Jump to content

Talk:American Vision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit]
This request for comment has been closed with the result: for the love of Pete. This RfC is longer than the entire article. Arguing about policies and guidelines, such as WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT when the entire article is Above the fold is silly and pointless. Further, just saying WP:Per policy without explaining why that particular policy supports your position is poor form especially when the same "argument" could be said by those in direct opposition to you. The designation as a hate group by the SPLC is already in the article, and from the history the material attempted to be added to the lead is the same as the current text which is overly redundant in such a stubby article. There is no consensus to include the material in the lead at this time. Trouts all around. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

American Vision has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism? Insomesia (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: quite apart from whether this should be in the lead, the statement is blatantly false. It takes a generic reason for inclusion on the list - one that applies to the Family Research Council, Traditional Values Coalition, etc. - and applies it to American Vision. No, American Vision was included because they support capital punishment for practising homosexuality. Of course, they support capital punishment for all the capital crimes listed in the Old Testament. StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't consider SPLC to be a neutral party. They label many conservative organizations "hate groups". I don't think it should be in the lead. – Confession0791 talk 03:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how anyone would prove they are neutral but nothing in their highly edited article has suggested they are partisan and the SPLC is not a political organization. Their data is used by many law enforcement agencies, educational institutions and journalists. They are the respected leader in this field, teh FBI uses their research. Insomesia (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in the lede (and body). Here is the list of all the anti-LBGT organizations that are labeled as hate groups by the SPLC. 15 of them have full WP articles. See below for the 9 that have it in the lede, and the 6 that do not.

These 9 include the SLPC hate label in the lede:

These 6 do not include the SLPC hate label in the lede:

This issue reveals one of those unavoidable inconsistencies with Wikipedia. Because SLPC is an extremely well-known civil rights organization (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. Their data is used by many law enforcement agencies, educational institutions and media. It should be in the lede of all of those articles. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose inclusion. I don't see the above inconsistency as a problem. The thing is, these organizations are all different. Some of them have the anti-gay platform as their main agenda, others do not. So, they ought to be taken on a case by case basis. Also, some of the listings have been widely reported, while American Vision's has not. StAnselm (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the differences in the organizations is totally irrelevant. The SPLC gives the hate group designation to about 1000 groups, many, as you acknowledged, with different missions. All that matters is that each of them is designated as a hate group by the SPLC, which is a fact not in dispute. So, for this discussion, it does not matter why the SPLC labels them as hate groups; only that they do label them as hate groups. The only issue here is whether or not that fact is worthy of inclusion in the lede. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, which means that the mere designation is not all that matters. The reason is important, along with the publicity the listing has received, and the fact of whether or not the organization is primarily known for being listed as a hate group - these are all things to consider in determining inclusion in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPLC designating any organzation as a hate group is, IMO, definitely worthy of inclusion in the lede. That in itself is a substantial fact about any group that has received that tag. Ledes are not limited solely to content about what the subject is "primarily known" for; only that the content is lede-worthy. Our job is not to evaluate whether SPLC's reason, which would be included in the body, is good or bad. We simply add factual content as we know it from reliable sources. Our only purpose with this RfC is to decide if the hate group label is substantially important enough for the lede. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belchfire, let's be fair and consistent. You were the originator of this RfC in American Family Association, which several editors told you included a false statement (that SPLC is a "political opponent" of AFC) in the description. So why does this RfC "fail by default," but yours did not? Yours went through a lengthy discussion which resulted in overwhelming consensus to include the hate group designation in the lede. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Save it for the gormless. SPLC is a political organization. This RfC makes a different claim, one that is actually false, and it's already been pointed out. I hope that helps. Belchfire-TALK 02:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, please act WP:CIVIL. Your gormless comment was inappropriate. Just because you call SPLC a "political opponent" doesn't make it so. As a number of editors in the other RfC explained to you, SPLC is not a political organization at all. Whether one supports them or not, they are one of the most-well known non-profit civil rights organizations in the country. They research and monitor extremism, and accept no government money. In any case, my original comment was solely to point out the repeated objections to your own RfC description. Other editors can read that RfC for themselves and make their own determination. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that you are wrong isn't uncivil, nor does claiming that a number of other people share your self-serving opinion make it any closer to being true. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 03:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I clearly stated, it was your "gormless" comment that was uncivil. And now your "self-serving" comment is also not civil. You were already blocked from editing twice last month and I really don't want to see you get blocked again for behaving inappropriately. Thank you. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the onus is on you to source the statement. I have no idea why you've proposed unsourced claim like this. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Interestingly, American Vision is in the news right now. This article from Mother Jones describes them in terms of their own mission statement: a Christian nonprofit formed to "restore America to its biblical foundation,"... So notice that they don't refer to them as a SPLC-listed hate group - that is evidently not what they're known for. The listing is not as notable/significant as that of the FRC. StAnselm (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A subject doesn't have to be primarily known for something for that something to be lede-worthy. It simply has to be a significant enough fact about the subject to warrant placement there. The majority of news stories about organizations designated as hate groups are not necessarily going to specifically mention that fact. For example, search for news stories about Westboro Baptist Church and see how many of them mention the SPLC hate group designation. Probably very few. But that doesn't change the fact that they do have that label and that it's a prominent fact about them. It's just that the media is obviously not going to repeat it in every story they publish. Same would apply to most news stories, for example, about KKK-related groups. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously hope your not trying to defend leaving out anything from the lead of an article that every news organization doesn't include. They often don't even use the same three-to-four-word descriptors. Insomesia (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question to ask, is how does this designation from the SPLC affect the American Vision group? If it doesn't have much effect at all, then it can probably be safely ignored in the lead. If it does somehow affect them, then we need to first determine if it is a significant effect, and then explain what effect it has had, in addition to the simple mention that SPLC has granted them this designation. You can't simply make the claim that being designated a hate group by the SPLC is, in and of itself, significant enough to change how we write articles about such groups. What is required first is that we show some impact, and not just minimal impact, but a significant impact that was caused by this designation. Otherwise it is demonstrably and unquestionably a minor point. -- Avanu (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've already determined that being designed a hate group by the SPLC is a big deal. That's why it's mentioned for Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups. This RfC is part of a move to make Wikipedia consistent, so you're effectively rehashing refuted arguments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Just receiving this designation is not a big deal in its own right unless you can show proof that it has some impact. -- Avanu (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't understand this "We've already determined" bit. How did we determine it? StAnselm (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether it is "important" that the SPLC labels an organization a hate group, the RfC for American Family Association showed overwhelming consensus that it indeed is. Avanu, it is not the job of editors to prove impact. In fact, that would be inappropriate. The purpose of editors is to make sure that content is worthy of inclusion and reliably sourced. With this RfC, our sole mission is to determine whether AV being labeled a hate group by the SPLC, which is not in dispute, is lead-worthy. The vast majority of similar articles do in fact include it in the lead. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority you speak of was nine out of fifteen just a few days ago. But no - that was not the consensus of the AFA RfC. Because, for example, the FRC RfC didn't have anywhere near the same consensus. Anyway, I agree with Avanu - the designation has had minimal impact, unlike the situation with the AFA. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you (76.189.108.102) want one RfC to apply to all of the articles, write it as a single RfC, covering all the articles, including those with an individual RfC already completed or in progress. But don't be surprised if the consensus overrides the previously established consensus at AFA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to, nor does WP allow it to be done that way. But I believe that pretty soon all those articles will include it in the lead. My last check was that 10 of 15 have it in the lede. But whether it's nine or 10, it makes the point that it's not only important, but it's lead-worthy important. And the AFA RfC did indeed have overwhelming consenus. I believe it was 29-4 saying it should be in the lede. But of course the consensus was not based on counting "votes" but rather on the arguments presented in those 29 supports vs. the four opposes. Editors can read that AFA RfC for themselves. Btw, I highly doubt that AV considers the hate group designation to be of "minimal impact." But, again, it's not our job to judge impact. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your statement, WP encourages the same question, to be resolved on many articles, to be done in a single RfC; even if the answers could reasonably be different. I'll have to check your alleged 9 or 10 which have the link, to see whether they should have it. If I don't think so, I'll bring a joint RfC, so you can see how it's done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See below; your "count" is incorrect. Only 3 of the 9 have a lead. That makes it 3 of 9, rather than 9 of 15, which have the "hate group" designation in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we don't need to prove that American Vision being considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law center has had an impact on American Vision, although that might be an interesting addition. As the nation's leading authority on hate groups, the SPLC's designation is notable criticism in itself. Insomesia (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, below is the proof showing the 9 of 15, which was previously provided. If you want to inject semantics about leads, that's fine. Editors can look at the 15 articles for themselves and see how and where the hate group reference is included.

These 9 include the SLPC hate label in the lede:

These 6 do not include the SLPC hate label in the lede:

I recall reading another discussion where it was asked whether an RfC could be done for all of them at once. An admin said no. But if you are able to do it, I'm sure many editors will welcome it. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Looking at the articles:

Do not have a lede, but have the hate label in the article:

Have SLPC hate label in the lede:

Questionable:

  • Westboro Baptist Church.

    The church is widely described as a hate group[4] and is monitored as such by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center.

Have a lede, but do not have the SPLC hate label in the lede.

Have a lede, but do not have the SPLC hate label anywhere.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We'll get working on fixing all of these articles. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks StillStanding. Arthur Rubin, editors can read those articles and see for themselves what's going on. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I am very suspicious of the word "we" here. I wish you'd stop using it. It makes me think there is a big conspiracy. StAnselm (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Insomesia simply meant "we" as in the collective group of editors who are interested in editing these articles. He can correct me if I'm wrong. As I hear others say a lot, assume good faith. And if you have a concern, discuss it with him on his talk page. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Part of aligning it with WP:LEAD is to know whether it has an impact. You say it needs to be a notable thing, and this doesn't mean that it is WP:NOTABLE, but simply that it must be WP:DUE to include it into the summary of the entire article. It must have some level of significance within the article that allows it to be a part of the lead. Something can hardly be called significant if you can't show how it impacts the subject of the article. -- Avanu (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Response

[edit]

Huh? No matter how I add it up, there seems to be a strong consensus for including it in the lead. What's going on here? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually see Nathan's point about redundancy in such a short article. I have made some adjustments moving some secondary content from the lead to the body, and the hate group listing to lead where it properly belongs. The hate group listing in important, but does not require signigficant coverage in such a short article, so it's best to concisely summarize it in the lead. – MrX 19:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hate group designation should be in the lead paragraph as was discussed previously

[edit]

I think moving this notable fact to the last sentence after everything else about the Christian hate group is disingenuous. Can the editors who have moved this to the end of the article explain the change or would another RfC be best? Insomesia (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to first explain what a group says and does and believes, and then include an evaluation from other sources. StAnselm (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, what others say about a group is more important than what the group says about itself. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 20:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, turning this into a soapbox for a hate group seems like a very bad idea. Be upfront that they are a hate group even if we aren't able to scrub together much else about this group. Insomesia (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, where does the title of this thread come from? The result of the RfC was that there was no consensus for the hate group designation to be in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a flippant article is too short. I believe there is equally no consensus to bury what seems to be the most notable thing about this group either. Since you and Belchfire are prone to revert warring it makes sense to try to see what reliable and independent of the group sources state. We can, of course, get the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to help us reach a decision. Insomesia (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute the claim that the SPLC listing is the most notable thing about the group. I've had a look at Google Books, and had quite a few results, including material published this year. I have added a couple of references, and will be adding some more. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::: Saying the result was no is disengenous. The result was no concensus. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting it is disingenuous to italicise "no" without also italicising "consensus"? StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I missed 'consensus' GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 06:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Vision&oldid=1195170660"