Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 16 August 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Family Research Council article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Family Research Council article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Baptist / Methodism / Charismatic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy. This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Baptist work group. This article is supported by Methodism work group. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Funding

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

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

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

I've deleted the section entirely. Obviously $1000 is a pittance compared to FRC's annual budget; if someone wants to write something about FRC's bigger supporters, that's fine, but focusing on one very minor contribution just because the donor has been in the news lately is plainly WP:UNDUE. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And earlier I deleted the section, too, before somebody decided to edit-war for inclusion. It's irrelevant. Nothing but cruft. Belchfire-TALK 22:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Phrasing of their anti-homosexuality stance

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

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

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

"the preclusion of all . . ."

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

We don't need to speculate about what might happen. The FRC has opposed laws protecting people from being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at the edit summary offered by the person who tried to insert this cruft after it got reverted the first time. It's quite instructive. Belchfire-TALK 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You people are hilarious. Inserted? Me? LOL. That statement has been there since 2011. I restored it after Badmintonhist deleted it on grounds that the refs merely implied it.

As for "preclusion of all" being WP:CRYSTAL, an argument Badmintonhist apparently inherited from Belchfire's edit summary, what? That doesn't even make sense. What about "lowering taxes" then. Is that crystalballing too because you never know if they might support raising it if it involved a waiter in the future? It's a goal. A self-identified mission. It's not crystalballing in the same way that defining what NASA's goals and scope of activities is not crystalballing. If anything else, you imagining scenarios wherein they might change their stance and support anti-gay discrimination legislation after all IS crystalballing. Here let me demonstrate it to you:

We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. - FRC

They talk more about it in detail in their pamphlet Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right. Here's one of their arguments which deals with your hypothetical waiter, Badmintonhist:

Civil rights laws that bar employment discrimination, however, place a restriction upon the action of private entities (such as corporations) in carrying out their private business. This is why Congress rested its authority to pass the Civil Rights Act not on the Constitution’s guarantee of the “equal protection of the laws,” but on its power to regulate interstate commerce. When such a “right” is extended (for the individual to be free from “discrimination” in employment), it infringes upon what would otherwise be the customary right of the employer to determine the qualifications for employment. The extension of historic constitutional rights is a “win-win” situation, but the extension of laws against employment discrimination is more of a “zero-sum” game—when one (such as the employment applicant) wins more protection, another (the employer) actually loses a corresponding measure of freedom. It is because of this that lawmakers should be exceedingly cautious, rather than generous, about expanding the categories of protection against private employment discrimination.

How is that reference not good enough for the sentence as User:Mangoe claims it is? As for my first edit summary, it's because FRC itself is notorious for their lobbying on these matters. Including the very recent Chick-fil-A controversy. With the removal of the sentence, the article now makes it seem like they barely even get involved in gay matters at all. Whitewashing, yeah? If you have problems with the wording, then discuss how to change it. Don't remove it outright, because actually it's the other way around, unless you can demonstrate to me why they'd be lying in their own mission goals, the sentence stays. Bring it to whatever noticeboard you like, but bear in mind, you're the ones proposing a significant change to the tone of the article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to use secondary sources, but you're right that the lack of weight given to their position on LGBT rights in the article's current version is a bad DUE problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of such secondary sources, like the Southern Poverty Law Center. But they wouldn't accept that either because it's biased. In outlining their own goals, it's best if it comes right out of their own mouths. That way there's no accusation of their words being twisted.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly not good enough, Obsidian. Reread the statement in question and note how sweeping it is. Saying that a legislature should be "exceedingly cautious" about expanding protections against private employers is not the same as opposing all protections against private employers. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Then go ahead, propose a way to reword it if you think it's too sweeping. Because virtually all of their activities DO reflect that stance. By removing it, you're contradicting everything they've ever done. And don't you realize that the pamphlet itself is already part of their campaign opposing gay civil rights? Read it in its entirety. Then go and read their website too, and all the other pamphlets linked within it. They have plenty more of that stuff: The Future of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for example, or Banned in Boston, or The Transgender Movement and "Discrimination" (Testimony of Peter Sprigg to the Maryland House of Delegates regarding "Gender Identity Discrimination"). Take your pick.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, though I'm not much of a Wikilawyer, hasn't Obsidian violated the three-revert rule here??Badmintonhist (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

e/c Gaming the system so soon? No. I haven't violated the 3RR yet. I'm still within the WP:BRD cycle and am assuming good faith here. If you want to break that and turn this into a bigger mess, that's your prerogative.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You exited the BRD cycle 2 edits ago, but if you would like to reinsert the material for a 4th time, I'd be happy to continue that part of the discussion with you at AN3. For now, it might be better to chill and wait for consensus. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL have we advanced to threats now? From a guy who falsely accused me of being the one starting all this? I provided a reference to better back up the sentence, remember? That's a more solid statement for a desire for consensus than you threatening ANI. I don't see any sources backing your own changes yet, except vague statements about it being too sweeping and accusations of crufting. Reword it then. No one's stopping you. That said, I'm genuinely tired of this bullshit happening every other day. Do what you want. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, it's stupid to fight over whether the FRC opposes LGBT rights... If we are going to have an edit war in the article, it'd be a lot more reasonable to have it over whether to call such opposition to "special rights" or "equal rights". Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. The problem here is the peculiar wording, the reliance on partisan sources, and the overinterpretation of the sources being presented. I've put in the pamphlet named above, which should be a lot better starting point that the LGF blog. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I support what our sources say, which happens to match what Obsidian is saying. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a hate group.

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

That seems to be the editorial opinion of some news organizations, but not the SPLC itself. Please provide a link from SPLC stating otherwise if you disagree. Belchfire-TALK 06:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a press release from SPLC. Note the URL. Clearly, you are mistaken. I suggest that you politely acknowledge this fact and back down. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The whitewashing goes on I see. Tone it down some more and then maybe just maybe you can even make it sound like they love the gays.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you're being sarcastic, but from what I know of Christians they in fact do love gays: it is homosexuality where they have a problem. Does FRC subscribe to "Hate the sin, love the sinner"? Let's add it to the article. – Sir Lionel, EG 07:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Notice that I'm not the one touching the article. Anyway, like the FRC, the name for the SPLC is misleading. FRC has nothing to do with family, and SPLC has nothing to do with poverty. Both have a long history of controversy.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why we had a formal RFC on mentioning that in the lede (see archive 4), and rejected it: SPLC's identification is widely-reported (and often taken as authoritative), but it quite controversial. Mangoe (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know, the only ones who find SPLC designation "controversial" is named hate groups and their supporters. It is used by the FBI, the police, and in court. KillerChihuahua 19:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the FBI really consider the FRC to be a hate group? I really doubt that; "citation needed", as we say. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. For example, see under "Resources" on the FBI's own hate crimes page here. KillerChihuahua 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the FBI does not. Do a search on the FBI web site and you will not find the FRC. The SPLC is listed under Resources, but if you click on it you go away from the FBI website. 72Dino (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether the SPLC is a source which the FBI trusts. This is not about putting "The FBI considers the FRC a hate group" in the article, it is about whether the SPLC is a reliable source for the FBI regarding hate groups. They are. KillerChihuahua 22:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The question by Mangoe was "does the FBI really consider the FRC to be a hate group", and the answer to that is "no". The FBI does use the SPLC and they do consider them a reliable source, but that does not mean the FBI agrees with everything by the SPLC. The FBI is concerned with hate crimes, and FRC does not fall in that category. That is why you won't find the FRC on the FBI website as a hate group, but will find organizations that commit hate crimes. 72Dino (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Then Mangoe was asking the wrong question. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Could be. If the question was "does the FBI consider the SPLC to be a reliable source", then I think the answer would be yes. 72Dino (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be the more relevant question, given that we're discussing using the SPLC's designation in the lead but not talking about mentioning the FBI. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed. I thought he'd merely mistyped, and left out a few words. Since no one has suggested putting the FBI's assessment of the FRC anywhere in the article, and the only reason the FBI came up was because it was cited as an official organ which utilizes the SPLC as a reliable determiner of who is and is not a hate group, his question as phrased is pointless, sorry. I AGF'd and assumed he wouldn't bother with a pointless question. KillerChihuahua 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out the fact that you highlighted "Poverty". You seem to be thinking it should be a charity organization doling out soup or something. It's not. Poverty Law is a legal term that includes laws relating to civil and human rights. SPLC isn't the only poverty law center in existence either. There are dozens of them. The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, for example, is another famous one. And do have a look at the list, its criteria and what the groups in that list actually do, and who uses the list as a resource, before claiming it's inaccurate.

SPLC is controversial, but not because its list is not authoritative.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how old you are, but I can remember the days when the SPLC was quite active in its original mission of working against Jim Crow laws, back in the days when the three black kids in all my school classes lived in a row of shacks on a back road because that was where they could live. The extension of that effort to coverage of homosexuality remains controversial, however you may want to deny that. The inclusion of the FRC in a list of violent racists remains controversial, however much you may want to deny that. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Too young and not even American. But old enough to know that every violent racist included in the list have claimed it to be controversial, both white and black supremacists, antisemites, xenophobic ultranationalists, etc. Why shouldn't this be any different? Are you saying their standards have changed over the years? Note that SPLC explicitly makes it clear that merely disagreeing with homosexuality on religious grounds does not put an organization into their hate list. It's the incessant propaganda that falsely conflates homosexuality with everything from pedophilia to Hitler that puts it and the others on their list. I can enumerate all they've done, but you're better off reading SPLC's reasons yourself and reading it on the news. Yeah yeah, free speech and all, but only an idiot would not see that all of those are meant to incite violence, and they do. That's why they're on the list. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. KillerChihuahua 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be better off reading someone else's analysis, I would think, seeing as how the SPLC is not a neutral reporter in this kind of a dispute. Look, I'm not trying to defend the FRC, but you, OS,24+, et al., plainly are attacking it. Your participation in this discussion seems to have the intent of making sure that everyone is told, in so uncertain terms, that these are Really Nasty People. You are welcome to that personal opinion, but the larger truth is that SPLC's tagging of a bunch of trad family value groups as hate groups was quite controversial at the time, and people on the other end of the political spectrum complained bitterly. So did a group of black pastors; many black churches are quire socially conservative. SPLC is routinely characterized as a liberal advocacy organization. Mangoe (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No. My motivation is primarily because the article makes it sound like they are Really Nice People which, even though I'm not American, grates on my nerves given what they actually do in reality. True, I dislike them intensely but again, note that I have never added nor removed anything in the article ever. I'm doing this not out of a personal vendetta for FRC but because Belchfire et al. has been making it even nicer with impunity for months now (take a look at what started this discussion for example). Surely you can't deny that our article is vastly different from how the FRC is actually described by mainstream sources? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC categorizes it as a hate group. "Anti-gay" is listed as the type of hate group or the ideology. The SPLC counted 1,018 active hate groups in the United States in 2011. Click under DC at "Active U.S. Hate Groups" to find them listed. The listing is notable because it is used by law enforcement, newspapers and academics for understanding extremism in America. TFD (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Burying this in the controversy section is wildly POV. It belongs in the lead. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was against you. If you want to bring it up again, start a new RFC. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:CCC: Mangoe is correct; the Rfc found no consensus to place that in the lead. However, consensus can change; a new Rfc may be the best way forward with this, Still. KillerChihuahua 22:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe, as a rule of thumb, you should never link anything for me unless you've read it, because I'm not just going to take your word on it. If you look at the RFC, it explicitly says:

However, the insertion that was previously in the lead was about the controversy, and the RFC is about whether the controversy should be included.

Emphasis in the original.

I'm not suggesting we mention the controversy; it's already in the article in its own section. I'm saying we should identify it in the lead as an SPLC-designated hate group.

This is a very different issue. In particular, much of the stated opposition to mentioning the controversy was the charge of recentism. This doesn't apply to stating its designation, as that is ongoing. Also, as Chihuahua pointed out, what was the consensus months ago is not binding upon us today. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's how the lead ends right now:

The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy, notably in controversy concerning its position on homosexuality.

Is there a WP:UNDERSTATEMENT? If not, there should be. We're not supposed to report the organization's views as if they were authoritative. I propose something more like:

As of 2010, the SPLC has listed this organization as an anti-gay hate group due to its research distortions and defamation of gays.

That's a rough draft, but I think it gets the point across. Comments? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Rfc on inclusion of Hate group in lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• Should the fact that the FRC is designated a hate group by the SPLC be in the lead of the article? (formalizing Rfc begun by another editor. Please feel free to add categories.) KillerChihuahua 23:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose addition to the lead. I haven't seen anything here that makes me want to overturn the previously established consensus. If it were listed as a hate group by the FBI, that would be another matter, but a listing by the SPLC doesn't seem significant enough for the lead. StAnselm (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the FBI lists hate groups, they rely on the SPLC and other organizations. If they do, would you please link their list? KillerChihuahua 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember something called WP:Notability. SPLC is is cited very frequently by news groups, often for expert opinion on American extremism, as in the case of the recent Sikh temple shooting. They're even in books and we even have an article on Southern Poverty Law Center. A long one. The inclusion itself was widely reported in 2010, again also passing WP:N. Hardly insignificant, innit?

I find it more telling that an organization which when you search in google is primarily described by the adjective "anti-gay" has a squeaky clean Misplaced Pages article that mentions their campaigns against homosexuality in only one or two sentences, and a paragraph shoved at the end.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As it relates to a matter of factual information used in your rationale, you may wish to consider the inclusion of SPLC/ADL at The FBI's hate crimes home page. --j⚛e decker 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support addition to the lead (although not necessarily the precise phrasing suggested above.) The SPLC has been recognized as a reliable source for whether a group is a hate group by numerous groups, including the FBI, the police, multiple news media, etc, as well as on numerous Misplaced Pages articles. If you're designated a hate group by the SPLC, it stands up in court. To omit is to do a disservice to our readers by whitewashing the article. KillerChihuahua 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It stands up in court? I'd love to see some evidence of that. StAnselm (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd also be curious to know more about what this means. Are you saying, KillerChihuahua, that the SPLC is generally accredited the status of an expert witness at trials? Do they do that? I'm honestly curious. --j⚛e decker 00:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if they've ever been called as a witness, but in addition to the cases they bring to court, if a group is in court and is on the SPLC list, that is submitted as evidence by the opposing party. This is really off the subject at hand, though, and it seems I shouldn't have brought it up, as it is leading to a discussion which distracts from the topic at hand. It is not crucial or even important to their overall notability as an expert on hate groups. KillerChihuahua 00:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. --j⚛e decker 00:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support (since this has apparently become a vote) addition to lead and greater prominence of their actual activities as reported by the sources. I've already explained why elsewhere.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• On the understanding that this is not a vote, I support the proposal. Discussion should continue. --TS 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I thought we didn't vote around here. Anyhow, I'm not married to the draft sentence I tossed out, but there's no question that being an SPLC-designated anti-gay hate group is highly relevant to the identity of FRC. A brief sentence to that effect in the lead would go a long way to restoring the neutrality and comprehensiveness of this strangely incomplete article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - It is an important aspect of what this group represents and what it has become known for. It also distinguishes the FRC as extremist relative to other, more moderate, anti-gay groups with the word family in their name. Per WP:LEAD "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." The fact that the FRC is designated a hate group is a very important aspect. - MrX 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose While the designation may be important, has the designation received significant press? Is the group mainly or substantially known for being a hate group? Unless the answers to such questions are yes, it would be premature to place such in the lead. Ngchen (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you ask, the answer is yes. If anything, the Streisand effect made this even more well known. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

GNews isn't turning up much in mainstream news sources. It was in the Washington Times and the LA Times when it was first added to the list, but I don't see much else. What have you got for us? StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

When I google "Family Research Council", I get the org's site, its Misplaced Pages page, SPLC calling it a hate group, followed by TPM reporting on the fact that it's considered a hate group, and then an FRC affiliate site. In other words, all but the primary sources call it a hate group prominently. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some I can get quickly:

LA Times, , Washington Times, , , Christian Science Monitor, CBS News, Reuters, Time Magazine, CNN, , MSNBC, Daily CallerWashington Post, Fox News, , National Public Radio, The Seattle Times, Charleston Gazette, Falls Church News-Press, Boone County Journal, Hattiesburg America, The Plain Dealer (Sun News), ABC News (Yahoo! News), Metro, Yorkville Patch, Digital Journal, News Leader, Dallas Voice, KCEN-TV, Humanistischer Pressedienst, Idaho Statesman, Right Side News, PolyMic, Global Post, The Daily Journal, Colorado Springs Independent, The Inquisitr, Alabama, Digital Journal, Talking Points Memo, , The Record, The Concord Monitor, North Colorado Gazette, Florida Baptist Witness, Vermont Public Radio, Omaha World Herald, Sydney Star Observer, Christianity Today, Deseret News, The Daily Beast (Newsweek), Christian Post

Spanning from 2010 to 2012, all mentioning SPLC's designation of the FRC. Issues ranging from the 2010 hate group list itself, Apple pulling their apps, FRC complaining about gay characters in video games, the Chick-fil-A controversy (which is not mentioned in this article, big surprise), and the Uganda "connection", etc. I'm deliberately excluding LGBT media sources, though I'm including the the conservative sources. Anything else we can sweep under the rug?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, this is an impressive list, and may yet make me change my !vote. BUT I clicked on the Reuters link and read, The SPLC made its name partly by winning lawsuits against violent white supremacists. But conservatives criticized it last year when it labeled the Christian conservative Family Research Council as a "hate group". Which makes me think that if the "hate group" is mentioned in the lead, the criticism of the SPLC with respect to the listing must also be mentioned. I am still opposed to the draft sentence originally suggested. StAnselm (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You'd happily include that, as long as I'm ignoring the "liberal" sources. Figures.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying. I was basing it on Reuters, which seemed to be both the most neutral source, as well as the most important. StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note Last year's RfC on this, which rejected such an inclusion, is here. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, that RFC was actually about the entire controversy stemming from them being named a hate group. So, no, that RFC is not about the same thing as this RFC. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Actually, no. That was should the controversy over the naming of the FRC as a hate group by the SPLC be in the lead. This is whether the categorization of the FRC as a hate group by the SPLC should be in the lead. KillerChihuahua 01:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but I was there and remember it. Upshot? No mention of it in the lead for 18 months or so, per that consensus. Changing the wording slightly or zeroing in on a particular facet of the closing statement doesn't change how the consensus has been implemented since that time. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but I wasn't there so I actually read it instead of trusting my memory. As a result, I'm not factually wrong about what issue the RFC actually resolved.

It's natural to forget these things, which is why you should refresh your memory instead of speaking off the cuff. I'll save you some time by quoting the key sentence, with original emphasis: "However, the insertion that was previously in the lead was about the controversy, and the RFC is about whether the controversy should be included." Hope that helps. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And I don't hate to break it to anyone that consensus can change, regardless of what the earlier rfc discussed. KillerChihuahua 13:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It's last year's news, that has had no particular lasting impact on the organization. No particular reason to include one group's POV in the lead of an organization that has lasted for decades--indeed, that would be the definition of UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. If we find the cure for cancer, we're not going to leave that out of the article because the disease has existed for decades and this is a new thing about it. KillerChihuahua 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Last year's news? There are currently more than 72,000 Google search results for "family research council" and "hate group". I really don't think this is going away anytime soon. - MrX 01:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If FRC had been labeled as Hate Group for a Day, then perhaps you'd have some point. Instead, it's been labeled a hate group ever since that announcement. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

... And how many of those are NEW reporting on the designation, vs. how many of them are just trivially mentioning it on background in pieces about other topics? It should be obvious to all that as the time progresses, yes, the number of raw mentions of that past event will increase. Also, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking for or why you're asking for it. You seem to be implicitly referring to some unspecified but impossibly high standard that is nowhere to be found in Misplaced Pages policy. Being mentioned in the context of Chick-fil-A as a hate group is exactly what we'd expect if our secondary sources considered this fact to be noteworthy, yet you bizarrely write it off in advance as "trivially mentioning it on background in pieces about other topics". Huh? What? Trivial? As opposed to? Where in WP:RS are you getting this from?

The bar is not where you seem to be placing it. I'm certainly not going to pretend that your leading question is relevant to this discussion. Ask a question that has some basis in Misplaced Pages policy, and I'll do my best to answer it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:INDEPTH: The event was covered in depth when it was first announced, notably resulting in several interviews and specials by national TV programs (e.g. the coverage in Hardball with Chris Matthews which resulted in another notable statement by Spriggs mentioned in this article).
• WP:EFFECT: The event resulted in the FRC running full page ads (which again was also covered). It resulted in Apple withdrawing apps used by the groups included by SPLC. It also resulted in an online petition famously signed by 20 members of congress, Jindal, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Boehner, and DeMint (all republicans).
• WP:GEOSCOPE: Event was nationally covered.
• WP:DIVERSE: Covered significantly both liberal, conservative, mainstream, specialized, Christian, and secular sources.
• WP:PERSISTENCE: Event resulted in coverage lasting for months, and has definitely exceeded the normal news cycle. After which it resulted in repeated mentions in light of their activities after the fact, notably the lobbying against the condemnation of the Uganda "kill the gays" bill in connection with the Chick-fil-A controversy, and the "It gets better" project. Both liberal and conservative groups still routinely mention it as a fact. 18 months and it's still in the news should be enough evidence of lasting, historical significance isn't it? I've never heard of this "increasing coverage" rule, can you point out the specific policy?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• somewhat opposed; if mentioned in the lead, the controversial nature of the listing needs to be mentioned there too. Mangoe (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not controversial, except that (duh) FRC rejects it. You think Stormfront admits to being a hate group? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, there is an impressive list of "twenty members of the House of Representatives, three U.S. Senators, four state Governors, and one state Attorney General" who also reject the label. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, these wouldn't all happen to be conservative Republicans who actively oppose gay rights, would they? I mean, if they were, that would certainly explain why they don't see any problem with FRC's bigotry. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To say it's bigotry is, as they say, begging the question. StAnselm (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no question: it's bigotry. This is one of those times when reality has a liberal bias.

And since you didn't answer my question, I went ahead and looked at their full-page ad, signed by the who's who of the American religious right. Just like I said, the politicians were all conservative, and I didn't see any Democrats, either. The text even complains that the SPLC used to just stick to racial bigotry but now it's branching out to include homophobic bigotry. Yeah, poor FRC. They have my sympathy.

The most we can say in the lead is that the FRC and notable members of the religious right objected to this designation, not that there's a controversy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, so what? They're conservative, you and the SPLC are liberal, and where does that leave us? With a controversy. Mangoe (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This really isn't about liberal/conservative. It's about an organization objectively recognizing a hate group. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The controversy, rather baldly, is over whether their identification is objective. That is something that can be objectively determined from the sources; your assertion that they are being objective merely places you in the liberal camp of this dispute. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You seriously consider the SPLC "objective" in this area? StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, they're not a gay advocacy group are they? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what you want that word to mean. They are widely considered to be an advocacy group for liberal causes, and homosexuality certainly qualifies as one of those. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is a generic civil rights organization whose authority on these matters are respected by the FBI. And homosexuality is a sexual orientation. You don't seem to have much of an idea about what you're talking about and your bias is showing. --Scientiom (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the word "generic" could possibly apply here, given that they are being pushed forward on the thesis that they have some special expertise. And as you are someone whose editing hardly encompasses anything beyond articles on conflicts over homosexuality I don't think you have standing on the bias accusations. Finally, as we've been through before, there's no evidence that the FBI endorses the SPLC identification of the various "pro-family" organizations as hate groups. Indeed, the first article in this newsletter gives a perspective on hate groups which the political lobbying organizations we're talking about here would not seem to me to fit into. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See page 21. And the biggest lie of all, just because an organization has "family" in its name does not means it's "pro-family".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pages 1, 21, and 22 mention sexual orientation as one of the irrational bias for hate crimes - have you read it yourself? Also, this document is about hate crimes specifically - the SPLC lists groups as hate groups for defamation using outright lies to incite hatred against particular groups of people based on core traits such as race/color, sexual orientation, etc. --Scientiom (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly "LGBT rights" is one of their key areas of work. StAnselm (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Same with other Poverty Law Centers. And the Human Rights Commission. But are they gay advocacy groups? I find it uniquely American how an organization that primarily deals with violent racist groups and human rights can be dismissed as "liberal". Does that mean conservatives support racism? Why am I even asking.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

St.Anselm's "an action that drew criticism from conservatives" sounds good (though his "on the basis of defamation and research distortions" is not as that is an inappropriate use of Misplaced Pages's voice). Overdetailing becomes a problem, since if we have to mention opposition to the listing, then we're also obligated to mention support for the listing. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) See below.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Suggested sentence for discussion: "In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group,<Washington Times, LA Times> on the basis of defamation and research distortions,<???> an action that drew criticism from conservatives.<Reuters ref>" StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"on the basis of defamation and research distortions" <- and you came to that conclusion from Reuters alone? Massively ironic wording for an organization that calls gay people pedophiles from "research" by the American College of Pediatricians. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I should have included the attribution in the text, though I did in the edit summary. I was modifying the proposal Still-24-45-42-125 had made in the previous section. "Defamation / research distortions" are his phrase, not mine. I don't know who said it and where, hence my question marks. I must say, I don't like the tone that this discussion is taking. StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That comma splice is problematic. It makes it sound as if it's the SPLC doing the defamation and research distortions, instead of listing FRC based on defamation and research distortions.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to drop the phrase altogether: In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, an action that drew criticism from conservatives. StAnselm (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really fussed with the wording, as long as its demonstrably neutral and gives correct context.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly support StAnselm's second phrasing of "In 2010, the SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, an action that drew criticism from conservatives. " KillerChihuahua 13:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that wording seems good enough, though SPLC should be spelled out and linked.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The "hate group" designation is a fictional construct concocted by the organization's political opponents. Misplaced Pages already gives far too much credence to this particular style of political attack. It's fine to mention it down in the body of the article somewhere, with attribution, since it's nothing more than somebody's opinion. However, we must avoid presenting this as an empirical fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, and it does not deserve mention in the lead of an article, ever. Belchfire-TALK 07:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, a fictional construct that the FBI endorses as valid. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course, everyone knows KKK and neo-Nazis are love groups in reality and unjustly labeled. Calling people pedophiles and criminals with no basis is also just a sign that you love them. I don't think anyone has proposed that it be said in Misplaced Pages's voice.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct: we want to attribute to SPLC. Frankly, this gives it more authority than using Misplaced Pages's voice while simultaneously avoiding POV. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support - The SPLC is a good authority on this issue - their listings are used by the FBI. This fact is also stated outside of the United States in the rare instances that the FRC is ever mentioned in the global media. --Scientiom (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support. it is an entirely appropriate inclusion because it comes from a reliable ource and is also used by many neutral newspapers. Pass a Method talk 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support The SPLC is the leading researcher on these types of groups and their opinions are widely reported. TFD (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose SPLC is notable for its opinions, and the classification of any group as a "hate group" is an opinion ascribable to the group holding the opinion as an opinion, and is not a fact of sufficient note (in fact - not a "fact") for inclusion in the lede. I suggest in the case at hand that the subject of the article is not the Nazi party, so the Godwin's Law invocation should not be used.. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying we don't include opinions on Misplaced Pages in article leads? You know that's not the case. Am I not following your rationale? KillerChihuahua 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinion? So you think the FBI is going to respect and use the listings of any random political group? The SPLC is not what you seem to think it is. It also issues these reports very carefully - only after the existence of abundant evidence does the SPLC list any organization as a hate group. --Scientiom (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Funny you should mention Godwin's Law because the FRC president Tony Perkins has had widely reported dealings with the Ku Klux Klan and the Council of Conservative Citizens (both white supremacist groups). Anything else?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support including SPLC's classification, and attributing it to the SPLC, in the lead, per WP:LEAD. A review of reliable sources shows the opposition to the FRC is just about notable as the FRC itself, and so the question is not whether the opposition should be discussed in the lead, but how? Within Misplaced Pages, when there's a subject that has significant opposition, the way we handle it is to mention the position of the most notable opposition groups. Take a look at Fred Phelps for example, where we have "The church is considered a hate group and monitored by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center." and the KKK where we have "it is classified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center." The list of source mentions provided by Obsidian Soul above includes many WP:RS mentions (also some garbage mentions, like blogs, which I'm discounting)--enough WP:RS coverage to show the classification has had a lasting effect. Obsidian Soul's subsequent post covering the Misplaced Pages policy- and guideline-based reasons for notability are also compelling. There are many groups that have voiced opposition but the SPLC's classification clearly looks to be the most notable. Zad68 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The better question would be whether or not the SPLC designation of the Family Research Council as a "hate group" should be in the heading of an article subsection. The whole notion of "hate group" applied to organizations such as the FRC is subjective and, in the current political discourse, largely used for propagandistic purposes . . .kinda like calling an organization "anti-life" or "anti-woman." Badmintonhist (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Or calling gay people pedophiles and criminals? Let the reader decide whether it's subjective or not. But being labelled a hate group itself is notable and should not be hidden, whatever our opinion of it is. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant, but . . . by the way, when did the the FRC call all gays pedophiles or criminals? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You really should learn more about the subject you're voting on. Didn't we just discuss this two headers back? Download the PDFs.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, first time I've heard of notability being dismissed as "irrelevant". -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Maybe you should allow people to respond to the RFC without making a stink over every single comment that doesn't meet with your approval. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

An RFC is a discussion, not a vote. If you want to argue any of the !votes, no one's stopping you. Besides, do read the policies you link to first. WP:NOTAFORUM only applies on OT discussions. We are discussing this article's content. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support FRC is more notable for being designated as a hate group than for many or most of the things mentioned in the lede. It's certainly more notable than, say, the fact that FRC advocates against global warming. MsFionnuala (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Streisand effect, anyone? Belchfire-TALK 20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So I see that global warming has been now pulled from the lede. Hmmph.  :) MsFionnuala (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The SPLC is a widely quoted and respected arbiter of who is and who is not a hate group. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's kinda like calling Joan Rivers a widely quoted and respected arbiter of which celebrities dress inappropriately. The SPLC's listing of "hate groups" (a propagandistic formulation to start with) is basically its schtick, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia should take it seriously. A number of bona fide lefties think that the organization is largely a scam. Moreover, the SPLC.s designation of the FRC as a "hate group" is already in the article. Putting it in the lead gives the SPLC far more weight than it is entitled to. One questionable organization's comments on another questionable organization shouldn't be in the lead.Badmintonhist (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support after a review of sources. SPLC is considered a go-to-reference on hate groups and crimes by the FBI, by a preponderance of research I found on Google Scholar, by a preponderance of mentions in Google Books references,and in a preponderance of neutral Google News Archives references. I think the most serious policy-based objection here was that of Jclemens, and that is the due weight issue, and that's a serious question. I frame the question this way--the inclusion of any sort of hate group labeling, which is more extensive than simply SPLC listings, merits the current weight or so in-text and, as a result, a brief mention in lead. Where the SPLC comes into it is that attributing that label (which most, but far from all) sources do to SPLC, is in my view far more neutral than putting such a contentious view into Misplaced Pages's voice. --j⚛e decker 23:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support The FRC positions itself as a Christian organization yet this is held in tension with it's activities which are so profoundly hateful that the nation's leading authority on hate groups has named them as such. This is among the chief notable criticisms of this group and is done so by the SPLC after extensive research and reporting. This notable criticism is earned by FRC and should be the leading notable criticism in the lead. Insomesia (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue in the lead. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Simply adding the SPLC makes this claim and that some bitterly opposed this designation doesn't take away the designation tags FRC on the same level as the KKK and stormfront.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you may be mistaken. SPLC lists many organizations but reserves hate group for only those it research bears out that it deserves the designation. This is what they do, this is what the SPLC is known for. Beyond the label they don't seem to grade how hateful a group is but they do offer reports on why specific groups are considered a hate group. So the extraordinary claim has extraordinary evidence (again what SPLC does). Many of the hate groups don't like the designation but over time this hasn't changed much at all how the SPLC operates. Insomesia (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per KillerChihuahua. The FBI uses SPLC's hate group definition as well as many reputable media sources. Plus its omission in the lead is quite odd considering how widely publicized it is that the FRC is categorized as a hate group. Search "Family Research Council" + "Hate group" and you get 73,800 hits from a wide variety of sources--including those who are against the "hate group" designation. Whether or not you agree with FRC being labeled a hate group the fact that it is labeled as such is notable and should be included in the lead along with FRC and other sources disagreement with the label. Agne/ 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose All political groups get disagreements from other political groups. To be balanced, the SPLC article should contain more criticism. Roger (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Shooting incident

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

I think you mean FRC, not RFC.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I typo a lot, sorry.KillerChihuahua 17:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, reverted. Zad68 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reinserting momentarily. According to Fox, "The suspect "made statements regarding their policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard," a source told Fox News. WJLA-TV7 reported the suspect was also shot. Authorities were treating the attack as a case of domestic terrorism." Belchfire-TALK 17:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

e/c: Fox News reports that the shooter "expressed disagreement with the conservative group's policy positions"; BUT Washington Times is more conservative in simply saying his motives were unknown. Not enough detail yet, but it certainly makes the situation gnarlier isn't it? Good old Fox News, predictable to a T, it's terrorism now, but the Sikh shooting wasn't. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with this. It still fails all of WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Read the current history section--it is a very general, 5-sentence overview of the organization's 30-year history. A paragraph about one violent event which will not have any lasting effect on the organization is undue. Do you really think this shooting will be a significant part of the FRC's historical identity even six months from now? Probably not. And if it does, we'll add the info about it at that time. Zad68 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not recentism. Within the context of the organization's history, the shooting is significant and will remain so in the future. Editorial decisions will need to be made concerning precisely which details belong in the article, but at this point there is no serious question that it should be included in one form or another. Belchfire-TALK 17:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, but that seems like an absurd thing to claim. This shooting happened hours ago, and the target was a security guard. It's pure WP:CRYSTAL to guess "the shooting is significant and will remain so in the future". If the target were one of the FRC board members themselves, or if the FRC released a sudden statement declaring a significant shift in policy because of the incident, I'd agree with you. But we (you and me together, as Misplaced Pages editors) right now do not have any reliable sources to back up an assertion that this will have any lasting effect. And it's strange to claim there is "no serious claim that it should be included in one form or another" when there are three of your fellow Misplaced Pages editors arguing just that in this thread. Zad68 17:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just let time shake things out. The basic significance of the incident will probably come out over the next few days.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If the shooting is politically motivated against an organization listed as a hate group, then I would say it is noteworthy and should be included. If it was something random or a personal dispute with an employee, then it should not be included. I think we should wait to find out if there is a connection to the FRC's hate group designation. And the victim was the security guard, but he was not necessarily the target. 72Dino (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Fox report is uncorroborated at this point, I'll agree that more time is needed to let things settle down. Probably hours, not days. The notion that a "shift in policy" is needed to establish notability is just silly. I'm prognosticating here, but it seems like a no-brainer that FRC is going to be beefing up security. Furthermore, it also seems likely that SPLC itself is going to come under attack for creating the climate that led to this (which is actually already beginning to happen). Belchfire-TALK 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

e/c: Agree. Once the details come out in the next few days, we can determine if it's related or not. Its lasting historical significance and the due weight required can be determined later per WP:Notability (events) depending on the coverage.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Yes, take pictures. We may not need them for this article, but better to have and not need, etc. And they may be useful elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Still no word regarding motive except from FOX and those citing FOX, and several sources say the FBI says it is too early to tell so this is not "clear" at all. Misplaced Pages is not news, and the world will not end if we wait for the dust to settle. KillerChihuahua 20:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you on an LGBT topic ban??? KillerChihuahua 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instaurare (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 August 2012‎

Then you're not supposed to be editing this article. Revert yourself before you're violated. KillerChihuahua 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How so? Instaurare (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Because this article is part of LGBT. You're violating your ban. KillerChihuahua 20:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page. See the big banner that says "WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)" ? KillerChihuahua 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Any article tagged by the wikiproject I am forbidden? The way I've understood "broadly construed" means if I was TB'd from PlayStation, I could still edit Sony. That's how I saw it explained to someone else on ANI once and haven't seen anybody saying something to the contrary. FRC's work is not limited to homosexuality/abortion. If the enforcing admin says I'm over the line here, I'll revert, but I believe I'm on solid ground. Instaurare (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If there is a big LGBT banner at the top of the talk page, you're not supposed to be editing the article if you're under an LGBT ban. KillerChihuahua 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a flying fig how you interpret it; I see that you've already contacted HJ, so I'll wait to hear from him and him only. Instaurare (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That is regrettable, I am an administrator with considerable experience with topic bans, including at WP:AE and I have never had a decision of mine overturned; that is not to say that it might not happen but to let you know I do know a bit about this subject. That you have now edit warred to reintroduce your addition after it was pointed out to you that this is an LGBT article makes things worse. I think you are making a mistake. KillerChihuahua 21:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WaPo also now reports the shooter made statements regarding an anti-FRC motive, and includes that he was carrying something related to Chick-fil-A on his person:

CNN generally corroborates about the shooter's statements:

Even The Advocate is willing to mention the shooter's motive:

I'd say it's firmly established that this wasn't a random act. And with that, it follows that there can be no serious claim this is not a notable event. Belchfire-TALK 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say it is moving closer to that, yes. I still think need to let the dust settle before adding this, and discuss where it goes in the article, etc. KillerChihuahua 21:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think enough sources have indicated that the shooting is connected to the views of the FRC. And as we have seen today, you are going to be spending a lot of time reverting other editors adding it in anyway. I think the dust has settled sufficiently and now it's just a matter of where in the article to put it. 72Dino (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree about adding the shooting, I'm less convinced about the motive, y'all might recall that based on NBC, CNN and NPR sources we reported the death of Gabrielle Giffords. Breaking news makes for crappy sources. --j⚛e decker 22:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

*nodnod* (Not "corroborated", though, those are the same AP report.) --j⚛e decker 22:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, but we are generally pretty safe going with an AP report. It beats out local TV stations for fact-checking and credibility. Belchfire-TALK 23:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed hate group mention in the lead.

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

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

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

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

I think it's fine, but it should say some conservatives. - MrX 19:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Here we go again:

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

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

No. SLPC classifies FRC as a hate group due to their positions on homosexuality, which is already mentioned in the lead. Lead sections are supposed to be concise. Furthermore, SLPC is the only organization that I'm aware of that makes this classification, so therefore adding it to the lead gives it undue weight. I suggest you be careful with continued POV pushing. You appear to be attracting unwanted attention.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than violating WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEFIELD, do you have anything to contribute here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No. FRC was included because of its false correlation of homosexuality with pedophilia in their numerous campaigns which endangers people's lives. They were not included simply because of its religious stance against homosexuality. There are plenty of Christian lobbying groups that oppose gay marriage, etc. that SPLC hasn't included in the list. Lead sections are supposed to summarize the most notable aspects of the subject. SPLC may be the only organization, but the classification is demonstrably notable and thus due. And lastly, a week old account having been similarly involved with Belchfire in changing the wording in related articles without consensus, that warning on POV pushing comes off a bit hollow, don't you think? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a statement that implies unanimity by a political group where it probably doesn't exist. Limiting it to American conservatives, or American conservatives leaders doesn't solve that problem. How about some, many, a few, several...? Or better yet, leave out 'conservative' and say "...a decision which drew criticism from some." - MrX 20:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "some conservative leaders"? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's much better. - MrX 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad we could come up with something mutually acceptable. --Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This section is purely academic and quite likely a waste of time. There is no consensus to add any of this language to the lead, per the ongoing discussion above. Belchfire-TALK 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, definitely not, at least on your planet. On ours, there's a clear consensus, even if you're not a part of it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, I'd go with it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not like the compromise because it implies that there is parity between the views of the SPLC and a supporters of the FRC. How would this sound, "the SPLC has designated the KKK as a hate group, a decision which drew criticism from some conservative leaders." Also, I we need a secondary source for conservative leaders otherwise it is unimportant. TFD (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The petition signing by Huckabee et al. was quite prominently mentioned in news sources.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

NOPE. We don't revert a year and a half old consensus that took about a month to reach in 2011 with a less-than-day old Rfc which hasn't been closed yet.Badmintonhist (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How about no RfC's at all? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just adjusting the grammar slightly:

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

The secondary source is the Reuters link further up this talk page. But I agree that we shouldn't put it in just yet - the RfC should run its course. It's just nice to have a wording ready. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it really ought to just have "conservatives", since that is what the source says:

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

StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that wording (if consensus goes toward inclusion, of course.) --j⚛e decker 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OBSIDIAN†SOUL, I cannot find the petition mentioned in any news sources. Also, per WP:WEASEL and WP:OR, we need a reliable source to say "some conservatives". TFD (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See Fox News. There's also a mention of it in the article. I'd also support StAnselm's wording, btw.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

LuckyWikipedian BRD

This is a section to encourage discussion of their suggested changes. I'd prefer that we reach some consensus before implementing any of them, as they seem to contradict our sources. In fact, a citation was removed for no clear reason. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you adding in the global warming bit? Show me a single source from their website that suggests that they believe that: http://www.frc.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, you keep on changing "opposition to SSM" to "LGBT rights". Why are you trying to conflate this organization with supporting the death penalty for LGBT persons (as they do in Saudi Arabia). It's clearly not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea would be for you to talk instead of edit war, not in addition. I'm going to report you now. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The global warming language was simply a lie. Neither of the sources given say anything remotely similar to what was stated in the article. Belchfire-TALK 21:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I see where in WP:3RR it says that it's ok to edit war as much as you like, so long as you're convinced that the article isn't the WP:TRUTH. No, wait, I misread. It says the exact opposite! Who would have imagine?!

I'm going to recommend that you disengage. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's always good to do some research before making claims that other editors are conflating issues in an article. For example, Family Research Council Lobbied Congress on Resolution Denouncing Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill.

The removal of the global warming content was disruptive and a simple Google search reveals that it is very well documented. Perhaps it would be better for all of us to try to improve the article rather than simply removing information that we disagree with. - MrX 21:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reported them. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah MrX, it's a good idea to READ what you research. The article says:

"FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality - nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct," the group adds.

I have no idea why you are running a smear campaign here. It's extremely dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Honesty is on page 3.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs better sourcing. Nothing on Scribd is usable. Belchfire-TALK 00:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The United States House of Representatives? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is "Shooting Section" right at the top of the article?

Why is the "shooting section" right at the top of the article? It's not the most significant thing about this organization. I've usually seen recent events such as this one added near the bottom. Codenamemary (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it once. Viriik moved it back. I'm getting pretty tired of this muscle-arming. While we're here talking, Belchfire and pals can apparently can do anything they want with it. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not a controversy. ViriiK (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And because it's part of FRC's history. This isn't complicated, nor should it be controversial. Belchfire-TALK 00:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The motive for the shooting is, notably the Chick-fil-A section you removed a while ago which is now figuring prominently here. I can't help but notice just now that you, Viriik, and Lionelt have really been at this for months. That just tops the cake more or less for me. Have a great day propagandizing. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. If you want, we can always have it as a separate category outside of history. See Luby's and have a fork. ViriiK (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter anymore. Tag teaming beats consensus any day. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• C-Class Catholicism articles
• Low-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• C-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Unknown-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• C-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Unknown-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• C-Class Anglicanism articles
• Low-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• C-Class Lutheranism articles
• Low-importance Lutheranism articles
• WikiProject Lutheranism articles
• C-Class Baptist work group articles
• Unknown-importance Baptist work group articles
• Baptist work group articles
• C-Class Methodism work group articles
• Unknown-importance Methodism work group articles
• Methodism work group articles
• C-Class Charismatic Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment