Jump to content

Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Moving Forward

Does anyone have any preferences as to how this article should be expanded? In the above brouhaha, it's clear that that no one really thinks the current article is comprehensive. So, regardless of our respective positions on the wording of the lead, what else is a priority to add in order to flesh out the coverage of this group? Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I will join here as soon as the lead issue has been settled and we can edit here with adherece to the policies and guidelines. Currently, the rule bending, the edit warring etc really makes editing this article really unappealing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Should the lead cover the controversy over SPLC's designation of the FRC as a hate group?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Summary: The consensus of the discussion is to not include the SPLC "hate group" designation in the lead at this time. More extended discussion below.

Leaving aside the political and personal disputes that inevitably intrude on discussions of this type of subject matter, the locus of this dispute is a potential tension between WP:LEAD's call for "prominent controversies" to be included in the lead's summary of "the most important points" about a subject, and WP:UNDUE's guidance not to give excessive "prominence of placement" to matters that do not receive that degree of prominence in the overall body of reliably sourced material about the subject. However, there is no need for these to be in conflict. The argument from the "don't include in the lead" position is that the overall treatment of the SPLC's "hate group" designation is an excessive proportion of the article, and from my review of the arguments and the article itself, I find it hard to disagree. The article as a whole is appallingly recentist and virtually begs for someone to pick up a book, or at least do a Google book search, so that the article can represent the organization's almost 30-year history and not just current events. I realize I'm being harsh here, but this point needs to be clear: seeking proportional treatment in the lead compared to the body carries virtually no weight as an argument when the article itself is so unbalanced and newsy. If in the context of a fuller, more encyclopedic article, the recent SPLC controversy turns out to be one of the more significant controversies, then a brief allusion to it in the lead might be warranted, but that is a bridge that will have to be crossed in the future. --RL0919 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion about how to interpret WP:LEAD, and specifically: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. In late 2010, the FRC was added to the hate group listing of the SPLC. The FRC responded with a website, an full page add signed by various politicians and TV interviews. Currently, the controversy takes up a substantial part of the whole article. Editors opposing the inclusion claim that inclusion would be undue. Question, does WP:LEAD require that this controversy is included in the lead or does WP:UNDUE requires that it is excluded? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this meant to be for outside editors who haven't already commented in the previous section? Either way, an objective summary of that previous thread should be considered here. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant Since WP:LEAD is just a style guideline, it cannot trump WP:UNDUE, which is policy. Mentioning the controversy in the lead is clearly undue weight and recentism. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
A single-line mention would not violate WP:UNDUE, and would make the lead more complete as an overview of the article. I would say this controversy qualifies as "prominent" considering the attention it has received from high-level political figures.
And it is already mentioned, indirectly: "The organization has often been involved ... particularly in controversy concerning its position on homosexual behavior." That line could be made more specific to mention SPLC, but I don't think the current version fails to summarize the content of the article regarding this controversy. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE would only apply here if it also applied to the paragraph in the controversy section as well, and that doesn't seem to be contested. The lede should summarise the article, and 20% of the article is taken up by the controversy topics, half of which is the SPLC issue. As long as it exists in the article, it certainly should have a brief mention in the lede. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the entire article has a recentism focus on the event, which should be remedied. I've been advocating for weeks that it should be remedied by adding additional content detailing the organization, but to this point, no one seems to have been interested in doing that. As of this moment, reducing the controversy section would be an NPOV-enhancing act, but I'd rather that balance be achieved by adding more encyclopedic content, rather than taking any away. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we should focus on fixing the article without adding insult to injury. So, instead of advocating the removal of the lead sentence, maybe we can agree that the focus should be on improving the article? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The consensus version includes a reference to controversies without naming any particular one. If you're interested in improving the article, withdraw the RfC and start participating in my thread about adding content, or just directly adding appropriate content yourself. Oh, wait, the article's currently protected because WikiManOne started edit warring against consensus... So yeah, please, join my thread above and help plot improvements for when protection is lifted. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The opposers version includes a general mention of controversies related to homosexuality, and completely ignores the hate group listing or its controversy. The hate-group listing is not because of controversy about homosexuality (The SPLC indicates explicitly that it is not about the general stance on this topic), but about name-calling and continued distortion of credible scientific research to make a point. That is not just 'controversy' about homosexuality. I am interested in improving this article, but when 'improving' means trowing out parts of the lead so that the article is slightly less biased with as added bonus that the lead is now also biased, I think we set this article up as a major battleground. Controversial articles like this require a strict adherence to the policies and guidelines so that POV's of editors does not have a change to creep in using wikilawering. So, I will first work trying to get this issue fixed before even trying to work on other parts of the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, way to frame the question in a neutral fashion. I have changed it to more neutral wording that addresses the actual dispute. --B (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I would ask that you rephrase your wording at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Politics.2C_government.2C_and_law to be a NEUTRAL statement of the dispute as the instructions state. A neutral statement does not presume the conclusion that your position is right and the other side cannot read English. A better phrasing would be:
The Southern Poverty Law Center recently released a report claiming that the Family Research Council is a "hate group". Some editors cite WP:LEAD's statement that "prominent controversies" should be addressed in the lead. Other editors believe that addressing the issue in the lead would constitute an undue weight. Should the designation of the FRC as a "hate group" be mentioned in the lead, or should it only be addressed later in the article? --B (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am not going to change it. The SPLC didn't just make a claim, they actually put them on their hate-group list. I have not seen ANY reliable references claiming that was wrong. Also, I had on purpose omitted the hate-group label from the title as to not get into a edit war about scare quotes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. The exact language isn't important and if you want to say "stated" instead of "claimed", I don't care. What is important is that the description be neutral, which means not a long dissertation on why your position is correct and those who disagree with you are ignoring the rules. --B (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then what is not neutral? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The entire thing presents only your position. You quote at length from WP:LEAD and then frame the question as only pertaining to what WP:LEAD says. You don't acknowledge that there is another legitimate point of view. My suggested alternative - which I don't care if you want to remove quotes around "hate group" or change "claimed" to "stated" or some such thing - presents what the issue is, gives one sentence explaining your argument, and one sentence explaining the other side. That is neutral. Making the entire thing focus solely on your argument is not neutral. I am more than convinced that you are intelligent enough that you know full well there is nothing whatsoever neutral about your presentation and you don't really need me to explain it to you. --B (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you have a different angle to what the RfC should be about. This RfC is about the lead, not the whole article. But I will add a sentence to satisfy you.
  • Include It should be included because it provides useful information from an organization that is well respected in identifying hate groups. Some editors have challenged the description, but we would need sources of comparable repute to refute the description. TFD (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not include in lead This "useful information" is already included in the body of the article. Specifically including the SPLC's designation of the FRC as a hate group in the lead gives one organization's opinion of another undue weight. A more general statement about the controversy or criticism that the FRC has encountered because of its positions on homosexuality would be appropriate. Badmintonhist (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Since when does the lead not have to summarize the main text? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not include WP:UNDUE is strong here - and mentioning the SPLC charge in the lead clearly reaches that concern. I note, by the way, that this is a consistent position of mine. If six reliable sources independently made the statement as their own opinion, then that would be a different matter entirely. Collect (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    The question is not whether the hate-group listing should be mentioned, the question is whether the whole controversy (based on far more than one reliable source) should be mentioned. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not include I'd sorta echo Collect's sentiments. While the SPLC may be a respectable institution, their opinion of the FRC is just one of many. If we put the SPLC's comments about the FRC in the lede, we'd be obliged to put other opinions from other groups in the lead. On the other hand, if the "hate group" designation could be sourced to several different relatively mainstream reliable sources, it might be worth noting in the lead. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    The question is not whether the hate-group listing by itself should be mentioned in the lead, but whether the controversy which now includes prominent politicians such as the speaker of the house should be included. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Ok. Well, the question then is, "Is the controversy notable in relation to the group itself". In other words, is it a "prominent controversy" per WP:LEAD. Taking a search engine based approach, I find that googling "family research council" "hate group" yields 16,900 hits. Googling "family research council" yields almost 400,000. The controversy certainly seems notable in relation to the group, but I don't think it qualifies as "prominent". I still oppose inclusion. NickCT (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    Fair enough. 400,000 hits for 27 years of activity, minus the first 17 year would make 40,000 hits per year. Lets take the 17,000 hits for a whole year, that would be 50% mentioned hate-group since they have been listed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    Perhaps. Though of course, if you look at it that way you open up questions of WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    Well, recentism is an essay, but yes, I think the controversy section in the article is bloated because of that and I would prefer to slim that section down as to avoid recentism. That does not change that the lead should adequately summarize the main text, and I suggest we only add a few words ( ... and its listing as a hate group by the SPLC.)to the lead (...particularly in controversy concerning its position on homosexual behavior.) to cover that, not the bloated recentism-ripe section there was before. The controversy keep being brought up in the press, so it is not something that is going away like it was suggested before. That should also make clear that it is not just recentism what is going on, just like the hate-group listing itself remains for the time being, also showing it is going beyond recentism. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Include a summary of controversies in the lead, including the hate group designation . At this point, I would say that mentioning the hate group designation in the lead is WP:UNDUE as it represents a single reliable source making the assertion. Drrll (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, in the case you agree that the controvbersies should be mentioned, would you object to changing the last sentence from
The organization has often been involved in the heated politics of social policy, and particularly in controversy concerning its position on homosexual behavior.
to
The organization has often been involved in the heated politics of social policy, and particularly in controversy concerning its position on homosexual behavior and its listing as a hate group by the SPLC.
-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I could be persuaded to go with that if there are some news stories from major sources within the past month or so that, while discussing the FRC, mention the hate group designation (not just the stories in November and December that initially reported on the designation). In other words, does it stick as something worthwhile reporting when discussing the FRC? Drrll (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You asked, here they are [1][[2][3][4][5] (My bad). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
With the Reuters and cbsnews.com sources (the Washington Post source just references the FRC in readers' comments), I'm almost convinced to support your wording, but not quite yet. I searched the following sources (mostly using Lexis-Nexis) and couldn't find a single mention in the past two months of the hate group designation within news stories (granted, there aren't that many stories at all on the FRC in the past two months): Associated Press, top 5 US newspapers, Newsweek, Time, NPR, ABC, CBS (broadcast material), NBC, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. If/when I see a few mentions by some of those sources, I'll support your wording. Drrll (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, thank you for the shifted goal posts... (striken faulty ref)-- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
But it will be just a matter of time, this LA Times article is just in. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
That article is an opinion piece, but you're probably right that "it will be just a matter of time" (may occur in the next few days with the Defense Of Marriage Act news). But you're right I did say "some news stories from major sources within the past month or so" and you produced just that, so I support your wording. Drrll (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Art Critic is not the same as a main news story, although I know that they have more editorial oversight than columns (maybe I am mistaken). Anyway, thank you. And to fill in the more refs, here is one of today [6]. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The Saturday harvest: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/justices-weigh-dispute-over-853801.html -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That's an Associated Press story, so it probably got picked up by a lot of other sources as well. Drrll (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Didn't find to many yet [7][8][9] but that might be just Google bot being busy. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
So as not to have my reply to Kim's rhetorical question buried int he middle of the thread I'll put it here. She asks "Since when does the lead not have to summarize the main text?" No one is contending that that the lead should not SUMMARIZE the body of the article. SUMMARIZING the the body of the article is not the same as DUPLICATING the body of the article. The lead, obviously, is written with far less specificity than "the main text." Given the need to generalize in the lead and to avoid giving undue weight to the specific accusation or criticism of the article's subject by any particular source, a formulation something like "FRC assertions regarding homosexual behavior have been the subject of much criticism and controversy" is probably about right. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not include in introduction. Calling the Family Research Council a hate group in the introduction is extremely unwarranted, especially because the Southern Poverty Law Center is also a political group that stands on the opposite side of a political debate. If one goes to the Wikipedia article for supporters of the same-sex marriage in the United States, one can see that the "Southern Poverty Law Center" is listed there, while the Family Research Council is listed in the opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States article. Placing the assertion of calling the Family Research Council a hate group is a violation of WP:NPOV. This criticism is already mentioned in its own "Controversy" section and does not need to receive special attention in the lede, especially when it's known that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not neutral on this issue. If we include this bit of information, than we must include the Alliance Defense Fund's criticism of the Southern Poverty Law Center on its article. Once again, it is best be neutral here. There is no reason to give an organization that supports the opposing point of view's position in the introduction of an antithetical organization. I have noticed that this classification not only stands in this article but has been unilaterally added to other articles as well, such as the American Family Association. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 00:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not include per WP:UNDUE and arguments above Lionel (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Include the controversy in the introduction. SPLC's designation is not just "one among many"; it has far-reaching implications about how the FRC is viewed. As a point of clarification to Anupam, they are not designated as a hate group for opposing same-sex marriage, but for publications associating gay people with pedophilia, sadomasochism, and bestiality, accusing gay people of "recruiting children", and for such statements as "homosexuals are the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities". It bears repeating that I am commenting advocating the mention of the controversy, and not directly calling the group a hate group in Wikipedia's own voice. We can only do that when we have multiple good sources that make the characterization, and then I am sure the designation will still be protested, as it is regularly on the Stormfront (website) article. But this is not about directly calling FRC a hate group; this is about the hate group controversy, which has generated enough attention and discussion, as documented by Kim van der Linde, to merit inclusion as a notable controversy which consensus has determined belongs in an article's lead paragraph. Quigley (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Include the controversy in the introduction, more specific than current vague reference, especially since the FRC's reaction and prominent politicians have made it a bigger story . I still do not see how a 16-to-11 vote in favor of removal can be objectively regarded as clear, solid or even strong consensus enough to overturn previous agreement. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Include a mentioning of the controversy in the introduction. The arguments against seem to fall into two categories: an opposition against the denomination as a hate group, and a deprecation of the relative importance of the controversy.
    The first kind of arguments is irrelevant, for general wp editing principles. If indeed thie suggestion was to "call(...) the Family Research Council a hate group in the introduction", then it would be relevant. I'm a bit worried to see that a few editors do not distinguish brandishing FRC as a hate group from reporting that there is an ongoing controversy about such an accusation. Happily, only a few of the "do not include" clauses. and some arguments in the "Clarification of question" section, rely on such argumentation. The only relevance I could find in such argumentation would be, if a mention of the controversy in intent or in fact could be considered as just a pretext for sneaking in the designation itself. However, this should be avoided by NPOV formulations rather by omitting the controversy, if it elsewise ought to be included.
    The arguments about notewortyness, on the other hand, are worth to take seriously. There, actually, I think that the demands for ongoing controversy are put too high. For me, the classification by SPLC, and the protest against this by some "heavy-weight" politicians, is enough to merit a short mention in the lede. It should not be necessary to show that the controversy also is continuously notable in various media, as Kim has done. In other words: If we include this in the lede now, and there later this year passes 6 weeks without a reference to the controversy in the major news media, then we should not automatically revert wording. This is wikipedia, not wikinews.
    Thus, the controversy should be mentioned. There remains the question of how to do this without implicitly endorsing the accusations. IMHO, Kim's suggestion is not bad; however, if this is felt as too close to an endorsement, we could write a slightly longer text, explicitly including refusation of the accusation. E.g., we could write:
    The organization has often been involved in the heated politics of social policy, and particularly in controversy concerning its position on homosexual behavior, and its listing as a hate group by the SPLC, which FRC has rejected as a purely political move.
    Of course, we might write even a little more about the support for the FRC in the lede, but that would also tend to increase the impression of the relative importance of the controversy, which I do not think the "do not include" side would find appropriate. JoergenB (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not include in the lede. Opinionated group whose opinions about anyone do not belong in any lede on wikipedia apart from their own. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of question

There seems to be a bit of confusion going on on the question of the RFC, as several people commented that it is all based on a single source, and talk about the hate-group listing by the SPLC. However, the insertion that was previously in the lead was about the controversy, and the RFC is about whether the controversy should be included. The controversy is covered by far more than a single source, and the various aspects have been covered by a slew of reliable sources, see: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232421][18][19][20][21][[22][23][24][25] Besides these third party sources, the FRC has been [26][27] and still is producing more debate on it [28]. So, I think this controversy has been documented far better than a single source. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

C'mon Kim, you're trying too hard. Obviously people were using the word "source" here to mean the one organization , the SPLC, making the accusation, not that only one source reported on it. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No, if there was only one source (the SPLC) without a response and related news articles, there would not be a controversy.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
You are splitting hairs. The question is whether or not the SPLC's designation of the FRC as a "hate group" should be mentioned in the lead. The problem is NOT with saying that the FRC's views are controversial (which the current text already does). Rather, the dispute is with having the words "hate group" in the lead. You are trying to frame it as something that pigeonholes it into the MOS. --B (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually it looks like you, User:B, are trying to re-frame the debate. Clearly the wording of the RFC refers to the controversy of the hate group label and the FRC's reaction, not necessarily just the term 'hate group.' The current text of the lead which mentions FRC's take on homosexuality appears to be a quietly added compromise [29] from Badmintonhist. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
And another source from Saturday Feb 26: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/justices-weigh-dispute-over-853801.html -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"Groups supporting Kubitschek and the Greene family range from the conservative Family Research Council to the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center. The two groups normally are at odds; the law center even has branded the council a "hate group" because of its position on gay rights." That looks like a pretty fair summary: The SPLC took a shot at a political opponent using the term hate group, and the AJC's usage isn't clear on whether it's using real or scare quotes. I'd hardly say that supports your position. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is still in the news, so much for a "past" controversy. Anyway, nice to see your POV spelled out here. Maybe we can get back to wikipedia policies to determine what should happen instead of personal preferences. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kim, your efforts are commendable and your frustration is understandable, given how the previous RfC became a simple vote early on and the opposition did not seem interested in building consensus. (And it's striking how they stopped counting when it became clear they had no solid consensus). At what point do we need to move this issue along the WP:DR path to mediation? -PrBeacon (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The RfC has brought a few new responses, and if we ignore all votes without an explanation or the once obviously based on a dislike for either the FRC or the SPLC or false equivalence of the two, the majority is leaning in favor of adding it (10-13). However, nobody has been able to explain to me that this rather major controversy (20% of article) is not worthy of a 10 word mention in the lead. I will wait a few more days to see if there are more responses, and after that I will ask at WP:AN if an uninvolved admin wants to close this. This either means that it becomes a no consensus (18-16) or if the admin is willing to spend some time, an informal mediation on the merits. After that, I suspect indeed formal mediation. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear your count is incorrect as it posits that the arguments made against inclusion are invalid and that arguments in favor of inclusion are perforce valid. As I count it, the strong majority opposes inclusion, and making statements contrary to that fact will not aid any admin in closing the discussion. Collect (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Lead sentence proposal

I think that there are two issues with the lead discussion that get intertangled. The first is whether or not the hate-group listing controversy should be mentio0ned in the lead, and the second is that the previous version was far for bulky and indeed undue. So, I therefore propose that we change the last sentence of the protected lead from:

The organization has often been involved in the heated politics of social policy, and particularly in controversy concerning its position on homosexual behavior.

to

The organization has often been involved in the heated politics of social policy, and particularly in controversy concerning its position on homosexual behavior and its listing as a hate group by the SPLC.

The latter adequately indicates that there are two main sections in the controversy section, is just 10 words long and describes what is going on. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Premature at best There is an RfC above - and that should settle the matter. This suggestion is a "second bite at the apple" in too many ways. If the consensus is that the "hate group" claim does not belong in the lede, then it does not belong. Collect (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Well, one of the main problems with the discussion is that many falsely belief that it should be the whole bulky section, while I think that it should be short and to the point, and this provides exactly that information so that people can make a better decision. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue of hate group classification by the SPLC in the introduction is also an issue at these two articles: American Family Association and American Vision. Should this be removed from the introduction as well? With regards, AnupamTalk 00:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

American Vision is in a different boat - that article is only a stub, so the lead is the only section. There is nowhere else to mention it. --B (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this doesn´t look like random bias but like systematic bias of English Wikipedia. --Dezidor (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin requested to close RfC

I have requested an uninvolved admin to close this RfC [30]. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"self-described Christian group"

Given that the Christianity of pretty much any Christian group is disputed to some greater or lesser degree, I think we can leave off "self-described". It implies that we find this claim to be doubtful. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in article

This sentence in the opening paragraph...
"It advocates against LGBT rights, abortion, divorce, embryonicstem-cell research, the theory that global warming is the result of human activity, and pornography."
...Directly contradicts the claim in politics and policies that the Family Research Council supports legalized abortion. Does anyone know the official stance of this organization on abortion so the article can be corrected? —Entropy (T/C) 08:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken; the article body says "It opposes: Legalized abortion." AV3000 (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you're correct, I missed the "it opposes" list title. I think I'm going to adjust the list formatting for clarity. —Entropy (T/C) 23:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Funding

I am going to change the wording of the funding section to indicate that:

  1. The annual amount of $1,000 should be used to put the amount in perspective, and
  2. Indicate that WinShape is not an arm of Chick-fil-A, but a separate entity (although they receive most of their contributions from Chick-fil-A and have and have common leadership)

This will put me at 3 reverts, I believe, but I wanted to explain why this version is the most accurate. The other editor, User:Jlechem, will not discuss their edits here or using edit summaries, and has blanked] my notice on their talk page, indicating they are aware they are at 3RR and that they have been asked to discuss their edits on this talk page. 72Dino (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the section entirely. Obviously $1000 is a pittance compared to FRC's annual budget; if someone wants to write something about FRC's bigger supporters, that's fine, but focusing on one very minor contribution just because the donor has been in the news lately is plainly WP:UNDUE. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
And earlier I deleted the section, too, before somebody decided to edit-war for inclusion. It's irrelevant. Nothing but cruft. Belchfire-TALK 22:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Phrasing of their anti-homosexuality stance

First of all, the quoted section isn't FRC words at all. They are quotations from some statute or other.

Second, somehow there must be a way to report their homosexuality stance without resorting to their political enemies (e.g. Truth Wins Out) or pulling from an interview without a transcript. Surely there must be a normal, print media source which can be used. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Neutral sources are crucial (or, as neutral as can be found... there aren't many truly neutral sources for this sort of thing). Using material from their political opponents is non-neutral by default. And it bears pointing out that if the organization can't be shown to have adopted a position on homosexuality itself, then it can't be correctly branded as "anti-gay". Report what they've done, but don't impute beliefs to them. Belchfire-TALK 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"the preclusion of all . . ."

A careful reading of the first assertion in the opening sentence of the third paragraph, in the "Politics and policies" section of the article, should reveal that it is too sweeping to be supported by its sources, including the latest source from the FRC's website. Would the FRC oppose a law that protected a waiter, for example, from being fired from his job solely because of a gay sexual orientation (as opposed to practice)? Unless editors can demonstrate such a sweeping opposition to any such gay-ptotective government action, the assertion in question should be either deleted or reworded. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to speculate about what might happen. The FRC has opposed laws protecting people from being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. [31] [32] [33] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Just take a look at the edit summary offered by the person who tried to insert this cruft after it got reverted the first time. It's quite instructive. Belchfire-TALK 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You people are hilarious. Inserted? Me? LOL. That statement has been there since 2011. I restored it after Badmintonhist deleted it on grounds that the refs merely implied it.
As for "preclusion of all" being WP:CRYSTAL, an argument Badmintonhist apparently inherited from Belchfire's edit summary, what? That doesn't even make sense. What about "lowering taxes" then. Is that crystalballing too because you never know if they might support raising it if it involved a waiter in the future? It's a goal. A self-identified mission. It's not crystalballing in the same way that defining what NASA's goals and scope of activities is not crystalballing. If anything else, you imagining scenarios wherein they might change their stance and support anti-gay discrimination legislation after all IS crystalballing. Here let me demonstrate it to you:
We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. - FRC


They talk more about it in detail in their pamphlet Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right. Here's one of their arguments which deals with your hypothetical waiter, Badmintonhist:
Civil rights laws that bar employment discrimination, however, place a restriction upon the action of private entities (such as corporations) in carrying out their private business. This is why Congress rested its authority to pass the Civil Rights Act not on the Constitution’s guarantee of the “equal protection of the laws,” but on its power to regulate interstate commerce. When such a “right” is extended (for the individual to be free from “discrimination” in employment), it infringes upon what would otherwise be the customary right of the employer to determine the qualifications for employment. The extension of historic constitutional rights is a “win-win” situation, but the extension of laws against employment discrimination is more of a “zero-sum” game—when one (such as the employment applicant) wins more protection, another (the employer) actually loses a corresponding measure of freedom. It is because of this that lawmakers should be exceedingly cautious, rather than generous, about expanding the categories of protection against private employment discrimination.
How is that reference not good enough for the sentence as User:Mangoe claims it is? As for my first edit summary, it's because FRC itself is notorious for their lobbying on these matters. Including the very recent Chick-fil-A controversy. With the removal of the sentence, the article now makes it seem like they barely even get involved in gay matters at all. Whitewashing, yeah? If you have problems with the wording, then discuss how to change it. Don't remove it outright, because actually it's the other way around, unless you can demonstrate to me why they'd be lying in their own mission goals, the sentence stays. Bring it to whatever noticeboard you like, but bear in mind, you're the ones proposing a significant change to the tone of the article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be better to use secondary sources, but you're right that the lack of weight given to their position on LGBT rights in the article's current version is a bad DUE problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of such secondary sources, like the Southern Poverty Law Center. But they wouldn't accept that either because it's biased. In outlining their own goals, it's best if it comes right out of their own mouths. That way there's no accusation of their words being twisted.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It's clearly not good enough, Obsidian. Reread the statement in question and note how sweeping it is. Saying that a legislature should be "exceedingly cautious" about expanding protections against private employers is not the same as opposing all protections against private employers. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Then go ahead, propose a way to reword it if you think it's too sweeping. Because virtually all of their activities DO reflect that stance. By removing it, you're contradicting everything they've ever done. And don't you realize that the pamphlet itself is already part of their campaign opposing gay civil rights? Read it in its entirety. Then go and read their website too, and all the other pamphlets linked within it. They have plenty more of that stuff: The Future of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for example, or Banned in Boston, or The Transgender Movement and "Discrimination" (Testimony of Peter Sprigg to the Maryland House of Delegates regarding "Gender Identity Discrimination"). Take your pick.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, though I'm not much of a Wikilawyer, hasn't Obsidian violated the three-revert rule here??Badmintonhist (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
e/c Gaming the system so soon? No. I haven't violated the 3RR yet. I'm still within the WP:BRD cycle and am assuming good faith here. If you want to break that and turn this into a bigger mess, that's your prerogative.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You exited the BRD cycle 2 edits ago, but if you would like to reinsert the material for a 4th time, I'd be happy to continue that part of the discussion with you at AN3. For now, it might be better to chill and wait for consensus. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL have we advanced to threats now? From a guy who falsely accused me of being the one starting all this? I provided a reference to better back up the sentence, remember? That's a more solid statement for a desire for consensus than you threatening ANI. I don't see any sources backing your own changes yet, except vague statements about it being too sweeping and accusations of crufting. Reword it then. No one's stopping you. That said, I'm genuinely tired of this bullshit happening every other day. Do what you want. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, it's stupid to fight over whether the FRC opposes LGBT rights... If we are going to have an edit war in the article, it'd be a lot more reasonable to have it over whether to call such opposition to "special rights" or "equal rights". Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I would agree. The problem here is the peculiar wording, the reliance on partisan sources, and the overinterpretation of the sources being presented. I've put in the pamphlet named above, which should be a lot better starting point that the LGF blog. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorta tired of the bullshit myself. "Don't start no shit, won't be no shit," as they say in the 'hood. Stick to the bare facts, and you won't encounter this kind of resistance to your edits. It's not complicated. Belchfire-TALK 21:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh god. How many times do I have to say that I never inserted anything in the article? I merely reverted Badmintonhist's edits on a sentence that has been in the article since 2008. I also just discovered the origin of the weird wording. Its the exact wording from the Romer v. Evans case in 1996. Why that was used, go ask the original editor who inserted that five years ago, and quit insinuating I did anything other than react to the removal of sourced content. Here's a better tip: follow your own advice.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I support what our sources say, which happens to match what Obsidian is saying. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a hate group.

It's been an SPLC-designated hate group for a couple of years now. This is not controversial.[34] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be the editorial opinion of some news organizations, but not the SPLC itself. Please provide a link from SPLC stating otherwise if you disagree. Belchfire-TALK 06:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a press release from SPLC. Note the URL. Clearly, you are mistaken. I suggest that you politely acknowledge this fact and back down. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The whitewashing goes on I see. Tone it down some more and then maybe just maybe you can even make it sound like they love the gays.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I know you're being sarcastic, but from what I know of Christians they in fact do love gays: it is homosexuality where they have a problem. Does FRC subscribe to "Hate the sin, love the sinner"? Let's add it to the article. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 07:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Belchfire never did acknowledge that he was mistaken, but he did back down, so that'll have to do. I don't understand why he fells compelled to argue about things that are incontrovertible. Seems counterproductive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@Lionel: Haha. Good joke. How about the $25,000 FRC spent lobbying to stop the US Congress from interfering with the death penalty for LGBT people in Uganda? (Which is not even mentioned anywhere in the article, despite the furor it caused, but that's expected isn't it?) They immediately backed down when they were found out of course, saying it was only to change the wording... *chuckles* yeeeeaaah right. How about Sprigg's and Fischer's statements? Liar liar pants on fire? If there really is a God, these people will be the first ones to get thrown in hell. Funny way of showing love that. Anyway, do go on. It's amusing how evil people who claim to be saints can be. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, get a grip on your politics and stick to the sources. One has to wonder about the Southern Poverty Law Center sticking their nose into this particular issue, but it's amply documented that the roster they keep of those they deem "hate groups" contains the FRC. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice that I'm not the one touching the article. Anyway, like the FRC, the name for the SPLC is misleading. FRC has nothing to do with family, and SPLC has nothing to do with poverty. Both have a long history of controversy.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That's why we had a formal RFC on mentioning that in the lede (see archive 4), and rejected it: SPLC's identification is widely-reported (and often taken as authoritative), but it quite controversial. Mangoe (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
So far as I know, the only ones who find SPLC designation "controversial" is named hate groups and their supporters. It is used by the FBI, the police, and in court. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Does the FBI really consider the FRC to be a hate group? I really doubt that; "citation needed", as we say. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. For example, see under "Resources" on the FBI's own hate crimes page here. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the FBI does not. Do a search on the FBI web site and you will not find the FRC. The SPLC is listed under Resources, but if you click on it you go away from the FBI website. 72Dino (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether the SPLC is a source which the FBI trusts. This is not about putting "The FBI considers the FRC a hate group" in the article, it is about whether the SPLC is a reliable source for the FBI regarding hate groups. They are. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The question by Mangoe was "does the FBI really consider the FRC to be a hate group", and the answer to that is "no". The FBI does use the SPLC and they do consider them a reliable source, but that does not mean the FBI agrees with everything by the SPLC. The FBI is concerned with hate crimes, and FRC does not fall in that category. That is why you won't find the FRC on the FBI website as a hate group, but will find organizations that commit hate crimes. 72Dino (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Then Mangoe was asking the wrong question. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Could be. If the question was "does the FBI consider the SPLC to be a reliable source", then I think the answer would be yes. 72Dino (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be the more relevant question, given that we're discussing using the SPLC's designation in the lead but not talking about mentioning the FBI. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Agreed. I thought he'd merely mistyped, and left out a few words. Since no one has suggested putting the FBI's assessment of the FRC anywhere in the article, and the only reason the FBI came up was because it was cited as an official organ which utilizes the SPLC as a reliable determiner of who is and is not a hate group, his question as phrased is pointless, sorry. I AGF'd and assumed he wouldn't bother with a pointless question. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I was merely pointing out the fact that you highlighted "Poverty". You seem to be thinking it should be a charity organization doling out soup or something. It's not. Poverty Law is a legal term that includes laws relating to civil and human rights. SPLC isn't the only poverty law center in existence either. There are dozens of them. The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, for example, is another famous one. And do have a look at the list, its criteria and what the groups in that list actually do, and who uses the list as a resource, before claiming it's inaccurate.
SPLC is controversial, but not because its list is not authoritative.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how old you are, but I can remember the days when the SPLC was quite active in its original mission of working against Jim Crow laws, back in the days when the three black kids in all my school classes lived in a row of shacks on a back road because that was where they could live. The extension of that effort to coverage of homosexuality remains controversial, however you may want to deny that. The inclusion of the FRC in a list of violent racists remains controversial, however much you may want to deny that. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Too young and not even American. But old enough to know that every violent racist included in the list have claimed it to be controversial, both white and black supremacists, antisemites, xenophobic ultranationalists, etc. Why shouldn't this be any different? Are you saying their standards have changed over the years? Note that SPLC explicitly makes it clear that merely disagreeing with homosexuality on religious grounds does not put an organization into their hate list. It's the incessant propaganda that falsely conflates homosexuality with everything from pedophilia to Hitler that puts it and the others on their list. I can enumerate all they've done, but you're better off reading SPLC's reasons yourself and reading it on the news. Yeah yeah, free speech and all, but only an idiot would not see that all of those are meant to incite violence, and they do. That's why they're on the list. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I would be better off reading someone else's analysis, I would think, seeing as how the SPLC is not a neutral reporter in this kind of a dispute. Look, I'm not trying to defend the FRC, but you, OS,24+, et al., plainly are attacking it. Your participation in this discussion seems to have the intent of making sure that everyone is told, in so uncertain terms, that these are Really Nasty People. You are welcome to that personal opinion, but the larger truth is that SPLC's tagging of a bunch of trad family value groups as hate groups was quite controversial at the time, and people on the other end of the political spectrum complained bitterly. So did a group of black pastors; many black churches are quire socially conservative. SPLC is routinely characterized as a liberal advocacy organization. Mangoe (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No. My motivation is primarily because the article makes it sound like they are Really Nice People which, even though I'm not American, grates on my nerves given what they actually do in reality. True, I dislike them intensely but again, note that I have never added nor removed anything in the article ever. I'm doing this not out of a personal vendetta for FRC but because Belchfire et al. has been making it even nicer with impunity for months now (take a look at what started this discussion for example). Surely you can't deny that our article is vastly different from how the FRC is actually described by mainstream sources? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
SPLC categorizes it as a hate group. "Anti-gay" is listed as the type of hate group or the ideology. The SPLC counted 1,018 active hate groups in the United States in 2011. Click under DC at "Active U.S. Hate Groups" to find them listed. The listing is notable because it is used by law enforcement, newspapers and academics for understanding extremism in America. TFD (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Burying this in the controversy section is wildly POV. It belongs in the lead. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus was against you. If you want to bring it up again, start a new RFC. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You're mistaken. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Mangoe, as a rule of thumb, you should never link anything for me unless you've read it, because I'm not just going to take your word on it. If you look at the RFC, it explicitly says:
However, the insertion that was previously in the lead was about the controversy, and the RFC is about whether the controversy should be included.
Emphasis in the original.
I'm not suggesting we mention the controversy; it's already in the article in its own section. I'm saying we should identify it in the lead as an SPLC-designated hate group.
This is a very different issue. In particular, much of the stated opposition to mentioning the controversy was the charge of recentism. This doesn't apply to stating its designation, as that is ongoing. Also, as Chihuahua pointed out, what was the consensus months ago is not binding upon us today. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's how the lead ends right now:
The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy, notably in controversy concerning its position on homosexuality.
Is there a WP:UNDERSTATEMENT? If not, there should be. We're not supposed to report the organization's views as if they were authoritative. I propose something more like:
As of 2010, the SPLC has listed this organization as an anti-gay hate group due to its research distortions and defamation of gays.
That's a rough draft, but I think it gets the point across. Comments? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think reconsideration of the broader issue is long overdue. Other articles on this issue do mention the FRC prominently, among similar groups, because adequate coverage of the topic demands it. It seems strange that an article about an organisation whose name has become a by-word for anti-gay provocation and distortion should not mention that prominently. --TS 23:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Tony. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Shooting incident

A section has just been added about a shooting incident[35] - IMO this is a bit hasty. We don't know if this is an act against the RFC FRC or if it was random violence. If it was an act against the FRC, it is notable for inclusion, but if it isn't, then it isn't even relevant to this article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean FRC, not RFC.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I typo a lot, sorry.KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, reverted. Zad68 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll be reinserting momentarily. According to Fox, "The suspect "made statements regarding their policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard," a source told Fox News. WJLA-TV7 reported the suspect was also shot. Authorities were treating the attack as a case of domestic terrorism."[36] Belchfire-TALK 17:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
e/c: Fox News reports that the shooter "expressed disagreement with the conservative group's policy positions"; BUT Washington Times is more conservative in simply saying his motives were unknown. Not enough detail yet, but it certainly makes the situation gnarlier isn't it? Good old Fox News, predictable to a T, it's terrorism now, but the Sikh shooting wasn't. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with this. It still fails all of WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Read the current history section--it is a very general, 5-sentence overview of the organization's 30-year history. A paragraph about one violent event which will not have any lasting effect on the organization is undue. Do you really think this shooting will be a significant part of the FRC's historical identity even six months from now? Probably not. And if it does, we'll add the info about it at that time. Zad68 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not recentism. Within the context of the organization's history, the shooting is significant and will remain so in the future. Editorial decisions will need to be made concerning precisely which details belong in the article, but at this point there is no serious question that it should be included in one form or another. Belchfire-TALK 17:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I apologize, but that seems like an absurd thing to claim. This shooting happened hours ago, and the target was a security guard. It's pure WP:CRYSTAL to guess "the shooting is significant and will remain so in the future". If the target were one of the FRC board members themselves, or if the FRC released a sudden statement declaring a significant shift in policy because of the incident, I'd agree with you. But we (you and me together, as Wikipedia editors) right now do not have any reliable sources to back up an assertion that this will have any lasting effect. And it's strange to claim there is "no serious claim that it should be included in one form or another" when there are three of your fellow Wikipedia editors arguing just that in this thread. Zad68 17:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Just let time shake things out. The basic significance of the incident will probably come out over the next few days.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) If the shooting is politically motivated against an organization listed as a hate group, then I would say it is noteworthy and should be included. If it was something random or a personal dispute with an employee, then it should not be included. I think we should wait to find out if there is a connection to the FRC's hate group designation. And the victim was the security guard, but he was not necessarily the target. 72Dino (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that the Fox report is uncorroborated at this point, I'll agree that more time is needed to let things settle down. Probably hours, not days. The notion that a "shift in policy" is needed to establish notability is just silly. I'm prognosticating here, but it seems like a no-brainer that FRC is going to be beefing up security. Furthermore, it also seems likely that SPLC itself is going to come under attack for creating the climate that led to this (which is actually already beginning to happen). Belchfire-TALK 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
e/c: Agree. Once the details come out in the next few days, we can determine if it's related or not. Its lasting historical significance and the due weight required can be determined later per WP:Notability (events) depending on the coverage.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
topic-related sniping
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ohoho. So now you're admitting SPLC's designation was notable? Since you've become a bleeding heart all of a sudden, the guard got wounded in the arm. Compare that with the climate FRC and AFA created: Violence against LGBT people#Criminal assault, take special note of the FBI reports.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I never said SPLC's pronouncements aren't notable. What I said is that SPLC's pronouncements are political opinions that don't deserve lead space. Officials at SPLC are on record admitting their political motivation. That SPLC has gradually become a hate group itself is a gathering storm that borders on sufficient notability for inclusion in the appropriate article(s). Belchfire-TALK 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
One thing I like about Wikipedia is that nothing gets lost. Quoting you:
"That seems to be the editorial opinion of some news organizations, but not the SPLC itself. Please provide a link from SPLC stating otherwise if you disagree. Belchfire-TALK 06:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)"
See what you did there? And now a U-turn. I can actually see your mind spinning right now, gloating at the PR possibilities of making FRC smell even better. But whatever.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You have a vivid imagination, and perhaps a reading comprehension issue. But whatever. Belchfire-TALK 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless you're speaking Martian, you just said that SPLC never called them a hate group there. It's what started the discussion in the first place. Ah, the joys of selective memory. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Would both of you please stop the sniping. Review WP:TPNO and WP:CIVIL. This is incredibly unhelpful. Zad68 19:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


If anyone would like me to take a picture for use in the article, this is one block from my office. All the police cars and camera crews are out there. :) MsFionnuala (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, take pictures. We may not need them for this article, but better to have and not need, etc. And they may be useful elsewhere. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
topic banned editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Are you people kidding me? The sources are clear. Instaurare (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Still no word regarding motive except from FOX and those citing FOX, and several sources say the FBI says it is too early to tell[37] so this is not "clear" at all. Wikipedia is not news, and the world will not end if we wait for the dust to settle. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you on an LGBT topic ban??? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instaurare (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 August 2012‎
Then you're not supposed to be editing this article. Revert yourself before you're violated. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
How so? Instaurare (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Because this article is part of LGBT. You're violating your ban. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Look at the top of this page. See the big banner that says "WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)" ? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Any article tagged by the wikiproject I am forbidden? The way I've understood "broadly construed" means if I was TB'd from PlayStation, I could still edit Sony. That's how I saw it explained to someone else on ANI once and haven't seen anybody saying something to the contrary. FRC's work is not limited to homosexuality/abortion. If the enforcing admin says I'm over the line here, I'll revert, but I believe I'm on solid ground. Instaurare (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ. If there is a big LGBT banner at the top of the talk page, you're not supposed to be editing the article if you're under an LGBT ban. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't give a flying fig how you interpret it; I see that you've already contacted HJ, so I'll wait to hear from him and him only. Instaurare (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That is regrettable, I am an administrator with considerable experience with topic bans, including at WP:AE and I have never had a decision of mine overturned; that is not to say that it might not happen but to let you know I do know a bit about this subject. That you have now edit warred to reintroduce your addition after it was pointed out to you that this is an LGBT article makes things worse. I think you are making a mistake. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


WaPo also now reports the shooter made statements regarding an anti-FRC motive, and includes that he was carrying something related to Chick-fil-A on his person: [38]
CNN generally corroborates about the shooter's statements: [39]
Even The Advocate is willing to mention the shooter's motive: [40]
I'd say it's firmly established that this wasn't a random act. And with that, it follows that there can be no serious claim this is not a notable event. Belchfire-TALK 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I would say it is moving closer to that, yes. I still think need to let the dust settle before adding this, and discuss where it goes in the article, etc. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I also think enough sources have indicated that the shooting is connected to the views of the FRC. And as we have seen today, you are going to be spending a lot of time reverting other editors adding it in anyway. I think the dust has settled sufficiently and now it's just a matter of where in the article to put it. 72Dino (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree about adding the shooting, I'm less convinced about the motive, y'all might recall that based on NBC, CNN and NPR sources we reported the death of Gabrielle Giffords. Breaking news makes for crappy sources. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Some interesting details are emerging: Shooting suspect was volunteering at LGBT center, corroborated here: Suspect in wounding of guard at Christian lobbying group had been volunteering at LGBT center Belchfire-TALK 22:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

*nodnod* (Not "corroborated", though, those are the same AP report.) --j⚛e deckertalk 22:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Point taken, but we are generally pretty safe going with an AP report. It beats out local TV stations for fact-checking and credibility. Belchfire-TALK 23:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need soundbites

Is it really important to have quotes from 25 LGBT groups or NOM in the article. There will no doubt be many quotes over the next few days as various groups try to co-opt this event for political gain. I think the article would be stronger and more encyclopedic without these soundbites. - MrX 01:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed hate group mention in the lead.

I'd like to propose the actual sentence, based on what was discussed above.

As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which drew criticism from conservatives.

The grammatical change was to show that the designation is ongoing. It's "as of" and it's a "decision", not simply a one-time action.

In keeping with the compromise, I retained the mention of the fact that conservatives did not like this at all, which acts as a nice foreshadowing of the whole he-said/she-said section below. I think this is pretty close to what we need, but I'm always open to suggestions. Comments? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but it should say some conservatives. - MrX 19:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. You have a point. It's not that some conservative people complained, it's that notable conservative leaders (I accurately called them the who's who of American conservatism) complained. Let me try to adjust the sentence based on this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again:

As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which drew criticism from American conservative leaders.

Better? Worse? Is "American" really needed? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No. SLPC classifies FRC as a hate group due to their positions on homosexuality, which is already mentioned in the lead. Lead sections are supposed to be concise. Furthermore, SLPC is the only organization that I'm aware of that makes this classification, so therefore adding it to the lead gives it undue weight. I suggest you be careful with continued POV pushing. You appear to be attracting unwanted attention.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Other than violating WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEFIELD, do you have anything to contribute here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No. FRC was included because of its false correlation of homosexuality with pedophilia in their numerous campaigns which endangers people's lives. They were not included simply because of its religious stance against homosexuality. There are plenty of Christian lobbying groups that oppose gay marriage, etc. that SPLC hasn't included in the list. Lead sections are supposed to summarize the most notable aspects of the subject. SPLC may be the only organization, but the classification is demonstrably notable and thus due. And lastly, a week old account having been similarly involved with Belchfire in changing the wording in related articles without consensus, that warning on POV pushing comes off a bit hollow, don't you think? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with a statement that implies unanimity by a political group where it probably doesn't exist. Limiting it to American conservatives, or American conservatives leaders doesn't solve that problem. How about some, many, a few, several...? Or better yet, leave out 'conservative' and say "...a decision which drew criticism from some." - MrX 20:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
How about "some conservative leaders"? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's much better. - MrX 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad we could come up with something mutually acceptable. --Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This section is purely academic and quite likely a waste of time. There is no consensus to add any of this language to the lead, per the ongoing discussion above. Belchfire-TALK 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No, definitely not, at least on your planet. On ours, there's a clear consensus, even if you're not a part of it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's the working draft. As you can see, I really am open to constructive criticism.

As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which drew criticism from some conservative leaders.

More feedback, please. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go with it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not like the compromise because it implies that there is parity between the views of the SPLC and a supporters of the FRC. How would this sound, "the SPLC has designated the KKK as a hate group, a decision which drew criticism from some conservative leaders." Also, I we need a secondary source for conservative leaders otherwise it is unimportant. TFD (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The petition signing by Huckabee et al. was quite prominently mentioned in news sources.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
NOPE. We don't revert a year and a half old consensus that took about a month to reach in 2011 with a less-than-day old Rfc which hasn't been closed yet.Badmintonhist (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
How about no RfC's at all? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Just adjusting the grammar slightly:
As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which has drawn criticism from some conservative leaders.
The secondary source is the Reuters link further up this talk page. But I agree that we shouldn't put it in just yet - the RfC should run its course. It's just nice to have a wording ready. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it really ought to just have "conservatives", since that is what the source says:
As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which has drawn criticism from conservatives.
StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd support that wording (if consensus goes toward inclusion, of course.) --j⚛e deckertalk 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
OBSIDIAN†SOUL, I cannot find the petition mentioned in any news sources. Also, per WP:WEASEL and WP:OR, we need a reliable source to say "some conservatives". TFD (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
See Fox News. There's also a mention of it in the article. I'd also support StAnselm's wording, btw.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I added "leaders" to make it clear that these weren't just random conservatives pulled off the street. We have no citations to support the notion that the conservative rank and file criticizes this decision, although I suppose they might.
In any case, there's a finite amount of quibbling that's worth the effort. I'll accept StAnslem's version. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • While digging through history for something else, I found this version from November 2010, which had the verbiage "In 2010, the Family Research Council was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. [3][4] 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".[5]". Just putting this into the mix to see if it helps resolve wording. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't fit for a variety of reasons, the largest of which is that it's not about the SPLC designation, but about the initial back-and-forth after it went public. And it doesn't say "anti-gay", even though the SPLC does. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
How about a simple rebuttal by the FRC:
As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, which FRC President Tony Perkins dismissed as a political attack by a "liberal organization".
Seems like a easy way to keep the neutral tone because it frames it simply as one group vs. another. -- Avanu (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It was neutral to begin with, but now you're making it about the back-and-forth of the initial declaration instead of the ongoing status. This is what the original RFC rejected and what the current RFC has marked as out of scope. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well the ongoing status seems to be that SPLC called them "moderate" compared to other "hard core" groups. I'm not sure what you mean. -- Avanu (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There had been an RFC a while about about including a sentence regarding the controversy stemming from the SPLC's initial categorization of the FRC as a hate group. The consensus was that it didn't belong in the lead. The current RFC isn't about this at all. It's about mentioning in the lead that the SPLC designates the RFC as a hate group. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I arrived at this discussion unexpectedly, so forgive me if I don't immediately recognize what the real obstacles are. I'm puzzled as to why a rebuttal by the FRC, a primary source, meets the standards of RS, which require a third-party source. The SPLC classified the FRC as a hate group, based on certain criteria; we need a source that refutes or rejects those criteria. Problem: The sentence in the lead should reflect the content of the section, but to me the section on the "hate group" designation is itself unbalanced and non-informative.
  • The SPLC gave specific reasons for the classification, based on excerpts from FRC documents (here and here). The grounds for the classification are omitted from the section.
  • The FRC response as presented here is bizarre: The FRC doesn't seem to be saying "the SPLC is lying or misrepresenting us because they have a liberal bias"; they don't deny the claims or repudiate the statements, as far as I can tell from either what we say here or the cited sources. The verb "dismissed" strikes me as non-neutral, as if Perkins' words just make it all go away. I can't follow the logical construction. It seems to be "yes, the FRC holds these views, but the SPLC is liberal, so the FRC can legitimately claim not to be a hate group, because … " What's missing is a third-party source that explains why the SPLC's criteria for designating a hate group are applied incorrectly to the FRC.
  • In trying to track down what Boehner et al. were signing off on, I found that the citations in the section are confused. The "intolerance pure and simple" quotes come from this pdf, not the WSJ article that's linked to. (There may be other misplaced citations as well.) Boehner and company seem to be supporting the FRC and similar groups in general in opposition to gay marriage. They neither refute nor embrace the specific reasons the SPLC made the classification.
  • Finally, the section concludes with the statement SPLC issued a response by Mark Potok in which he emphasized the factual evidence upon which SPLC had taken the step of making the designation. Potok may have emphasized the evidence, but our article ignores it entirely. Moreover, in allowing the FRC to assert that it's only interested in supporting "Judeo-Christian moral views," we don't balance with the SPLC's explicit assertion that Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups (here, in a source cited in the article).
It just strikes me that the difficulty with the sentence for the lead springs from the dodgy way the section's constructed. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
No, your analysis is spot on. The basic argument of the FRC and its supporters is that the SPLC is illegitimate because it's liberal, so anything it says is illegitimate. If a liberal says the sky is blue, it's obviously a political attack that we can disregard without ever showing evidence about the sky. You can see this echoed here among conservative editors who speak of SPLC as being the enemy of FRC, as if that explains everything. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The SPLC says Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups because of two things. One is that not all Christian groups interpret the biblical passages the same way with regard to homosexuality, and two, it would seem overly intolerant of SPLC to call an entire major world religion "hateful". They've developed a reasonable set of criteria for putting people into the category of "hate group", even though it seems like an unreasonable phrase for a few of these groups. I think everyone has put too much into deciding if the Southern Poverty Law Center gets to be mentioned in the lead of this article. Just flip a coin and decide already. -- Avanu (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the real issue here isn't whether SPLC gets top billing, but whether, like Ku Klux Klan, this article clearly identifies the subject as a hate group. To do so, however, we would have to attribute to the SPLC. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Research_Council/Archive_4&oldid=1151047955"