organization" is no different from an organization that promotes the things this group advocates against. Also, the academics and "mainstream media" are overwhelmingly liberal and are anti to all the things this group advocates. Claiming they are the last word on the subject is the same as having the 700 Club weigh in on GLAAD's efforts to pass gay marriage rights and claiming that the 700 Club is the best source for "describing this sort of organization." Malke 2010 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Sources do not need to be neutral, in fact most are not. And weight requires us to give more prominence to the most widely held views, which in this case is represented by the SPLC. If academics and the media are "liberal", then that is not something that we as editors can correct. We get the same arguments in articles about climate change, evolution, 9/11, the New World Order, etc. Neutrality does not mean we provide parity to WP:FRINGE views, in this case the way an extreme group sees itself. TFD (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Unless we're going to use it as a SPS I'm not sure what good they are. They're neither neutral nor terribly informative save for the opinion of said organization. - Haymaker (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit suggestions

I would keep edits like this:

  • “Individuals in the media industry have criticized Donald Wildmon, the founder of AFA. Gene Mater, Senior Vice President of CBS Television, has stated, "We look upon Wildmon's efforts as the greatest frontal assault on intellectual freedom this country has ever faced" and Brandon Tartikoff, former NBC Entertainment President, stated that Wildmon's boycott campaign was "the first step toward a police state."

Also relevant:

  • In July 2000, the AFA sent out emails and letters calling for openly gay Arizona Republican United States House of Representatives member Jim Kolbe to be barred from speaking at the Republican National Convention. Sending out emails and complaining about gays, that’s what they do.
  • Delete all the bits about Cyber Patrol. That’s just a website selling software.
  • The Marilyn Manson bit is UNDUE. First, people do have sex and violent fights and do drugs at his concerts and there are plenty of reliable sources to back that up, so it’s hardly defensible, which is probably why Marilyn Manson is not somebody the world looks to for moral guidance. And giving him his own section is totally UNDUE.
  • Two sections on "homosexuality" is confusing. Keep only one section and label it "Gay Civil Rights." Then I'd fill in specific, important instances of the AFA's opposition to gay rights or mention of gays in media, etc. But only the relevant bits, not all the stuff about Rudy Homosexual. I'd mention instances of opposition to health benefits, marriage, etc. especially as promoted by media outlets, like television shows the portray gay couples, etc. And then mention the specific boycotts against Disney, CBS, NBC.
  • I'd delete the bit about the AFA rewriting AP copy. It's not notable. They subscribe to the AP wire feed. They can do what they want with it so long as they attribute the original source. So what that a Christian group doesn’t want to use the word “gay” in it's news stories. Using the word faggot is hate speech. Using the word homosexual is not.
  • I'd delete the bits about the blog posts. Not relevant to anything. Individuals writing their opinions on blogs mean nothing. It’s the policy statements, the boycotts by the organization that count.
  • Delete the bit about the former AFA guy writing a book called the Pink Swastika. Not notable here. It would only be notable on his page. He didn’t write the book for the AFA, it’s not an AFA official publication and has no relevance to the AFA.
  • Use of copyrighted images. Not relevant.
  • Mention of Equity Mississippi is not relevant. What does GLAAD have to say? That’s a national organization. The AFA is a national organization. Who cares what a local group thinks?
  • Delete: “In 1998 multiple organizations voiced opposition. . .etc. “ They don’t mention specific acts by the AFA against them. If the groups aren't big media providers, they're comments are not relevant. It comes across as having been put there because there aren’t enough ‘bad’ things to report on.
  • The SPLC should be concise and just say what they did and stop there: "In November 2010, the civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center called the AFA a hate group. The SPLC said the AFA propagated “known falsehoods and demonizing propaganda” about homosexuals and gay marriage." The AFA called the designation "slanderous".[117] Throwing in bits about “they increased from “ hate speech” to the “much more serious hate group” is OR/POV.
  • Claims like this: “Multiple groups expressed oppostion. . .” What groups? That’s just more OR/POV. If they aren’t big media providers, they’re not relevant.
  • The San Francisco Board of Supervisors statement is UNDUE by itself. What did the AFA ad say that caused the SF Board of Supers to comment? All that is mentioned is the criticism but not the act AFA committed that prompted the SFBOS to make a statement. Again, all these descriptive accusations but no verbs, no actions.
  • I'd eliminate the criticism/controversy section and just incorporate under a section entitled: "Opposition to Gay Civil Rights." That's much more attention getting and focused. And then just specific acts they've done.
  • I'd delete all the "tit for tat." I'd summarize all the things the group does and then I'd mention the criticism. It makes both the acts and the criticism stand out. Also, they obviously have their supporters. It's not all opposition. I'd mention any groups or specific peeps who support them. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of the SPLC section. The chronology of the designation is important; that AFA first was classified as using hate speech but later was upped to hate group.
Don't delete blogs from expert observers, just non-notables. Binksternet (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
On the SPLC, you did a lot of work on that and it's great. I think mentioning both weakens the impact of being called a hate group. The SPLC changing their own opinion from hate speech to hate group would be relevant if they were a regulatory/law enforcement agency who first issued a warning and escalated to the punishment when the behavior persisted. But everything the AFA says offends them so what makes the SPLC draw the line? Malke 2010 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hate speech

The SPCL designation of AFA as a hate speech – producing organization, prior to being a hate group, is important enough to stay in the article. Snopes covered it, debunking an AFA leaflet about hate speech vs freedom of speech, and earlier in 1997 the software CyberNOT blocked AFA for hate speech: "Recently, a company that makes a software filter called Cyber Patrol decided that among the sites it would block out for hate speech was, believe it or not, the PG-rated American Family Association website of the Reverend Don Wildmon." (Liberty magazine, 1997, volumes 92–93.) Dr. Thomas R. Hensley of Kent State U. wrote about it: "For instance, in 1998, the American Family Association, an organization that advocates for public library filtering, found its Web site was blocked by the filter CyberPatrol as an 'intolerant' site..." The hate speech designation was what catalyzed the action by San Francisco City Council. The friction made it into the Congressional Record. There are many more references I can bring if necessary. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point, but the bit about the software I think is off the path, as are all the commentaries and debunking. Every organization, especially libraries, block out all sorts of websites for all sorts of reasons. The point is, the article needs to be focused. The entry about the SPLC should not be so large as to be overwhelming. This isn't the SPLC's article. And how many times can claims of hate speech be cited before it loses it's punch? Mentioning CyberPatrol and some guy at Kent State is distracting. There has to be encyclopedic balance. The AFA is obviously an easy target and putting in all sorts of condemnations by all sorts of groups is overkill. Most people have heard of the SPLC and if they haven't then the wikilink will enlighten them. And debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech happen everyday. One guy debunking means another guy confirms. And there still needs to be an equal amount of comments from the AFA defending themselves that are not immediately followed by "In response, Joe said on his blog. . ." which is just another way of attacking the group and shutting down their perspective. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, Cyber Patrol has also blocked the Bible for hate speech against gays. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RdAbKc1mvLwJ:www.arthurhu.com/98/10/nochris.txt+Cyber+Patrol+blocks+American+Family+Association&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's an interesting article from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/politics/04family.html?pagewanted=all Malke 2010 (talk)
You are equating "one guy debunking" with another guy confirming, but in this case there is no such equal balance. The SPLC is very much more respected than AFA and its backers. The scholarly cites that SPLC receives confirms this. Per NPOV, we cannot allow two opponents in a debate to be called equals if one side has strong scholarly backing and the other side does not. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
We're talking about two different things entirely. The first: actions by third parties as a result of what they label as "hate speech" e.g. Cyber Patrol and second: the SPLC designation. They are not dependent upon one another. The superfluous and UNDUE content about the designation can be removed without impacting Cyber Patrol et al. Since the SPLC already classifies AFA as a so called "hate group," the SPLC hate speech designation is UNDUE. – Lionel (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well I am empathetic that you've done a lot of work on the SPLC and the hate speech material. Is the transition from hate speech to hate group all that dramatic a change? Or is that how the SPLC does it anyway? First the speech designation, then the group? And agree with Lionel that what one group does is not dependent on another. But what a sponsor like Home Depot had to say about their boycott does. And it doesn't have to go to the phrase 'hate speech' or 'hate group to be relevant.' The sponsors reaffirming their choices says the same thing in a different way. And Home Depot did reaffirm their choice. I think they sponsored a Gay parade. And Disney/ABC came out with "Modern Family" two years ago. That can be added, "In 2009, Disney/ABC debuted Modern Family, a sitcom that included a gay couple who adopt a child." Malke 2010 (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know Home Depot was doing that stuff.– Lionel (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Besides conflating the designation and Cyber Patrol are there any other arguments that the "hate speech" designation is not UNDUE?– Lionel (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Not to be crude, but Stephan Colbert's colon is in the congressional record. I don't think SPLC's opinion is DUE for this article. - Haymaker (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Contentious claims sourced to blogs

Hatewatch and Right Wing Watch are blogs of SPLC and PPFAW respectively. They are not newspapers so they fail WP:NEWSBLOG and should be removed. – Lionel (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The blogger is critical to whether the blog post can be used. Topic experts and respected authorities are okay. A blog post by a leader of SPCL is usable for his or her opinion. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the article's content does come from this article on Right Wing Watch. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-family-association Malke 2010 (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
That particular source on the blog website that Malke posted is unsigned: we have no idea as to the credentials of the person that compiled the information. It should go.– Lionel (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
See WP:SPS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." The SPLC "blog" therefore meets rs. I do not know about the other source, we could always as at RSN. TFD (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a news outlet and neither is Right Wing Watch. It would be okay to use the New York Times or Los Angeles Times newsblogs. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Malke, the SPLC is a highly respected research and opinion source. No matter how much you repeat yourself, you cannot erase the fact that scholars cite the SPLC, making them very worthy of note. None of your comments here have addressed that aspect. You appear to be ignoring it, but it won't go away. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Please stop following me around Wikipedia as you did here: [1]. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as the SPLC, I've been very agreeable to their inclusion in the article. It's the UNDUE aspects that I question. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It was just yesterday on this thread that I realized you respond to the argument "There is a problem at 'A'" with "Here's a fact about 'B'". You do not tackle 'A'. I was curious whether you did that elsewhere. You do, and I think it harmful to the project. Even in the link you just provided, I said Flyer22 and the Dubai IP do not appear connected, and your response was that it's obvious the IP is from Dubai, You left the doubtful Flyer22 connection unanswered. Binksternet (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how I might best tackle A right here with this article. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Facebook page

This isn't a real big issue, but I deleted the sentence "Following a flood of pro-equality comments on the One Million Moms Facebook page, the OMM deleted their Facebook page, telling members that they would be offline to focus on vacation Bible school." User:NatGertler has been careful to frame this so that it doesn't imply causality, but there is a hint of it here, just as there is a hint in the cited source: "Victory Over One Million Moms?" (note the question mark). Trouble is, I don't think that's a neutral source (note the word "victory") and the source is more likely to interpret the deletion as being the result of the "flood of pro-equality comments". So, perhaps we could have something like: "In May 2012, OMM deleted its facebook page, citing a desire to focus on Vacation Bible School. The Advocate suggested that it might, in fact, have been the result of a flood of pro-equality comments posted on the page." StAnselm (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Advocate is not the only source to have noted the context; [2], [3]; I cannot find an independent source on the closure of their Facebook page that doesn't note the context. That would seem to make the noting of the con

text appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You realise both of those are blogs, right? StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
"Blog" does not make something illegitimate, in Wikipedia term (plenty of things are sourced to news services). "Self-published" does. Neither is a self-published blog. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, The Advocate is a legitimate news magazine published in print as well as online. It's not a mere "blog."  — AMK1211talk! 21:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The Advocate is a reliable source, usable with attribution per WP:YESPOV. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I cannot imagine how either link could possibly pass WP:SPS, but we could take it to WP:RSN if you like. StAnselm (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, let me correct myself - I copied one wrong link (not awake enough yet to hunt down the right one); comicbook.com is, I believe, a SPS. The Comic Book Resources link is definitely not, however; Comic Book Resources is a significant comics news source, which is not owned by the writers of the blog entries there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that they deleted their facebook page in response to the flood of pro-equality messages, the question is whether or not that is notable. I have heard that they have done this before and plan to put their facebook page back up once controversy blows over.
Good luck to them with that... Orpheus (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
That being said I found some sources: editorial by The Georgia Voice, article by GayStar News on them deleting a Facebook comment about the Green Lantern that mentions previous times they left Facebook, article about Green Lantern comment and about their deleted facebook page by the New Civil Rights Movement, and another brief article by Instinct magazine. Unfortunately I haven't seen any mentions in any mainstream news sources. AerobicFox (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC

RfC Closed. Consensus: include in lede. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Should the article American Family Association include mention in the lead that it has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of its political opponents, or should this be mentioned only in the body? Belchfire-TALK 21:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    • The phrase "one of its political opponents" was removed but then re-added to the RfC statement which is suppose to be unbiased; it remains contested as possibly not neutral and some editors feel is false. Editors should be aware of this underlying dispute beyond the main discussion, which may be cause for further discussion to gain consensus. Insomesia (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Insomesia, I agree with you completely. WP:RFC instructs to "Include a brief, non-biased statement of the issue". The phrase "One of its political opponents" clearly violates the instructions. And besides being biased, it's not even true. They are not a political group at all. The SLPC is a non-profit civil rights group which monitors extreme organizations and takes no government money. If WP guidelines allow that term to be removed, it should be. In any case, this discussion has been going on for one week and there is currently overwhelming consensus for including the SPLC hate group mention in the lede. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include in lead The SPLC is not "one of its opponents", but the leading organization for researching extremism in the US, whose reports are regularly used by law enforcement, academics and journalists. TFD (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • SPLC is, by it's own admission, slanted to the left, and only publishes hate group designations for right-wing groups, or left-wing groups containing right-wing elements. " “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”" [4] Belchfire-TALK 22:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Wrong. The National Review gotcha journalism is not a reliable source on this opinion. The SPLC takes on all groups and focusses them in issue areas. Right-wing and left-wing groups are both considered extremists groups, there may be more logical reasons why more right-wing groups have been researched and shown as hate groups, but that research needs to be conducted neutrally and by an uninvolved third parties. Insomesia (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
      • No, it does not say "by it's own admission, slanted to the left". If left-wing groups began attacking people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc. they would cover them too. They do in fact track Larouchies, new black panthers, national anarchists, which are probably left-wing in your book. TFD (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include in lead. The SPLC is the top acknowledged authority on the status of hate groups in the USA. Not an opponent of AFA, just ideologically worlds apart. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to hear more detailed arguments from User:Belchfire before expressing an opinion on this. For example, which WP policies would you cite in support of removal of this information from the lead? Do you have a description or categorisation of the AFA which you feel is more balanced, and can you cite multiple reliable sources for your view? What information, if any, do you feel is acceptable for inclusion in the lead in relation to the activities of the AFA which SPLC uses to classify it as a hate group? SP-KP (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The policies are WP:UNDUE and WP:MOSINTRO, which are violated here by assigning undue weight and importance to the pronouncement of a single organization that is not in accord with the organization's own view of itself. A balanced description of the organization is one that objectively describes it's size, nature, status and history. Since the article has a criticism section, it's fair to mention in the lead that such criticism exists, but the treatment given in the current lead inflates the importance of SPLC beyond what is reasonable. Belchfire-TALK 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
One sentence? Really?? You wish to reduce the one sentence about SPLC's determination of "hate group" status? I should think that the policy of WP:LEAD would tell us that this one sentence is a suitable summary of article information in the lead section, not undue emphasis. MOSINTRO says: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." The SPLC's hate group designation of AFA was very widely covered in newspapers, and AFA reacted strongly to it. This is not some flea bite that we can ignore; it's a very big deal, called such by every observer. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Belchfire-TALK 00:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No, my opinion is not printable. Here are the facts: the SPLC announcement received wide coverage, and their assessment entered the public discourse. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose All political groups get disagreements from other political groups. To be balanced, the SPLC article should contain more criticism. Roger (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    Roger, you know that isn't how NPOV works. We don't make all sides artificially "equal". Also, hey. I thought you'd given up on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per nom and reasons given in my subsequent comments. Belchfire-TALK 00:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include. SPLC is not a political pressure group, but a research organization that is widely respected in academic and governmental circles. AFA may have politicized their designation, by smearing SPLC as a left-wing group, but you must discredit SPLC's judgments for all organizations, and not just for AFA, to bypass Wikipedia's ModuS operandi to mention all significant controversies in the lead. Also refer to Binksternet's list of secondary sources that refer to SLPC's designation to characterize AFA. Shrigley (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
" “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”" [5] Nope, nothing political about that, is there? Belchfire-TALK 01:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: The change that Belchfire is looking for is the removal of "hate group" from the lead section. If there is no consensus determined at this RfC the lead section will continue to hold one sentence telling the reader about the designation. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • More sources and past discussion: Interested editors should check out earlier discussion on this point, especially the RfC and the 21 sources at Talk:American Family Association/Archive 7. The sources show wide coverage of the "hate speech" designation, the wider coverage of the upgrade to "hate group" designation, and the highly visible website AFA mounted to protest the designation. Anyone who looks at these sources will see how big of a deal it was. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Take note, the RfC only addresses the matter of including material in the lead. It does not involve matters of sourcing and there is no argument over keeping it in the article. Belchfire-TALK 01:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The extensive sourcing puts to bed your assertion of UNDUE emphasis. The hate group designation was a huge event in AFA's history, as will be obvious to anyone looking at the sources, and noting AFA's prominent reaction. Per WP:LEAD, if the event was important and it is described in the article body, it should be summarized in the lead. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Negative. Sourcing establishes facts and notability, but it cannot be used to justify undue emphasis. At the end of the say, SPLC is still just one organization, operating on political motives, and the fact that it's actions are covered widely doesn't make it an almighty moral judge that deserves coverage alongside the subject organizations basic characteristics. We should mention in the lead that AFA has its detractors, but singling out the opinions of SPLC for special mention is UNDUE weight by definition. Belchfire-TALK 02:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that the entire concept of due weight is based on coverage in reliable sources, yes, sourcing is what determines the emphasis we put on things. Your claim that you're fine with including criticism of the AFA's actions in the lede as long as we don't mention SPLC is unconvincing given that you removed all criticism from the lede, but as an intellectual exercise, why don't you suggest a criticism bit in the lede that would be acceptable to you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The model for this is Ku Klux Klan, which matter-of-factly mentions the hate group status in the first paragraph. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include/Keep per TFD --Scientiom (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support include/keep, I also changed to question to remove "one of their political opponents" as it's simply not true. SPLC is non-partisan, if they found LGBT groups that met the definition of hate groups they would have no problem labeling them as such.

    The AFA operates as a Christian group yet this is in tension with their blatant actions so obvious that the nations's leading hate group authority, SPLC, deemed them as such. This is notable criticism not from a political opponent but from an expert organization. If AFA changes how it operates and the designation is dropped it should still remain as "although the group was designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, they were declassified as of ____." Until then this should remain as a stated notable criticism in the lead. Insomesia (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Strongly support keeping The SPLC is widely recognized as an authority in this domain and the designation is an important perspective on the AFA. Furthermore, it was highly inappropriate to use such loaded language and phrasing in the RfC. In the interest of civility and progress, please rephrase the RfC neutrally, in line with Wiki policy. Glaucus (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include - Mainstream sources will commonly mentioned the "hate group" designation in explaining who the AFA is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include. In both lead and body.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include in Lead - The SPLC is widely regarded as an authority on hate groups. If the claim was by some lesser known group, it would probably go in the body. Because SPLC can be perceived as liberal, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requires that any mention of "hate group" in the lead must be attributed to SPLC, rather than written in the encyclopedia's voice. --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include in both I had not realized just how singular SPLC's generally-accepted authority, how widely cited it was on hate groups and hate crimes until researching the question for the parallel FRC-RFC (Say that three times fast.), but I found the breadth of references to SPLC's designation surprising. SPLC's listing, right or wrong, clearly carries a lot of weight as measured by sources. From there, my view roughly follows that of Noelander above. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • include, in lead and body as well -- Joe Decker is right on target in perceiving the SPLC's role/stature on this topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include in both lead and body for the same reasons as my arguments in FRC. Same with other organizations but only if the designation itself has become notable by being widely repeated in reliable sources as in this case and the FRC's.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include The SPLC is the authority on this. AniMate 04:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include The knowledge that a group has qualified for a hate group designation by the SPLC never WP:UNDUE. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Belchfire, I'm still not sure what you would like to see in the lead on this subject instead, if anything. Above, I asked two questions: Do you have a description or categorisation of the AFA which you feel is more balanced, and can you cite multiple reliable sources for your view? What information, if any, do you feel is acceptable for inclusion in the lead in relation to the activities of the AFA which SPLC uses to classify it as a hate group? If you were able to answer these it would really help me to decide whether to support your suggestion. SP-KP (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
...which would be a violation of WP:LEAD where it says that the lead section should "summarize the most important points [of the topic]—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Circular argument. It seems that most editors, yourself included, feel the hate group designation is non-controversial. Belchfire-TALK 18:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
How's that? The "hate group" designation was controversial to the AFA and its supporters. Still is. The designation was, of course, a great slap at the AFA's hate-filled speech and practices. Still is. However, our following of Wikipedia's LEAD guideline is in no way controversial. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
So it was controversial, but not political? Please. Belchfire-TALK 18:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong include in the lede. Why should the most prominent civil rights group not get mentioned? Pass a Method talk 11:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong include At the moment, AFA is making a lot of political hay with claims that their designation as a hate group is what motivated the recent attack on their DC office. Whether or not one agrees with that designation, it exists and the AFA is making use of it. It certainly seems significant enough to keep in the article lede. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, actually, that's the FRC, a different hate group. There's a similar RFC open on that article, which is why I was initially confused by this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wrong assumption regarding "one of its political opponents". The SPLC is not one of the AFA's "political opponents" as asserted by Belchfire. This label of Belchfire's diminishes SPLC's research work and posits them as partisan. No reliable sources describe the SPLC as AFA's political opponent. I suggest that this RfC be continued with the wrong assumption ignored. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Seconded. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
There are quite a number of RSs that point to not only SPLC's partisanship, but to their left-wing partisanship. Deny this if you like, but it's still true. Belchfire-TALK 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please supply these sources. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The "political opponents" claim sounds like OR to me. Or are you just synthesizing it? Got sources? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You will need to find a source saying that the SPLC is the AFA's political opponent. Good luck with that: I looked for that already and found nothing out there. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I would also be interested to see these sources, if they exist. a13ean (talk)
  • Comment I've added a comment under the original RfC which is apparently what I should have done originally, apologies for any inconvenience this has resulted in. Additionally I think the phrase one of its political opponents"" should be replaced with "the leading authority on hate crimes in America" for the lead. The FBI and researches point to SPLC work as leading the way in this field. Insomesia (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Let the record show that there was edit-warring by this editor over the wording, discussion which lead to "let's agree to disagree", then an offer of help from an editor experienced in dispute resolution (and I did welcome a suggestion for compromise wording, by the way), which was subsequently withdrawn due to the edit-warring. This is now your fourth entry in the RfC discussion, and the second bulleted item in the main thread. Really, I think it would be most constructive at this point to simply register your opinion towards the emerging consensus, and let it go. Belchfire-TALK 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
And I think your comment looks too much like an attempt to intimidate an editor into silence. As per WP:AGF, I'm not going to claim that it's an intentional attempt -- that would be your least favorite thing to do -- but it certainly comes across as one and has the same (surely unintentional) effect. In short, let the editor speak. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Insomesia, here's your cite: http://www.chattanoogan.com/2000/3/1/4848/Leading-Authorities-On-Race-Relations.aspx Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You say edit war, I say looking for an unbiased RfC statement. I doubt that we are likely to change each others' views but I appreciate you're very passionate about process which certainly can be useful. I tend to more gravitate to what reliable sources state and follow where they lead. To each their own path. I'm not sure letting it go is advice you should espouse to others but advice is free I suppose. Insomesia (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is supposed to objectively reflect what is significant about the organization, correct? This is a significant thing about the AFA. I don't think it should be expanded on at great length in the lede, but it should be mentioned in the lede, and have a paragraph or section in the article. I can't think of any politically neutral reason to leave the information out of either place- when the AFA's actions are reported on in newspapers and magazines, it is more often in the context of their activities as a hate group than in the context of their activities as a pro-family organization. Certainly if there is a more reliable source than the SPLC on hate groups, we could discuss which one to use, but I'm not aware of such a source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead The arguments presented for its removal are superficial, and my two attempts to elicit further explanation have been unsuccessful. If presented with detailed & cogent arguments, I'd be prepared to change my vote, but at the moment I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith on the part of the initiator of this RfC: this just looks like disruptive victimhood. SP-KP (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include Per Shrigley and Binksternet. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include also per Shrigley and Bink. a13ean (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include As many have stated above, from an objective standpoint this is a significant piece of information about the organization. The SLPC is a notable enough organization that their designation of the AFA as such deserves a mention. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless a few more organisations (and anything synonymous with that) classify it as such. Otherwise it is undue weight that may direct the reader to an opinion of the AFA that is held by only one organisation. Basically, wait and see if others classify it as a hate group. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include (Uninvolved invited by RFC bot) Per all the includes above. Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include per Shrigley and Joe Decker. RFC opening statement is very biased, it's not true that SPLC is “one of the political opponents” of American Family Association.--В и к и T 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

These 8 include the SLPC hate label in the lede:

These 7 do not include the SLPC hate label in the lede:

So it's currently about 50-50 for organizations similar to American Family Association. This issue reveals one of those unavoidable inconsistencies with Wikipedia. Because SLPC is an extremely well-known civil rights orgnization (whether you are a supporter or detractor of theirs), I feel that including the hate group label in the lede (and body, of course) is clearly appropriate and warranted. It should be in the lede of all those articles. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be in the lead if it isn't a loner in these hate listings. It's undo weight because it's only one organisation. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Request to close We of course do not vote count, but this discussion has been going on for a week and there is undisputable consensus to include the SPLC hate group content in the lede. If my counting is correct, 27 currently support keeping it in the lede and 4 do not. If it looked like there was any chance that "oppose" could turn this around and prevail, I would absolutely say continue the discussion. But that's not the case. Can we close this discussion and declare consensus? --76.189.110.167 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Binksternet. I have absolutely no idea how to initiate the process of closing this RfC. Haha. Can you do whatever's necessary to get someone to close it? --76.189.110.167 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I took care of it.[6] StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice job. Thank you, SS. :) --76.189.110.167 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include Extremely incorrect classification of the Southern Poverty Law center as a "political opponent". The SLPC is a highly regarded, nonpartisan organization by all but a deviant minority. Their opinion is WP:DUE based on reliable sources. Sædontalk 06:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include with the sentence reworded to note that it is SLPC, not "civil rights organizations". A reasonable balance, even though a unbiased reporter would call SLPC a "hate group". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The above comment raises a significant point, and one that makes me think this RfC should not be closed yet. For I missed this, and apparently everyone else did as well. Why does it say "civil rights organizations" when only the SPLC is cited? Clearly, the sentence cannot remain as it currently stands. StAnselm (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing this shortly as consensus to include. It'll be up to someone else to actually edit it into the lede or not (I don't know if it actually is already there or not. I'm just closing the RFC). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

See also: Talk:American Vision § Count of groups

I suggest that the false information presented in the RfC may require reopening, if any editors were swayed by the list of groups. 5 of the groups in the "include" list do not have a lede, and one doesn't exactly include SPLC's "hate group" designation in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Only three editors have !voted after the list was given by 76.189.110.16. None of them refer to the number of articles with the listing in the lead as the reason for their support. I believe the point 76.189.110.16 was making is that all of them should have them in the lead, not that this article should have it because most of them did. You're also failing to mention your reason why: it's because of the technicality that substubs don't have leads per se (which I disagree with). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Obsidian. Arthur, the consensus here was overwhelming. Editors involved in this discussion stated their reasons for support or opposition, and the closing administrator reviewed the entire discussion. And if you had an objection to any comments, you should have brought them up while the RfC was open. Claiming, after-the-fact, that editors were "swayed" by content that could have easily been reviewed with the click of a mouse is not only inappropriate, but might also be taken as insulting. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a "technicality". If you were arguing that the information be in the articles, then you should have worked on the remaining one of the 15 which doesn't have the designation in the article. Arguing that the information should be in the lead because it is in the lead of other articles, when, in fact, it is not, borders on dissembling.
However, it could have been easily checked, so I suppose it shouldn't have affected the results. If, on the other hand, the closer believed that to be a significant, valid, argument, he should reopen the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me restate: only TWO (I miscounted) editors have voted after 76.189.108.102 made the list - Sædon and you. NONE of you referred to the list as your rationale. Even if you discount your and Sædon's votes that still leaves about 26 supports vs. 3 4 opposes (just a quick count, but around that number). Not something favoring a reopening.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I believe the hate group content is worthy of lead inclusion in all similar articles, not that it should be included in this article because it's included in the leads of the others. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Two navboxes were added at the bottom of this article. One was for LGBT topics and the other for discrimination. Neither of these are sufficiently significant to be included and they appear to have been added just to make a point that is critical of the group. While this group has taken a stance on LGBT issues, it has also taken a stance on abortion, pornography, violence in the media, and Islam. By the same reasoning used to include the LGBT and discrimination navboxes we would conceivably be able to add navboxes on all of those issues, but it would be a lot of excessive clutter. I believe these navboxes should be removed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The group's position on LGBT topics seems to be accurately described. Good for you that you realize that the effect of an accurate description will be seen by many as being "critical of the group" -- let's help all the readers make up their own minds. The bottom line, however, is that because LGBT issues are a prominent part of the group's agenda, a navbox titled "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics" seems to be perfectly appropriate. It is certainly reasonable to provide readers of this article (these articles are written FOR THE READERS) an easy way to follow up on any LGBT issues that may be suggested by this article -- as well as other types of discrimination. As far as your slippery slope argument, other additions can, and should, be discussed based on the merits of the particular case. Navboxes when closed produce very little clutter, especially since they are at the very bottom of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I added them and it was not to make a point at all, but to provide a focused collection of links that have a high likelihood of relevance for readers of articles such as this. The AFA (and One Million Moms/One Million Dads) are very vocal in their discriminatory views toward LGBT people, lobbying against same-sex marriage, gay adoption, education, visitation rights, etc. Further, they are notoriously listed as an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC. Whether you agree with that designation or not is not germane; the fact is that they have come into the public spotlight because of their controversial activism and lobbying. They hide behind a thin veil of pretense as defenders of marriage, family and religion, but their actions and words directed toward LGBT people are damaging.
It would be absurd to omit these two navboxes ({{LGBT |selected=rights}} and {{discrimination}}) and try to pretend that the AFA is a wholesome defender of traditional culture. They stand out out from the crown for their vile rhetoric directed toward an class of people who have no control over who they are.
With respect to AFA's stance on abortion, pornography, violence in the media, and Islam; that's a mixed bag ranging from social conservativism to outright racism. There three navboxes cover the key aspects. Perhaps there should be more, but there definitely should not be less. – MrX 16:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
That's <redacted>. There are at least 5 other topics (I don't know whether they have navboxes) which should be added by that argument, which means we'd need to hide the navboxes in order to read the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The default setting is that the navboxes ARE HIDDEN. There is no problem reading the article, hidden or shown, since they're AT THE BOTTOM of the page. Any policy or guideline that fixes the number of navboxes? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Broader discussion

There are objections (St.Anselm and Arthur Rubin) to inclusion of the navbox templates (reference above) being added to several articles. I would like to broaden this discussion to include all of these articles, which are substantially similar in nature. – MrX 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles involved are:

and several others that I was planning to add the templates to.

– MrX 20:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fails criteria 1, 2 and 3, listed at WP:NAVBOX. Belchfire-TALK 20:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:NAVBOX. Notice disadvantage 3: Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. I think that's what would happen here. There would be a shift from describing these organizations as hate groups in SPLC's voice to describing them as such in Wikipedia's voice. A not unrelated issue is that of categorization, and I have also removed some inappropriate categories from some of these articles - see the community consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories. StAnselm (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
@Belchfire - I didn't see any criteria. Can you tell me what section of the guideline these criteria are listed in? – MrX 20:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The WP:NAVBOX shortcut is misdirected. The sidebar at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates says that it goes there, but it actually goes to Wikipedia:Navigation templates. I'm fixing it now. StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I assume that these are the 'criteria' that we should be talking about:
  1. If simple, can often be replaced with a category. It also can be difficult to give more detail than a category can give without the box becoming unmanageably large.
  2. Can become ugly or pointless, e.g. by unsightly coloring schemes, size, number of them on the same page, etc. For this reason article series boxes need to be self-evident, while they can't contain much text for definitions or explanations.
  3. Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others; be used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places; or assert project proprietorship. Templates can go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion if they appear to push a POV. Trying to remedy this by adding more templates might lead to the disadvantage described in the previous point.
– MrX 21:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Right. Number 1 relates to what I said about categories - we can't very well say we should have a navbox instead of a category since such categories are not allowed - the navbox would be POV for the same reason. I don't think number 2 really applies here (they are not "article series" boxes) but the fact that these organisations aren't in the template is a strong reason not to include the templates - it does produce the sort of clutter that is depecrated. StAnselm (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
(1) seems to be saying, if a category is sufficient, there is no need for a template.
Agreed that (2) doesn't apply.
(3) is debatable given the specific reasons these organizations have risen to notability. However, if it were inadvertently POV pushing, then the social conservatism navbox would be equally (or more) POV for the same reasons. – MrX 21:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The differences with Template:American social conservatism are (1) the organizations are named in the template, (2) it is a more neutral designation that "discrimination", (3) the organizations would all (I presume) self-designate as such. I must say, I don't know what you were thinking with Template:Discrimination. Would you add the organizations to the template? Would you want Category:discriminatory organizations? List of discriminatory organizations? StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Having said all this, I note that a very select group of organizations are included in Template:Racism topics. To me that is an even bigger problem, though it need not detain us here. But why are those groups included, but not others? StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing misdirected - this link WP:NAVBOX takes you directly to this list:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.

2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.

3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.

The navboxes that have been proposed plainly fail the first three. Belchfire-TALK 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about how to create navboxes; we're talking about how to use them. The four criteria above relate to creating navboxes and really don't advance this particular discussion. 21:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
This application of the existing navboxes still needs to comply with the guideline. If you know of another guideline that supports what you want to do, then let's see it. Belchfire-TALK 22:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that doesn't follow. The application of navboxes do not need to comply with the guideline for creating navboxes. That simple does not make sense. It would be like saying that people driving cars need to comply with the OSHA regulations imposed on the manufacturing plant that built the cars. – MrX 22:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts: Categories and navboxes don' really serve the same purpose. Navboxes are like a bundle of 'see also' links. Their value is solely to reader. We have to decide if they would be helpful to readers exploring the subject of, let's say same-sex marriage or religious persecution.
The subject of the article does not need to be listed in the template in order for the template to be used in an article about the subject. If I'm wrong about this, please point me to the relevant usage guideline that says as much.
Although I believe that the social conservatism template is appropriate for the article, it's not for the reasons that you (St.Anselm) mentioned. Again, a template does not need to list the subject, and the subject's (AFA's) self-designation is not a relevant factor for inclusion, especially in the context of how there are viewed publicly (for example, via the media). – MrX 22:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I would welcome a template on same sex marriage. There are a number of ones for same sex unions, but not for marriage specifically. It could list the organizations that support it as well as those that oppose. StAnselm (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine, but it doesn't address the more extensive issues that go beyond same-sex marriage for these articles (see my reply to Arthur Rubin above). While the discrimination navbox may be debatable, I firmly believe the LGBT navbox must be included in these articles, and that there is no guideline or argument that I have yet seen that prevents it. – MrX 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Close The official guideline is at WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. This is not a decision up for discussion at an article talk page: either the WikiProject wants to help support the article, in which case they have an absolute, unrestricted right to announce that fact with their banner, or they don't, in which case they get to remove it. If you disagree with the long-standing rule about this, please take it up at WT:COUNCIL. Insomesia (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought this referred to talk page banners. I feel however that nav boxes at the bottom of pages are nearly invisible with the majority of readers not even reading past the lead this seems like another exercise of futility. The boxes are by default collapsed and at the bottom. Who cares that much? Leave them be and delete the navbox itself if it's not NPOV. Otherwise meh. Insomesia (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Within the LGBT navbox is a group called Prejudice & Discrimination and within that group is a link called Anti-gay Hate Groups, which links to an article listing all of the groups to which I added the LGBT template, including the AFA article. The relationship seems pretty clear to me. – MrX 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have been noticing that, and I didn't think it was neutral. I've changed it now. StAnselm (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
(Template:Racism topics has "SPLC list" rather than just "list"). StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I support those edits.
The LGBT template contains the following (non-exhaustive) list of items directly noted in or more of the groups/articles in question.
Please let me know if there is any topic in this list that is not mentioned in at least one of these articles, and I will gladly remove it. I believe the case is very clear for inclusion of the LGBT navbox at the bottom of all of the article currently in discussion. – MrX 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Closed

It would seem the 'rule' from the guide is Finally every article that transcludes a navbox should also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. This first bit doesn't imply that templates shouldn't be added to articles they don't include, but the "bidirectional" seems to imply this.

This means that the LGBT and discrimination navboxes cannot be used. It may make sense to develop and appropriate navbox in the future; perhaps one that lists anti-gay groups, or something similar. – MrX 02:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn 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 16:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Questioning balance of Criticism

Sure, criticism is important for neutrality, however a couple of things come to mind.

This article could be more balanced by listing defenses of AFA. Expanding on this thought shouldn't be too complicated and is left open to allow creative input. 

CyberPatrol's guidelines are cited in the article as claiming an organization as bigoted' if they are hostile or neutral towards homosexuality.' To myself at least, that's ridiculous. Are they claiming to say that if you don't champion homosexual rights you are bigoted?

I won't go through endless talk about how to balance the article, however it is shifted more into Criticism making it appear to be favorably balanced towards the homosexual community at the cost of this organization.

I'm neither supporting nor condemning homosexuality, however this article could use further balance. -Rasanack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.127.87.155 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Values vs beliefs in lede

I submit that the word "values" in the phrases "Christian values" and "conservative values" places an unnecessary judgement on the agenda of each broad coalition. A few attempts to assert wikipedia:npov and rewrite the phrases, and each was quickly reverted by two editors very active in edits in topics closely related to conservative groups. I propose using neutral words like beliefs, positions, options, etc. as opposed to the more positively biased "values". Thoughts? - JeffJonez (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? I would have thought "values" is pretty neutral. What you value isn't necessarily what I value. See Value (personal and cultural). StAnselm (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I think 'beliefs' may be a good, neutral alternative. 'Principles' may be another option. - MrX 03:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. "Values" is neutral. One can have good values and bad values. Having said that, to purport that their values or beliefs are specifically Christian, when Christians have a wide range of conflicting beliefs, is a problematic statement without source or qualification. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC) My bad, was dealing with similar phrasing in different article and got the two confusered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, though, it says "conservative fundamentalist Christian values" - that seems sufficient qualification. StAnselm (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the existing language was fine - we don't imply that their values are more authentically Christian than anyone else's, and while "fundamentalist" might suggest that the fundamentals of the Bible are things like sexual strictness rather than generosity and love, we're not going to change the definition of the word through editing Wikipedia. "Beliefs", in my view, would be a worse option because it's not like their focus is "what is the nature of the Trinity" - the "beliefs" they concern themselves with are on the lines of "reproductive rights and LGBT people are bad", which, for evil or for good, are values. A belief about what is good or important is a value. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Failed" boycotts

I just want to say that I approve of the recent edits made here that remove the words "unsuccessful" and "failed" relating to boycotts. Since the purpose of boycotts is to raise awareness, and often simply to make a stand, they cannot be said to have failed if the company in question does not change policy, etc. List of boycotts, for example, makes no mention of the "success" or otherwise of any boycotts. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Teaching Tolerance lie

We have a reliable source saying it's a lie so we're being nice by just saying it's "incorrect". MilesMoney (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What reliable source would that be. Cite (though I would assume it's the NYT article, the only cite in the paragraph) and direct quote, please. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
"Incorrect" is definitely POV, since the AFA's statement about a "nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools" is obviously just its opinion. StAnselm (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The AMA isn't sharing an "opinion" about the program, it's stating outright that it's intended to promote homosexuality. But the New York Times directly contradicts this: "The program [...] was intended as a way to break up cliques and prevent bullying." It's not quoting Costello, it's denying the AFA view in its own, unattributed voice. And if you read http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-8002-mixed-up.html, it says: "The point of mixing social circles is to prevent bullying and promote open-mindedness." Again, its own, unattributed voice, it denies the AFA claim.
Our reliable sources say the claim is false. We gotta do it, too. MilesMoney (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
No. Our reliable sources do not say the claim is false. You merely interpret what they do say to mean what you want it to mean. You have yet to provide provide a reliable third-party source which says "the AFA's claim is incorrect". And for that matter, even the NYT is not a reliable source as to the motivations of the SPLC, only as to the SPLC's statements of their motivations. We present their stated reason for the program – without even attributing it – and we report their rep referring to the AFA statement as a lie. We do not make our own judgment as to whether the AFA's view of the motivation for starting the program is correct or not. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
You're asking for a direct statement, which is more than we can reasonably expect from a newspaper. What we get is a lot of indirect ones, like the title: "Christian Group Finds Gay Agenda in an Anti-Bullying Day". The reporter's saying that the AFA finds an agenda but isn't saying it's actually there. MilesMoney (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Far-right politics

User:StAnselm, it's pretty easy to find sources recognizing this group as far-right, so this category should not be removed. MilesMoney (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would be good if you could provide those sources. The one you mentioned implies it's right wing, but not that it's on the "far right". StAnselm (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Far right?

Ok, let's discuss this. Do we have sources which associate the AFA with the far-right?

I could go on. Do I need to or are we agreed that the category fits? MilesMoney (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not. The first two are blogs. #3 doesn't use the phrase "far right". #5 is quoting someone else. The best we can do is that they have been called/characterized as a far right group (e.g. #7), but that's not enough for a categorization. StAnselm (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe you are being excessively resistant here. If you really don't think this is enough to support the category, I suggest that you get prepared to escalate to WP:RSN. MilesMoney (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Abilene, Kansas situation

An editor has repeatedly tried to insert information on a situation regarding an adult store in Kansas. The sources he gave said that a certain individual was behind this effort, and one mentioned that the individual was some sort of leader in the AFA... but that doesn't automatically make this an AFA effort. Unless we can show that it's an AFA effort, it does not belong in this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"One million" "moms/dads"

I would be surprised if they had "one million" supporters of either description in either of these campaigns. This article suggests that they have about 50,000 Facebook followers; this suggests that their supporters might be of the same order of magnitude, give or take. But I suspect Facebook following isn't the same as commitment to action. Have there been any attempts to assess how many people they can actually mobilize for these campaigns? Thousands? Hundreds? -- Impsswoon (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally unbalanced

In reading the entry on the American Family Association, it was evident quite early on that the entry is totally unbalanced and looks more like a hit piece on the organization...that somehow speaking up for a given viewpoint is somehow to be crushed because it is unpopular in the eyes of some. I thought Wiki was a source of balanced information from many angles, not just one. Sad, very sad that credibility is tossed out for the sake of a certain agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryhonda4me (talk • contribs) 13:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a large number of editors that actively patrol this page. It does, in fact, pass WP:NPOV. If you should feel that a section or particular is not neutral, you should tag it with "{{npov-section}}" and allow other editors to look at it. Until then, the article will be considered neutral as it does not cater to any single "given viewpoint." Antoshi ☏ ★ 14:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


"Sad, very sad," he said to himself, in a corner, hoping someone would notice his fake lament that he was doing gesturally purely for the purposes of demonstrating his political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.220.204 (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Classification as "fundamentalist" vs "traditional"

I would like to ask to User:NatGertler what exactly she means by "Star-news source", and why its assessment of "fundamentalist" is particularly relevant. Also, what are in her opinion the difference between the two - other than the perceived negative bias of the first. Immanuel797979 (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Star-News source" is this article which is used as a reference for that sentence, and which describes the group as "fundamentalist". Sourced descriptions from reliable third-party sources are what we lean on in these situations, and I can find a number of news sources using that descriptor for the group. And no matter what your assumptions are about my beliefs (or my gender, for that matter), I don't assume that "fundamentalist" as a "perceived negative bias". As for the phrase "traditional Christian", that's a tricky phrase in any circumstances, as Christianity covers a diverse range of sects with diverse traditions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for your reply. That clears things up. Immanuel797979 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it would make sense then to change the link to Christian_fundamentalism rather than Christian_right? Immanuel797979 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Family_Association/Archive_7&oldid=1147996906"