Talk:Faithful Word Baptist Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

SEO Law Firm

Why is "SEO Law Firm" a reliable source? I admit to being somewhat uncertain as to the possibility of anything with "SEO" in the name being related to the truth, but there's no visible indication of reliability on their site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel it helps show the balancing statements that Anderson's sermon's were bipartisan, not just against Barack Obama but against George W. Bush as well, and likely against any president. But not just anti-this presidency. To me this was valid information and leads to a more neutral reporting. I attributed the statement and i have absolutely no reason to doubt the content. Insomesia (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Completely fails RS, which specifically requires editorial oversight. SEOLawFirm explicitly disclaims this author: "The SEOLawFirm.com Newsroom extends editorial freedom to their staff and guest writers thus the views expressed in this column may not reflect the views of SEOLawFirm.com."– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 01:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... as the IP noted there reliable sources available to address content/sourcing concerns --Insomesia (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP should provide evidence of asserted importance. It hasn't been done yet (as of when I entered the AfD a few minutes ago.) Now, you'll have to provide evidence of actual importance within a week. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there is evidence, now, but it's synthesized. I don't doubt that a connection could be made, now, but it still doesn't meet WP:GNG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

URLs for the 3 "newspaper" articles would be helpful, so editors could see whether any of them supports the connection between the church and the shooting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your concerns are noted. Insomesia (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, there are more "sources". Do any of them connect the church to the shooting, and are any of those actual articles, as opposed to editorials or op-eds. The article is changing too rapidly for me to check whether there are actually any non-synthesized connections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Several do but I suppose you would actually have to look at the sources to know that. Or you could just slap a tag on without checking. Insomesia (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should I look? Enough of the sources cannot be in the article without violating WP:SYNTH, that, if I were not previously involved, I would be justifying in reverting the article, claiming the entire article is a BLP violation, except the initial first paragraph. To begin with, using SPLC as a source of information about FWBC is potentially allowable, but using it as a source of information about Anderson is a clear WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC is known for their fact-checking and accuracy. We can ask at the BLP noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard to verify if you wish. Insomesia (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}. Even if they were generally known for fact-checking, it would be unlikely that they would be known for fact-checking a opponent. In other words, any statement they make about an organization after that organization states that they are a "hate group" is unlikely to be fact-checked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a false assumption that the groups they list are automatically opponents. From my perspective their only opponents are hate and injustice. They report on these groups but there is no evidence they position themselves as adversarial. And I think the opposite of what you state is true, that they continue to monitor hate groups and maintain files on each to see what these groups do next, or if they changes their positions or tactics. Their advising the FBI and police authorities suggests they keep annotated records specifically so their information is seen as reliable, up to date, and accurate. Insomesia (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that, once a "hate group" (such as FRC) attacks them, their further analysis of the group is questionable. And "their advising the FBI" seems unsourced, except for cold cases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC has a long history of being attacked, death threats etc. so I don't see yet another one as doing much. I think it would just go in the file as yet another piece of information on file. I didn't add any content about the FBI as it wasn't mention in reliable sources but there does seem to be a relationship with the FBI that goes beyond just the cold files. The FBI is known to keep their cards close to their chests on matters except where they think it helps to advertise information. It would be nice if we had an official statement detailing all the ways SPLC works with the FBI but that likely would compromise ongoing investigations. Part of researching homegrown hate groups is that you don't want them alerted to who's investigating them and for what, that's the point of an investigation. And neither the FBI or SPLC needs added attention. Insomesia (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed, but on another SPLC hate group page, I posted some links from right-wing sources which alleged that the SPLC works closely with the FBI, to the extent of sending in spies that report to the feds. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the "Creep of the Week" column RS?

Is the "Creep of the Week" column RS?  Here is the URL: http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=36947 .  I removed this and was reverted by Insomesia.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you look for an alternative source to support the passage? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a different issue.  Does this need to go to the WP:RSN?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

AR-15 assault rifle report taken out of context?

The article had the sentence,

KNXV-TV noted the day after the sermon a member of the church "showed up outside of the Phoenix Convention Center toting an AR-15 assault rifle" and a pistol when President Barack Obama spoke.

I removed this sentence with the edit comment, "ref says "Broughton said he was motivated not by his pastor". And the New Mexico Independent says this was part of a Ron Paul rally."  I thought this was the end of the story, one source says what it is and another source says what it is not.  But Insomesia reverted me with the edit comment, "it was clear he went with the guns because of Obama, and did so the day after the "Why I hate Obama" sermon".  Can I get agreement from the talk page that this restoration is without a foundation?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. We should report that he denied being motivated, but the fact that there's an anti-Obama sermon on one day, and he shows up with a gun to an Obama event the next speaks for itself. Remember, we do not take our subject's word for everything. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Speaking for itself" might be WP:OR, especially when a reliable source reports, "Broughton’s appearance at the rally was part of a publicity stunt organized by Ernest Hancock,..."  ref.  It doesn't need to be coincidence that the preacher would have a sermon about Obama the day before Obama was to appear in town.  Where does a reliable source support that the sermon was the cause of the gun-toting, or even that the church was in any way connected with the gun-toting?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:OR has to be our original research. Reliable sources are entirely permitted to perform their own research and synthesis, and then we can quote them. While this speaks for itself, KNXV-TV allows us to speak about, since they did all the heavy lifting. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We are talking in circles, the New Mexico article identifies the gun-toting as part of a Ron Paul publicity stunt.  The KNXV-TV report is not new to the discussion, it allows the association between the church and the event, but by quoting Broughton leads readers to conclude that there was no causality.  Do you have any reliable sources that show that the church was the cause of the publicity stunt?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess the solution is to either remove the incident in it's entirety, or include all of it, so that it appears in full context. Something like the following? AzureCitizen (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

KNXV-TV reported that the day after the sermon, a member of the church, Chris Broughton, was carrying an AR-15 assault rifle and a pistol at the Phoenix Convention Center when President Barack Obama spoke. The New Mexico Independent reported that Broughton’s appearance at the rally was part of a publicity stunt organized by conservative radio talk show host Ernest Hancock, who also came to the rally armed and engaged in a staged interview with Broughton which was later broadcast on YouTube.

I'd be fine with that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Still one piece missing:

KNXV-TV reported that the day after the sermon, a member of the church, Chris Broughton, was carrying an AR-15 assault rifle and a pistol at the Phoenix Convention Center when President Barack Obama spoke. Broughton explained that he was not motivated by the sermon although he agreed with it. The New Mexico Independent reported that Broughton’s appearance at the rally was part of a publicity stunt organized by conservative radio talk show host Ernest Hancock, who also came to the rally armed, and engaged in a staged interview with Broughton which was later broadcast on YouTube.

I'm not saying I think this is right, but I think it is better.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems okay by me, if everyone's happy with this solution. Before we implement, can you post the cite for the "explained that he was not motivated" sentence? The ref I was looking at said (in reference to bringing the weapons) said "not to harm the president, Broughton said, but to exercise his constitutional right to have weapons." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the "KNXV-TV" source that states, "Broughton said he was motivated not by his pastor but by a long-standing dislike for the president, but told The Associated Press he "absolutely" agreed with Anderson."  Unscintillating (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the ticket! Okay, fine by me if you want to implement this full-context solution and add in the needed citations... AzureCitizen (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Me, I'm still looking for some support to not use it at all.  We already have an unbalanced article, and this event was a Ron Paul rally to support the right to bear arms.  No threat to the President was ever implied or suggested.  No one has said that Broughton represents the church either officially or as a typical member.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm fairly ambivalent whether the material (all of it, or none of it) is retained in the article or not either way. The sources make it apparent that Broughton didn't attend the rally because of the sermon, he went because of the pre-planned stunt with Hancock. If it's worth being included in the article at all, it might be more because of Broughton being a high-profile member of the Church (next to Anderson), in connection with the fact that the Obama Rally/AR15 stunt made national news, rather than the sermon thing per se. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest including all of it as it shows how the media, good or bad, portrays the church. Insomesia (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If such media includes a blog that starts "Feathered Bastard", yes, this is indeed how a POV part of the media represent this incident.  The evidence is guilt by association.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP problems

We have a non-trivial sourcing problem here. It seems that big chunks of new content are being added that are only supported by SPLC, which is not a reliable source, particularly where there are potential BLP issues. I'll leave it be for a short time, since it is clear the article is being actively worked on,. But be advised, the current situation cannot be allowed to stand and it will be corrected. Belchfire-TALK 02:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing SPLC reported that isn't verified by other sources. If you do have a specific concern please let me know and I'll have a look to ensure it's covered. I certainly don't see any BLP problems but we should take care to address those. Insomesia (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your best bet... OK, your only option, really... it to re-source anything negative about a living person, if the only source you currently have for that statement is SPLC. If it isn't said in a RS news source, just pull it out now. Belchfire-TALK 04:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC isn't a reliable source? Citation needed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTRELIABLE. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." SPLC has a clear COI and is not a reliable source for negative information about living persons. Such material needs secondary sourcing from reliable sources with editorial oversight. If a reputable news source is willing to repeat SPLC's claims, we can look at that, but SPLC by itself doesn't cut it. Belchfire-TALK 05:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is a gap in your understanding of policy. The SPLC is a reliable source for "negative" comments, such as designating an organization to be a hate group. If you disagree, I recommend WP:BLPN, because you have not made a persuasive case here. I am going to go all the way to 2RR now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, take your opinion to BLP/N and get consensus for your position. Best of luck to you. Belchfire-TALK 05:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR exemption and warning

Agree with Belch. SPLC is not RS for negative info about a BLP. The BLP exemption to 3RR is in full effect. Editors restoring SPLC-sourced negative info about a BLP will be reported forthwith. Editors at this page consider yourselves warned.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who violates 3RR under this basis will be reported so that the administrators can decide whether BLP really is in effect. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You can report Linoelt to 3RR, but it does seem a clear BLP violation he's talking about. As you've misinterpreted 3RR in the past, I suggest you defer to people more familar with BLP and 3RR before making the 4th revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I haven't edited the article at all, ever. Given that the SPLC is a reliable source, BLP doesn't figure into this. So when someone violates WP:3RR and I report them, it'll be up to neutral admins -- not you -- to rule on whether the BLP exception is involved. I wouldn't bet any money on them approving this exception. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}. What gives you the idea that the SPLC is a reliable source? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that it's not? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  This reference states,

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

Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  See WP:INTEXT, which links to WP:Neutral point of view#Attributing and specifying biased statements.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dallas Voice, The Premier Media Source for LGBT North Texas

I thought this wouldn't need to be discussed, given the obviousness of the bias and the fact that this source is not needed to make the point, but since the removal of this source has been questioned, we now must go through the exercise.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's have the discussion then. Why do you think the source citation fails RS for the fact that the "SPLC lists Faithful Word Baptist Church as a hate group"? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I've already cited "obviousness of the bias", and you are still asking questions, do you acknowledge that there is a connection between "LGBT" and "gay", and there is a connection between "gay" and "anti-gay"?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're making the assertion that because the Dallas Voice is an LGBT newspaper, they can't be trusted to assert the simple fact that the SPLC listed the church as an anti-gay hate group. If that's what you're saying, I think I'd rather not bother going down that road, and dealing with what you're implying. Instead, I'll just find some other sources that say the same thing, in which the organization making such a straightforward statement isn't "tainted" (apparently) by being "gay". Sound good to you? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it neither constructive nor neutral to be told by another editor what I think and why I think it.  "taint" and "being 'gay' " are both charged terminology in the context, so please going forward be more neutral.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that only took a few minutes, no big deal. Here you go:

• ABC News (15 Arizona): "The SPLC is now listing the church as a hate group targeting homosexuals in a list of hate groups operating in Arizona. [The Church Pastor said] I do hate homosexuals and if hating homosexuals makes our church a hate group then that's what we are."

• The Washington Times "Others on SPLC’s anti-gay “hate group” list include: Abiding Truth Ministries of Springfield, Mass.; the Chalcedon Foundation of Vallecito, Calif.; Faithful Word Baptist Church of Tempe, Ariz.; and the Traditional Values Coalition of Anaheim, Calif."

• Phoenix New Times: "​A Tempe church has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center... ...Anderson says any "hate" he preaches comes from the bible, not him."

Now we can get back to what's important. If you'd be so kind, when you respond to my comment above about WP:INTEXT, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and the way the SLPC listing is phrased, please quote from those policies and spell out why you think they would require us to phrase it the way you changed it when there are reliable source says that say the "SPLC has listed the church as an anti-gay hate group". Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is still the discussion about Dallas Voice. ; I started this new section so that the editors on this talk page could discuss one of the sources to which you objected to its removal.  It appears that it will not be necessary to take this to RSN.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Wording of SPLC Hate Listing

Hi, Unscintillating. I noticed your edit to the lede changing it to listed "as an "Arizona Chapter" on a list of "Active Anti-Gay Groups" on a webpage whose URL is termed "active_hate_groups"" (scare quotes included). I don't think WP:INTEXT nor WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV justify such a stretched out way of trying to re-word the SPLC's listing of the group. I also noticed you removed both of the original source citations which include the fact that Faithful Word Baptist Church was listed as a hate group. I suggest that we restore the original sources, add in the replacement source cite you'd like to add as well, and use text that looks like this. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has listed Faithful Word Baptist Church as an anti-gay hate group.

Why are you calling accurate workmanship "scare quotes"?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's the way the quotes comes across. I certainly didn't mean to be insulting your workmanship... I'll leave it to other editors to comment if they think the quotes were appropriate or inappropriate in this usage. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to the suggestion that we "restore the original sources", I have started two discussion sections below, one for each of the two sources.  I expect that we will be able to reach a consensus that neither will be used.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me ask a counter-question, why would we ever consider using the term "hate group" in Wikipedia's voice?  Is this a neutral word?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I see that we will have to deal with edit warring to restore a BLP violation first, and the reverting editor in question states "LOL" in the edit comment.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I think he or she was "LOLing" at the use of "whose URL is termed active_hate_groups" since it seems kinda WP:POINTY with regard to WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. However, I do not doubt the sincerity with which you believe in your argument that this is a necessary and appropriate application of policy, and would respectfully ask other editors not to introduce LOL comments, etc. Turning that aside for a moment, it concerns me more that you're saying that another editor was "edit warring" to "restore a BLP violation". Please explain how he or she edit warred, and why we should consider the SPLC listing as a BLP violation. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring over categories.

I had to revert this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just going to politely point out that User:Fat&Happy is at 3RR but hasn't bothered coming here to talk about this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he is at 3RR, but his edit summaries describe the policy which he is editing to — at least it should to anyone who understands English. Except in unusual circumstances, an article should not be in a category and its parent category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, you really have to stop with the personal attacks. Do you get it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, if your actions indicate that you do not understand clear statements made by other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You claim (above) that you don't read comments made after uncivil comments. Why do you reply to my allegedly uncivil comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't both of you give it a rest and stop wasting energy picking fights and instigating. It helps nothing. Insomesia (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In reference to this edit, the category already contains other churches, so the stated reason for removal is false. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And it was reverted with a reason that turns out not to be correct:

That category is a subcategory of Category:Political organizations by issue, so it does not appear to apply.)

In fact, there is no such parent-child relationship. Instead, this category is included in the following categories:

1. Political organizations by issue
2. Opposition to same-sex marriage
3. Organizations that oppose LGBT rights

The editor who reverted was mistaken. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, I didn't see this discussion until after I posted. The category is a subcategory of Category:Political organizations by issue, so I don't believe it applies here or to the other churches with the category. 72Dino (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I just refuted that. See above. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see some other opinions, too. Maybe the category should be removed from the Political organizations category and just left in the others. In the meantime, I won't be changing the category one way or the other. 72Dino (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion with categories comes from the fact that a child category can have multiple parents, and the relationships can be convoluted. I believe Still's comments above exemplify that quite well. – MrX 18:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Other Stuff exists is not a good argument. The fact that other Churches have been wrongly placed in the Opposition to same sex marriage category, does not mean we should follow the precedent and place this Church there as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That strawman was not the argument. The argument was that categories are not exclusive to a single parent. Please review WP:CAT. – MrX 18:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

See my bold edit removing parent category that is more precise than child category. 72Dino (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how that applies here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It applies because the reason the Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage was removed is because it was a child to the Political organizations category to which this church does not apply. Without that parent category, the category does now seem appropriate for this article. 72Dino (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(I apologize if I moved 72 Dino's comment to an inappropriate place. I was trying to maintain thread flow.) I agree with 72Dino's bold edit. This is a problem with several category trees, and specifically the LGBT one which as fairly poor organization in my opinion. It does not however negate the fact that the subcategories removed by Johnpacklambert should not have been removed. – MrX 18:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't oppose reorganization (and possibly renaming) of categories. For example, "Political organizations by issue" could be "Organizations by political issue". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC Schlatter reference

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners is the Schlatter reference and states,

Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those are each marked with an asterisk.

The point is that this source says neither that Faithful Word Baptist Church is or is not listed as a hate group.  What it says is that the church "will be" listed as such.  Using this to source a statement that the church is listed as a "hate group" is WP:CRYSTAL.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

They are listed on the current hate map for Arizona which confirms the accuracy of what Schlatter was saying. As an insider, he was in a position to know. Since the Schlatter article contains valuable info on why the determination was made, it should be retained. Add the map reference if it makes you feel it's necessary. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, as far as sourcing goes, Schlatter's prediction remains WP:CRYSTAL even if/though the prediction came true.  And, this is not a discussion to remove the source from the Article, only as to whether it is to be used for the specific case.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

PS Apparently the link is already footnoted. Where exactly is the problem? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In the simpliest form, this diff depends solely on the Schlatter reference for sourcing.  We are now discussing other sources on this page.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That map you listed only works correctly if you have Javascript enabled.  Secondly, if you look at [1], you will see that this is a list for 2011, "Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2011 are included."  So it doesn't tell us that FWBC is currently listed as a "hate group".  Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The comment about Javascript is irrelevant -- sources can be cited even if they're not on the Internet at all. The suggestion that the 2011 might be out of date is bizarre -- it's an annual listing and is current until the next one comes up. By your logic, there were no designated hate groups after January 1, 2012 -- and yet all the newspapers and all the websites act as if there is such a list. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The relevance of the Javascript reference is not defined by noting that sources that require Javascript can be wp:reliable.  The relevance is for editors that don't keep Javascript enabled.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

By your own WP:OR, "its an annual listing and is current until the next one comes up".  The source's statement on the currently-available webpage is titled, "Active U.S. Hate Groups" and states, "Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2011 are included."  The theory that "all the newspapers and all the websites act" in a certain way, lacks a list of applicable verifiable sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the distinct impression that you are raising the bar for reliability far, far higher than policy requires. That's the only way I can explain your refusal to accept these sources. I'm going to politely suggest that you have the option of visiting WP:RSN if you truly doubt their reliability. Short of your doing so, I consider this issue closed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

removal of unsourced BLP problem

For the second time in as many days, I've removed a statement that uses Wikipedia's voice to say the FWBC is a "hate group", a statement that was using a source that does not support the statement.  Intext attribution avoids WP:SYNTH about the opinion of SPLC.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Stating that the SPLC lists FWBC as a hate group is exactly the opposite of saying in Wikipedia's voice that it's a hate group. Competence is required. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, it's an explicitly attributed statement. It does not appear that Unscintillating understands relevant policy. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As shown at Wikiquette Assistance, you have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the viewpoint of other editors, or at least my viewpoint.  Therefore your opinion about the viewpoint of other editors, or at least my viewpoint, is without foundation.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Odd, that's not how I remember it, or how it appears in the history. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The "history"?  Do you mean the edit history?  The edit history doesn't show most of the conversation.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss to understand why it isn't clear that the statement "The SPLC lists FWBC as a hate group" is attributed to the SPLC, as opposed to speaking in Wikipedia's voice, which would simply say "The FWBC is a hate group". With regard to the source somehow not supporting the statement, I provided several other reliable secondary sources earlier today, which directly use words to the effect of "The SPLC lists FWBC as a hate group". If it clears up the unspecified BLP concerns, we'll add them as well to make sure it's unambiguously clear that this isn't a synth or BLP issue. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We might already have been discussing those sources without the edit on the Article page.  There is not a single one of the four sources that if you quoted it would have the phrase "anti-gay hate group".  Unscintillating (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? What of:

• ABC News (15 Arizona): "The SPLC is now listing the church as a hate group targeting homosexuals in a list of hate groups operating in Arizona.
• The Washington Times "Others on SPLC’s anti-gay “hate group” list include: Abiding Truth Ministries of Springfield, Mass.; the Chalcedon Foundation of Vallecito, Calif.; Faithful Word Baptist Church of Tempe, Ariz.; and the Traditional Values Coalition of Anaheim, Calif."
• Phoenix New Times: "​A Tempe church has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center..."

Given the bolded portions of those quotes, how do you maintain that those reliable secondary sources don't convey the obvious point that the SPLC has listed the FWBC as a hate group? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What I said was that there is not a single one of the four references that if quoted would have the phrase "anti-gay hate group".  As for the third reference above, the phoenixnewtimes source is a blog with intemperate language and is not wp:reliable.  As for what I "maintain", that is misdirected, given that I put a reliably sourced neutral statement on the Article that shows that SPLC listed FWBC on a web page with a URL termed "active_hate_groups".  In order to source the specific term "hate group", you are having to look for other sources to source the term of your choice.  How do you interpret the fact that you cannot directly quote the two-word "hate group" phrase for FWBC from SPLC?  This is directly relevant to understanding both the Washington Times article dated 24 November 2010 and the abc15.com article dated 1 December 2010, because the Schlatter reference states that FWBC would not be listed as a "hate group" until 2011, so there is an inference that neither of these articles are "reliable in the context", see WP:IRS.  There is also a new issue arising from the study of the "hate map" in the above section, which is that we probably cannot say at all that the FWBC is currently on a list of either "hate groups" or "active_hate_groups", because the latest SPLC listing is only for 2011.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(I will answer your posting here below, since the text will become too cluttered inserting my comments here)" AzureCitizen (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't see any concerns here. We should use the phrasing we do for articles about similarly-listed groups, such as the Family Research Council, as that's survived all challenges. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That you see no concerns does not mean that no concerns exist, it simply means that you are not aware of them.  The fact is that you are back on the WP:BATTLEGROUND even while the WP:ANI discussion to topic block you continues, editors on your talk page debate taking you to RFC/U, and our Wikiquette Assistance discussion remains open.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree that StillStanding is disruptive and doesn't respond to simple English requests in a comprehensible manner, including in this thread. However, I don't see what Unscintillating's problem is on this article. SPLC uses "anti-gay hate group", and others use things along the line of "SPLC declares ... to be a hate group targeting homosexuals". Even a clearly biased paper can be reliable for statements of fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I really wish you didn't resort to incivility and personal attacks when your arguments are seen as unconvincing. It only makes them less convincing by undermining your credibility. Hope this advice helps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If SPLC uses the phrase "anti-gay hate group" for FWBC, then please provide the source.  I think I have seen the four-word phrase in the "blog" part of the website, perhaps that is the confusion?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

[2] Revanneosl (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(to StillStanding). Please pay attention. I'm stating that, although the arguments you're presenting here are bogus, your position (that "anti-gay hate group" is adequately sourced) is supported. That you are disruptive is readily apparent, and your inability to understand English is shown from the fact that you don't see I was agreeing with your position. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(Answer to Unscintillating's posting above)

The moment you cross the line into incivility, I stop reading. That's one of the reasons your constant incivility is so disruptive: nobody wants to take anyone seriously when they can't even remain civil. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Ah, I see, you're looking for a source that uses the exact four words "anti-gay hate group" in that order. However, that isn't a problem in the context of sourcing the statement "The SPLC has listed the FWBC as an anti-gay hate group". The cited sources make it clear that the SPLC has listed the church as a hate group for being anti-gay. If you disagree, I'd recommend taking this issue to the reliable sources noticeboard, if you think it's necessary we find a source that uses those exact four words in that sequence.

2. The Phoenix New Times article is not a freeform "blog" in the way you're construing it. As with a number of news outlets, including some CNN correspondents, PNT articles published by its reporters all have "blog.phoenixnewtimes.com" in the URL. Try going to the main page, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/ , click on other articles, and see how they come up. That being said, if other editors want to toss this article on RS concerns, I'm not really worried about it and it isn't a big deal to me.

3. How do I interpret the fact that I "cannot directly quote the two-word "hate group" phrase for FWBC from SPLC?" That's strange, when I look at the intelligence report by Schlatter, the introductory paragraph says "Of the 18 groups profiled below, the SPLC will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were previously listed)". Ergo, the 13 being added for 2011 are "hate groups," and the Faithful Word Baptist Church is one of them (they are identified with an asterix).

4. The inference that the Washington Times and ABC articles aren't reliable because they're dated in late 2010 when the new "hate group" list was going into effect at the start of 2011 isn't very persuasive to me. Obviously, those news outlets got wind of the hate group designation when the SPLC released their intelligence report in late 2010 and were reporting it. The ABC article says "The SPLC is now listing the church as a hate group targeting homosexuals in a list of hate groups operating in Arizona" and the the Washington Times article even mentions that the designations come from the "winter edition of its Intelligence Report". Clearly, they were simply reporting on what the Winter Intelligence Report said. Re-read it in the proper context and it becomes obvious.

5. With regard to the argument that perhaps the SPLC doesn't currently list the FWBC as a hate group, I took a look at the map. In the text below the map, I see it says "Active U.S. Hate Groups" and goes on to say "The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 1,018 active hate groups in the United States in 2011. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2011 are included." I assume you are interpreting this to mean that perhaps some of the groups identified on the map are no longer designated as hate groups. That might be so. Reading the language plain on it's face, however, it just says that they counted up all the hate groups in 2011 and they totaled 1,018. If an organization and/or its chapters were not active in 2011, it was dropped from the map. So that made me curious, how many groups are on the map today, right now? Would it be 1,108? I counted them up, and got a total of 985. So today, September 9, 2012, you could make the reasonable inference that some of them have been dropped since 2011. However, of the 985 still on the map today, if you zoom in on Arizona, sure enough, Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona is still listed (and as "Anti-Gay"). Ergo, I conclude that since FWBC is still on their map today, it is not one of the 33 (1,108 minus 985) that have been dropped between 2011 and September 9, 2012. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Just want to comment that the 33 missing groups appear to be ones that have gone inactive. In other words, it doesn't seem that they were dropped from the list because they turned over a new leaf and disavowed their prior bigotry. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(1) We reached consensus the previous time this item was in the article to avoid the WP:SYNTH of "anti-gay hate group" by separating the designations as separated by SPLC, i.e., "anti-gay group and hate group".  And my earlier point was that such WP:SYNTH is avoided by using direct quotes.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(2) So "he's a raving fucking lunatic." is the statement of a wp:reliable source?  I don't think so, I think you need to remove this blog from the article.  Also, I visited the home page as you suggested, and not all of the links there are to blogs, viz, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2012-09-06/news/paul-thomas-anderson-on-researching-scientology-for-his-next-film/ .  Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(3) The part "will be" is future tense.  The part "next year" means in the future.  When things are predicted as that they will occur in the future, it means that they have not yet happened.  If they have not yet happened, even if there is commitment to make such happen, we don't know at the time of the statement that they will or will not happen.  That means we cannot use such a statement to source the assertion that it did happen.  This is covered as a part of WP:NOT as WP:CRYSTAL.  Again, it appears that we are not able to use SPLC to source that FWBC is listed as a "hate group", we can say that in Winter 2010 SPLC planned to list FWBC as a "hate group" in 2011, and we can say that SPLC lists FWBC on a web page whose URL denotes "active_hate_groups".  Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(4) What I said was not that they were not reliable, the term was "reliable in the context" as per WP:IRS.  You say, "re-read it in the proper context and it becomes obvious", but we already know that Schlatter's Winter Intelligence report only had a WP:CRYSTAL view of what would happen in 2011.  I think the problem here is that we are not agreeing on the facts.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(5) My thought was simply that they only update the list once a year.  That is interesting that they name 1018 and you found 985.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't find your arguments convincing in the least as you seem to be ignoring relevant policy, not to mention the facts of the matter. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to start a conversation?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1. The SPLC designates an organization as a "hate group" based on having beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. If a group is added (of which there are approximately 1,000 apparently), it is also sorted into a relevant category (white nationalist, black separatist, neo-Nazi, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, etc). It therefore makes the most sense to me that they are an "anti-gay hate group," rather than an "anti-gay group" and a "hate group". They aren't two different things on equal parity, since the former is really just a sub-classification of the latter. You've referred to a previous consensus being reached to separate these things before, perhaps you could direct us to where that was so that people can consider it.

2. Colorful text to be sure, yet the Phoenix New Times dates its inception to 1970 and is a local Arizona newspaper. I think an RSN debate on whether or not it would be reliable for the assertion that the SPLC listed the FWBC as a hate group might be a toss-up, but I've already said its not a big deal to me and I leave it to others to decide whether to keep it or discard it.

3. In the Winter 2010 Intelligence Report, the SPLC said they were going to list the FWBC starting in 2011 and they did. Do you want us to add another source citation which shows they followed through? Take a look at the Spring 2012 Intelligence Report (PDF document). Scroll down to page 48, under "General Hate," where it says "These organizations are subdivided into anti-gay, anti-immigrant, etc..." Below that, under "Anti-Gay (27)," Faithful Word Baptist Church appears as the seventh entry. The way I see it, WP:CRYSTAL deals with the problem of something that is anticipated but is essentially just unverifiable speculation. We know that's not the case here, as it is verifiable that the SPLC followed through and listed the FWBC as an anti-gay hate group.

4. I believe those sources are reliable in the context presented. Maybe that's another item you should take to the reliable sources noticeboard if you believe they aren't? It might also help to specify which exact facts you believe we are in disagreement on.

5. Makes me curious too. I suppose one could call them and ask, how often and when do they update their map? It's also entirely possible that at some point in the future, FWBC will be de-listed. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It has been a week, and you've not removed the Phoenix New Times blog.  I think that you should remove this blog.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Read #2 above, where I said its not a big deal to me and I leave it to others (that includes yourself, of course). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Phoenix New Times blog.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression you may not have understood my meaning correctly. When I say "I've already said it's not a big deal to me and I leave it to others to decide whether to keep it or discard it," and "that includes yourself, of course", I'm saying that if you want to remove that source from the article, be my guest. I wasn't implying "you must take this to RSN for a determination or it will be opposed". If, on the other hand, you are concerned that other editors might oppose your unilateral removal, then I understand why you're seeking noticeboard support first. I would say just make the edit and wait and see, but as before, I leave it up to you. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is still no consensus here.  Do you agree that the phoenixnewtimes blog is not wp:reliable?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter it's irrelevant, since there are ample other sources supporting the fact that the SPLC has designated the church as an anti-LGBT hate group. But as a policy matter, no, I do not agree that the PNT article is not a reliable source for the content it is used to support. This is not a personal ramble on blogspot.com; it's a news blog written by a professional journalist employed by the publisher, a nationally recognized news organization. It is reliable as to the facts reported, either in regard to the SPLC listing – easily verifiable from the primary source in any case – and as to the statements made by Anderson when speaking to the PNT. It is not a reliable source that, e.g., homosexuals are at the top of Anderson's hate list or that Anderson "passed the buck", which are cleatly insertions of the author's interpretations and would need to be so attributed if they were used. Which, of course, they're not. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that is why we are having this discussion, because of the difficulty in finding sources that use the terminology "anti-gay hate group", which remains unsourced on this article and remains a BLP problem.  And your own words that there are sources to support the phrase "anti-LGBT hate group" is equally unsourced.  Claiming that other sources exist, without citing other sources, is not helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the part of the argument regarding the source, this needs to go to the current RSN discussion on the issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, why we are having this discussion seems to be that one editor does not accept sources that pretty much everybody else commenting find to clearly support the statement that the SPLC has listed the church as an anti-gay hate group. There is a difference between synthesis and the ability to comprehend clear, simple English.

As for the part of the argument regarding the source, I apologize if I erred in believing this talk page is used for actual discussion of the article, not for asking purely rhetorical questions. Since the question was asked here – after the RSN discussion was opened – I consider it appropriate to answer here. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Pretty much everybody" is the logical fallacy of [Appeal to the majority], and only one editor on this page has said that the phrase "anti-LGBT hate group" can be sourced by "plenty of sources".  Ad hominem arguments are not a substitute for sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue of the phoenixnewtimes blog is currently resolved on the RSN noticeboard.  Do you have a problem with taking your viewpoint to the RSN and re-opening the discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)