Jump to content

Talk:Illinois Family Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Christian Reference

[edit]

Regarding the description of the Illinois Family Institute, the "About" page on their website ("About") does refer to "Judeo-Christian" teachings at the top, but later references to the organization refer to them as a Christian organization (cf. "educate Christians," "consistent with Biblical Christianity" and "relationship with other Christian ministries," all of which are in the third graf). I would like to solicit other editors' opinions on whether this is sufficient to call the organization a "Christian organization." Thanks!

Windchaser (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd only seen the Judeo-Christian ident on top, a bit hasty on my part. In view of what the rest of the page says, I'd say it's enough, and that you had it right the first time. However, knowing that such labels are contentious, I'd appreciate any other input on the question too. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?

[edit]
Those opposed to inclusion of the SPLC designation as a hate group in the lead do so for the reason that it would give undue weight to this particular viewpoint. Those wishing to include it say that the designation receives its own section in the body of the article and that the lead should summarize the content of the article. This reason is not refuted by those wishing to exclude the information from the lead. The RfC specifically mentions the rationale to be included, therefore include !votes without specifically mentioning not including a rational must be assumed to have wanted the SPLC rational included. There is a rough consensus to include the SPLC information in the lead. However, as User:Arthur Rubin states, the article (and lead) would be improved by adding more content about the organization, and I would encourage those both wishing and opposing the SPLC designation to flesh out this article with material derived from reliable sources. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Illinois Family Institute has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism? Insomesia (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include in lead, with context of why they are labelled This is a small article on a not large group and they have already earned the distinction of being labelled a hate group by the nation's leading authority of such groups. It has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with spreading lies about a minority segment of society. If they spread lies about women, another race, or even against a political party they likely would have earned the same designation. This is the main criticism against the group and it is a notable criticism from the leading authority in this area. Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude from lead. If we put in more about the organization in the lead, we could possibly include the "hate group" designation, but not the "reason". (And "reason" does need to be in quotes.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the hate group designation with the reason has to be in the lead as notable criticism with the reason they were labelled as such, not because of what they believe but in the actions they took. I agree the reason likely should be in quotes so it's not in Wikipedia's voice but remains why SPLC felt the hate group designation was earned by Illinois Family Institute. Insomesia (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The detailed reason should not be in the lead, unless the detailed tenets of the organization were in the lead. It's undue and misleading to do so. The fact of the designation should not be in the lead, unless the general tenets of the organization are. (That would be an improvement.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you explain why you feel it's misleading or undue? I don't necessarily agree about the tenets of the group but typically, unless they are very brief, those are not included in leads of organization articles. Insomesia (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in lead - This is a key fact about the organization. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - That they are called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center should definitely be in the lead. It's a very important piece of factual content per reliable sources. The reasons why should be in the body only. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Criticism belongs in an article, but not in the lead. That space is for listing the topic's most significant achievements or attributes, not for one organization or person's opinion of it. Reliable sources have designated George W. Bush a fugitive war criminal and Dane Cook terribly unfunny but, like here, the issue is with undue weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually notable criticism belongs in the lead as well. Per WP:Lead, "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." SPLC is the nation's leading authority on hate groups, this is the very definition of notable criticism. Likewise if we had the nation's leading authority of religious groups or activist groups putting Illinois Family Institute as one of the best organizations I would support that being part of the lead as well. Insomesia (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree with InedibleHulk, but I do like his name a lot. It's great. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be a 100 results of citing discredited research. Certainly that's the top result - maybe they only did it once? The article I cited is, significantly I think, using the word "occasionally". In other words, this is not the main reason they have been listed. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • include The lead is meant to summarize the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per insomnia Pass a Method talk 14:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include' in lead section; very important and prominent fact about IFI. We would be burying our heads in the sand if we ignored it in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - It's debatable whether a bare statement of the listing should be in the lead. Considering how small the article is, going into a lot of detail as to why it is classified as such is undue weight. It's the opinion of one organisation and having half the size of the lead regarding their opinion is a violation of WP:Lead and WP:Weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoma Magic (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're basing your argument on WP:LEAD then it would have to be an "include" !vote. LEAD says to summarize important article contents in the lead section. The article spends considerable attention on the hate group designation, so LEAD directs us to summarize that with something, not nothing. WP:WEIGHT is about the article body, mainly; when applied to the lead section it would be about whether the SPLC designation gets one sentence or more. WEIGHT does not tell us to have nothing about the hate group designation in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the language that's attached to mentioning the designation: "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." That's undo weight for inclusion in the lead of such a small article. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand your position now. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article describes the actions of living people, as such care needs to be taken to ensure it doesn't turn into a WP:ATTACK article. The SPLC designation and related criticism is already a substantial part of the article and any further expansion needs to balanced by non-negative content. I suggest a history section and details of politicians and others they may have supported. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude only because the article is currently so short that it's not necessary to have a long intro that includes that information. If the article is ever expanded, this question can be revisited. Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So just so it's crystal clear, you think WP:Lead should be ignored, and notable criticism doesn't need to be presented up front? I ask because studies have shown that readers often only read the introduction so would never find out this fact about the group that some arguably feel is the most important facet of the group. Insomesia (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the applicable sources. Do any of the RS make note of the designation in more than a passing manner? While the SPLC is a RS for their reporting of facts, their hate speech tag (usually justified IMO) is opinion, which doesn't belong in the lead unless that opinion has received coverage of appropriate weight.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than just a listing and the issue of the anti-gay groups was huge news. Here's a couple of recent Google News hits showing that Illinois Family Institute is caged as a hate group, and noted that designation is from the SPLC. Insomesia (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was more than just a listing and it was huge news, one would expect there to be several RS covering this with some indication of weight. The google search you provided does not seem to fit the bill. And search result "hits" aren't necessiarly indicative of weight. Can you provide direct links to some sources? Such sources would IMO make a strong case for inclusion in the lead.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say "I haven't read the applicable sources" and then you ask for sources. Why don't you read the ones in the article and on the talk page first? Why don't you search for sources yourself? Anybody professing ignorance of the sources will exert less force on this RfC. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Horse puckey. Here at wikipedia-en we require sourcing to include information. The fact that Insomesia's testimony consited of a google search undermines his/her ratonale on this RfC. Asking for a direct source on my part is to assist me in making a determination, and i resent your ad hominem attack.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page has multiple sources presented by several edits and my Google search was to save you the drudgery of typing a few search parameters, now all you have to do is read the the other sources already posted on this page or click the handy link that I added just for your use. Of course anyone else is also welcome to do so. I have no doubt all this information will be added and some will be opposed to every step of the process and throw their weight into stalling the inevitable. But we are in no rush and it's fine to allow everyone to have their say and develop the end product. Just have a look at the sources and see where they lead. Thank you for you time! Insomesia (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - this article really needs to be expanded, but given that the majority of available sources are likely to be about their extremist political views it seems silly to exclude one of the most well-respected organizations that tracks that data. eldamorie (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This reference states,
Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In December 2007, FAIR was designated a hate group by the nonprofit civil rights organization[27][28][29] Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In its declaration, the SPLC gave a detailed accounting of its determination. This suggests that source is not reliable for their general disparaging opinions of the SPLC. Insomesia (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  There is a problem in that this RfC is about a comment whose only current sourcing is the statement of an SPLC author (Schlatter) who in 2010 indirectly mentions that the label was assigned in 2009.  The statement is, "Both [videos] were removed in response to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s 2009 listing of IFI as a hate group, which was largely based on its use of Cameron."  Yet I have not been able to WP:V verify from the splccenter.org web site that IFI was designated a "hate group" in 2009.  Here is a Google search for such.  Are any references available in archives, of the "hate group" designation in 2009?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - Almost half of the article is written about this topic, mandating its inclusion according WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. There are other sources, as well:

  • "Family Research Council named 'hate group' by watchdog organization.(PEOPLE & EVENTS)." Church & State. Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 2011.
  • Wertheimer, Aaron. "Crimes target gays." Chicago Jewish Star. Chicago Jewish Star. 2010.

– MrX 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a blurb from either of these new sources?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Church & State Blurb

Among the other Religious Right organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC were: the American Family Association, the Illinois Family Institute and the Traditional Values Coalition.

Chicago Jewish Star Blurb

Intelligence Report compiled data in the same issue on 18 anti-gay groups, two of which are located in Illinois: Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (HOME, in Downers Grove) and Illinois Family Institute (IFI, in Carol Stream).

Both groups are classified by the SPLC as hate groups, "based on their propagation of known falsehoods."

...(omitted content about HOME)

IFI calls for repeals of all laws protecting gay rights; touts a groundless claim that the median age of death for gay men is 42; and their director for school advocacy, Laurie Higgins, last year compared homosexuality to Nazism, states Intelligence Report.

Closing this RfC

[edit]

There is backlog in AN/RFC. I think it's safe to say that 13 Include vs. 6 Exclude constitutes a rough consensus. That's even before discounting BelchFire's comments, which no longer apply since there are now three sources. – MrX 02:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a consensus to include, but I don't see a consensus about the specific wording - that is, the generic rationale that User:Insomesia proposed. I think User:Belchfire's point is fair enough - that's the reason you referred to the Church & State and Chicago Jewish Star, wasn't it? But the former doesn't have a rationale at all, and the latter has "based on their propagation of known falsehoods" but not "claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities". StAnselm (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there is as yet no consensus about wording, it shouldn't be too hard to obtain it. There seem to be three options:
  1. based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities."
  2. based on "their propagation of known falsehoods".
  3. on the grounds that it is "heavily focused on attacking gay people and homosexuality in general."

I think, in fact, I would prefer (2), since it is backed by the Chicago Jewish Star. (3) would be my next preference, then (1). StAnselm (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, the The RfC is: Illinois Family Institute has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism?
So choice number one it is. I see no reason to obfuscate this any further.
Your additional comment on the RfC (above) might be interpreted as an attempt to delay closing, by someone less trusting than myself. – MrX 03:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, you miscounted the !votes - one "include" !vote explictly excluded mentioning any sort of rationale. In fact, only one "include" !vote did support the rationale. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you have not convinced me that this was not a landslide for Include, in spite of your unique interpretation. – MrX 03:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And in the absence of further consensus, I think it is to be included without a rationale. Which is the case with many similar articles. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. By your own admission there is consensus.[1]
  2. I've demonstrated that the consensus is to include specific wording backed by three sources.[2]
  3. You claim that I support the wording that you prefer.[3] No, that was the wording that was added while the RfC was running its course, so that the sentence wouldn't be totally meaningless. It is not the wording supported by consensus.
  4. I've discounted BelchFire's Exclude !vote because they said "exclude anything based solely on SPLC as a source. If it's factual and relevant, there should be other source" Thus, the basis for the exclusion no longer exists.
  5. I've discounted Cla68 Exclude !vote because the article has been expanded, addtion sources have been provided and because thier argument has been handily refuted.
  6. I believe you are arguing against consensus and it seems as if you wish to advance your personal point of view by taking advantage of perceived loopholes in the process. My evidence of this is the two reverts you have made in a short period of time, ignoring the basis and results of the RfC, adding an additional comment to the RfC two weeks after it became stagnant and your shifting arguments. – MrX 13:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about consensus and want to add that StAnselm has been quick to revert on the basis of the RFC still being active. It's over, so he needs to step back and let go. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is one comment (in the RfC) that the reason should be included. None of the other "include" !votes mention including a reason, and one specifically says the "reason" should be excluded. That doesn't look like consensus for the specific wording. I see, potentially, a consensus for inclusion, although more reasons were presented for exclusion than for inclusion. The closing admin would have to weigh the arguments. (As an aside, BLP doesn't apply, as no living person was specifically identified.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, BLP does apply, "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources."  Unscintillating (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, that simply fails the logic test. Please have a second look at the wording of the RfC (which I'm growing weary of cutting and pasting):
Illinois Family Institute has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism? It's unfortunate that you have decided to edit war against consensus. – MrX 14:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was only about whether or not there should be any content at all in the lede.  It did not propose specific text.  The text you are proposing is based on only one source, and it is a source where it can be shown the source is not WP:IRS reliable in the context.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you scroll up, you will see that Insomesia did, in fact, propose specific wording. The word "this" refers to the sentence that precedes it. – MrX 16:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the "this" there.  The position that the "this" was intended as specific wording is not self-evident, and is refuted by the context that the statement is not sourceable.  I think that the antecedent for the "this" is in the title of the RfC, that is, "SPLC 'hate group' designation".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If needed we can always go another month with yet another RfC if the rationale is going to be blockaded. The general trend is that the designation and explanation will be added to the lead of every one of these groups with WP:Due weight. If anything these efforts to prevent this information has seemed to backfire as each article has expanded to detail each groups' legacy of hate not only against LGBT people but also other minorities as well. No matter we'll eventually be able to see each of these groups for the notable work they do. Insomesia (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Paul Cameron

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A version of proposed text was added with sources after discussion and noticeboard involvement

I think the deleted information about why SPLC considers Illinois Family Institute a hate group should be restored fully.

In it's Hatewatch, the SPLC states the designation was based on the association with Paul Cameron, a researcher who has been disassociated from professional organizations American Psychological Association,[1] the Nebraska Psychological Association,[2] and the Canadian Psychological Association,[3] the later for "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."[3][4][5]

  1. ^ Michael Kranish (July 31, 2005). "Beliefs drive research agenda of new think tanks". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2006-08-31.
  2. ^ Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology (1987). "The Cameron Case" (PDF). Footnotes. 15 (1): 4, 6. Retrieved 2009-01-31. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ a b Canadian Psychological Association. "Policy Statements". Retrieved 2007-02-20. The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. (August 1996)
  4. ^ Potok, Mark (April 17, 2009). "The Illinois Family Institute Again Cites Discredited Research, Briefly". SPLC Hatewatch. Retrieved 29 August 2012.
  5. ^ Southern Poverty Law Center. "Active Anti-Gay Groups". Retrieved July 8, 2012.
Thank you for ceasing your edit war. This article is not about Paul Cameron, and the above paragraph is basically a coatrack - that's the BLP issue. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for continuing it after you got your way, it helped me see the playing field being offered for collegial editing. The sources disagree with you, SPLC named the group a hate group, which is one of the few notable things about the group and they directly cite the association with Paul Cameron as the main reason. The SPLC called him a discredited researcher but we need to use more NPOV language so we can simply note the disassociation with professional groups he's worked with in the past and let our readers decide what to think. I think the quote

The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality.

is explicit and avoids the use of Wikipedia's voice making declarations but let's work through this word for word. Insomesia (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This explains the SPLC designation, so it's relevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the "pre-BLP" version because of the BLP claim. Can we talk about the BLP concerns?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to here those concerns as well. Please keep in mind we have an entire BLP devoted to the man where this goes into great detail. Insomesia (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So would I. I've asked StA to comment on them here. The reason for my revert was that no one even talked about his BLP concerns during your brief edit-war. BLP concerns trumps most everything. If someone raises that flag it has to at least be discussed. I suggest you give him some time to respond here or at BLP/N.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I addressed those concerns and stated so in my edit summary using different terminology and references. Insomesia (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure everybody in this discussion is already familiar with the problem, as this same issue was recently encountered elsewhere. SPLC is not a reliable source for contentious material on living persons because it lacks editorial oversight and because it has a clear conflict of interest. See WP:NOTRELIABLE, which provides three separate tests: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. SPLC fails two out of the three outright. Belchfire-TALK 04:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The SPLC is considered reliable in almost all statements and numerous agencies and media cite the as reliable for their information. They do fact-checking and are a legal resource so work to ensure their material holds up to legal scrutiny. So the SPLC has an excellent reputation for fact-checking, they also have editorial oversight and the only conflict of interest is the one alleged by social conservatives who object to some of the groups that have been designated as hate groups. Insomesia (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is just partisan bilge. You've shown us no evidence of editorial oversight beyond your own self-serving opinions. And if you can't see the conflict of interest, I don't know what to say other than "LOL". Belchfire-TALK 06:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your snarky response as you have no policy-based reasons to leave this content out. If you decide to act more collegially then by all means. Insomesia (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can take it for whatever you want, but you have not provided a policy-based reasons to include the content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These consistent efforts against the SPLC need to stop. It seems only editors within wikiproject conservatism think it's unreliable. The consensus of RSN was that it is reliable for facts. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the consensus of RSN (which isn't apparent), then it seems to be against policy, unless we wish to amend WP:NOTRELIABLE to remove the requirement for editorial oversight, as it's clear that there is no oversight at SPLC except for the quarterly magazine. And I am not a member of WikiProject Conservatism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many editors in chief do you require for something to have editorial oversight? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I need to respond here, although I stand by my point of the insertion being a coatrack. The offending text was about a third of the article. That is massively undue weight - talking about the doing of someone who has no affiliation with the organization. But also, the current statement relies on the Intelligence Report, whereas the insertion in question relied on the Hatewatch blog. Whatever our opinions of the reliability, neutrality and significance of SPLC criticism, I'm sure we'd all agree that blog statements are not going to be as good as the Intelligence Report publications. I draw your attention to WP:SPS (emphasis original):

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Although the Psychological Association sources may be reliable, the only way we can connect Paul Cameron to this group is through a blog post. So I don't know why we're even having this discussion - it simply doesn't belong. Also, I'd like to see evidence that Potok is an expert - does he have "reliable third-party publications"? StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC) StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correction Regardless of any consensus, RSN lacks the authority to negate BLP policy.
Responding to Insomnesia's remark above: I made the policy-based argument crystal clear. SPLC cannot be used as a source for this purpose because (1) it lacks editorial oversight (which you did not refute) and (2) it has a conflict of interest (which you did not refute). Saying that "SPLC has an excellent reputation" (which is dubious) is merely a statement of your (biased) opinion which does not demonstrate fulfillment of these requirements.
I will repeat the same challenge I posted elsewhere: show us some examples of SPLC retracting an error. They've made well over 1000 of these hate group designations, surely there have been mistakes. So when have they ever admitted one publicly? If the response is that they've never made a mistake, that should tell us everything we need to know about their credibility. Belchfire-TALK 14:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP/N would be the next logical step.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, fallacious arguments will just get the circular discussion in limbo, perhaps that's the goal? The RSN has been effective and they are happy to get others involved if needed. Insomesia (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but whatever this is, it's not a BLP issue. It would be a BLP issue if, for example, we made false and negative statements about Cameron. This is, at most, some quibbling about relevance combined with attempts to ignore the fact that SPLC is considered a reliable source. So, since it's not a BLP issue, I trust that nobody here will be trying to edit war under cover of "oh, I had to revert that because BLP".

Now, as for the issue, I don't see any plausible argument for excluding Cameron. If there's one buried in this discussion, I'd like you to summarize it below. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes controversial statements about Cameron. "False and negative" is irrelevant. It's "unsourced, controversial" statements that are forbidden.
It's subject to BLP, unless the sources are BLP-reliable. Any rational person would see that SPLC is not BLP-reliable, but I haven't checked the other sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit disappointed that no-one has responded to my point that we're not looking at SPLC as a reliable source here, but at an SPLC blog being a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to back off here. If the statements about Cameron, other than the connection to IFI, are reliable sourced, we could use them, even if negative. And if the connection is that SPLC attributes IFI's actions to Cameron's then, that would be allowed if it's an SPLC statement. (If it's an SPLC blog, we would have to check to see whether it's reliable for SPLC's opinions.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs to go to WP:BLPN. StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP/N would at least be the proper venue. RS/N is not. Belchfire-TALK 02:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, it's already been through RSN and other editors viewed it as reliable. Don't make me go there again to have them repeat back to me that it's reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]]. My recollection is that there is no statement at RSN, other than a statement that it was previously decided, that SPLC can be BLP-reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The highly respected Intelligence Report carries the information connecting Paul Cameron's hate speech and Peter LaBarbera's hate speech to the hate group designation of IFI. See "18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda", Evelyn Schlatter, SPLC Intelligence Report, Winter 2010, Issue Number: 140. There's no reliability issue here, no BLP issue either. No coatrack issue if Cameron's faulty work and hateful analysis is simply connected to IFI rather than described in detail. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be OK then, although there's still little indication of editorial control, other than its use by (other) reliable pubications. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Canvassing

[edit]

Note that Mr. X was canvassed to come here and interfere with the RfC.[4] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libel?!

[edit]

I just reverted this change because it's based on the mistaken idea that it's somehow libelous to state that the IFI was designated as a hate group by the SPLC. We state this for many other hate groups, from the FRC to the KKK, and we do so in safety because our reliable secondary sources are comfortable doing the same. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the correct quote before reverting?  It doesn't say that SPLC did or did not designate IFI as a "hate group".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 6 September 2012

[edit]

Please add the {{LGBT}} template to the article per designation by the SPLC. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


- Balph Eubank ✉ 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this request has been made, this is a good place to talk about if it belongs to all the other articles to which this user has added the template. StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done? Already?? You don;t think this is just a little controversial? StAnselm (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IFI is an anti-gay hate group. I don't understand why it would be controversial to add the LGBT template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revanneosl (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it's appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's claimed to be a hate group, certainly... StAnselm (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a hate group, and the reason it is one comes down to its anti-gay statements. As such, an LGBT template seems relevant, since the group is dedicated to LGBT-related issues (from the anti-LGBT side). Arthur typical inability to see relevance notwithstanding, this is a pretty obvious fit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the editor expanding the {{LGBT}} template is the one who has no understanding of relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really need to point out that an unsupported conclusion is unpersuasive? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't. That applies to Revanneosi's "argument", as well. In fact, no valid argument has been presented in favor of inclusion, although yours appears (at first glance) to be valid, unlike Revanneosi's. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My argument appears to be valid precisely because it is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revanneosi made a claim that is backed by multiple reliable sources, and then said that he didn't understand StAnselm's point. He didn't make an argument. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources have an implicit argument of their own. :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier references

[edit]

I've been trawling through google looking for references that aren't dated 2012, to avoid Wikipedia:Recentism. I've found a couple. Same-old: [5] [6] [7]; creationism / evolution: [8] [9] [10] [11] Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn 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 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific claims and WP:MEDRS

[edit]

There appears to be an issue here about claims by the IFI regarding life expectancy by gay men. If those claims are false, we should have a WP:MEDRS confirming the falsity (and, ideally, giving the true life expectancy), rather than just a statement from a law firm that the claims are hateful. A possible addition is "scientists who calculated these life expectancies object to the use of their data by conservative organizations" ([12]). -- 202.124.75.42 (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we won't find any reliable sourced suggesting the claims are false. What we do find, on the Paul Cameron article, is that

Epidemiologists Morten Frisch and Henrik Brønnum-Hansen argue that Cameron was wrong to infer reduced life expectancy from the fact that deaths among homosexually married partners in Denmark and Norway occurred at a lower median age than those among heterosexually married partners: "Because the age distribution among persons in same-sex marriages was considerably younger than that of people who had ever been heterosexually married, the average age at death among those who actually died during the observation period was, not surprisingly, considerably younger in the population of same-sex married persons." Their own analysis found that excess mortality in Danish same-sex marriages since 1995 was "restricted to the first few years after a marriage, presumably reflecting preexisting illness at the time of marriage"[13]

It is important to point out that this is from work Cameron did in 2007. Therefore, the "resolutions passed against Cameron" were not on this issue, and the sentence should be removed from the article. StAnselm (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again another POV addition to the lede

[edit]

The POV tag is due to the strong use of Wikipedia's voice in the lead. I might add there is no consensus for keeping the last statement, but tag-team edting is keeping it in despite the lack thereof.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May ask you to elaborate on what POV you believe is be represented in Wikipedia's voice, in light of the fact that the sentence in question is:
"In 2009, the nonprofit civil rights organization[5] Southern Poverty Law Center designated IFI a hate group as a result of their promotion of the discredited theories of Paul Cameron."
It certainly seems to me that the hate group designation was made by the SPLC, based on their criteria, discussed in the linked source. In other words, the voice clearly seems to be the voice of our reliable source. – MrX 20:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to add: Why are there no objections to this:
The Illinois Family Institute (IFI) is a Christian organization based in...
It seems to me that that's about as POV as it gets. It attributes a quality to this political organization that is not justified by by its very un-Christ-like activities. It is also prominent in the lead and the infobox, sourced from a primary source, and in Wikipedia's voice.
Please help me locate the outrage for this glaring POV. – MrX 20:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you and I have discussed elsewhere, it's a question of weight in the lead.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific. Much more specific. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, I find the text "...a Christian organization based in Carol Stream, Illinois. Founded in 1992, its mission is focused on "upholding and re-affirming marriage, family, life and liberty in Illinois",..." to be very POV considering that their actions don't correlate to their purported "mission".
As a neutral alternative, I propose "...a organization based in Carol Stream, Illinois. Founded in 1992, its mission is focused on promoting a social conservative agenda in Illinois",..." as much more NPOV. Perhaps we can make this change and remove the POV template? – MrX 03:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, and I have added the word "stated". Though I don't think your alternative would do without a citation. Anyway, it is a well-established Wikipedia practice to accept groups as "Christian" if they describe themselves as such. StAnselm (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Past is not always prologue, especially when it comes to self-serving descriptors (e.g. civil rights organization). We now have a lede with two opposing, qualitative statements. I would imagine that this is about as neutral as it will ever be, without stripping every nuance of meaning from the text. – MrX 03:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX, to be honest I find their actions to be more Old Testament like then Christian, but then again theology was never my strong point.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I don't really see that the lede can be improved, other than by adding a sentence or two about IFI's activities and social positions. As it stands now, the lede portrays IFI in a mostly favorable light, until you come to the SPLC sentence. It's kind of like saying, the Catholic Church is a charitable organization devoted to promulgating Christ's message of love and redemption, and oh, by the way, the Inquisition happened. – MrX 04:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
. Weight is a must in the lead. Using the same example, we couldn't use the lead as a coatrack for discussing priests molesting children.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's required in the lead, yet this violates it. As MrX points out, you'd think the IFI was something other than a hate group because we make the mistake of quoting its stated goals instead of its demonstrated actions. In short, there is a POV/weight problem, but it's not in the direction you imagine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous post imagines what other editors imagine.  I conclude that what the previous post imagines is imaginary.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment  The pov tag has been removed with the edit comment, "The lede now has a (self-serving) qualitative statement attributed to the subject organization and a qualitative statement by an authoritative organization. This seems like a reasonably NPOV lede now, thus I removed the POV tag.)"  Unscintillating (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know the original POV claim does not fit the article. I'm bringing up a different issue. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The POV tag states,
I agree that the POV problem still exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great. How would you change the lead to make it more clear from the start that the IFI is a hate group? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have another side of the SPLC issue from the viewpoint of the IFI, we can include balancing material in the body of the article.  As little green rosetta says regarding the lede, "there is no consensus for keeping the last statement, but tag-team editing is keeping it in despite the lack thereof."  Unscintillating (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, could you elaborate on your comments? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "we have another side of the SPLC issue from the viewpoint of the IFI..." – MrX 12:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See [14].  Unscintillating (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. – MrX 16:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored content in the lead

[edit]

I have restored this information to the lead:

In 2009, the nonprofit civil rights organization[5] Southern Poverty Law Center designated IFI a hate group as a result of their promotion of the discredited theories of Paul Cameron."

I believe this direct quote from the source, explains everything:

Over the years, the group also has occasionally embraced the groundless propaganda of Paul Cameron (see Family Research Institute, above). Until 2009, it carried an article on Cameron — “New Study Shows that Homosexuals Live 20 Fewer Years” — preceded by a full-throated endorsement LaBarbera. “Paul Cameron’s work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists, and he’s been demonized by the left,” LaBarbera wrote in his introduction, “but that should not discount his findings.” IFI also posted a video attacking school anti-bullying programs that claimed, based on Cameron, that gay men’s median age of death is 42. Both were removed in response to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s 2009 listing of IFI as a hate group, which was largely based on its use of Cameron.

...

Started in 1987 by psychologist Paul Cameron, the Family Research Institute (FRI) has become the anti-gay movement’s main source for what Cameron claims is “cutting-edge research” — but is, in fact, completely discredited junk science pushed out by a man who has been condemned by three professional organizations.

...Cameron’s colleagues have condemned him repeatedly.

...Cameron’s propaganda is widely known to be false or misleading — many groups have continued to use his claims, though often without citing their source. They include...the Illinois Family Institute

Southern Poverty Law Center - Intelligence Report, Winter 2010, Issue Number: 140

Link to the full source. – MrX 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate that Arthur will disregard this because, unlike the rest of Wikipedia, he doesn't accept the SPLC as a reliable source. Well, if you look at Paul Cameron, there's plenty of support for "discredited", including the use of the word in the title of an article about him. The concept, if not the word, may be found all over http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

[edit]

Considering the flyby Anon IP editors (which resolve to Illinois) and SPAs appearing at this page in droves, it is clear to me that there's some serious whitewashing/astroturfing going on here by people with a conflict of interest. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of a COI issue, or of editors from Illinois. -- 202.124.74.15 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed some SPA editors also. I think we may differ as to which editors are SPA, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-described

[edit]

An ip editor insists on inserting that IFI is a "Self-described" Christian orgnaization. What do the sources actually say about this?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious labels

[edit]

According to the Manual of Style we should avoid contentious labels (see WP:LABEL), but if we use such it should be with in-text attribution. Calling Paul Cameron's theories on homosexuality "discredited" in Wiki's voice would be such a label. If we want to use that description then it should be clearly attributed to our source, the SPLC, in-text. Otherwise, we should simply allow the reader to use the link to Paul Cameron to discover why the SPLC thinks his theories are bogus. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, given your example. 'Discredited' is a factual, objective state, unlike 'perverted', 'bogus', 'extremist', etc. In other words, if our reliable sources state that "someone's theories have been discredited", then it should be taken at face value, unlike, for example, "someone's theories are bogus". – MrX 13:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is definitely stating in Wikipedia's voice and should not be done for that reason alone. Of course you could attribute the discreditation (by whom) but then we start expanding the lead to this section which expands weight again. Unless the lead is expanded elsewhere, quotes are needed here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Discredited" is really more of a subjective assertion about Cameron's theories than a statement of objective fact about them, and it isn't precisely the description of Cameron's theories that the SPLC uses anyway ("groundless" is the adjective that sticks out in my mind). Moreover, SPLC literature is being used as a source here to confirm the fact that it designated IFI as a hate group and why. It is a reliable source as to its own opinions of the IFI and of Cameron's theories, but not as to the scientific validity of Cameron's theories (and even if it were, see WP:SCICON - questionable science). Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron's "theories" are at best pseudoscience - utterly debunked and out of line with scientific consensus and research. It's absolutely fine to say 'discredited' (in fact that's rather mild). --Scientiom (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The source provided for the lead doesn't say "discredited", it says "groundless". And it doesn't say that's the reason for inclusion, as far as I can find. I replaced it with a perfectly adequate reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be contradicting myself. In any case, the "quote" attributed to Hatewatch is not there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS. Still, I changed "discredited" (in Wikipedia's voice) to "groundless" (in SPLC's voice), to reduce synthesis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you changed it to "groundless" in Wikipedia's voice, because the quotes need to go round the entire quote, not just one word. Regardless, I replaced it with the actual reason for inclusion which is actually in the lead of the SPLC's quote. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If I had tried the edit you did, it would have been summarily reverted. (In fact, I did, last week, and it was.) I think it an improvement, but it wouldn't have done any good for me to make it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough :) I also fixed a load of grammar and other issues in the article. Let me know if any of those are a problem; I think they're all neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the quote?

[edit]

Could someone please explain the reasoning behind this? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty easy to explain. For starters, the quote in question is already cited in the History paragraph of the article. We don't need it twice. Even if it hadn't been cited earlier, it is out of place here since it is a quote from Labrera in 2006 (the same year he left the organization) and the context here is supposed to be why the SPLC continued to designate the IFI as a hate group after 2009. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I removed it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but you left the very awkward wording of the last sentence in place. My earlier edit had improved it, I think. Try taking a look at the two and see what you think. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it back to your last edit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag

[edit]

I see no rationale put forward to justify this.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if nobody endorses these tags or is willing to talk about them, guess there's no reason to keep them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wrong. The POV tag is discussed above.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Founded 1990 or 1992?

[edit]

At present, the lede text says it was founded in 1992 while the lede box says it was founded in 1990. Do we know which date is correct? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! It should be 1990 as in the History section. It seems as if they filed for incorporation in 1990, but did not really do much until 1992. – MrX 20:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All good.  :) I also created a re-direct for IFA pointing here to the IFI article since IFA is the IFI's legislative arm. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious relevance

[edit]

The fact that Labarbera founded yet another anti-gay hate group[15] is obviously relevant to the section about Labarbera. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If those few, relevant words make a coatrack, then we might as well toss our coats onto the floor, because that's where they will end up. – MrX 20:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not relevant. The article is about the IFI, not LaBarbera, and the linked article for the other group tells any interested reader about that group; expanding on the criticism of one group in the article of another group is pure POV-pushing coat-racking. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. These seemingly separate organizations are connected by an elaborate web of political relationships. I see no reason to make readers chase down information that provides a broader view, when a few words in this article can provide that necessary context. Our goal should be make the connections between related subjects clear, not isolate them into silos. – MrX 21:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I think LaBarbera is a pretty clear example of the kind of folks who can't stop drinking the H-flavored coolaid. Reading some of the things he says in the quotations from the referenced sources makes it obvious, as well as the name he chose for AFTAH itself. While AFTAH's anti-gay SPLC designation is obviously relevant to encyclopedic coverage of AFTAH, however, I think Fat&Happy is right to the point out this article is about IFI, not LaBarbera or AFTAH. Are we sure we're not taking it one step too far by tacking on "and it's also an SPLC designated hate group too" (or words to that effect) on the tail end of the sentence?  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm absolutely certain that we're going no further than we must to make the article clear. As MrX points out, we don't need to make it artificially hard for the reader to see the connections that our sources point out. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does one of the sources in the sentence at issue make an IFI --> LaBarbera --> AFTAH --> hate group designation connection? That might make me change my perspective. Can you point it out to me? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's the somewhat awkward wording. I think it should actually be a short, separate sentence. However, I do stand by my original thought/opinion that the hate group listing is very relevant to IFI's historical narrative. In fact, one almost needs an org chart to show the close relationships between these various groups, some of which are not yet mentioned in the article. That said, I won't have kittens if consensus is to leave it out. Perhaps we should wait to see what other editors think? – MrX 21:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a close call, and perhaps the awkward wording is throwing me off more than anything else. It feels as though it needs a more direct connection to flow within the context. Interestingly enough, right after AFTAH was designated an anti-gay hate group in 2010, LaBarbera expressed pride and remarked "If you are not on the SPLC hate list, you are not doing enough." (Source article). Kind of reminds me of Pastor Anderson from FWBC... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This talk page discussion has begun with the false premise that anti-gay hate groups have an existence outside of the opinion of SPLC, presenting that an organization can be a hate group when founded.  This is evidence of a lack of neutrality here.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble following you with regard to "when founded". Can you clarify/explain that part a bit more? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OP states, "...founded yet another anti-gay hate group[ref]", not "...founded a group that was later labeled an anti-gay 'hate group' by the SPLC[ref]".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wrote the OP, and if you look at the LaBarbera quote below, you'll see that he was aiming for for SPLC "certification". Any questions? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC provides a reason, so their designation seems to transcend mere opinion. It's not as if IFI or AFTAH really deny it anyway.
"Do I think homosexuality is immoral? Yes. But that doesn’t mean I hate homosexual people in their totality” - Laurie Higgins
"We decided that if you’re not labeled a hate group by the SPLC you’re not really doing anything to counter the homosexual activist movement." - Peter LaBarbera
– MrX 22:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The group is being called a hate group without getting any literal statements from the group itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italian1995 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illinois Family Institute. 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:

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) 01:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Anti-Christian'

[edit]

Pinging {{u|Posting here regarding the recent changes regarding Dan Savage's speech. Here is The Atlantic - nothing about it being anti-Christian. Here is Oregon Live - nothing about it being anti-Christian. NBC News - ditto. LA Times - ditto. Girth Summit (blether) 18:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illinois_Family_Institute&oldid=1195173115"