Jump to content

Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Lead "controversy"

Both of you two stop it. Talk. Here. Now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. I'll let someone else deal with it, if warranted. Teammm TM 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the fact is, we need to do something about the sentence. We agree in principle to the mention in the lead, but we have not yet approved any wording. A couple of editors who !voted in support of inclusion (User:Agne27, User:Teammm) specifically mentioned including criticism of the designation, so with such a finely balanced consensus, I don't think we can say that there is consensus for a "stand alone" statement. I am happy with both the versions present in the edit war ("controversially classified" vs " which some considered controversial") - they are both better than nothing. StAnselm (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It's controversial because the incident meets the definition of 'controversy'. It's not a matter of opinion so "which some considered controversial" is struck off as an option. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
My point wasn't to make it sound like a stand-off opinion or deny the controversy, it was to make the sentence structurally and grammatically sound. I like when things sound right when I read it. That is all. Teammm TM 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Teammm. Grammar talks. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion right above this one. Several versions are under consideration. An edit war is not the way to resolve this. I have no problem with "which some considered controversial" as a final resolution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The inevitable claims of weasel will be heard if that is left in. The sentance before it could have the word "some" applied to it as well, not that I'm advocating for that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoever said this before was spot-on: it's controversial, period. Saying that "some considered" it controversial is weasel-y and unnecessary. And if you don't want edit-warring, then don't edit-war. Belchfire-TALK 02:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It was correct English. It's obviously because by labelling it 'controversial' and not attributing it to the opposition of conservatives, that a liberal/centre reader will be more influenced to have a negative opinion of the designation than they would have if it had mentioned that it just came from conservatives. That's a good position to take and adheres strictly to NPOV. However, I don't think that we can just say it came from conservatives. Just looking at the content on this article, we don't know what Jeffrey Berry's political leaning is. Also, "some considered controversial" is not an option. As I've said, it's controversial no matter your opinion on whether it was right or wrong. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
How about discussing an issue without bringing up political labels? People like yourself seem to be consumed by your politics. That's the problem with many in America. And my comment goes to this discussion on the article's improvement. Teammm TM 03:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Well I know that the objections aren't based on grammar and that's the only other reason I can think of. It's an excellent reason though lol. I agree (I'm not American though). Acoma Magic (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It would've been an excellent reason if the sentence actually mentioned conservatives. "some" ≠ "conservatives". Teammm TM 03:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It could be changed to "opposed by [some/many] conservatives" but only if the only notable people who disagreed with it were conservative. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm not proposing anything... Teammm TM 04:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead

Here's what it says now:

The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy, notably in controversy concerning its position on homosexuality. In 2010 the FRC was controversially classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

This is redundant. The first sentence says there's controversy. The second sentence says it again. If we simply remove "controversially" from the second sentence, it makes sense again. That's what I suggest. Comments? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Their position is controversial and their classification is controversial. Two different things, so we can't just remove the second use of the term, but how can it be reworded? 72Dino (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with 72Dino, but "controversy/controversially" in two subsequent sentences is just plain silly-sounding. Let's please find a less bad sounding way of writing that, please? Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the composition could be improved. The word "controversy" can be omitted from the first sentence. That should resolve the awkwardness. Belchfire-TALK 05:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
"The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy" is also redundant because the first paragraph basically already tells the reader that. I also find "contoversy" and "contoversially" this close together rather awkward. I don't think the "hate group" classification by the SPLC merits being in the lead but if it is going to stay there I would recommend something like this:
The FRC has been involved in significant controversy, most notably over its position on homosexuality, and its classification as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2010. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we can do better than "involved in significant controversy", but this is a step in the right direction. Mangoe (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
We do, however, have two controversies to report. The first is the stuff that FRC has said about gays. The second is the designation of the FRC as a hate group. The last suggestions collapses those two controversies into one. StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion: drop the social policy sentence, and rearrange as follows:

The Family Research Council (FRC) is an American conservative Christian group and lobbying organization formed in the United States in 1981 by James Dobson. It was incorporated in 1983. In the late 1980s, the FRC officially became a division of Dobson's main organization, Focus on the Family, but after an administrative separation, the FRC officially became an independent entity in 1992. Tony Perkins is the current president.



The function of the FRC is to promote what it considers to be traditional family values, by advocating and lobbying for socially conservative policies. It advocates against LGBT rights, abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research, and pornography. The FRC is affiliated with a 501(c)(4) lobbying PAC known as FRC Action. In 2010 the FRC was controversially classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I endorse this suggestion, with one minor quibble: drop one of the two instances of "officially" in the first paragraph. Belchfire-TALK 05:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair quibble, although that wording had been there for years. I have boldly put this wording in, with your amendment. StAnselm (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Belch that "officially" twice is awkward. However, this version is not going to pass muster with certain editors who will want the FRC's policy on homosexuality, not just its "hate group" classification, to be labeled controversial. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Its also not acceptable to me for a variety of reasons, including the prominence it gives to the controversy angle. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Badmintonhist, the reason I moved things around was to give greater prominence to "advocates against LGBT rights". I'm sure all of us here, at least, would read that and think "this group is controversial". StillStanding, I think there is pretty clear consensus that in some way the lead should indicate the disagreement with the hate group listing. StAnselm (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Find me a single hate group that admits to being a hate group and I'll agree that the lead should indicate the disagreement. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to. The reason that listing the FRC as a hate group is controversial is not because the FRC protests it. It's because folks such as Dana Milbank and Kenneth Jost and Rich Lowry and Rosslyn Smith also protest it. You don't find them protesting say . . . the Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi Party's inclusion as hate groups. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
You have not even shown that they protest. TFD (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC
I left that for you to discover. Use your skills with Google. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not actually up to us to confirm your claims. Thanks, though. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The result of the RFC was for a simple declarative sentence that the SPLC labelled the FRC as an anti-gay hate group. The attempts to hedge that consensus by equivocating within this sentence is bad faith editing. Leaving the sentence intact and concentrating on what comes after it will simplify the path to consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The result of the RFC was also to leave a comment something to the effect that leading conservatives opposed the designation? And for the record, the SPLC provided the FBI with information regarding their Cold Case Civil Rights Initiative which the FBI created in 2006 to solve 108 cold cases from 1967. SPLC also provided some case studies regarding KKK hate crime profiling. The SPLC has no working relationship with the FBI anymore and never had anything to do with Hate Group designation, then or now. So basically the SPLC has self generated opinions. Yendor (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Need I remind everyone that the MOS requires that all salient points, including controversies, need to be mentioned in the lead. While the SPLC hate group tag has been applied to many organizations, (which to some is salient enough to be in the lead), in this case the tagging itself is controversial, therefore it needs to e indentified as such.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting policy. What goes in the lead is constrained by WP:WEIGHT. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, and WEIGHT dictates that the controversial nature of this particular hate group label be mentioned. I'm glad we finally agree on something, Still. Belchfire-TALK 22:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted by poster to avoid pointless drama) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

[Placeholder for comment removed by StillStanding-247]
Actually, that IS what the RfC decided. It was decided via RfC that the SPLC hate group listing would be mentioned in the lead. But there was nothing about the RfC that precludes modifying the lead later (nor could there be), and there was certainly nothing about it that supersedes relevant policy concerning weight and providing an accessible overview (nor could there be). Bottom line, if the SPLC listing gets mentioned, then the controversial nature of the listing must be mentioned as well. NPOV requires it. Belchfire-TALK 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

CNN blog & Tufts quote -- RS objections

Consensus reached to accept source as RS as construed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Regarding this diff [1], two editors feel that this is not an RS. Well, generally we don't consider blogs to be RS. But blogs from news organizations are often used as sources because, well they are blogs from a RS. We don't expect the same level of fact checking from such "news blogs" and we are more critical of using such content. However in this case, we have a direct quote. Are we challenging the ability of the CNN blog desk to get a quote?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding some text that Alfie posted to my talk page below (with his permission)

...I originally saw a raw URL placed against the quote from Professor Jeffrey Berry, and so began to fill out the citation details: I then noticed that the article - which I was checking for the Berry quote - actually confirmed the edit made by StillStanding which Belchfire had reverted. I must admit I had been in two minds since the article is a blog, but thought since it was already being cited in the Wikipedia article then it must be ok to cite to substantiate StillStanding's sentence (at least demonstrating it's not OR). So I did. Then it was reverted by Techbear, who affirmed that blogs are not reliable sources according to WP. Hence my removing the Berry quote. Then you reverted this.
I'm now confused. Is it OK, then, to cite blogs in some circumstances but not others? I thought it was a case either of a particular article being useable or not: i.e. if it's reliable for one citation, then it logically would be for another. Can you help clarify this? Alfietucker (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not that simple. An editorial can be used as evidence of notability, but not for support of a fact. A person's personal page can be used as a source for what he said, but not for support of facts. Some nominally "reliable" sources can be used for support of facts, but not for what are clearly opinions.
I could be wrong as to whose blog it is; I thought it was Berry's post on the blog. If it was an anonymous third party's post on the blog, it would be wrong. If it was a reporter's blog post, it would probably be usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Talking about this specific CNN blog, it appears to be a reporter's blog post (by-lined Michael Pearson), written like a straight forward report. That's why, as I wrote on LGR's talk page, I rather hesitated over this one. I'm still not entirely sure whether we can't use it as a citation regarding conservative support of FRC (thinking of the sentence in the CNN article: "While the SPLC defended its label Thursday, saying it was about the "demonization" of gays and a long history of anti-gay activism, the FRC and its conservative allies struck back."). But I can see perhaps we should err on the side of caution, unless other editors can persuasively argue/demonstrate otherwise. Alfietucker (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Alfie, I don't think the the quote from the source indicates conservative support for the FRC (maybe other parts of this source do), but rather that a credentialed scholar has issues with the FRC being labeled as a hate group. The inclusion of the reason for the SPLC labeling the FRC a hate group requires some balance. No one is suggesting we use fringe groups for balance (or I hope if they do I would like to give them a pre-emptive trout slap). Personally I think the 3rd graph in the Listing as a hate group by SPLC section has more weight then the 2nd and those two should be swapped.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
LGR - I'm not entirely sure I agree with you about swapping those paragraphs (I think that's what you mean by 'graph'). The third paragraph is quotes made after the shooting incident, and I think that context is important for the first quote in particular - I'll add to the text to make it clear. Alfietucker (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This is the reference that is being questioned as a RS. [2].  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The source (cached here) is not a standard wordpress-type blog—it is CNN's blog which makes it an op-ed piece. The opinion piece was written by veteran CNN reporter Michael Pearson who writes non-blog articles for CNN such as straight reporting on the death of Andy Griffith, the shooting at the Empire State Building, and the first woman admitted to the Augusta National Golf Club, to list just a few. In researching the op-ed piece, Pearson clearly called up Jeffrey Berry for an opinion, which Pearson then reported to the public in the normal manner. Berry's response to Pearson is perfectly suitable for inclusion here. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The relevant section of the verifiability policy can be found at WP:NEWSBLOG. 72Dino (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - that certainly clarifies the policy. Alfietucker (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

|}

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

Whose controversy is it, anyway?

According to one WP:RS, the SPLC "under attack from ultra-conservative groups", of which FRC is named as an example.[3] The SPLC accurately sums it up as "attack by RFC, conservative Republicans".[4]. Another source says "Conservatives were outraged when the SPLC revised its list of hate groups in 2010, adding the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. The shooting on Wednesday brought the ire flooding back, as conservative journalists and bloggers insisted that the SPLC is the true hate group."[5]

I think this goes to show that the people who make the SPLC designation "controversial" are... conservative groups and their leaders. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is about the lead. Look at the edit history. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Saying that it was mostly opposed by conservatives is accurate. However, the shooting incident is part of the controversy and it wouldn't be included if it was changed from "caused controversy" to "opposed mostly by conservatives". Acoma Magic (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for the lead summarizing, but I don't want it to use bland and misleading terms. "Controversy": what does that actually mean?
So let's say that it was initially opposed by conservatives and later figured into accusations of complicity after the shooting incident. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
How's this?
In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has received opposition, mostly from conservatives. The controversy was exacerbated following a shooting at FRC's headquarters in Washington, D.C.. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
If we are going to attribute the controvesy to conservatives, then let's attribute their reasoning as well. Which is being compared to violent groups like the KKK.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It may be best to just have that in the main body. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It is needed to balance the opposed by conservatives statement, which belies neutrality. There are additional problems with that phrase as well that others will bring up, eg. all conservatives which leads to some conservatives which leads to shouts of weasel, etc.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not like we're short on space. If we can mention the listing, and we can mention that the listing was contested, we can surely mention why is was contested. Belchfire-TALK 01:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
How's this?
In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has received opposition, mostly from conservatives. Opponents objected to the SPLC grouping violent and extremist organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan with the FRC. The controversy was exacerbated following a shooting at FRC's headquarters in Washington, D.C.. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Change to Opponents to the label  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems WP:Undue to me. We should state why this surprising hate group designation was given to a Christian group. As conservatives seems a little weaselly, which conservatives? An "opponents"? Opponents who are in favor of hate groups? I doubt it. Perhaps we should stick more to what reliable sources state instead, perhaps

The SPLC has been criticized by some designated hate groups and their conservative supporters who say that an "overbroad definition of 'hate' vilifies innocent people and stifles vigorous debate about issues critical to America's future". Addressing this, Mark Potok stated that “we're not in any way suggesting that these groups should be outlawed or free speech should be suppressed ... but it's a kind of calling out the liars, the demonizers, the propagandists."

The exacerbation is a questionable finger-pointing to explain the actions of one violent extremist with a gun. Which itself can be, an is, gone into further detail in the body but is a prime example of Wikipedia:Recentism that will likely have no lasting impact changing FRC or how anyone views them. Insomesia (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That should be on the SPLC's article rather than the lead in this one. The shooting affected how the designation is viewed and it should be in the lead if we go into further detail than what the article currently has. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The shooting is a one-time event (we hope) so it would be recentism to give it top billing in the lead. The hate group status is an ongoing matter, recently invigorated by the shooting, so it does belong in the lead.
As for specific versions, the one that brought up the KKK had a serious NPOV problem, because it's a straw man argument without a refutation. As the SPLC points out, hate groups need not themselves be violent. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The shooting belongs in the lead if we go into more detail, as you suggested. I'm not sure what you mean regarding the KKK. The problem that they have is that the FRC is now grouped with the KKK. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It's only a problem if you mistakenly believe that a hate group has to be violent. In terms of their rhetoric, the FRC and KKK are on the same page. That's the straw-man argument. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the FRC "grouped" with the KKK? I thought the SPLC had classifications such as "White Nationalist, Black Separatist, Neo-Nazi, Anti-Gay", etc. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I would disagree there. They dispute labelling the FRC as a hate-group. It is probably the strongest description possible and they now share that with the KKK according to the SPLC. Even on rhetoric the FRC is not on the same level as the KKK. Regardless of our opinion, that's the reason some opponents to the label have given so it goes in. Unless you prefer my first proposal which doesn't mention the KKK. Feel free to post your own proposal if you don't like any them. To Azure: the FRC is now on their hate-group list which it shares with the KKK, so they're grouped together on that level. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The shooting is a recent event. The criticism is not. The criticism generated from the recent shooting is just another instance of the controversy of the labeling. If we are going to point out controversial items in the lead as required, it behooves us to say WHY they are controversial, and not only WHO finds them controversial. Those who aim towards the latter are simply weasel-mongers.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The current options are to leave it as it is or to pick one of the proposals I made. Leaving out the shooting in either of my proposals isn't really an option if we go into this extra detail as opposed to what we currently have. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually the shooting is quite WP:Undue, that's why i suggest The SPLC has been criticized by some designated hate groups and their conservative supporters who say that an "overbroad definition of 'hate' vilifies innocent people and stifles vigorous debate about issues critical to America's future". Addressing this, Mark Potok stated that “we're not in any way suggesting that these groups should be outlawed or free speech should be suppressed ... but it's a kind of calling out the liars, the demonizers, the propagandists." Insomesia (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't belong in the lead of the FRC though. It looks like it should be in the criticism section of the SPLC article. It doesn't even refer to the FRC. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

On the FBI as an authority in this case

I've been back and forth over the FBI pages, and I don't think that they are making the kind of endorsement that people here have tried to invoke them for. By and large the FBI is concerned with hate crimes, and they are largely interested in hate groups, it appears, as organizations for committing those crimes. I don't see how any of the traditional marriage advocacy groups fits into this picture, and I have yet to see anything on the FBI website that specifically addresses this sort of group. They do not point to the SPLC as the keeper of a definitive list of hate groups. The SPLC seems to believe that trad marriage rhetoric incites violence against homosexuals, but I don't see the place where the FBI endorses this theory. Mangoe (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in this article about FBI endorsement of the SPLC. Some editors on the discussion page however have mentioned that the FBI uses the research of the SPLC and links to them on their page about hate crimes. Note that the FBI recognizes hate crimes based on sexual orientation.[6] TFD (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
At least half a dozen people in this discussion have justified the SPLC designation on the basis of the FBI referring to that group as a resource. Mangoe (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have no idea as to why the SPLC listed the FRC as a hate group - you should first read through their reasoning. It's not for their opposition to same-sex marriage, but for spreading lies, hateful propaganda, and distortions of scientific research. --Scientiom (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This "if you were not either unreasonable or ignorant you would agree with the SPLC" approach to the argument isn't even vaguely neutral, but just to be on the safe side I reread the SPLC page on the FRC. And I find your analysis irrelevant and indeed a potential part of the problem here. The question of what is "hateful" is subjective in the extreme. I am uninterested in the question of whether what the FRC says is true or accurate, at least in this narrow context; the proximate question is whether the FBI is interested in this supposed hatefulness. And I see no sign of that interest. All evidence I see is that the FBI is only interested actual violence or actual advocacy of violence. The SPLC page admits, by omission, that the FRC does no such thing, so I don't see how to even deduce an FBI endorsement on this basis. I would also remind you that deductions are not what we are supposed to be doing anyway. Mangoe (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the article says that the FBI relies on SLPC hate group definitions. Only here in the talk page is that mentioned. So my only conclusion so far would be to disregard using this rationale as for whatever proposal it's instantiators are putting forward.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Then would you like to tell us as to why you're bringing the FBI up here? The FBI is not being mentioned in this article - it's only been said that the FBI uses the SPLC as a resource - this is undoubtedly true - this shows that the SPLC's listings are clearly well respected. On the other point at hand, spreading negative falsehoods about entire groups of people are no doubt hateful - surely you don't disagree with that? --Scientiom (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I have already answered this above. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't know why the FBI is being brought into the discussion here. If there is no good reason for it then the whole thing is WP:NOTFORUM. The FBI website lists the SPLC as a resource on "hate groups," however it does not specifically endorse the SPLC's list of such groups. Since the FBI is not even mentioned in this article, however, why bring it up? Badmintonhist (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Unless this is in reference to the RfC above where at least one editor mentions the FBI as a reason for using the hate group label.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is in reference to that, it still doesn't matter, because all editors are saying is this is notable because the FBI and dozens upon dozens of sources respect SPLC listings, and they are widely cited and used. --Scientiom (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oft cited by many sources, yes. Respected? That's opinion. One would think that they would be respected just by being cited but that's not always the case. And In this instance Mangoe challenges whether the FBI uses SPLC data then simply refers to the SPLC as a resource.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
For the purposes of what should be in an article's lead here on Wikipedia, all that matters is the fact that it is widely cited - as you too agree that it is indeed widely cited, should you not be supporting it's inclusion in the lead per Wikipedia policy? --Scientiom (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Red Herring. I was speaking to the question addressed by Mangoe, which asks about the FBI reliance on SLPC data, not whether SPLC is a RS.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Can I have a direct response to my question regardless? --Scientiom (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Only if the inclusion indicates indicates the labeling is controversial due to the nature of the label. Saying only that conservatives are opposed to the label is not due because of the nature of the label which is commonly associated with violent groups like the KKK. Stating they object to that implicit comparison would be satisfactory.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There are users that claim, mostly through Talkspace and Discussions, that the FBI relies on the SPLC for the Hate Groups list. The SPLC Article claims that the SPLC is a resource for the FBI on hate groups/crimes. Others claim that since the FBI uses the SPLC then the SPLC must be a reliable, factual, RS. However, the FBI listing of the SPLC as a resource is based on hate crime information from at least 45 years ago. The SPLC's assistance began in 2007 along with the NAACP and the Urban League to help the FBI's Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative. In essence they helped solve murders before 1967. The FBI Initiative was a success since it helped prosecute 3 out of the 108 cold cases. They are still working on it. SPLC did assist the DOJ in the 2009 "Training Guide for Hate Crimes" since some case studies were based on their monitoring of the KKK in the 1990's. The SPLC maintains its own Hate Group listing, but claims that the FBI uses them are simply out of date. I mentions this here because the RfC proponent (and you Scientiom used it above) uses the specious FBI/SPLC connection simply because the SPLC is mentioned on the FBI website. I think this is what Mangoe and Little Green Rosetta might have been trying to state since the SPLC and the FBI have no pertinent relationship, but I'll leave their voices to themselves. Yendor (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If you ignore part of the evidence, you can certainly arrive at that conclusion. However, we also have reliable sources about recent and ongoing cooperation, including using the SPLC as a training resource. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Rfc on inclusion of Hate group in lead

Consensus: Support inclusion in lede. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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


  • Oppose addition to the lead. I haven't seen anything here that makes me want to overturn the previously established consensus. If it were listed as a hate group by the FBI, that would be another matter, but a listing by the SPLC doesn't seem significant enough for the lead. StAnselm (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the FBI lists hate groups, they rely on the SPLC and other organizations. If they do, would you please link their list? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I seem to remember something called WP:Notability. SPLC is is cited very frequently by news groups, often for expert opinion on American extremism, as in the case of the recent Sikh temple shooting. They're even in books and we even have an article on Southern Poverty Law Center. A long one. The inclusion itself was widely reported in 2010, again also passing WP:N. Hardly insignificant, innit?
I find it more telling that an organization which when you search in google is primarily described by the adjective "anti-gay" has a squeaky clean Wikipedia article that mentions their campaigns against homosexuality in only one or two sentences, and a paragraph shoved at the end.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
As it relates to a matter of factual information used in your rationale, you may wish to consider the inclusion of SPLC/ADL at The FBI's hate crimes home page. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support addition to the lead (although not necessarily the precise phrasing suggested above.) The SPLC has been recognized as a reliable source for whether a group is a hate group by numerous groups, including the FBI, the police, multiple news media, etc, as well as on numerous Wikipedia articles. If you're designated a hate group by the SPLC, it stands up in court. To omit is to do a disservice to our readers by whitewashing the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It stands up in court? I'd love to see some evidence of that. StAnselm (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd also be curious to know more about what this means. Are you saying, KillerChihuahua, that the SPLC is generally accredited the status of an expert witness at trials? Do they do that? I'm honestly curious. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if they've ever been called as a witness, but in addition to the cases they bring to court, if a group is in court and is on the SPLC list, that is submitted as evidence by the opposing party. This is really off the subject at hand, though, and it seems I shouldn't have brought it up, as it is leading to a discussion which distracts from the topic at hand. It is not crucial or even important to their overall notability as an expert on hate groups. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (since this has apparently become a vote) addition to lead and greater prominence of their actual activities as reported by the sources. I've already explained why elsewhere.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • On the understanding that this is not a vote, I support the proposal. Discussion should continue. --TS 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I thought we didn't vote around here. Anyhow, I'm not married to the draft sentence I tossed out, but there's no question that being an SPLC-designated anti-gay hate group is highly relevant to the identity of FRC. A brief sentence to that effect in the lead would go a long way to restoring the neutrality and comprehensiveness of this strangely incomplete article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - It is an important aspect of what this group represents and what it has become known for. It also distinguishes the FRC as extremist relative to other, more moderate, anti-gay groups with the word family in their name. Per WP:LEAD "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." The fact that the FRC is designated a hate group is a very important aspect. - MrX 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the designation may be important, has the designation received significant press? Is the group mainly or substantially known for being a hate group? Unless the answers to such questions are yes, it would be premature to place such in the lead. Ngchen (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Since you ask, the answer is yes. If anything, the Streisand effect made this even more well known. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
GNews isn't turning up much in mainstream news sources. It was in the Washington Times and the LA Times when it was first added to the list, but I don't see much else. What have you got for us? StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
When I google "Family Research Council", I get the org's site, its Wikipedia page, SPLC calling it a hate group, followed by TPM reporting on the fact that it's considered a hate group, and then an FRC affiliate site. In other words, all but the primary sources call it a hate group prominently. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are some I can get quickly:
LA Times, [7], Washington Times, [8], [9], Christian Science Monitor, CBS News, Reuters, Time Magazine, CNN, [10], MSNBC, Daily CallerWashington Post, Fox News, [11], National Public Radio, The Seattle Times, Charleston Gazette, Falls Church News-Press, Boone County Journal, Hattiesburg America, The Plain Dealer (Sun News), ABC News (Yahoo! News), Metro, Yorkville Patch, Digital Journal, News Leader, Dallas Voice, KCEN-TV, Humanistischer Pressedienst, Idaho Statesman, Right Side News, PolyMic, Global Post, The Daily Journal, Colorado Springs Independent, The Inquisitr, Alabama, Digital Journal, Talking Points Memo, [12], The Record, The Concord Monitor, North Colorado Gazette, Florida Baptist Witness, Vermont Public Radio, Omaha World Herald, Sydney Star Observer, Christianity Today, Deseret News, The Daily Beast (Newsweek), Christian Post
Spanning from 2010 to 2012, all mentioning SPLC's designation of the FRC. Issues ranging from the 2010 hate group list itself, Apple pulling their apps, FRC complaining about gay characters in video games, the Chick-fil-A controversy (which is not mentioned in this article, big surprise), and the Uganda "connection", etc. I'm deliberately excluding LGBT media sources, though I'm including the the conservative sources. Anything else we can sweep under the rug?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, this is an impressive list, and may yet make me change my !vote. BUT I clicked on the Reuters link and read, The SPLC made its name partly by winning lawsuits against violent white supremacists. But conservatives criticized it last year when it labeled the Christian conservative Family Research Council as a "hate group". Which makes me think that if the "hate group" is mentioned in the lead, the criticism of the SPLC with respect to the listing must also be mentioned. I am still opposed to the draft sentence originally suggested. StAnselm (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You'd happily include that, as long as I'm ignoring the "liberal" sources. Figures.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you're saying. I was basing it on Reuters, which seemed to be both the most neutral source, as well as the most important. StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out earlier, that RFC was actually about the entire controversy stemming from them being named a hate group. So, no, that RFC is not about the same thing as this RFC. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Actually, no. That was should the controversy over the naming of the FRC as a hate group by the SPLC be in the lead. This is whether the categorization of the FRC as a hate group by the SPLC should be in the lead. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but I was there and remember it. Upshot? No mention of it in the lead for 18 months or so, per that consensus. Changing the wording slightly or zeroing in on a particular facet of the closing statement doesn't change how the consensus has been implemented since that time. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but I wasn't there so I actually read it instead of trusting my memory. As a result, I'm not factually wrong about what issue the RFC actually resolved.
It's natural to forget these things, which is why you should refresh your memory instead of speaking off the cuff. I'll save you some time by quoting the key sentence, with original emphasis: "However, the insertion that was previously in the lead was about the controversy, and the RFC is about whether the controversy should be included." Hope that helps. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And I don't hate to break it to anyone that consensus can change, regardless of what the earlier rfc discussed. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's last year's news, that has had no particular lasting impact on the organization. No particular reason to include one group's POV in the lead of an organization that has lasted for decades--indeed, that would be the definition of UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Support in light of the recent shooting incident, which appears likely to generate additional RS coverage comparing the "hate group" label to the violence by an anti-FRC gunman, the combined issue clearly will have become a major part of the history of the organization (c.f. www.infowarscom/frc-shooting-will-pro-abortion-and-gay-rights-liberals-call-it-terrorism/ [unreliable fringe source?] this], currently linked from the Drudge Report). Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. If we find the cure for cancer, we're not going to leave that out of the article because the disease has existed for decades and this is a new thing about it. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Last year's news? There are currently more than 72,000 Google search results for "family research council" and "hate group". I really don't think this is going away anytime soon. - MrX 01:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If FRC had been labeled as Hate Group for a Day, then perhaps you'd have some point. Instead, it's been labeled a hate group ever since that announcement. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
... And how many of those are NEW reporting on the designation, vs. how many of them are just trivially mentioning it on background in pieces about other topics? It should be obvious to all that as the time progresses, yes, the number of raw mentions of that past event will increase. Also, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking for or why you're asking for it. You seem to be implicitly referring to some unspecified but impossibly high standard that is nowhere to be found in Wikipedia policy. Being mentioned in the context of Chick-fil-A as a hate group is exactly what we'd expect if our secondary sources considered this fact to be noteworthy, yet you bizarrely write it off in advance as "trivially mentioning it on background in pieces about other topics". Huh? What? Trivial? As opposed to? Where in WP:RS are you getting this from?
The bar is not where you seem to be placing it. I'm certainly not going to pretend that your leading question is relevant to this discussion. Ask a question that has some basis in Wikipedia policy, and I'll do my best to answer it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:INDEPTH: The event was covered in depth when it was first announced, notably resulting in several interviews and specials by national TV programs (e.g. the coverage in Hardball with Chris Matthews which resulted in another notable statement by Spriggs mentioned in this article).
  • WP:EFFECT: The event resulted in the FRC running full page ads (which again was also covered). It resulted in Apple withdrawing apps used by the groups included by SPLC. It also resulted in an online petition famously signed by 20 members of congress, Jindal, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Boehner, and DeMint (all republicans).
  • WP:GEOSCOPE: Event was nationally covered.
  • WP:DIVERSE: Covered significantly both liberal, conservative, mainstream, specialized, Christian, and secular sources.
  • WP:PERSISTENCE: Event resulted in coverage lasting for months, and has definitely exceeded the normal news cycle. After which it resulted in repeated mentions in light of their activities after the fact, notably the lobbying against the condemnation of the Uganda "kill the gays" bill in connection with the Chick-fil-A controversy, and the "It gets better" project. Both liberal and conservative groups still routinely mention it as a fact. 18 months and it's still in the news should be enough evidence of lasting, historical significance isn't it? I've never heard of this "increasing coverage" rule, can you point out the specific policy?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not controversial, except that (duh) FRC rejects it. You think Stormfront admits to being a hate group? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not true, there is an impressive list of "twenty members of the House of Representatives, three U.S. Senators, four state Governors, and one state Attorney General" who also reject the label. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, these wouldn't all happen to be conservative Republicans who actively oppose gay rights, would they? I mean, if they were, that would certainly explain why they don't see any problem with FRC's bigotry. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
To say it's bigotry is, as they say, begging the question. StAnselm (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no question: it's bigotry. This is one of those times when reality has a liberal bias.
And since you didn't answer my question, I went ahead and looked at their full-page ad, signed by the who's who of the American religious right. Just like I said, the politicians were all conservative, and I didn't see any Democrats, either. The text even complains that the SPLC used to just stick to racial bigotry but now it's branching out to include homophobic bigotry. Yeah, poor FRC. They have my sympathy.
The most we can say in the lead is that the FRC and notable members of the religious right objected to this designation, not that there's a controversy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Um, so what? They're conservative, you and the SPLC are liberal, and where does that leave us? With a controversy. Mangoe (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This really isn't about liberal/conservative. It's about an organization objectively recognizing a hate group. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The controversy, rather baldly, is over whether their identification is objective. That is something that can be objectively determined from the sources; your assertion that they are being objective merely places you in the liberal camp of this dispute. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You seriously consider the SPLC "objective" in this area? StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, they're not a gay advocacy group are they? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It depends on what you want that word to mean. They are widely considered to be an advocacy group for liberal causes, and homosexuality certainly qualifies as one of those. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The SPLC is a generic civil rights organization whose authority on these matters are respected by the FBI. And homosexuality is a sexual orientation. You don't seem to have much of an idea about what you're talking about and your bias is showing. --Scientiom (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how the word "generic" could possibly apply here, given that they are being pushed forward on the thesis that they have some special expertise. And as you are someone whose editing hardly encompasses anything beyond articles on conflicts over homosexuality I don't think you have standing on the bias accusations. Finally, as we've been through before, there's no evidence that the FBI endorses the SPLC identification of the various "pro-family" organizations as hate groups. Indeed, the first article in this newsletter gives a perspective on hate groups which the political lobbying organizations we're talking about here would not seem to me to fit into. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
See page 21. And the biggest lie of all, just because an organization has "family" in its name does not means it's "pro-family".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Pages 1, 21, and 22 mention sexual orientation as one of the irrational bias for hate crimes - have you read it yourself? Also, this document is about hate crimes specifically - the SPLC lists groups as hate groups for defamation using outright lies to incite hatred against particular groups of people based on core traits such as race/color, sexual orientation, etc. --Scientiom (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Certainly "LGBT rights" is one of their key areas of work. StAnselm (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Same with other Poverty Law Centers. And the Human Rights Commission. But are they gay advocacy groups? I find it uniquely American how an organization that primarily deals with violent racist groups and human rights can be dismissed as "liberal". Does that mean conservatives support racism? Why am I even asking.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
St.Anselm's "an action that drew criticism from conservatives" sounds good (though his "on the basis of defamation and research distortions" is not as that is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia's voice). Overdetailing becomes a problem, since if we have to mention opposition to the listing, then we're also obligated to mention support for the listing. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) See below.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggested sentence for discussion: "In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group,<Washington Times, LA Times> on the basis of defamation and research distortions,<???> an action that drew criticism from conservatives.<Reuters ref>" StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
"on the basis of defamation and research distortions" <- and you came to that conclusion from Reuters alone? Massively ironic wording for an organization that calls gay people pedophiles from "research" by the American College of Pediatricians. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I should have included the attribution in the text, though I did in the edit summary. I was modifying the proposal Still-24-45-42-125 had made in the previous section. "Defamation / research distortions" are his phrase, not mine. I don't know who said it and where, hence my question marks. I must say, I don't like the tone that this discussion is taking. StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah. That comma splice is problematic. It makes it sound as if it's the SPLC doing the defamation and research distortions, instead of listing FRC based on defamation and research distortions.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it would be best to drop the phrase altogether: In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, an action that drew criticism from conservatives. StAnselm (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really fussed with the wording, as long as its demonstrably neutral and gives correct context.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I can certainly support StAnselm's second phrasing of "In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, an action that drew criticism from conservatives. " KillerChihuahua?!? 13:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah that wording seems good enough, though SPLC should be spelled out and linked.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "hate group" designation is a fictional construct concocted by the organization's political opponents. Wikipedia already gives far too much credence to this particular style of political attack. It's fine to mention it down in the body of the article somewhere, with attribution, since it's nothing more than somebody's opinion. However, we must avoid presenting this as an empirical fact in Wikipedia's voice, and it does not deserve mention in the lead of an article, ever. Belchfire-TALK 07:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, a fictional construct that the FBI endorses as valid. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes of course, everyone knows KKK and neo-Nazis are love groups in reality and unjustly labeled. Calling people pedophiles and criminals with no basis is also just a sign that you love them. I don't think anyone has proposed that it be said in Wikipedia's voice.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That's correct: we want to attribute to SPLC. Frankly, this gives it more authority than using Wikipedia's voice while simultaneously avoiding POV. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support - The SPLC is a good authority on this issue - their listings are used by the FBI. This fact is also stated outside of the United States in the rare instances that the FRC is ever mentioned in the global media. Furthermore it is an overwhelming sourced fact, and the stating of this fact in the lead is required per WP:WEIGHT, because it so notable. --Scientiom (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. it is an entirely appropriate inclusion because it comes from a reliable ource and is also used by many neutral newspapers. Pass a Method talk 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The SPLC is the leading researcher on these types of groups and their opinions are widely reported. TFD (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose SPLC is notable for its opinions, and the classification of any group as a "hate group" is an opinion ascribable to the group holding the opinion as an opinion, and is not a fact of sufficient note (in fact - not a "fact") for inclusion in the lede. I suggest in the case at hand that the subject of the article is not the Nazi party, so the Godwin's Law invocation should not be used.. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you saying we don't include opinions on Wikipedia in article leads? You know that's not the case. Am I not following your rationale? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Opinion? So you think the FBI is going to respect and use the listings of any random political group? The SPLC is not what you seem to think it is. It also issues these reports very carefully - only after the existence of abundant evidence does the SPLC list any organization as a hate group. --Scientiom (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, sorry, what you're opposing doesn't seem to address the actual RFC question: "Should the fact that the FRC is designated a hate group by the SPLC be in the lead?" It's not being proposed that the FRC should be described as a hate group in Wikipedia's narrative voice, but rather that the SPLC's classification of the FRC as a "hate group" should be mentioned in the lead. Does this change your !vote? Zad68 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Godwin's Law because the FRC president Tony Perkins has had widely reported dealings with the Ku Klux Klan and the Council of Conservative Citizens (both white supremacist groups). Anything else?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support including SPLC's classification, and attributing it to the SPLC, in the lead, per WP:LEAD. A review of reliable sources shows the opposition to the FRC is just about notable as the FRC itself, and so the question is not whether the opposition should be discussed in the lead, but how? Within Wikipedia, when there's a subject that has significant opposition, the way we handle it is to mention the position of the most notable opposition groups. Take a look at Fred Phelps for example, where we have "The church is considered a hate group and monitored by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center." and the KKK where we have "it is classified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center." The list of source mentions provided by Obsidian Soul above includes many WP:RS mentions (also some garbage mentions, like blogs, which I'm discounting)--enough WP:RS coverage to show the classification has had a lasting effect. Obsidian Soul's subsequent post covering the Wikipedia policy- and guideline-based reasons for notability are also compelling. There are many groups that have voiced opposition but the SPLC's classification clearly looks to be the most notable. Zad68 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The better question would be whether or not the SPLC designation of the Family Research Council as a "hate group" should be in the heading of an article subsection. The whole notion of "hate group" applied to organizations such as the FRC is subjective and, in the current political discourse, largely used for propagandistic purposes . . .kinda like calling an organization "anti-life" or "anti-woman." Badmintonhist (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Or calling gay people pedophiles and criminals? Let the reader decide whether it's subjective or not. But being labelled a hate group itself is notable and should not be hidden, whatever our opinion of it is. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant, but . . . by the way, when did the the FRC call all gays pedophiles or criminals? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You really should learn more about the subject you're voting on. Didn't we just discuss this two headers back? Download the PDFs.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, first time I've heard of notability being dismissed as "irrelevant". -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM Maybe you should allow people to respond to the RFC without making a stink over every single comment that doesn't meet with your approval. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
An RFC is a discussion, not a vote. If you want to argue any of the !votes, no one's stopping you. Besides, do read the policies you link to first. WP:NOTAFORUM only applies on OT discussions. We are discussing this article's content. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support FRC is more notable for being designated as a hate group than for many or most of the things mentioned in the lede. It's certainly more notable than, say, the fact that FRC advocates against global warming. MsFionnuala (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL. Streisand effect, anyone? Belchfire-TALK 20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
So I see that global warming has been now pulled from the lede. Hmmph.  :) MsFionnuala (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That's kinda like calling Joan Rivers a widely quoted and respected arbiter of which celebrities dress inappropriately. The SPLC's listing of "hate groups" (a propagandistic formulation to start with) is basically its schtick, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia should take it seriously. A number of bona fide lefties think that the organization is largely a scam. Moreover, the SPLC.s designation of the FRC as a "hate group" is already in the article. Putting it in the lead gives the SPLC far more weight than it is entitled to. One questionable organization's comments on another questionable organization shouldn't be in the lead.Badmintonhist (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:LEAD tells us to summarize main facts found in the article. The SPLC designation is a main fact. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support after a review of sources. SPLC is considered a go-to-reference on hate groups and crimes by the FBI, by a preponderance of research I found on Google Scholar, by a preponderance of mentions in Google Books references,and in a preponderance of neutral Google News Archives references. I think the most serious policy-based objection here was that of Jclemens, and that is the due weight issue, and that's a serious question. I frame the question this way--the inclusion of any sort of hate group labeling, which is more extensive than simply SPLC listings, merits the current weight or so in-text and, as a result, a brief mention in lead. Where the SPLC comes into it is that attributing that label (which most, but far from all) sources do to SPLC, is in my view far more neutral than putting such a contentious view into Wikipedia's voice. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support The FRC positions itself as a Christian organization yet this is held in tension with it's activities which are so profoundly hateful that the nation's leading authority on hate groups has named them as such. This is among the chief notable criticisms of this group and is done so by the SPLC after extensive research and reporting. This notable criticism is earned by FRC and should be the leading notable criticism in the lead. Insomesia (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Undue in the lead. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Simply adding the SPLC makes this claim and that some bitterly opposed this designation doesn't take away the designation tags FRC on the same level as the KKK and stormfront.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you may be mistaken. SPLC lists many organizations but reserves hate group for only those it research bears out that it deserves the designation. This is what they do, this is what the SPLC is known for. Beyond the label they don't seem to grade how hateful a group is but they do offer reports on why specific groups are considered a hate group. So the extraordinary claim has extraordinary evidence (again what SPLC does). Many of the hate groups don't like the designation but over time this hasn't changed much at all how the SPLC operates. Insomesia (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Balderdash. The perception of what a hate group is, is drastically different than SPLCs definition. Readers that only read the lead will be given the impression FRC calls for open violence or worse.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per KillerChihuahua. The FBI uses SPLC's hate group definition as well as many reputable media sources. Plus its omission in the lead is quite odd considering how widely publicized it is that the FRC is categorized as a hate group. Search "Family Research Council" + "Hate group" and you get 73,800 hits from a wide variety of sources--including those who are against the "hate group" designation. Whether or not you agree with FRC being labeled a hate group the fact that it is labeled as such is notable and should be included in the lead along with FRC and other sources disagreement with the label. AgneCheese/Wine 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose All political groups get disagreements from other political groups. To be balanced, the SPLC article should contain more criticism. Roger (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and I have started a thread at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#Neutrality to discuss this issue. StAnselm (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this is one organization criticizing another. Completely undue. Furthermore it is a controversial label--rejected by many. It must be described on the body where the controversy can be covered with adequate detail.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's easy to let our own sociopolitical opinions get in the way of objective, factual writing, and I think that's what's happening here. We should mention this classification within the article, but putting it in the lede is undue emphasis on a controversial, negative term. ThemFromSpace 15:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - Multiple sources say the same and their behaviour as an anti gay lobbying organization makes this obvious: 123456.
They are most definitely a hate-group by multiple accounts and sources and sticking it in the lede just reflects WP:WEIGHT. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I also support StAnselm's wording of "In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, an action that drew criticism from conservatives." - but with SPLC spelled out as i believe Obsidian Soul suggested. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (in part) - A lot of the 'voters' here are simply looking at secondary sources for guidance on whether this is called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Of course, it *is*, so that question is settled. The question at hand now, is whether this belongs in the lead of this article. This is a really a matter of editorial judgement, and honestly I believe the way we describe it is going to entirely be driven by the political perspectives of the editors here. I went and looked at the primary source here, via the website http://splcenter.org and looked at their map of "hate groups", at their list of groups in general, and specifically read a few of their pages describing what they feel makes each entity a hate group or hateful person. The divide the groups into general categories, some are what would generally be considered "hate", some are just "anti-gay". Here's a quote from the "anti-gay" subsection, where FRC is found: "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."
Additionally, this subsection opens with the following quote "some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family moderate their views", going on to contrast FRC *specifically* from the "hard core" groups that are also in this category.
While browsing their interactive map of 'hate groups', I noticed that a church in my area had been added for speaking up against adding homosexuality to a protected class for a local muncipality. I guess the conclusion I am drawing from reading this is that while SPLC may actually have some value for tracking 'truly' hate-filled groups, you shouldn't just use the same broad brush strokes they use for a NPOV Wikipedia article. From the SPLC website, "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." and "Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity." Without question, a lot of the groups in their list are terrible, but I think that SPLC likes the 'guilt by association' that they can paint a group with as a threat to make them change their behavior. In short, while they are honest in some ways, they are also quite biased.
I guess I'm saying that it would probably be more honest to indicate a balanced perspective of the Family Research Council in the lead. A pro-homosexuality group won't like FRC, so using a phrase like "hate group" is just a way to portray them in very strident and shocking terms. In our Wikipedia article, we should not necessarily leave out such information, but we should take care to present a balanced lead. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, I believe this misses the point. I read all of this analysis of SPLC and I just can't see how this is anything but original research on your part. Even if, for the sake of argument, SPLC is 100% wrong to call FRC a hate group, this changes nothing. The mere fact that it was designated is one of the first things readers should see because it's just that important. Not important to SPLC or you or me, but to the public at large, which is why our secondary sources bring this up for context. This is an issue for NPOVD. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
While you might call my next statement original research, I think it can easily be supported by sources. Why do so many of our secondary sources like to quote organizations like SPLC in stories? Because it makes it easier to sum things up and it sounds more shocking and sells more papers, advertising, etc. SPLC themselves say in the quote I list above, that FRC is a "moderate" compared with some other "hard core" groups in the anti-gay subcategory. So the question is not whether SPLC called them a "hate group" (because it is true and unequivocal), but whether we moderate our lead in such a way that the nuances here are demonstrated, and in such a way that a WP:DUE balance in tone is upheld. -- Avanu (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Prior to the shooting incident, the entire article has been "moderated" extensively by certain people here that anyone reading the article would get the impression that FRC only rarely deals with anti-gay lobbying. There's a huge difference between moderation and whitewashing. What you're proposing is the latter. And yes, arguing it's because it's to sell more stories is unjustified OR as it implies that SPLC is just a random organization borrowing notability from its designation of the FRC. SPLC is notable in its own right for their past activities against extremist groups, for instance it was a major media source in the recent Sikh temple shooting incident which is unrelated to this. SPLC designated FRC because it's an organization that spreads false propaganda that gays are pedophiles. How is that not provoking violence? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you may be overstating what I said. And, a lot of what you just replied with is outside of what I stated. Obviously, SPLC is WP:Notable, and people running around shooting others is not the same as someone saying 'homosexual behavior is an affront to morality'. I can say that you shouldn't cheat on your wife, but I hardly see how that is a provocation to violence. What I did say above is that media organizations love bright-line contrasts -- Democrat vs. Republican, Conservative vs. Liberal, and Gay vs. Straight. When SPLC paints a group, in many cases, it is a very obvious color that didn't even require SPLC to declare it. But for some groups, it is a bludgeon, intended to work via guilt by association. Not all SPLC 'hate groups' are equal. I never advocated a featureless tone, but a neutral presentation of sources is required by Wikipedia. We don't add our bias to theirs, and we don't carry others' bias for them. We present it, and we walk away. -- Avanu (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Again, being merely against homosexuality on religious grounds does not place you in SPLC's list. The Mormon church isn't on it, is it? Read SPLC's rationale. And be aware that FRC does more than just say "homosexual behavior is an affront to morality". They actually accuse LGBT people of being pedophiles even on national television. If I publish pamphets, books, and articles and go on national TV calling you a pedophile, such that millions of people would believe me, would you also call that "hardly a provocation to violence"? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a bit of a red herring. FRC does not make a distinction between pedophiles that molest children of the same sex versus homosexuals. Whether a same-sex pedophile is *also* a subset of homosexuality is a bit like asking whether a different-sex pedophile is a subset of heterosexuality. These seem like outdated notions in today's society, but it wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was classified as a psychological problem just like pedophilia. Like I said, this is a red herring. A pedophile *is* a pedophile. FRC claims to have research justifying their beliefs. If society changes its attitude on pedophilia, will that make those who hold to the older views hateful and bigoted? I'm not justifying whatever it may be that FRC believes in, but the question before us now is whether we mention SPLC's designation in the lead, and how we do it. I'm just not interested in a forum-ey debate on whether FRC is justified, whether SPLC is justified, whether homosexuality is a choice or whether its genetically or environmentally determined, or whatever else. The statement of "merely against homosexuality on religious grounds doesn't place you in SPLC's list" is a bit untrue. As I stated above, a city government was voting whether to grant homosexuality protected status. A church spoke up against this and ended up on SPLC's list. SPLC can decide when and where a group violates its standard enough to get on the list, it isn't cut and dry. For some groups, it is a well-deserved public shaming. For other groups, it is likely just a bludgeon to get them to fall in line. At this point, I feel like I've explained and overexplained. Let's focus on the actual issue, not all these sidelines, please. -- Avanu (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that statement? FRC does make a distinction, and they do specify that homosexuals aim to molest children, citing dubious studies by political groups masquerading as scientific ones. Have you read the SPLC rationale? Read it. Then read the booklets hosted by FRC in their site. When we're on the same footing, come back here and discuss instead of making personal rationalizations that's not based on anything the FRC has stated regarding their views.
And please specify which church? I can bet you they aren't as pure as you claim they are. Traditional Values Coalition? They also claim that gay rights activists aim to legalize adult/child sex. Abiding Truth Ministries? The latter claimed gays were responsible for the Nazi party (apparently not aware of the pink triangle) and were responsible for the introduction of the death penalty for homosexuality in Uganda. Chalcedon Foundation? The latter is one of those "Christian Identity" groups, and is on the list for more than one reason. They seek to reimpose white rule and a policy of eugenics, with a death penalty for the "incorrigible children"? Which?
These are the issues, since your opposition rationale is that the inclusion by SPLC is arbitrary.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Avanu eloquently stated what I have been thinking all along. This is one organization stating what they believe. Whether the FBI uses their listing or not isn't really relevant. The FBI uses multiple listings. This even seems to be a misrepresentation of what even the SPLC is saying. There a different 'degrees' of organizations on the list. Just being listed, doesn't make you one of the nebulous 'hate' groups. Anyone with a rational mind will not think FRC and the KKK are on the same scale. Leave this for the body where it can rationally be discussed.Marauder40 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:LABEL. The same reason why we don't call al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. But you could say that they are referred to as a hate group by <insert organization name here>.--JOJ Hutton 17:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That's the idea. See the proposed sentences below. None of us are proposing that it be done in Wikipedia's voice. But that SPLC be explicitly mentioned as the organization that designated the label, which has proven notable again and again, most recently in light of the shooting.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't say is an American conservative Christian hate group and lobbying organization. That would be labeling.--JOJ Hutton 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No. The [current version of the] single sentence to be added is the following: "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?] conservatives [/conservative leaders]." -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
By listing it as a resource, the FBI is saying it's reliable. Absolute neutrality is impossible; even the FBI isn't "neutral" towards the KKK, is it? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the FBI is only saying that it is a resource. Roger (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It goes totally without saying that the SPLC's position on the subject is going to be biased. I feel that putting anything about this being a hate group in the lead would be fantastically divisive and undermines the credibility of the project. People and organizations say nasty things about each other constantly, we don't need to lend undue weight to them. I also agree with Obsidian Soul Jojhutton... there's is a reason we don't call al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. Referring to soemthing as a hate group resides on the same slippery slope. Trusilver 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that, heh. You mean User:Jojhutton. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
heh, thank you :) noted. Trusilver 20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you please explain how it's biased if the SPLC is used as a resource in hate crimes studies by the FBI?
People use biased resources all the time. I use Wikipedia, even tho it has biases. That FBI site also cites ADL, also a biased group. Surely you agree that the ADL is biased. Roger (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
So? Bias does not always preclude reliability does it? All these arguments stemming from "SPLC being liberal" fails to ask the real question: how does SPLC's rationale for the classification fit with the actions of FRC? The answer to that is perfectly. Point out one thing mentioned in the SPLC designation that FRC didn't actually do, and you'd have a case of bias getting in the way. Otherwise, the argument has no value whatsoever. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, as long as it's clearly attributed to the SPLC along with the classification (i.e., "anti-gay", not supremacist or racist, etc). The reader can draw their own conclusions as to what that means, including whether or not they perceive the SPLC to be biased. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section make it clear what should be included in the article lead. It states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The body of the article has four sections that have narrative text -- the second largest of these is the controversy section. If the material deserves the attention it is given in the body of the article, then the MOS requires that it be included also in the article lead. A single sentence in the lead (as proposed) is a very minimum effort at meeting this requirement. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support SPLC designations are highly reliable and well cited by secondary sources. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of the SPLC's classification of the FRC as a "hate group" in the lead, per zad68's reasoning above, in a form something like Since 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group. The classification is notable in and of itself, reinforced by the public attention given to whether the classification contributed to the shooting. I'm troubled by the proposed appending of the weasel clause an action that drew criticism from conservatives, but see that there's a separate discussion on the exact wording. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The SPLC's information is used by the FBI, which speaks to the notable importance of what the organization publishes and researches. Also, the designations of "hate group" or "anti-gay hate group" have particularly specific criteria in designating those classifications. The lists are neutral and are comprised of groups labeled "hate groups" due to their own behavior against groups of people, laid out plainly and concisely. FRC says that gays are deviants and pedophiles, strongly promotes "pray-away-the-gay" therapy, calls for the criminalization of gay people, and says that homosexuality is destructive to society. Everything listed is supported by reliable secondary sources and statements from FRC itself up until even just recently. I think the "anti-gay hate group" label is more than worthy to be placed in the lead. However, noting that conservatives criticize the label is also supported by me. – ツ Teammm (talk · email) 03:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Point of order: According to WP:RFC and WP:CLOSE, when the time comes, we should have a neutral admin formally close this RFC, as there appear to be a number of !votes that fail to ground themselves in Wikipedia policy and must therefore be ignored in any sort of count. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As per WK:LEAD; "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Misha Atreides 05:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the best support rationale I've seen yet. I would change my !vote to support if then addition were to focus on the controversy of the labeling instead of the label itself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Then you shouldn't have any reservation, being that the addition is only one sentence and will contain both parts. ツ Teammm (talk · email) 16:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It remains to be seen how this will be accomplished. The controvesy IMO is that that labeling paints FRC in the same light as "traditional" hate groups ala KKK. If this can be addressed, I'll have no problem switching to support. If the consensus goes through without it, I'll be bold and add it myself which might lead to another RfC. But I'd very much like to avoid that because for some readers the damage will have been done and it is often irrepairable (which is what I think the POV pushers want) And interestingly enough here is a brand spanking new RS which corrobrates this sentiment[1]. I'm sure there are others out there.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The more you characterize others as "POV pushers", the more you violate WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Look at Ku Klux Klan; that's how we should mention hate group status. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Were your ears burning? We always should try to assume good faith, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Since you ask, I was yawning, and not from sleepiness. Nothing is more boring than a POV pusher calling everyone else a POV pusher. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You have no idea what my views are. You blithely assume that because I oppose your blatant POV pushing I'm "on the other side". I'm not here to push an agenda, I'm here to build an encyclopedia.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That's interesting. Why were you here the last time you edited Wikipedia, when you had another account? What was the account named? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Stay on topic you two and quit the sniping, it adds nothing to the main discussion. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Red herring & adhomniem with a slice of troll. Well done.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) (sorry Jen, you are correct however)
  • Support It's a reliable source; it also has significant due weight, evidenced by the sheer number of secondary sources as shown by Obsidian soul. User:IRWolfie- 22:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless a few more organisations (and anything synonymous with that) classify it as such. Otherwise it is undue weight that may direct the reader to an opinion of the FRC that is held by only one organisation. Basically, wait and see if others classify it as a hate group. Acoma Magic (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You realise Obsidian has listed about 40 at the top of this section that refer to it as a hate-group? That's far above and beyond what is considered reasonable. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
News sources don't count. The language I'm after is something like: "The SPLC, ...., ..... and ..... classify the FRC as a hate group." An opinion article by the LA Times doesn't fit in. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
How many organizations are in the business of monitoring and identifying hate groups? Off the top of my head, the only other one I can think of is the ADL, and it has somewhat different, though overlapping, criteria. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Whether one likes the fact FRC has been so listed or not (and certainly FRC have so far made no attempt to refute any of SPLC's specific findings which led to that listing), clearly the organization has been widely noted for that listing, and so it is a legitimate part of any NPOV summary of that organization. Alfietucker (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support strongly including in the lede (and body, of course). It is a very significant fact. SPLC is not a political organization. It is a well-known, non-profit civil rights group whose data is widely used by law enforcement, educational institutions and the media. Here is the list of all the anti-LBGT organizations that are labeled as hate groups by the SPLC. 15 of them have full WP articles. 8 of the 15 have it in the lede. But all of them should have it in the lede. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pending close: Oppose = 16, Support = 25. Consensus leans to support. Will close as "Consensus: Support" but someone else will have to make any changes itself, I'm just closign the RFC ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I know 25 versus 16 is not consensus. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not about couting votes. The univolved admin looked at the strength (or lack thereof) of each argument in determining his/her closure. Whatever my opinion on this issue, I endorse this closure as correct.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The admin only pointed out the votes and said it meant consensus. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
@Acoma Magic: It's as Little green rosetta said - there's no point in wasting time by arguing the toss. Alfietucker (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
If the closer is just counting noses, then the closure is improper, as 25-16 is in the "no consensus" for inclusion or exclusion range. If he's weighing arguments, that would be different, but he didn't say he was weighing arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I shouldn't need to point out that I'm weighing the arguments (as I was), but that being said, I closed both on the strength of the supports and their number. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Support It is important enough for the lead. However, it should be clear who is calling it a hate group (i.e. not the government). I also think a sentence from the FRC perspective should be included. Casprings (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: The government isn't allowed to designate hate groups. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21336574/dana-milbank-hateful-speech-hate-groups
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Research_Council/Archive_6&oldid=1171579333"