Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"what it considers" traditional family values because it's based on a specific model of families within the US, out of the wide range of family forms and values over the last few millennia on the planet. Also, added "conservative" to Christian: libertarian conservatives have very different views on homosexuality, for example.Vicki Rosenzweig 12:28, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Very good points. I think your NPOVing is great. Andrewa 13:18, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

HPV source

There used to be a reference in there to a New Scientist interview... it seems to have vanished. Nothing in this talk page gives a valid reason for its removal, so I quickly reinserted it.

While I agree that it would be helpful for the remover to have noted here why it was removed, having tested it just now, I suspect it was simply that the link is broken. Does anyone have a new link? Lawikitejana 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?

Isn't it a violation of copyright to basically reproduce verbaitem what that website says even if you appropriatly attribute it...? We need to rewrite this methinks. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I note also that the SourceWatch article (at [1]) is very similar. SourceWatch should probably link to the Wikipedia article, to comply with the GFDL, but I'll hold off pursuing that in the hope that someone will get around to rewriting this article anyway. Meanwhile, the content I'm adding about Spongebob Squarepants is original with me. JamesMLane 08:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. Even if it's not copyright violation, it does seem to place the verifiability criterion over the neutral POV criterion by quoting material that tends to be PR. Moreover, the long section from their web site that profiles Dobson seems out of place here -- he does have his own article, after all. I'm hoping, too, that a competent re-writer will surface (though it's not encouraging that I am writing that 18 months after the last person said it ...). Lawikitejana 09:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian Right Coalition Members

I'm not sure why this section is in this article. Any clues? It seems more like a category, or a separate topic.--Gandalf2000 06:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Video Game Report Card"

Could use a mention of their annual "Video Game Report Card" and general view of the industry... They're almost as bad as Jack Thompson... --Wulf 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute between FeloniousMonk and Joe Carter

1) "The FRC is associated with James Dobson's Focus on the Family and William J. Bennett."

FRC is not formally associated with FotF or with Bennett. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006

Relevant associations need not be formal for inclusion in Wikipedia, only verifiable. In fact, some of the most significant are relationships in groups like this are intentionally informal. As the intro correctly points out the FRC officially became a division of Dobson's Focus on the Family, but in 1992 IRS concerns about the group's lobbying led to an administrative separation; this is verifiable: [2] The joint letter issued by FRC and Focus on the Family to pastors -- "we want you to know that Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are committed to standing side by side with pastors like you in this battle" -- proves that they still are.[3] FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well then if that is the standard I'll start including all of the significant relationships that FRC has with other groups. --User:Joe Carter

2) "According to a report prepared for The Nation by the Center for Responsive Politics, in all of Erik Prince's political funding generosity since 1989, he has never given a penny to a Democrat running for national office."

What has Erik Prince to do with FRC? It was Edgar not Erik who provided the funding. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006

As it says, "Private military contractor, Blackwater founder, who comes from a powerful Michigan Republican family and social circle, and his father, Edgar, helped Gary Bauer start the Family Research Council." Clearly the family is the subject there, not any one member. That two generations of a prominent Republican family provided funding to right wing causes, one of which is the FRC, is notable. I am not the original author of this passage, BTW. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are not the original author then why did you replace a cited source with an unverifiable claim? If you had bothered to read the reference I provided you would have seen that Erik was the one who helped found FRC. Unless you can provide a citation backing up your claim that Edgar is involved, then I suggest you stick with what is verifiable. --User:Joe Carter

Original authorship is irrelevant, and your point has been noted. Your reference will be checked per WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Meanwhile we shall proceed apace with verifying the other information. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

3) "Company president Jackson has also given money to Republican candidates. Joseph Schmitz-the former Pentagon Inspector General turned general counsel to Blackwater's parent, The Prince Group-lists on his resume membership in the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a Christian militia formed before the First Crusade. Like Prince, he comes from a right-wing family; his father, former Congressman John Schmitz, was an ultraconservative John Birch Society director who later ran for President. Joseph Schmitz was once in charge of investigating private contractors like Blackwater, but he resigned amid allegations of stonewalling investigations conducted by his department. He now represents one of the most successful of those contractors."

None of this has anything to do with FRC. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006

Again, it illustrates the FRC's connections to notable support from right wing politicos from which the FRC benefits. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's the citation? You do have proof for this claim, I presume, otherwise you wouldn't be making it, right? --User:Joe Carter

Again, as I said eariler, I'm not the original author of this passage. Cites will not be hard to find. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then let's change it once we have some verification. User:Joe Carter

4) "FRC campaigns for an increase in abstinence-only sex education, particularly in state schools."

You keep restoring typos, which shows that you are not paying close attention to the material you are reverting. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006

So you're deleting masses of sourced content because of typos? Typos are easily fixed, deleted content is bigger problem. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are the one reverting masses of unsubstatiated content without paying attention to what you are doing. --User:Joe Carter

FM is reverting your edits. Are you saying that your edits are "masses of unsubstatiated content"? Was this a syntactical error? How much attention are you paying to what you write? I assume you've heard the old saw about glass houses and stones, yes? •Jim62sch• 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

5) "They have had minimal involvement in the intelligent design legal incident or evolution controversy, commenting only briefly on the matter while maintaining a neutral stance."

Why include information on a matter on which you admit they are "neutral"? --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006

That is neither a passage I wrote, nor find accurate. They are active in promoting ID, their "True Blue Award" clearly advocates for ID and is intended to influence policymakers: "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) received the "Un-Intelligent Design" award for being a longtime proponent of removing faith from the public square, prayer from public schools and intelligent design from academic studies." [4] Also, the FRC has published 2 Fact Papers[5] and 8 Commentaries[6] in support of ID. Clearly they are a notable voice in support of ID. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't find it accurate, then why not change it and include the citations you list? User:Joe Carter

I've little doubt that FM will do so. •Jim62sch• 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

6) "In the May 30, 2005 edition of Harper's Magazine, Chris Hedges in Soldiers of Christ II writes that the Family Research Council sponsors radio broadcasts the Dominionist movement and that Perkins, president of the Family Research Council appears in videos promoting the dominionist message that "America’s culture was hijacked by a secular movement"[7]

This material and subsequent criticism belongs under the "Criticism" heading, not under "Policies." --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006

Criticism sections are not necessarily the preferred style at Wikipedia, read Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

7) The Southern Poverty Law Center has linked the Family Research Council to racism through the activities of its president Tony Perkins.[8] In the April 26, 2005 issue of The Nation magazine journalist Max Blumenthal wrote that Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has longstanding ties to racist organizations, including a deal with white supremacist David Duke to share his mailing list. ***

Slanderous allegations which are unsupported and libelous should not be included. The articles also do not say what you claim. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006

Uh, it can't be slander -- that's for spoken words. •Jim62sch• 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant, verifiable and supported by the cites: "Former Louisiana legislator Tony Perkins, a "family values" crusader who had given a speech to the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens on May 19, 2001, took over the FRC's leadership in 2003."[9] - "Senate majority leader Bill Frist appeared through a telecast as a speaker at "Justice Sunday," at the invitation of the event's main sponsor, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. . . Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. [10] Sorry, but that passage is eminently relevant to the topic of the FRC and well-supported. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. And if you had written it out that clearly and NPOV'd it like that, then I would have no quarrel. But there is a huge difference between the opinion that is on the page now, and the factual content you list above. Why don't we agree to use what you've written above to replace the disputed content? --User:Joe Carter

8) A "homosexuality detection expert" at the FRC stated that words like "tolerance" and "diversity" are part of a "coded language that is regularly used by the homosexual community." [11]"

FRC has no "homosexuality detection expert". The reason it is in quotes is because the op-ed write made it up. You should really be more critical of the source material you claim to use. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006

Whether they do or not we really don't know nor could we in the article as it would be neither verifiable nor supportable by WP:RS and WP:NOR. It's clearly a term attributed to the National Business Review which is the supporting cite: [12] As such it is fine per our policies.

I didn't find it to be clear at all. In fact, since the reporter is being dishonest it doesn't help matters to word it as if FRC actually had someone on staff who claimed to be a "homosexuality detection expert." Why don't we word it so that it is clear that hte NBR is making the claim, rather than burying that point in the reference. --User:Joe Carter

The NBR meets the criteria for WP:RS, thus any issue you have must be taken up with them. However, as I can find no record of FRC suing NBR for libel, one must assume that the statement is true. •Jim62sch• 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matter to the article but I'm curious, exactly how is it you knowthat FRC has no "homosexuality detection expert"? FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Whether they do or not we really don't know nor could we in the article as it would be neither verifiable nor supportable by WP:RS and WP:NOR." Yes, and that is precisely why it should not be used as a citation. It makes Wikipedia look like a joke. --User:Joe Carter

The cites are perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia's foundational policy, WP:NPOV. If you intend to continue contributing here get used to the idea that Wikipedia's goal is presenting all notable viewpoints within the constaints of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I diagree that the citations are NPOV. The policy is that the citations cannot express a bias (WP:NPOV --Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate.) and that they must represent fact, not just opinion. Saying that Tony Perkins spoke to an allegedly racist group is a fact. Implying that this implies that FRC or Perkins is also racist is unsubstantiated opinion. I trust that you are as committed to the NPOV as I am and will work with me to week the "facts" from the "opinions." --User:Joe Carter

Cites are not required to be NPOV here, it is assumed most are not. Read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR. FeloniousMonk 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that the policy also states that when opinions are expressed, that the citations should be quoted directly, not paraphrased and presented as fact. --User:Joe Carter

"I'm curious, exactly how is it you knowthat FRC has no "homosexuality detection expert"?" Because I work for FRC. --User:Joe Carter

WP:AUTO applies to you then: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." This is a guideline and not a policy, but editors are discouraged, but not prohibited, to edit articles of their employers. If you do edit, you need to exercise extra caution to adhere to our content policies, in particular WP:NPOV, and we need to be extra circumspect in dealing with your claims and objections. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Point duly noted. I agree that being an employee of FRC that I need to be cautious and careful. But I also think that having inside information offers an opportunity to clarify the actual positions of FRC and not just the perceptions. My goal in editing this page is not to tilt opinion toward FRC but to give an accurate portrayal -- warts and all -- of our history, associations, policies, and politics. --User:Joe Carter

"Inside information?" That would be a violation of WP:NOR and could be a violation of WP:NPOV. •Jim62sch• 22:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It also offers an opportunity for the FRC to directly push its agenda through this page. As an FRC employee, anything you contribute will be scrutinized with this in mind. Now that we know FRC has employees contributing here, we'll need to be circumspect about all contributions from unfamiliar sources moving forward. FeloniousMonk 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How exactly could I push FRC's agenda if the requirement is to use NPOV? I don't think you'll find one example where I've tried to tilt the sources in favor of FRC. I've merely tried to insert relevant citations and remove disputed opinions that are being presented as fact. I also find it rather odd that my opinion is considered suspect because I work for the organization while those with clear and obvious biases against FRC are given a pass. --User:Joe Carter

9)"Christian Right Coalition Members"

There are no "Christian Right Coalition Members." Including this category is just silly and shows a disregard for the Wikipedia project. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006

What term would you prefer? There's no shortage evidence showing that these groups are linked ideologically. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What about "Organizations that are often referred to as the Christian Right"? --User:Joe Carter

"Organizations in the Christian Right" is fine per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions FeloniousMonk 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added that category to the page.--User:Joe Carter

10) "Personnel"

You keep reverting back to personnel who are no longer with FRC. And Jack Burkman is not a lobbyist for FRC. --User:Joe Carter 09:52, 8 August 2006

That they were with the FRC is notable. If they are no longer with the FRC then '(former)' qualifier should be added.

Then add a seperate section noting that they are "former" employees.

It is public information that Jack Burkman was paid $40K by the Family Research Council between 1998-2004 as a lobbyist:[13] FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Being paid to be a lobbyist does not entitle one to be included under "Personnel." If you believe this information has some historical relevance then it should be included in a seperate area noting the dates he worked for FRC and provide a citation. --User:Joe Carter

Considering that you're an FRC employee, perhaps you'd like to be listed as well? ;) FeloniousMonk 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wondered if for the sake of transparency whether I should list myself under that category. I'm only a lowly "Director of Web Communications", though, and not a senior staff member. If you think it is warranted, though, I'd be glad to include all director level positions under the "Personnel" category. I don't want to add fluff, but if it is something that others would find notable then I would want to add it. Although I am an employee of FRC, I am also a champion of Wikipedia and want to do everything possible to ensure that it remains a useful and neutral resource. User:Joe Carter

Because we both have strong, distinct opinions about what content should be included, why don't we work together to see if we can't make this page as accurate as possible while offering it as a shining exemplar of the NPOV. Would you be up for that? User:Joe Carter

Sure, that's exactly what I've been trying to do. FeloniousMonk 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I suspect we will find ourselves often in agreement, eh? ; ) --User:Joe Carter

Who?

"Private military contractor, Blackwater founder, who comes from a powerful Michigan Republican family and social circle, and his father, Edgar, helped Gary Bauer start the Family Research Council." Unless the man's name is Blackwater Founder, I don't know who this sentence is about. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read the next sentence you do...but most languages don't work that way. That whole paragraph needs a significant rewrite. Ugh. •Jim62sch• 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I get it now. I split it into two paras. Sorry for the long string of edits; I was jus going to put in a few links as I read, but I got carried away. My next question is, what does Joseph E. Schmitz have to do with the FRC? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the connection, so I am removing the paragraph on Joseph E. Schmitz. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

SPLC

In this edit Tom Harrison says "'rm splc linked them to racism' - maybe they did, but not in that article, unless I missed it."

I'm afraid you did miss it Tom, it's says it right here: "Former Louisiana legislator Tony Perkins, a "family values" crusader who had given a speech to the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens on May 19, 2001, took over the FRC's leadership in 2003." [14] The article perfectly supports the passage that you removed: "The Southern Poverty Law Center has linked the Family Research Council to racism through the activities of its president Tony Perkins. [15]" Please restore it as I'm at my 3RR limit Tom. FeloniousMonk 01:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I overlooked it. I see it has been restored. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian Right Coalition Members

This category really needs to be reworded. It implies that there is a "Christian Right Coalition" and that FRC is a "member."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure which category you mean. I see Conservative organizations in the United States, Organizations based in the United States, LGBT rights opposition, and New Right (United States). Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I see you mean the section. Does it need a citation in support? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying its inaccurate, just poorly worded. I'd recommend using the category title found on the Christian Right entry: "Notable persons and organizations said to be members of the Christian Right". I think that would give a more accurate impression. The way its worded now implies that there's an organized group called the "Christian Right Coalition." --Joe Carter

I see your point, but I'd like to avoid 'said to be'. I changed it to Members of the Christian right coalition. If the members are generally recognized without much disagreement, maybe this should be a template. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "Christian right coalition" is that it still gives the impression that there is a "coalition." I realize it is a minor point but I believe that Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible. Also, while I agree that the "said to be" language is not ideal, it is what is used on both the entries for Christian Right and Secular Left. Since such terms are merely descriptive and tend to be used by political opponents, "said to be" might be the most accurate way to phrase it. -- Joe Carter^talk 23 August 2006

I imagine there are differences of opinion about who are allies and which goals are shared, but is there really disagreement that a Christian right coalition exists? I ask to know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "coalition" implies an alliance but that isn't true of the groups listed. I've never heard of "Public Advocate" and since there is no entry for it, there is no way to determine whether it should be included. FRC and the Christian Coalition may be "co-belligerents" but they aren't exactly friendly. And the Moral Majority doesn't even exist anymore so it couldn't be part of a coalition at all. I just think the listing causes confusion and doesn't add any real value. -- Joe Carter^talk 23 August 2006

Christian right in United States politics

I have moved the list of coalition members to 'see also', and added a new section. For this I took a couple of paragraphs from Christian right in United States politics. I think we might summarize it in two or three short paragraphs. The article I drew from looks like it could use some work (not to minimize what others have done there - certainly more than I have). There may be better, or additional, articles to draw from and summarize. It would be nice if this section and the article(s) it refers to could be an objective analysis of FRC's place in the US political enviornment. I don't know enough about it to do that well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Racism allegations

Under this category, the following assertion is included:

In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke."[15]

FRC's response (which can be found at this link: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH05F09) is as follows:

In an article in The Nation ("Justice Sunday Preachers" April 26, 2005), Max Blumenthal falsely asserts, "In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana."

Tony Perkins was the manager of the 1996 U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Woody Jenkins in Louisiana where Impact Media was contracted to make pre-recorded telephone calls for the campaign. In 1999, an unrelated federal investigation uncovered that David Duke had a financial interest in the company, which he did not report to the IRS, resulting in his conviction on federal tax evasion charges. This connection was not known to Mr. Perkins until 1999. Mr. Perkins profoundly opposes the racial views of Mr. Duke and was profoundly grieved to learn that Duke was a party to the company that had done work for the 1996 campaign.

These facts have been widely reported in Louisiana and the reports appearing now in various partisan media are not accurate. In 2003, Mr. Jenkins published a letter in the major daily in Baton Rouge responding to a critical article that resurrected the same distortion. "[I]t is unfortunate," Jenkins wrote, "for you to smear a good man like [then-] Rep. Tony Perkins. There is absolutely nothing about the matter that should taint Rep. Perkins. His intentions were entirely honorable, and neither he nor I have ever been 'in bed' with David Duke as you so crudely and unjustifiably allege."

The assertions made by Mr. Blumenthal are untrue and a distortion of the facts.

I'd appreciate if someone could include this information and source in order to balance the false allegations made by Blumenthal. -- Joe Carter

Thanks, Tom, for the NPOVing on that section. -- Joe Carter

No problem. It's often easier to approach neutrality by adding material instead of removing it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hotel pornography

Should this really be under the "Criticisms and Controversies" category? Under the "Policies" category it is already noted that FRC, "Frequently campaign for extremely tight regulation of pornography bordering on complete prohibition..." The new addition just seems rather redundant. -- Joe Carter

United States Politics Section

The United States Politics section in the article needs to be re-written to focus it on the FRC, not on the Christian Right. The article is about the FRC. -207.119.78.113 02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticism

I believe that this section was way too long and contained a lot of material that did not fall into the category of controversy or criticism. Much of the material crossed the line into being POV. I moved some material to the section on FRC policies and removed some other material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCBC (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When possible, "Controversy" sections should be merged into the appropriate narrative of the article anyway. I haven't looked at your edits, but it could probably stand a good scrubbing. I rearranged a whole bunch of stuff in James Dobson's article a few months back, and don't doubt that every similarly contentious article could stand the same treatment. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

SCBC, some of your changes were sensible (like moving the hotel pornography material) but much of what you did looks like whitewashing. By all means it should be merged into appropriate places but, given that this is a highly controversial group, this material should not be pared down to a scut. GeneralBelly (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not whitewashing -- just trying to make the article balanced and remove POV material. For instance, the second paragraph of the material regarding gays and pedophilia cites to a source that does not mention the Family Research Council. In order for something to be a "controversy" or a "criticism," it seems to me that the "controversy" or the "criticism" needs to be expressed by someone other than the folks who edit Wikipedia entries.

SCBC (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Always assuming good faith, SCBC, I just felt it had the appearance of whitewashing, what with the removal of properly-sourced material and all. I'm glad that you caught the dodgy paragraph. GeneralBelly (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article is incredibly pro-FRC and has few if any criticisms of the group, despite the enormous amount of controversy the group receives. I suspect a revert might be needed, or else just wholesale eliminating certain parts, like the Taking Action section and the Accomplishments bit. 201.124.2.23 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This piece could stand with some editing to suggest that not everyone agrees with FRC's stance. This entry could come from one of their press releases. One suggestion - where it says "support families" or such add [narrow view of heterosexual]. FRC and other groups are in truth anti-family - against families headed by unattached mothers, families not bound by marriage in a church or city hall and of course families of gay and lesbians in any form whatsoever. Their anti-family efforts should be mentioned.76.200.214.218 (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Marianne G C Seggerman

Don't Ask Don't Tell involvement

This organization is involving itself with the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/03/MNT21BRH45.DTL
Native94080 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior." - Peter Sprigg

Sprigg's statement should be referenced from this article:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/02/gay-rights-family-prayer-/1
Native94080 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition of the Rekers Scandal

I propose that the George Rekers scandal be implemented into this article, as he played an integral role in the formation of the Family Research Council, and the FRC has decided to deny his involvement since the allegations.--71.56.218.237 (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that RS'es have made a specific point of the Rekers/FRC, that might be OK. But really, there's no cause to add Rekers travails to every single tangentially related article: cover him in his own article, link here. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a co-founding member of the Family Research Council has been implicated in an involvement with a male prostitute is relevant to the Family Research Council article. Since he is a co-founder, this is not tangentially related. It is directly related. [Special:Contributions/66.230.115.77|66.230.115.77]] (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My edit to that effect was reverted by a user named "Uncle Dick." He did not say that it violated any Wikipedia policy other than "it does not appear to be constructive... ." Indeed, the message read in its entirety:

User talk:75.26.22.150 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to:navigation, search [edit] May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Family Research Council, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a template message regarding a reversion. Nevertheless, it would appear that I am not the only one who believes that the sexual orientation of the founding member of a nationally well-known fundamentalist Christian anti-gay activist group is relevant to an article about that group. It is not as if the group has any other foundational precepts other than the advocacy of traditional marriage and heterosexual relationships. (I hope I did not step on the author of this section instead of creating my own section. I am not a Wikipedia lawyer.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.22.150 (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source indicating that Mr. Rekers has identified himself as a homosexual, any additions to that effect are in violation of WP:BLP and WP:V. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A little late to this discussion, but yes, the sexual orientation of someone shouldn't be labelled without a valid source. (To make the point in a way that might be otherwise missed, perhaps Reker's "true" orientation is bisexual. Or whatever.) As to the inclusion of the material, that's obviously being debated here, but I think Jclemens has it right--mention it here to the extent that RSs connect the FRC to the Rekers scandal, but this article isn't the place to include every detail, at most, provide a short overview here and link. --j⚛e decker^talk 13:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr Rekers is involved in a scandal which he himself has admited that he hired a male prostitute. If a congressional member hired a prostitute, even a straight one it would be a scandal. I am going to revert the page to undo your vandalism. (not aimed at mr. dick) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.60.141 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This material should be listed in the separate Rekers article, NOT reposted here simply because Rekers was involved with the FRC. This is classic ad hominem tu quoque reasoning, and is redundant. The material should be included on the Rekers page, and then that page should be wikilinked here. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup. If there were reliable sources (and I haven't seen them, but I'm open to their possible existence) discussing the effect of the Rekers scandal on the FRC, those could be mentioned here, but the Rekers article would still be the best place to cover it. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is correct. As an entity, FRC is separate from Rekers (or any of it's founders.) Details about the individuals should go onto the individuals page, and then those pages can be wikilinked in the encyclopedia article. That's just basic MoS right there. Look at any professional encyclopedia, and you will see the same treatmentGhostmonkey57 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

POV Dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright problem removed

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

Personnel needed?

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

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

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

Official policy of the FRC

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

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

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

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

Removal of legitimate critisim

User:Uncle Dick keeps removing [16][17] well sourced criticism related to Tony Perkins in his official capacity as the chairman of organization claiming he was not speaking for the FRC (see edit summaries). Here is the removed section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV pushing on the criticism section

Sigh, here we go again with the next spot of POV pushing. The following section was present in the critisim section, before User:Uncle Dick removed the bolded part with as edit summary "Removing POV synthesis from criticism section."[18][19]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag

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

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

Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." The SPLC's designation of the FRC as a "hate group" (see ref's included in article, like this) is certainly important given the profile of the SPLC. Removing this material[20] from the lead is POV. I suggest an article RfC if agreement can't be reached here. --Groovyman1969 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

INCLUDE. Highly important aspect of the organization, therefore belongs in lead. (FRC obviously hate gays; the shoe fits with respect to SPLC's criteria[21]; so why would they object anyway, other than that sunshine exposing hate never works very well for haters?) --Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SPLC provides support for Drrll saying the SPLC easily tars the FRC. In the context of another organization the SPLC labels for political reasons, "[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232421 SPLC hate group monitor Mark Potok reportedly acknowledged, 'what we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR].'" You know what? I am 100% certain Wikipedia is not to be used to further SPLC's stated goal to marginalize groups it opposes. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeouch! Groovyman1969, I didn't respond because I didn't notice the question. Yes, it appears right after I spoke with you, but this is Wikipedia and we know what it's like in real life, so I missed it. I'm not really sorry, however, because no one here is responsible for reading and responding to everything. I did neither. Didn't notice it, until now, until you gave me the text I could search. Even now I won't answer as in real life I do not have the time right now. There is a reason WP:AGF is a good policy, and your accusations about my being unreasonable in this instance illustrate that. Please don't make such assumptions in the future. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not an immutable condition of collaborative editing as LAEC thinks it is, apparently. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. " After failing to persuade enough editors here, he has taken his fight to the SPLC article, enlisting others to help there as well. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeouch! "Contrary evidence" has nothing to do with my not seeing and responding to a question. "Failing to persuade" is not the issue here--rather I simply have been editing elsewhere or doing other things in real life. I asked you to please stop attacking me just a few hours ago and you did, then you came here and continued your campaign of making false comments about me. You really should stop this. I'm not "enlisting" others, by the way, I'm gaining consensus as I should. I wish you would do the same and stop making it your personal mission to make false statements about me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Enough with the victim-card bullsh!t. No one is attacking you. If you really think so, bring it to WQA. Otherwise, stop deflecting the issues everytime someone calls you out on your tendentiousness. I'm saying that we don't continue to assume good faith just because it's a policy that you like to bring up every other post. You're actually fighting against consensus: your edit-warring at SPLC over the bias tag, arguing against regular editors there ad infinitum, and now emboldened mischaracterizations of said editors because another POV-warrior (Badmintonhist) supports and encourages you to "enjoy the battle"[23] -- these all amount to contrary evidence for WP:AGF. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Include: WP:LEDE clearly states "The lead should ... summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." (my emphasis) Does anybody wish to claim that the SPLC designation is not a 'notable controversy'? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Include There appears to be a consensus, or as close to it as feasible, that the SPLC hate group designation should be included in the lead. However, edits made along these lines are being treated as vandalism. Why? ThisJustInTime (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)