Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Non-primary sources that "some conservatives" object to the bundling with violent groups?

It would be nice to source this to non-primary sources. I'm sure someone's seen a good article, any leads? Insomesia (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Only place I've ever seen this is among certain editors on this article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To remind you...

My edit comment was: "(1) Claiming the FRC is NOT extremist is unsupported. 2) Mentioning the KKK appears to be synth.)"

This is still true. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I'll say once again, my favorite version of the last two sentences of the lead was just the way StillStanding left them. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not my favorite, but it's certainly an improvement over what's there at this very moment. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm mistaken. It was changed to remove the KKK thing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversy in lead tag

Insomesia has added a "why" tag to question the controversy, which has been removed twice. I'm not adverse to adding the reasoning, but IIRC the last time his was done it promptly got reverted.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Politics, policies and positions

Do we have enough on any of their other positions to write subsections for them? Or I suppose we should ask first, how are their priorities and efforts distributed? and write subsections on major positions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua - I understand your reasons for doing so, but unfortunately by shifting Statements on homosexuality to its new position as a subsection of Politics, policies and positions you've divorced it from the section on the SPLC listing, the opening sentence of which referred back to that (originally immediately preceding) section. I'll try to fix this accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Any thoughts on other positions held by the FRC? KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Protected for 24h

Discuss here please. Just a thought - would the Homophobia category be preferable to the discrimination template? Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not when the category page says This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was just a thought. Seems a bit of an odd statement though - after all, I'm sure no-one would debate Westboro Baptist Church being in that category. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a link there to a consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories. StAnselm (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I vaguely remember that; still seems a bit odd that one couldn't include organisations whose primary raison d'etre is homophobia, racism etc. Oh well, I can see the point, I suppose. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

POV templates

User:MrX has added Template:LGBT and Template:discrimination to the article. These seem POV, in that they say something in Wikipedia's voice what has hitherto only been in the SPLC's voice. They also go against standard template usage in that they don't link to this article. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Which is why I've protected for a day (and you were on 3RR, so probably best). There was no discussion whilst that was happening. Consensus please. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, I didn't realise it at the time, but that was my fourth revert - I had forgotten that I made a revert here yesterday. I have posted a note on MrX's talk page, and hopefully there won't be edit warring on any more articles. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. Do you want me to revert that, in case someone decides to report it to AN3? Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I recommend that we continue the discussion where it originally started: Talk:American Family Association#Navboxes

The templates involve several related articles, so we should try to reach consensus on a broader level. – MrX 20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding controversy in Lead

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.

---

Should the lead of this article make mention of controversy or objections to the designation of the FRC as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center? And if so, to what extent? In front of your !vote, please summarize your comment as either of the following: No mention (simple reporting of the fact that designation was conferred, as done in most, if not all, of the articles of groups designated as hate groups by the SPLC), Minor mention (report of designation and simple mention that it "caused controversy"), Major mention (report of designation and detailed mention of objections/controversy in the lead). --Scientiom (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Also medium mention (report of designation, who opposes and shooting). Acoma Magic (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are the no mention, minor mention, medium mention and major mention, in order.

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group.

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has caused controversy.

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.

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 of the decision 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.

• This RfC is defective, in that it attempts to artificially constrain all possible options to those agreeable to the RfC's author. Belchfire-TALK 17:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was definitely premature. Discussions above are ongoing. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• No mention - as done in most, if not all, of the articles of groups designated as hate groups by either the SPLC or other civil rights organizations. It goes without saying that a group would objection to such a designation, and why single this article out to mention objections to the designation. As this article's lead is also fairly small, it would be in accordance with WP:Lead and WP:Weight to make a simple mention of designation with additional details mentioned in the body as appropriate. --Scientiom (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning in your last sentence contradicts your vote at Talk:Illinois Family Institute. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Medium mention - This summarises the main body without going into excessive detail. The other options are okay, except for "No mention", as it isn't a summary of the main body and violates WP:Lead. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would support 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.--В и к и T 15:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So that's medium without the shooting being mentioned. The problem is that when we go into the 'medium' detail, the shooting is a detail that needs to follow per WP:Lead. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Minor mention - supported by further detail in the body of the article. – MrX 15:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Minor mention or No mention. WP:LEAD states that the lede should give a concise introduction. The lede should remain simple. The article is itself a medium sized article, hence the led eshould be of a medium size too. Even the minor mention proposal goes into unneeded detail which could be expanded upon in the body instead. I think the "medium mention" proposal is unneeded, but the "major mention" proposal is absurd. You might as well propose adding the entire relevant subsection to the lede. Pass a Method talk 15:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're quite selective in your votes. At Talk:Illinois Family Institute the article and lead are a lot smaller than this article, yet you want to include detailed reasons in the lead. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Its a matter of WP:Weight Such designations are not only made by SPLC. But SPLC is the most notable organization. Even many moderate newspapers mention such descriptions in their articles. This issue came to light again in this week when the GOP published its platform, which included remaining silent about violence against LGBT people in foreign countries. Its a matter of coverage and Due Weight. Pass a Method talk 16:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you worded your RFC in a deceptively POV way. Whats the point of the 4th "major" proposal? Its obvious that your "major mention" proposal was added to give more options to your version. Pass a Method talk 16:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning is still the opposite to the RfC you used regarding the IFI. I didn't start this RfC or add the major proposal; I added the medium proposal. Also, I came up with the 'major' proposal higher up when some users wanted the extra detail because my 'medium' proposal didn't go far enough. I also said that extra information was best left in the main body. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• 'Minor mention or more based on the RfC of August 14. Consensus and situations can change, repeating (in part) an RfC after nine days is procedurally flawed. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Minor mention. It's the perfect wording that keeps WP:UNDUE monster at bay. Acknowledging the extreme controversy surrounding the designation in the lead is an acceptable compromise. I still feel that the hate group designation is inappropriate for the lead to being with because of the same slippery slope by which we don't call the Taliban a "terrorist organization'. I'm already preparing for the laugh fest that will ensue when we discuss whether or not it's appropriate to put "anti-gay hate group" in the lead of the Chick-fil-A article. (I'm joking.... kind of) Trusilver 16:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Minor mention. The lede should say that, since 2010, the FRC has been designated as an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC. That's all; there's plenty of room in the body for the he-said, she-said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Didn't we already resolve this? Repeatedly? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine and any further changes can continue to be discussed further up. Maybe you should close it, as I can't since I'm involved. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think the current wording, perfected by the ever-gracious and persistent StillStanding, is quite good. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you want to close it then? We're just wasting our time at the moment as the current wording is different to all of the proposals and I don't even want the 'medium' mention instead of what we currently have. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Geez, I don't know the damned lead is changing every hour or so. I happened to like it precisely as StillStanding had left it a couple of changes after my edit. Might as well let everyone have their say, though. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mention the dispute Else readers will take the use of Wikipedia's voice to indicate that the group is factually a "hate group" when such is clearly an opinion which ought to be clearly cited as an opinion of the SPLC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• No mention Starting an RfC without showing reliable independent sources that show the "controversy" has any weight is entirely worthless.The CNN "belief blog" has dubious weight for claims there are a controversy. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to show sources here. Look at the article. It has a controversy section and WP:Lead requires us to give a summary of it. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Minor mention. Suitable weight in lead, following the LEAD guideline for summary of article content. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Minor mention. No need to mention anything beyond the fact that a controversy exists -- save the details for the body of the article.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Mention, I suggest - a designation that was opposed by some conservatives because they felt the SPLC was grouping the FRC with violent organizations. Insomesia (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't exclusively opposed by conservatives and the SPLC is grouping the FRC with the KKK because they are both on their hate list. It is not an opinion or debatable. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I think 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 because they felt the SPLC was grouping the FRC with violent organizations. is acceptable. But you can edit war to get your way if you choose. Insomesia (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

They are grouping them with violent organisations. That isn't debatable either. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to be simply wikilawyering every phrase here. If we report the designation was opposed it does make sense to state why it was opposed and back it up with non-primary reliable sources. So let's see what they state and let the sources lead the content. Insomesia (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And that is the 500lb gorilla in this and SPLC related articles. The SPLC has for whatever reason, expanded their definiton of what constitutes a hate group. The POV pushers wish to have readers see hate group to tar these anti gay groups with a false equivilancy of that of the KKK or Westero Baptist Church.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just addressing the mistake of referring to a fact as an opinion (as was done earlier concerning the designation being controversial). The current wording is just a summary of the main body. There's nothing wrong with it - at least as far as sourcing is concerned. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Accurate medium mention. That is, the current lead, rather than the proposed "medium mention" here. (And, StillStanding, this was not resolved before. There was probably a consensus that the "hate group" listing should be in the lead, but no consensus as to whether there should be commentary on that listing in the lead. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation opposed by those who objected to the SPLC grouping the FRC with violent and extremist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Just a thought but don't you suppose many people in the LGBTQ communities feel FRC is spiritually violent and extremist? Insomesia (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Medium - my preferred option of the sentences listed at the top of this thread, though I can live with the "no mention" and "minor mention" options. The "major" option is, I think, unacceptable as it grandstands the objection by conservative critics and ignores the factual basis (primarily propagating slander against the LGBT community) on which SPLC made the listing in the first place, so potentially misleading readers into thinking the listing simply made a false equivalency with KKK and other such organizations. Alfietucker (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. Insomesia (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that the "mostly from conservatives" part of "medium mention" is gratuitous as seeks to taint the opposition, just as "supported mostly by liberals" would. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

• I agree too, but the "mostly from conservatives" is also grandstanding and should be removed. It is partisan code for "ignore this part". It is also weasly. We are supposed to mention cotroversies. To mention who finds something controversial and not WHY they find it controversial is undue.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we should be swayed by the argument that "mostly from conservatives" is some kind of "partisan code", any more than we should be if it were "mostly by liberals". If it has been reported by reputable sources that the support for FRC/protest against the listing has been mostly from conservative groups and individuals, so be it. Alfietucker (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, isn't that the point of avoiding WP:WEASEL? Should we change that to "mostly conservatives" and "some liberals" and "a few columnists"? It's a crying shame that some editors want to try and score political points by vandalizing our encyclopedia in this manner. I'm not including you in this list of editors Alfie. You have demonstrated that you are here to work collaboratively and for the good of the encyclopedia.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

LGR - Thank you for your kind recognition of my intentions. I must admit, though, I don't see how WP:WEASEL applies - the policy seems to be addressing phraseology which gives a spurious 'authority' by vague insinuations, or which subtly imply something contrary to the surface meaning of a statement. It seems to me that if reputable sources (I'm not saying in this case there are) confirm that most of the voices objecting to the SPLC designation are mostly conservative, then that isn't weasly according to WP, and we shouldn't dismiss it merely on the suspicion (for it seems to me no more than that) that it's some kind of partisan code. Or have I misunderstood your point? Alfietucker (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• No One politically motivated group calling another politically motivated groups a "name" isn't very notable, expected, but not notable. The two groups share opposite viewpoints and its typical for one group to attempt to "classify" the other as being "hateful" or "out-of-touch", in an attept to gain a political foothold on the national debate.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not that simple: the SPLC has clearly stated in its report why it has given this designation to FRC, and it's notable that FRC has failed to either reply or deny those specific points. Alfietucker (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, It's never that simple. And I'm afraid it is that simple. They oppose each other on vital issues and the SPCL uses its pulpit to try and discredit the FRC. Am I missing something else here? And why is it notable for this articles lead to add what one group says, that opposes the FRC?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it really is that simple. The SPLC has certain criteria, which the FRC met. The FRC complained bitterly, but never denied meeting these criteria. Those are the facts we have to deal with. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To Alfietucker and StillStanding: Actually, for the record, the FRC has replied to and denied the SPLC's specific charges. See [1]. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't know that FRC had offered what has been framed as a reply. Of course, having compared this with the original charges made by SPLC, it's not possible to put what I can plainly see into the article without violating WP:OR; but anyone who does this can see that FRC have in fact dodged several of the charges, either by raising a straw man (claiming that SPLC accused them of saying "that most homosexuals are child molesters"), or by focusing on incidental details and treating these as if they are germane to SPLC's evidence (e.g. "the question of whether we should "outlaw gay behavior" in U.S. civil law was raised not by an FRC spokesman, but by MSNBC's Chris Matthews"). So for FRC to claim they have refuted SPLC's charges is at best only partly true. No matter - I guess we shall have to see what reliable secondary sources have to say before any of this can go into the article. Alfietucker (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a reply but not a refutation, per Alfie's explanation. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think what JojHutton means is basically "So what if a group that doesn't like the FRC calls it a hate group?" Why should that opinion be in the lead? However, we're drifting off course here. We, although not me personally, have already decided that the SPLC's opinion about the FRC should be in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(EC) What one political organization calls another political organization is hardly notable, unless one is POV pushing, which is clearly what this is. Wikipedia isn't a playground for activism and should be as neutral as possible. Its core content policy and shouldn't be ignored simply because a RFC says it should.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Jo - 1) it's not a matter of name-calling by one political organization to another; 2) the fact is, even leaving aside the reasons for SPLC's listing, FRC's being put on that list has become an issue and therefore is noteworthy. Please take some time to look over the talk page before wading in. Alfietucker (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

JOJ's summary is inaccurate. The SPLC is a non-partisan civil rights organization, not a political one. It's characterized as liberal by conservatives, but that's only relatively true; they're liberal as compared to the far right that they report on. FRC is joined at the hip the GOP, yet it's technically non-partisan. So, no, calling it rival political organizations isn't just original research, it's bad original research. That sort of thing has no place in this article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be incorrect to call them opposing political organizations, but it would incorrect not to call them opposing organizations. (And the SPLC is characterized as liberal by all.)

StillStanding's statement is, to quote him, "bad original research". To report that "FRC is jointed at the hip (to) the GOP", is absurd, but only slightly more absurd than the statement (which, so far, no one has made) that the SPLC is joined at the hip to the Democrats. However, there's no one who would deny that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC is not about Democrats or Republicans, or Libertarians or Greens, it is about stopping hate speech and especially hate crimes. I deny the implied connection. The SPLC is political only in the sense that it is trying to change the social conditions in the USA—there is no backing of this candidate over that one. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that their actions caused a hate crime. Arzel (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A curious assumption, Arzel - or do you have an authoritative source for this assertion? Alfietucker (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we are getting off track here per WP:NOTAFORUM.

FRC is not about Republicans. If you say it is, and want to be believed, you would need evidence.

That SPLC's actions caused a hate crime is (or would be) irrelevant. That their actions constitute a hate crime would not be irrelevant in the SPLC article, and that has been asserted by notable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Remember their full-page ad in protest of the hate group designation? The politicians who signed it were exclusively Republican. So please don't tell me that FRC is "not about Republicans". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As you do not appear to be a "reliable source" perhaps you will give us the solidly sourced cite for the claim you made? Absent such, what you think you "know" just might not be so -- like your insistance that an IRC channel existed for cabal use, etc. Read WP:AGF as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. It was SkepticAnonymous who made the claim, which has since been refuted. My involvement is that, after I ignored it for a week, it was raised by others, so I tried to end it by asking outright whether any such IRC channel existed. Lionelt could have simply said no. He chose to remain silent, which was uncooperative.

Anyhow, it's really unproductive for you to dredge up irrelevant and false charges such as this. I inist that stick to the topic if you're going to participate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

IOW you have absolutely nothing more than what you "know" to be the "[[WP:TRUTH}truth]]" and have absolutely no real references for your claims about only Republicans backing the FRC - right? As for the fact that you accused editors of being a cabal on the basis of a false claim by another person - that is part of what is relevant here -- that you have made such erroneous claims in the past. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, all of the signing politicians were Republican, while the other signers were all associated with the Christian right, which forms the core of the GOP. If there were any Democrats, I'm sure you'd be able to name them, but you can't. In any case, we would need a reliable source to notice what I did and point it out, else it can't go in the article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Um -- Repeating a claim is not the same as providing any reliable source for your claim. On Wikipedia or anywhere else. And it not up to me to disprove your claim -- that is a grossly illogical requirement. Consider if an editor claimed "Everyone who ate at the Washington Arms restaurant on August 23rd was a vegetarian" -- and has no source for the claim. Do you really expect me to have to prove that a person who was not a vegetarian ate there? That is not how WP:RS works. Really. And claims with BLP implications require sourcing even in talk pages so the claim that only the article counts is contrary to WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Medium mention The SPLC is a reliable source on hate groups, and the recent shooting is relevant in the lead. Miniapolis (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Medium mention Per Miniapolis Darkness Shines (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Mention - The SPLC is a very notable source for the classification of certain political groups. Failure to mention the SPLC's classification of the Family Research Council as a Hate Group would be notable by it's absence. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:15, 8 September 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.

Poor writing in lead

Whatever one's opinion of the group I think we have to write a good article! In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has caused controversy. Is poor writing. It doesn't explain WHY they were labelled a hate group, a very surprising development for a Christian group. It also doesn't explain who or why this caused controversy. These are epic failures that we need to address. Should we seek outside support so the usual edit-warring doesn't flip into gear? Insomesia (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I addressed the reason for the lack of explanation 3 sections up. I don't know if this qualifies as an epic failure, but I would be open to suggestions for any improvements.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm open as well. If consensus is to include the designation then the explanation, or some sort, needs to be with it. We shouldn't tease the readers, especially with information buried later in the article. Likewise with "controversy" ...

Wikipedia's neutral point of view (POV) policy requires that all viewpoints of any topic be represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia. When incorporating negative criticism, the POV policy requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner. Additionally, the undue weight policy requires that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative criticism.

so there must be a way of neutrally stating why the designation was made, and who found it to be controversial. Insomesia (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And the "why" of the controversy.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion:

"The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group because it spreads damaging propaganda about LGBT people."

Or, in their own words:

"The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group 'based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling'."

– MrX 02:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the shorter one is acceptable, any ideas about how to add the who and why of the controversy? Insomesia (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the challenge. The controversy is the designation itself, of whom the objectors are of course the desginee, some conservatives, some pundits, some academics, etc. The why it is controversial depends upon the objector. Spectrum politics and/or comparison to violent hate groups.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the designee is that important to cover in the lead, that seems obvious. How can we succinctly cover the rest? Pundits seems ambiguous, although academics seems notable. Perhaps we look to why these groups objected and see if a general 'why' emerges. Insomesia (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The body deals with this in more detail. Check out the applicable sources. There is also a related discussion starting at SPLC if you want to use what you determine here over there ( and perhaps other SPLC related articles ).  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've said this a few times on a few different pages - I'm unhappy with the phrase "propagation of known falsehoods", since it comes from the SPLC's generic reason for listing anti-gay hate groups.[2] I realise that it applies to the FRC more than, say, American Vision, but it's still not good editing to make that shift. StAnselm (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, this is very closely connected to the (open) RfC above. StAnselm (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote itself is from the lede of the SPLC's list, but it's a perfectly adequate summary of the FRC's section in the list, which goes into their lies about gays being pedophiles and sex offenders, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• WRT listing rationale in the lede, it should be there because it's not just summarizing SPLC's views on FRC, it's also summarizing FRC's activities and comments. FRC's main business is promoting dangerous nonsense about gays and child molestation, and this is reflected in the article, so a balanced lede would have us explaining their special hatred for LGBT people, rather than putting it in a long list of things that all conservative groups hate. That would easily allow us to segue into "Their spreading of anti-gay propaganda led in 2010..." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Geez, Roscelese, are you sure that you are prepared to edit from a neutral point of view on this one? The article already allows the SPLC to give its opinion of the FRC in three separate sections. This would make it four. Why not five? Are we supposed to be writing an article on the Family Research Council or an article on why the Southern Poverty Law Center has condemned the Family Research Council? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean opposition to the SPLC. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Your point eludes me. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can sure be subtle. The hint is to look at the context. Just above, you claim that Roscelese isn't neutral enough, but all you show is that she's not against the SPLC. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NOPE. I show nothing of the kind. What I attempt to show is a proclivity toward giving the SPLC's criticism of the FRC too much weight in the article. That's hardly the same as expecting "opposition to the SPLC." Badmintonhist (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

While the FRC is certainly no friend of the gays, I think Roscelese's characterization that the FRC's "main business" is to demonize the gays is a little undue. Indeed the FRC has a societal bone to pick and have offended many in far greater numbers by their staunch opposition to abortion, just as an example. Need I remind everyone that proper weight is required.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what our sources say. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just an outside opinion... Yes, the sentence in question is horribly written. However, this is not the first time, and I seriously doubt it will be the last time that crap writing has been agreed upon by consensus via RfC. It might not be a bad idea to start soliciting uninvolved opinions on this. Trusilver 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights

I'm going to point out that, despite this bit of edit-warring any SPLC-designated anti-gay hate group automatically fits. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles should be categorized to the most specific category to which they belong. I would suggest looking at WP:CAT, but if history is any indication that won't help this converstation.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, most specific, and this isn't it. See Family Research Council#Statements_on_homosexuality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We probably could do with just one of these categories, not three. Mangoe (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the one LGR just removed would have been fine, thanks. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding has a point - FRC's opposition doesn't end at same-sex marriage, so we can either do the sensible thing in adding a broad category, or we can add a lot of little categories which will be extremely redundant because they will all contain the same pages! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Or we can follow WP:CAT. FRCs positions on gays are limited to same sex marriage, at least according to the sources in the article. Though the hardball interview suggest otherwise, we don't know if that is an official FRC position. So in other words, what the sources state as the positions of the FRC is how we must cat them. If we can find more sources to expand the range, then so be it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to be technical, it also opposes civil unions and domestic partnerships, but more to the point, it's very easy to source their opposition to various other forms of LGBT rights, eg. protection from bullying in schools, service in the military, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Then lets find them.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Other than their own website, which has a multitude of lovely pieces about rights they oppose, here are a few other sources chosen at random: [3] [4] [5] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you don't take random sources. The first source doesn't make this case, the 2nd source implies abortion was th rationale for blocking repeal and I couldn't even find mention of the FRC in the third. You may be right about the FRC. But that is no excuse to be sloppy.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL...you're not trying very hard. The first source specifically singles out FRC as a group that opposes education about gay people, the second source mentions abortion in passing in an article about DADT repeal and specifically refers to FRC as a gay rights opposition group, and the third...does talk about FRC, I'm not sure how much clearer it could be. Please act in good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's examine that 1st article again. The FRC is concerned about "gay activists" who are "exploiting bullying" to get a "foothold" in public schools. The underlying assumption (not stated) is that the FRC is concerned about a "pro-gay agenda" being taught under the guise of preventing bullying. Ignoring their bunk social science claims, just because they don't want a "ok to be gay" policy doesn't mean they are advoccating a "burn in hell sinners" policy instead, nor do they approve of bullying. As for the 2nd and thrid artciles, I'll get to those later when I have a big monitor to read the print type.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

They're opposing policies that protect gay kids from being bullied; it's not your job to analyze whether their reasons are godly or not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's efforts and patience as I continue to add relevant categories to these articles. I am in the process of creating subcategories: Organizations that oppose LGBT -adoption, -hospital visitation, -same sex marriage, -survivor rights, -(US) Federal tax benefits, -military service, etc.. Once this is done, it will not be necessary to use the parent (container) category: Organizations that oppose LGBT rights. Unless, of course, these categories are deleted as per St.Anselm's nomination(s). I'm finding it very difficult to build a meaningful category structure with a couple of editors following closely behind me undoing almost everything I build. Thanks again – MrX 03:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I really suggest you wait to see what happens at the CfD. If the cat gets deleted this might cause a lot of unnecessary work for many people.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And I really suggest we leave it alone until its fate is decided. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the input, but it would be pretty easy to remove the categories with AWB if necessary. My concern is that if there are not tangible examples of the categories in use, those less familiar with these subjects may have difficulty understanding their value, which could adversely affect the CfD. Perhaps I could just create the subcategories and leave them empty? – MrX 03:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaving them empty would be better, and you could state so at the CfD. I'm more concerned about the EW that will occur if the cats were populated. Why put anyone through the trouble if there is a reasonable chance that they would just be deleted? The only people that would be benefit would be the drama seekers.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, you and StillStanding have convinced me. I will hold off until the current CfD is resolved. – MrX 04:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would hold off on creating new categories, especially if you intend to leave them empty, but would strongly dissuade editors from depopulating existing categories under discussion; as MrX says, it impedes discussion of the categories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Even without AWB (which I've never been particularly impressed with), there's a bot, Cydebot, that can delete, substitute, and upmerge categories after a CfD discussion, so potential future wasted effort shouldn't be a major issue. Based on the discussion at CfD and ES comments by Roscelese, I'm planning to ignore potential redundancy vios until the issue is resolved there. Holding off on adding a slew of new categories while the discussions are underway doesn't seem to be giving up much, though. If agreement can be reached to keep one (IMO preferably renamed) category and upmerge all the subcats, we can avoid endless disputes over which particular anti-LGBT positions each organization takes so perhaps we can get a viable compromise. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

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

Of rights and causes

There seems to be a desire to change 'LGBT rights' to 'LGBT causes' in this otherwise stable article. Since there is currently no consensus for such a change, I thought the we could discuss it here. I would submit that cause is not a more neutral word for right, and that this edit advances a point of view that such rights do not naturally exist (right to marry; right to adopt, and so on). - MrX 02:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "stable article". Saying that is just code for "I liked it better before somebody changed it". Belchfire-TALK 02:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I don't think "right" is inherently more neutral than "cause"', though my reversion wasn't due to the content but due to the ridculous rationale in the edit summary by Binksternet. We don't put the cart before the horse.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert, but I was about to revert Badmintonhist's edit when I saw that we already arrived at BRR. It's my impression that our (independent) sources usually refer to opposition to LGBT (or gay) rights, not causes. To put it another way: a search for the cure to cancer is a cause; a struggle to be treated equally under the the law is a pursuit of rights. - MrX 02:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

ETA: I agree that right is not inherently more neutral than cause, but I do think that right is the most neutral way to express the intended meaning of the content in discussion. - MrX 02:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(e.c.) I was also looking at reverting the change from rights to causes, but was gathering some evidence to support the reversion. The FRC submitted an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas in which they argued that (all of the following are direct quotations):

• the sexual intimacies of married couples are constitutionally protected; non- and extra-marital sexual acts are not
• States may discourage the "evils" ... of sexual acts outside of marriage by means up to and including criminal prohibition.
• Texas may constitutionally choose to protect marital intimacy by prohibiting same-sex "deviate"[3] acts, while tolerating similar behavior by unmarried opposite-sex persons.
• The argument does not mean that a State is forbidden to prohibit all non- and extra-marital sexual acts. The argument does not mean that a State is forbidden to tolerate all non- and extra-marital sexual acts. The argument is consistent with both very restrictive and very permissive legal treatments of sex outside of marriage - and of regimes, including that of Texas, which fall somewhere in between.

In other words, the FRC argued to the US Supreme Court that treating all consensual sexual acts between same-sex adult partners as illegal and subject to criminal sanctions is permissible and constitutionally protected. They argued that any other position would be "from a social and cultural point of view, bitterly divisive." The Supreme Court concluded this position was a denial of the right of privacy and a violation of the Fourteenth Ammendment. The FRC is most emphatically in this circumstance arguing against the rights of LGBT persons to sexual intimacy with their consenting partner in the privacy of their own homes. This is not merely an LGBT issue, they sought to advance a position of discrimination to criminalise the private consensual sexual behaviours of millions of Americans (which they describe as "evil" and "deviate") on the basis of sexual orientation, a denial of a basic human right.

PS: I wonder why this amicus brief does not show up in the FRC article, it is a public document outlining the position of the organisation. The document has eight pages under the heading "SEXUAL INTIMACIES WITHIN MARRIAGE ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED; NON- AND EXTRA-MARITAL SEXUAL ACTS ARE NOT AND MAY BE DISCOURAGED" The organisations prejudice against LGBT persons and their rights is made absolutely clear in this Supreme Court submission. EdChem (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well stated. - MrX 03:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur with MrX and EdChem here, it is appropriate to say the FRC opposes "rights" rather than "causes" in this context. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with the current phrasing, in light of the amicus brief (which we really shouldnt use as a RS), but I'm not,going to quibble that their is a RS reporting on the brief.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've used the FRC's own summary of the brief plus website statements solely to state the organisation's position on homosexuality. I recognise the primary v. secondary debate but I suggest that the words that the FRC publishes themselves are a more neutral way to present their view than to look for a secondary source that filters their statements into a different document / article. EdChem (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. EdChem's argument here is simply a form of QUESTION BEGGING; i.e. The FRC opposes "basic human rights" because I really, really think they are basic human rights (and in certain instances a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court does too). A poor practice for editors of encyclopedic prose. There is, I think, a simple way around our impasse here. Instead of saying that the FRC opposes and lobbies against either "LGBT rights" or "LGBT causes," we say that the FRC opposes and lobbies against the "establishment of LGBT rights." 06:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmintonhist (talk • contribs)

How about the "codification of LGBT rights". Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like they're only into legal advocacy, when they also propagandize against the social acceptance of LGBT people. Shrigley (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

With "codification" the implicit premise is that Wikipedia already believes these rights already exist and that it's just a matter of getting the legal system to agree. Again, it's begging the question and a not so subtle form of advocacy. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My comments on this talk page are not suggestions for inclusion in the article as encylopaedic prose, which disposes of the unjustified criticism of my editing. As for the argument, as far as the US goes, the Federal and State Supreme Courts are in an excellent position to decide what are rights in the legal sense. On the right to privacy protecting consensual sexual acts between same sex adults, the Court has spoken in Lawrence v. Texas. As a matter of basic logic, the idea that the right of an LGBT couple to consensual sex in private is not a right but merely an issue is logically flawed. Sex is recognised as a basic human need. We could line up international authorities, rights organisations, policies from around the world, treaties, and a mountain of academic work that supports the proposition that LGBT people have human rights just as do the heterosexual community, including a right to consensual sexual intimacy with their partners. Same-sex marriage is not yet definitively settled in a rights sense, though again there are plenty of competent Court rulings that would place that too squarely in the rights category. EdChem (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, EdChem is BEGGING THE QUESTION. Undoubtedly we could line up all sorts of impressive individuals, organizations and writings supporting the right of same-sex pairs to sexual intimacy. We could also line up all sorts of impressive individuals, organizations, and writings denying any right of of same-sex pairs to sexual intimacy. Looking around the world, it certainly has not yet been established as a UNIVERSAL legal right. It seems to me that saying that the FRC, opposes "the establishment of LGBT rights" creates a good basic NPOV model for articles dealing with disputes about "rights" of all kinds.

The phrase "establishment of LGBT rights" (or causes) indeed begs the question that LGBT rights do not currently exist, and are in need of being established. The FRC opposes same sex marriage, which is established in law, as a right, in numerous states and countries. The same is true for adoption. The SCOTUS is authoritative when it comes to the subject of rights as established in U.S. Law.

Your argument seems to have several facets, that I believe are based on fallacious logic:

1. The False premise that LGBT rights do not currently exist, so how could the FRC oppose them (see the above arguments)
2. The Cherry picked argument that "same-sex sexual intimacy." has not been established as a universal LGBT right, so we should not say that the FRC opposes 'LGBT rights'. Also, the idea that the right to same-sex sexual intimacy does not exist until it is "'established" is a false premise. (See EdChem's above comments).
3. A Red herring: "The FRC opposes "basic human rights" because I really, really think they are basic human rights (and in certain instances a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court does too)" Notably, this article says 'LGBT rights' and links to an explanatory article; it does not say "basic human rights".
4. A Slippery slope argument that suggests that if we do not fix the 'LGBT rights' problem in this article, other articles will lack a model from which to adjudicate the rights question.

The current wording is optimal, in absence of a clearer, more accurate alternative. The other proposed wordings suggests that LGBT rights, as a subset of human rights and civil rights, do not exist. This is not demonstrably true and would, in fact, be misleading our readers. - MrX 14:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Meticulously stated, MrX. You certainly take your task here seriously. Rather than countering each point I'll get to what I think is the heart of the matter. Saying that the FRC opposes and lobbies against "the establishment of LGBT rights" is a good model, I think, because "establishment" connotes more than just initial legal approval of said rights; it also connotes the enrooting, securing, and entrenhcment of the same. All are things that LGBT activists work for and opponents work against. It's an ongoing dynamic that readers, in general, are pretty aware of. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Rights seems to be a better choice than causes. TFD (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that "the establishment of LGBT rights" is unreasonable; I just don't think it is the better choice. I would be interested in hearing from other editors though, and I'm open to having my mind changed. - MrX 20:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In liberal theory, governments do not establish rights, they protect existing rights that have been abridged. For example all people have the right to marry and government protects that right. FRC does not believe that right extends to same sex couples, and that any law would be establishing a right that did not exist before. TFD (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The word is used, and the concept is conceived of, in differing ways. As a practical matter, however, governments do establish, and sometimes take away, rights. In Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court promulgated a right to own and transport slaves. This right, or "right" if you prefer, was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede: FRC shooting motivated by the SPLC's classification of the FRC as an anti-gay hate group?

Arzel (talk · contribs) wishes to change the last sentence of the lede from

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which generated controversy.

to

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which generated controversy and motivated a shooting at the FRC headquarters. (emphasis added)

I objected to this Bold edit by Reverting the edit, which was then Reverted by Arzel, so now in the spirit of WP:BRRD, here is the Discussion.

My objections are:

• We can not say (in Wikipedia's voice) that the SPLC's classification of the FRC as a hate group motivated a shooting. To do so twists the story in a very POV way to suggest that the shooting was motivated by the SPLC, when arguably it was motivated by the FRC's anti-gay rhetoric and political activism.
• Placing this in the lede gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to a controversial point of view and essentially uses this article as a WP:COATRACK for rebutting the SPLC's positions.
• I am not aware of a reliable secondary or tertiary source that states unequivocally that the SPLC's hate list motivated the shooting. All I am aware of are opinion pieces in which the possibility was floated.
• Such a bold change to the lede for this article requires consensus. Until such consensus forms, the status quo version of the article should be restored.

- MrX 21:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.X here. Wikipedia should not be saying in its own voice that the SPLC designation "motivated" the shooting at the FRC headquarters. Saying that the SPLC designation "played a role" in the shooting, or saying that the shooting raised (greater) controversy about the SPLC's designation of the FRC as a hate group, might be justifiable. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Mr.X. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what I take to be Badmintonhist's middle-ground position; we can't state unequivocally in Wiki's voice that the listing motivated the shooting. However, as I recall from previous discussions, the shooter said his choice of FRC as the specific target was influenced by the SPLC listing, and that has certainly added to the controversy surrounding the listing. The lead should have some mention of this fact. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think the SPLC was way out of line with their declaration and that the FRC is being mistreated. That said, I have to go with Mr. X on this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• I would be comfortable with a statement in the lead section something like "In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group. When a gunman attacked the FRC headquarters in 2012, controversy arose over whether the SPLC's action might have contributed to the incident or could provoke similar attacks in the future." I agree, though, that we cannot state as a categorical fact that the SPLC's designation prompted the shooting. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see the issue regarding the facts for some kind of statement. The shooter freely admitted that he chose FRC because of the listing and that was what drove much of the recent controversy regarding the listing. That said, I don't have a problem with Fat&Happy's presentation. Arzel (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Mr.X. I disagree with the two propositions directly above, as it would undoubtedly appear as though Wikipedia has taken a position on SPLC's listing of FRC as an anti-gay group any way it could be written. Teammm ^talk
  _email 03:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying that the designation motivated him is OR and incorrect. He used the SPLC website to obtain information on organizations that oppose LGBT rights. He could just as easily have found them through Google, or on Wikipedia by going to the category Organizations that oppose LGBT rights. It is not as if the FRC tries to avoid public attention. TFD (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My reversion of Arzel's edit has been reverted (by an editor with only 30 edits). — goethean 15:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have invited DanSSwing (talk · contribs) to join the discussion. - MrX 15:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Arzel and Fat&Happy. If Wikipedia is going to mention SPLC's designation in the lead on FRC, even though that is not central to the organization, then in fairness, it ought to have some mention of the shooting in the lead as well.DanSSwing (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of conjecture and personal original research as to how the shooter may have come across the information and the connection to SPLC. However, the fact is that the shooter freely admits to using the SPLC listing as the reason why he chose FRC. While he could have used some other reason to target FRC he used the SPLC listing, everything else is supposition and not supported by RS's. We do, however, have RS's that state that the shooter used the SPLC listing as a reason. Additionally, I would counter Mr. X's position that placing this into the lede is undue weight to a controversial point of view when the inclusion of the SPLC attack is just as controversial and undue weight. Arzel (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we are looking at different sources, but this statement by Corkins in response to questioning about how (not why) he chose his target:

During his FBI interview Corkins was asked how he chose his target. His response was "Southern Poverty Law, lists...uh...anti-gay groups. I found them online". (emphasis added)

This tells us how he found out about the FRC, but tells us nothing at all about motivation.

On the other hand, "An affidavit filed in the case stated that Corkins had told the guard “words to the effect of ‘I don’t like your politics.’" " seems to state Corkins' motivation, in his own words.

Am I missing something? - MrX 18:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How about"In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which generated controversy and arguably inspired a terrorist attack against the FRC two years later." DanSSwing (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for anything like that in the lead. — goethean 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The offender merely used the SPLC website as a listing to find anti-LGBT rights groups. If someone decided to target congressmen and found the name of their congressman on the Congress website, we would not say that the website had generated controversy, or that the person targeted the congressman because he was on the website. That is just spin. TFD (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on Four D, you're too intelligent to make such a comment. A Congressional website isn't going to list a member of Congress as a "hater." Merely listing objective information about someone or some organization isn't the same as saying "here's where the haters can be found." If someone shot a doctor who performed abortions after first consulting (or even saying that he consulted) an anti-abortion website that listed info about that doctor, you can bet it would "create controversy." Badmintonhist (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

He said he decided to attack organizations that oppose rights, then used the SPLC website to identity them. He could just as easily have used Wikipedia's Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights which also list the FRC. The fact is that FRC not only opposes LGBT rights but publicizes the fact that it does. Incidentally that is what he said, I do not know if what he said was accurate, although I have no reason to disbelieve him. If you think that the SPLC site inspired him to commit his crimes, then you need a reliable source that says that. I notice that it is seen as a "fact" in right-wing websites, but not in mainstream sources. The Knoxville shooter btw intended to target Democratic congressmen, and Congress lists the affiliatiation of its members. TFD (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I specifically said above that Wikipedia should not say that the SPLC listing "motivated" the shooting. Saying that the shooting added to the controversy about the listing, however, is a very different matter. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think people are getting hung up on the word "motivate" or "inspire", rather on the connection. While it is true that there is some question as to what was in the head of the killer and why, it is not disputed that the SPLC "directed" him to FRC. Would that be a better word; it is clear that the SPLC was in fact used as a directory, if you will, for where to commit his act.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not focused on the word. I'm just saying that if we have to mention the SPLC designation in the lead, then we also have to mention the terrorist attack. DanSSwing (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is disputed that the SPLC "directed" him. It's simply not factually what the sources say. - MrX 17:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't be using "directed" here, either. The reader might then very well be given the impression that the SPLC actively told, or even ordered, the shooter to the FRC's headquarters rather than what it's listing probably did do, which was to passively provide the shooter with the information. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's fair; but we still need a better word to describe the involvement of the SPLC website and controversial classification in the attack. The sources clearly indicate he was directed(and I am not saying just using passive voice fixes it ) to vent his anger by a listing on the SPLC website. Without prejudice towards what the SPLC website MEANT to do, this is always a problem when people (SPLC or FRC) use extreme inflammatory speech to attract attention.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, but your version's just not what people here are agreeing to. MilesMoney (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"number of members"

Salient source [6] lists 10 as " Number of voting members of the governing body" which is not "number of members". It lists 9 as "Number of independent voting members of the governing body" which is also clearly not "total number of members" by any means. Most "governing bodies" are smaller than the total size of any organisation -- if we counted all members of the Congress we would have 535 "total members of the United States" by that same standard <g>. Thus using those figures in the infobox is quite misleading. Collect (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Vaccines

@Ryn78: I'm mystified by your insistence on framing this as "liberals want to INJECT YOUR CHILDREN WITH DISEASES! the FRC is STANDING UP AGAINST THEM!" Do you not know how vaccines work? In what way is your change an improvement?

I'd also recommend that you revert your change of "LGBT rights" to "LGBT issues" falsely summarized as "copyediting."

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

My edit about the vaccine issue says: "The Family Research Council opposes laws which require mandatory vaccination of students with the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine." ... which isn't much different than the original wording, except that it isn't as hopelessly tangled (the original said: "The Family Research Council opposes efforts to make a vaccine for human papilloma virus (HPV), a virus that causes cervical cancer, mandatory for school attendance.") If you're complaining about the word "mandatory" (I assume?), then I would point out that this word was in both versions, so I have no idea what in blazes you're objecting to. Ryn78 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No, "mandatory" is fine ("involuntary" wasn't), the difference is "vaccination with" versus "vaccination for". If you believe the previous version was convoluted, let's use "opposes efforts to make the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine mandatory for school attendance. HPV is a virus that causes cervical cancer." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your suggested version is fine, although I think it's less clear ("mandatory for school attendance" seems a strange way of phrasing it). My version was an attempt to describe more clearly what the HPV vaccine policy does (i.e. it mandates vaccination for all students). Ryn78 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not quite - it's that you need to be vaccinated in order to start being a student. So, would you like to implement the compromise text and revert your other unconstructive edit? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I put in your proposed text. Ryn78 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Great! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Duggar

@MrX: In 2013, Duggar was named Executive Director, and the data breach indicates that during that time he was participating actively in the Ashley Madison site. His own comments, "the last few years, while publicly stating I was fighting against immorality in our country I was hiding my own personal failures" refers directly to this organization, as reported in reliable sources. If you need specific sources making the connection, I will provide them. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Some examples: [7],[8], [9], and this one which says "The hacking of the site has exposed Duggar as a member up until 2015, Gawker first reported, while he was a director of the Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group with the goal of championing "marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society." [10] - Cwobeel (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

So, MrX, if you would prefer a different summary, please propose an alternative. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering the Ashley Madison hack occurred at a time when Duggar was no longer working at FRC, I'm not sure this content is relevant to this article. It's not as if FRC has to decide how to deal with this revelation, Duggar is already an ex-employee. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

yes, the AM breach happened after he resigned. But he was their Executive Director while he was cheating on his wife, while "championing "marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society", as reported by sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As the RS are commenting in abundance, that makes him a sleaze and a hypocrite , but unless there is evidence that FRC knew about it, or unless FRC comments on it, it seems off topic for this article. It seems such details belong in the Josh Duggar bio.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit rushed now, but something along these lines:

On June 18, 2013, it was announced that Josh Duggar of the television show 19 Kids and Counting would serve as the executive director of FRC Action, the non-profit and tax-exempt legislative action arm of Family Research Council.

Duggar resigned on May 21, 2015, when it became public and he admitted that he had fondled five underage girls, including some of his sisters, twelve years earlier. Three months after his resignation Gawker posted images linking a credit card with Duggar's name in the Ashley Madison data breach. Duggar issued a statement saying "I have been the biggest hypocrite ever. While espousing faith and family values, I have secretly over the last several years been viewing pornography on the Internet and this became a secret addiction and I became unfaithful to my wife", and "the last few years, while publicly stating I was fighting against immorality in our country I was hiding my own personal failures."

- MrX 13:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Statements Duggar makes about this belong on his bio. Has FRC commented on it? That would seem more appropriate for this article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I found a statement regarding Duggar on FRC's website http://www.frc.org/ which includes "Our hearts hurt for his family, and all those affected by Josh’s actions. His deceitful behavior harms his family, his friends, his former coworkers, and the cause he has publicly espoused. Those of us who advocate for family values in the public square are held to a higher standard, and Josh’s failures serve as a painful reminder of the destructive effects of not living with integrity." Perhaps we could quote this, but it would seem preferable if we could find secondary sources also quoting it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Found some secondary sources quoting FRC on this [11], [12]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know this is not a forum, but what a crappy thing for Perkins to say. Throw him under the bus because you are worried about donations drying up. Gawd. But, since they released a statement, it seems logical that the new stuff on Duggar should go into the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Tony Perkins Era

Tony Perkins joined the FRC as its president in 2003 and is still the current sitting president. (Old Source) His political experience in serving the Louisiana legislature along with his conservative stances on issues led the Family Research Council to believe that he was the right candidate for the job. As the current president of the organization, Tony Perkins has managed to create a new division of their company called "Church Ministries" which was the first new department that their company had started in almost a decade. During his tenure, the Family Research Council has faced some hardships among issues such as the designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2010, the shooting incident in 2012, and the hiring of Josh Duggar in 2013. Twerpcity (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding a History

I was wondering how everybody felt about adding more of history to their company since all we have for the FRC is information from the last five years. Some of the information was already there but is just put into a category.I also did not put the sources into the reference section correctly because I wanted to collaborate on this first. I was thinking of adding something like this:

Early Years The council was incorporated as a non-profit organization in 1983. James Dobson, Armand Nicholi, Jr., and George Rekers were some of the FRC's founding board members. (Old Source) According to the FRC, James Dobson attended a planned research meeting on families with President Jimmy Carter and concluded that it was a necessity to start an organization that he believed fought for faith, family, and freedom. The Family Research Council's immediate goal was to counter people who they believed fought against life and family with people they considered credible that stood for the same values as them. One of the founding members was Gerald Regier who was later named the first president of the FRC.

Gary Bauer Era In 1988, following financial difficulties, the FRC was incorporated into Focus on the Family, and Gary Bauer joined the organization as president. (Old Source) With new funding during his time as president, Gary Bauer now had enough funds to make a significant impact on social issues going on at the time. During his time at the FRC, the company grew exponentially. They went from a company of 3 people with 1 million in revenue to an organization of 120 people with over 14 million in revenue. The FRC remained under the Focus on the Family umbrella until 1992 (Old Source) when it separated out of concern for Focus' tax-exempt status. In 2000, Gary Bauer resigned in order to run for president of the United States.

Kenneth Connor Era In 2000, Kenneth Connor become the third president of the Family Research Council. The FRC believed he made a good fit because of his experience as a Florida attorney and his supportive stance as a pro-life advocate. During his time as president, Kenneth Connor managed to broaden the company's public policy agenda into areas that he believed needed to be talked about more. In 2003, Kenneth Connor resigned from the Family Research Council.

AGREE I think more history would be good. It is pretty thin. Just need to be sure and keep it objective and factual. Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 23:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Jeffrey Berry

Why exactly should anyone care what Jeffrey Berry says on the issue of the FRC's designation as a hate group? Without some context showing that his opinion in particular is worth highlighting, it might as well just be a quotation from John Doe or me, which would add nothing to our understanding of the debate. -- Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4002:1CC8:E6CE:8FFF:FE5E:4F7C (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Family Research Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129185413/http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners to http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430151345/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2013/04/family-research-council-posts-videos-of-corkins-sh.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2013/04/family-research-council-posts-videos-of-corkins-sh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819000032/http://www.splcenter.org:80/blog/2012/08/16/splc-family-research-council-license-to-kill-claim-%E2%80%98outrageous%E2%80%99/ to http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/08/16/splc-family-research-council-license-to-kill-claim-%E2%80%98outrageous%E2%80%99
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/521/521792772/521792772_201109_990.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005224411/http://ministrywatch.com:80/profile/family-research-council.aspx to http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/Family-Research-Council.aspx

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"Traditional family values"

That keeping gay and lesbian Americans from marrying the partners they love, or preventing them from adopting and caring for children, are "family values" is the FRC's opinion, and must be cited as such; the use here is as a conservative political code word for an expression of opinion about a certain subset of cultural beliefs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit was not an improvement because it created more issues of uncited opinion — that the opinion is "widely held" may be true, but begs the question "how widely," given that a significant majority of Americans support marriage equality, and we would have to note that the FRC's position is a minority one... and that's, IMO, just too much detail for the lede. Better to just say that it's the FRC's opinion and leave it there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording

I removed the part of the SPLC lead. It only had 1 reference that contained opinion language found no where else. I also removed the "many consider the..." as who is this "many"? Again this was found only in 1 reference that used more opinion language and I can't find any support for this else where. The lead is supposed to just give a overview and this part was not only covered else where in detail but had to much opinion not supported. If someone else has more references that show this please post here as I can't find any good ones. ContentEditman (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The NYT is a news column, not an opinion piece, and should be regarded as a reliable source. I think it is very appropriate for the lead. The previous consensus wording was "In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified FRC as an anti-gay hate group, which generated some controversy." The controversy of the designation should definitely be mentioned as it is summarising the article. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm that the NYT piece is news, not opinion, and its supported text should stay. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The NYtimes reference is not a news article but an opinion based column. It even begins with "Good morning." as the intro as its written like a Blog. It provides no bases for its claims and its tage is "California Today A morning update for readers interested in California, by Mike McPhate." Again this is an opinionated column not a news article. They have completely different traits, one being bias and opinion. Also good to see StAnselm finally come to the talk page as I asked after reverting and editing against the previous consensus. ContentEditman (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One question: in addition to ... or in the place of the current Fox News reference why don't we use a reference that plainly explains the issue like 13 New Organizations Added to Anti-Gay 'Hate Groups' List. Just a suggestion. Teammm ^talk
_email 20:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you adding that reference. But it says its an archive from another site so others may object if there is not a direct link? I added the Fox reference as the previous reference used was a newsletter column that is written and reads like a Blog. The Fox news reference was at least a real news article. ContentEditman (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Family Research Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117131203/http://www.citypages.com/2010-05-26/news/university-of-minnesota-professor-s-research-hijacked to http://www.citypages.com/2010-05-26/news/university-of-minnesota-professor-s-research-hijacked
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ministrywatch.com/profile/family-research-council.aspx

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

LGBT civil rights

I have reverted repeated attempts at removing the wording and link "LGBT civil rights" (or the prior version, "equal rights") from the lede of this article. The term and statement is well-sourced, and describing them as "issues" is quite simply not in order - they are quite literally "civil rights" in every sense of the word. We don't describe the Civil Rights Movement as working for "African-American issues." There is no consensus for such a change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)