This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies B‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." The SPLC's designation of the FRC as a "hate group" (see ref's included in article, like this) is certainly important given the profile of the SPLC. Removing this material[1] from the lead is POV. I suggest an article RfC if agreement can't be reached here. --Groovyman1969 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try a survey here from active editors: Should mention of the SPLC's designation as a hate group be in the lead? (Please include brief rationale if you like.) --Groovyman1969 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

INCLUDE. Highly important aspect of the organization, therefore belongs in lead. (FRC obviously hate gays; the shoe fits with respect to SPLC's criteria[2]; so why would they object anyway, other than that sunshine exposing hate never works very well for haters?) --Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, get consensus first as this appears to be out of place in the lead. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you saying "remove because there is no consensus". How about working toward consensus? Do you think the material belongs in the lead, and why or why not? Thanks, Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Here's why. "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." A single reference to the SPLC page, which, by the way, is used by the SPLC to raise funding per messages on the page, is enough in the text of the article, not the lead also. Further, repeating the same claim in the lead is not "a summary" and it is not one of the article's "most important aspects." We are writing a page on FRC. We are trying to make it encyclopedic. We want to then summarize its most important aspects. A fund-raising reference from a politically motivated organization inserted into the article is that organization's message, not ours, and should not be repeated in the lead as it is not one of the most important aspects of what we have written. I totally understand that people are motivated by POV to take that SPLC page, insert it into each article the SPLC targets, then place it into the lead to trumpet the SPLC's claims even further than the SPLC could by itself, but Wikipedia is not to be used for that purpose. Fortunately, Wikipedia has guidelines and policies that help Wikipedia be encyclopedic and not be a soapbox to rebroadcast the claims of various organizations, no matter how truthful or not that information may be.

By the way, thanks for bringing this to the Talk page, although 2 people removing your adding the SPLC to the lead may have helped. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LEAC, thanks for your reply. It's disappointing that your initial response includes a blanket accusation of bad faith editing, i.e.: "I totally understand that people are motivated by POV to take that SPLC page, insert it into each article the SPLC targets, then place it into the lead to trumpet the SPLC's claims...." Please assume good faith. We all know that WP has guidelines and policies to help resolve content disputes. Now, we know that the lead should cover the subject's "most important" aspects. What are these, in an article this size? Quite simply, the topics already appearing under their own headers, which of course includes the SPLC designation under "Criticisms" (a section that probably should be renamed, at some point). The section on the SPLC comprises a couple of paragraphs; relative to the rest of the article, a sentence or two in the lead is not undue weight. This will only get bigger as more news articles are written (see Google News).

It doesn't matter that the SPLC, a non-profit, fundraises; nor does it matter that they haven't given more than a couple of paragraphs to their designating the FRC as a hate group. The SPLC is "big" and suffices as a primary source, per WP:SOURCES. Much more importantly, the story has been picked by various media including CNN and the Washington Post. It's a big story with a bigger context, i.e. the struggle for equal civil and human rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, in the US and worldwide. More news articles make our job easier, and certainly moot the question "is this big enough for the lead". cheers, Groovyman1969 (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy, I'm actually responding to the problem of you repeatedly adding the material despite objections. Per WP:BRD, it was acceptable to make the initial change, but once it was challenged by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, the proper course of action is to take it to the talk page and resolve it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per LAEC above. The SPLC hate group designation is not a defining characteristic of the Family Research Council. It is simply the opinion of one interest group that is seeking to marginalize the influence of an opposing interest group with whom they vehemently disagree. The lede already includes information about the FRC's opposition to homosexuality, which should be enough to let the reader draw their own conclusions about the organization. Uncle Dick (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We're not just using primary sources here. This is a developing news item. The existence of multiple stories in news media is one of the best ways for WP to determine which aspects of a topic are most relevant. This may have been SPLC's intention; they aim to focus attention on what they consider expressions of hate and bigotry. As far as WP is concerned (see WP:SOURCES), they've succeeded. --Groovyman1969 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Include. It strikes me that the real question here is whether or not "hate group" is a factual or accurate description of the FRC; if the question is about wikipedia standards for inclusion of such information in a lead, it's a soporific debate. Articles on the Aryan Nations and the Ku Klux Klan both mention in their leads that the organizations have been labeled as hate groups, terrorist organizations, etc., and I don't think it's at all out of place here. The question then becomes whether or not the FRC simply is an 'interest group' with an 'opposition to homosexuality' or is actively engaged in a disinformation campaign against homosexuals using junk science, discredited research, calumny, etc. In my mind, that issue is pretty clear: the assessment by the SPLC seems accurate. Please include. Snackycakes (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in other pages has little bearing here. I think there's a policy about that. Be that as it may, the KKK page lists a number of sources, and the AN page lists one, the impeccable FBI. That is totally different from what is being proposed here. Here, the SPLC is not impeccable. Here, there are no other references saying what the SPLC is saying. So the attempted equivalence between the FRC and the KKK/AN fails and may represent POV, OR, SYN, SOAPBOX, or something along those lines. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Include. Didn't even realize there was a vote on this until I found it here just now. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a prestigious organization that monitors the activities of hate groups in the United States. Its listings are highly relevant. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not in the lead SPLC lists both real hate groups who work through violence and intimidation and conservative organizations who seek to use the political process to enforce a world view the SPLC doesn't agree with. Is the SPLC's tagging of the FRC one of the top things people need to know about it? I hardly think so. It's appropriate criticism, but lead inclusion is UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Practically overnight, the hate group designation has become by far the most notable thing about FRC. SPLC is a very deeply-entrenched organization in the mainstream civil rights movement, and its official listings are far more relevant than ordinary opinions. Keep in lead, don't trivialize the designation. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Again, I'm not taking a position on inclusion or exclusion. However, given that there appears to be disagreement as to its appropriateness for the lead, we should wait for the discussion to conclude before restoring the text. I've moved it here for discussion purposes:

"In 2010, the Family Research Council was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to antigay statements made by its leaders, including their view that "homosexual behavior" should be outlawed."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 04:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Include. The FRC uses nonfactual and misleading rhetoric, passing it off as scientific research and mainstream biblical interpretation, to continue discrimination and oppression of one particular minority. Its tactics are no different than the historical rhetoric of the KKK or similar organizations. Historically, KKK chapters rarely if ever publicly acknowledged they were in favor of violence against blacks and other minorities, but they are now known for the bombing of black churches and lynching of innocent blacks and civil rights workers who would help them. Their identity as a radical, violent right wing organization is relatively recent (last 30 years or so) but extremely significant - keep in mind that the Klan had former members on the Supreme Court and in the Congress (see Hugo Black, Robert Byrd and others. I believe the gentle treatment of the FRC and other such groups is merely a byproduct of being in the same time frame of these organizations. 30 years from now, they will most likely be viewed with the same disdain held of other such groups, but possibly much sooner. Simply because the SPLC was perhaps the first organization to publicly acknowledge the basis of the FRC's existence does not make it insignificant. I would argue that, in fact, it makes it more so, especially given the SPLC's past reputation on such matters. I feel that the controversy generated by the two groups' views is historically significant, even if it is only recent history at this point in time. I would further argue that simply stating a summary of the FRC's beliefs without pointing out their scientific and sociological fallacies shows bias in favor of the FRC; stating that the group is "socially conservative" or believes in "traditional values" does not necessarily equate with using false scientific data to support a world view, which the FRC does. "Conservative" and "traditional" are both loaded terms that mean many different things to many people and clarity is needed. - tdd4000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Not in the lead The SPLC, unlike a group like the ADL, targets only one side of the political spectrum. That targeting includes the tarring of mainstream conservatives and conservative groups primarily because of differences in views from the orthodoxy of the left-wing, as opposed to actual promotion of hate. If other less ideological groups characterize the FRC as a hate group then this issue can be reexamined. Drrll (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying the SPLC targets "only one side of the political spectrum" is not at all true. They have registered the New Black Panthers as a hate group and have criticized Louis Farrakhan, for example; also, they have published articles in the Intelligence Report critical of Cynthia McKinney (who is almost always associated with the left) due to McKinney's ties to Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, etc.

I should have said "largely targets only one side." I think it would be quite revealing to see just what proportion of hate group designations go to the political right vs. the political left, just as it would be helpful to see the breakdowns of their criticisms of individuals as far as political affiliation. My guess is that it would be something like 90-98% for the right, with the token rest going to the left. Note that their very active blog, Hatewatch (published by the "Intelligence Report") is subtitled "Keeping an eye on the Radical Right." Drrll (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that says more about the right itself than it does the SPLC. While racial, religious, and anti-gay bigotry can sometimes be found on the left, it is generally more common on the right, at least in the United States. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat true as far as groups go, but I think there is a sufficiently large amount of anti-Semitic and especially anti-religious bigotry by individuals on the left to warrant a significant evening of the right/left breakdown in the SPLC's criticism. Drrll (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I know, this is a page about the Family Research Council, and not the SPLC. The SPLC is generally seen as one of the most reliable sources for hate-group designations. They are very open to information about hate groups, and I think that if you would submit that to them, they would take it serious. I for myself am curious about leftish groups that are anti-religious hate groups? Could you provide some credible links to that kind of groups? If they are so obviously around, that should not be that hard..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source(s) demonstrate that "the SPLC is generally seen as one of the most reliable sources for hate-group designations?" I was referring primarily to the SPLC's criticism of individuals that they do regularly, rather than their hate-group designations of organizations. I do think that their designation of groups like the FRC as a hate-group is a highly political move, as opposed to on the basis of true anti-gay bigotry by the FRC. If they are going to tar the FRC as a hate group, why wouldn't they tar a group like People for the American Way as as a hate group for its supposed anti-religious bigotry? Drrll (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, do you have some citations of this claim that the People for the American Way is a hate group similar as the FRC? Your unsourced criticism of the SLPC does not change the hate group designation of the FRC. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim that PfAW is a hate group; my point was if the SPLC can so easily tar the FRC as a hate group for their views of homosexuality, it's not a stretch to say that if the SPLC were consistent, they could tar PfAW as a hate group for their views of religion. Drrll (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC provides support for Drrll saying the SPLC easily tars the FRC. In the context of another organization the SPLC labels for political reasons, "SPLC hate group monitor Mark Potok reportedly acknowledged, 'what we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR.'" You know what? I am 100% certain Wikipedia is not to be used to further SPLC's stated goal to marginalize groups it opposes. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LEAC - All political groups seek to prevail over their opponents. As long as political news is well-sourced, it is encyclopedic. Yes, it is possible to be both encyclopedic and political at the same time. That's because NPOV means covering all mainstream, sourced views on a subject (as opposed to some watered-down attempt to be "neutral by discussing nothing controversial). See WP:POV etc. (This is also why the Birther nonsense gets relatively little weight: it's fringe.) --Groovyman1969 (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World nut daily still peddles the Obama Birther shit, and you want to present that as a reliable source to discredit the SPLC?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you are saying is that the PfAW propagates known falsehoods — claims about religious people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. I did not say that. Stick to the issues, please. (I think you were talking to me, but I'm not sure.) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so that is now clear. And that means that you do not stand behind this statement "the SPLC can so easily tar the FRC as a hate group for their views of homosexuality, it's not a stretch to say that if the SPLC were consistent, they could tar PfAW as a hate group for their views of religion" because the SPLC used objective criteria to add the FRC to the hategroup list (The one I changed to reflect religious people), while you just admitted that the PfAW would not be on that list for those reasons. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? You keep getting off track. Stop putting words into people's mouths. Get back to the substance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the substance. What you are doing is trying to discredit the SPLC by trowing random claim of unfairness at them and then when you are called on it, you evade it. What I am doing is holding you to your claims, which you, as expected are unable to substantiate. Which is not surprising because your claim was false from the start. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What known falsehoods about gay people has the FRC propagated, and what name-calling have they done? Drrll (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See article of the SPLC. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC article (I'm assuming you mean WP article) only mentions one specific thing (the Sprigg comment) and that comment, while notable, does not fall under either a "known falsehood" or "name-calling." Again, what specific known falsehoods have they spread and what specific name-calling have they done? Drrll (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the article in question at their website. That you think their analysis is flawed is one thing, but inserting that to WP is original research. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If viewed in context of the SPLC's criteria for a hate group, the sole qualification they provide is the FRC's views on gays and pedophilia. I wouldn't put in an article that I think their analysis is questionable, unless that is represented by a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you got ONE of the reasons. The full range is:

1. Linking homosexuality to pedophilia.
2. Advocating to re-criminalize homosexual behavior.
3. Homosexuals are violent (proclaiming increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults).
4. Links to other hate groups.

It is all spelled out there. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At most, that would be two items fitting the SPLC criteria for a hate group (propagating known falsehoods and name-calling). The call by Sprigg to re-criminalize homosexual behavior is neither, as are the links to other hate groups (those links are weak and relate only to Perkins before he joined the FRC). As an aside, you have to wonder if they got something else wrong in their writeup of the FRC if they get a basic fact about Trent Lott wrong--he was not House Speaker. Drrll (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(partial de-indent) Continuing thread from Drrll's comment above at 22:47, 28 November 2020, ending "he was not House Speaker": Lott was Senate Majority Leader, not Speaker of the House; that's an easy mistake to make if you're writing about politics all day, and at most indicates that the SPLC needed a proofreader for that section. A simple error like that is insufficient evidence that the SPLC's analysis is "flawed" (or that they maybe meant to say something different .... I don't know what, like "the FRC is not a hate group"? I seriously doubt that). As to the validity of the designation, we're simply reporting what the SPLC says; they provide their considered opinion and their designation suffices. Moreover, their criteria are not absolute (my emphasis): "Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling."[3] So any argument that the SPLC may have violated their own criteria is not only original research, but is mooted by the stated flexibility of those same criteria. -- Groovyman1969 (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the big fat weasel word that the SPLC allows itself with "generally." So in other words, it really doesn't have an objective criteria in labeling a group with such an incendiary description as "hate group." It can tar mainstream conservative groups at will when the groups stray from the SPLC's bounds of political correctness. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't apply the label to any mainstream liberal groups that occasionally venture into anti-Semitic or anti-religious rhetoric. It should not be in the lead unless a wide cross-section of sources regularly mention the hate group designation when discussing the FRC (that shouldn't be difficult--most major sources are ideologically sympathetic towards the SPLC), not just the sources that reported on the designation as news (WP:LEAD: "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources.") Drrll (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drrll - WP's policy on "weasel words" only applies to WP articles, not to sources; there is nothing wrong with the SPLC using "generally" in their criteria. And you are correct that the SPLC can call any group a hate group if it wants to. Absolutely correct. The only check on that is public opinion. If they become sloppy with it, they will probably become less respected over time. But as things stand now -- not in some hypothetical future when the SPLC has jumped the shark -- the SPLC's considered opinion is newsworthy, is encyclopedic, and has a great deal of weight, with over a dozen good secondary sources in the article. We're reporting what the SPLC -- not any other group -- said. We don't need other, SPLC-like groups to do that. (See my reply to User:Uncle Dick below that begins with "That is, in effect, a straw man argument".) We just need ample secondary sources reporting on the story, and with so many, it's certainly weighty enough to be in the lead. Is there anything else in the article with that many sources, other than perhaps basic descriptions of the FRC's mission? No, there isn't; this is highly notable. The SPLC indeed wants to call the FRC out on their homophobic bigotry, and based on the ensuing news coverage, they are succeeding. regards --Groovyman1969 (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groovyman1969, yes I know that "weasel words" in WP apply only to WP articles, but it doesn't take away from the fact that apart from WP, their use of "generally" is very much a weasely word that frees them from the bother of sticking to objective criteria when using something so incendiary as "hate group." The fact that other groups like the ADL and the FBI have not designated the FRC as a hate group demonstrates that the SPLC has in fact jumped the shark here. Obviously stories that mention the FRC before the SPLC's proclamation on high do not mention the hate group designation, and obviously stories that give the news of the designation mention do mention it. What should be the guide for inclusion in the lead is whether a variety of future stories that discuss the FRC mention the designation--something like "...the FRC, designated by the SPLC as a hate group..." That would demonstrate its "relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources" as described by WP:LEAD. Drrll (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Include; it's notable and has been widely covered, and saying that the SPLC has labeled it a hate group is not the same as saying it is a hate group. Readers will still be able to make up their own minds. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Include The SPLC is generally considered the go to source for information about hate groups. It would be WP:UNDUE to minimize that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally considered" by whom? The SPLC is but one of many organizations that maintains a "hate group" list. The FBI, for example, maintains its own database of hate groups, which is more narrowly (and sensibly) defined as groups that commit hate crimes. We need to be very careful about peppering the article lede with the "hate group" badge of shame that has only been applied by one major political interest group. If multiple, independent sources begin to apply the "hate group" label to the FRC, then I would be more inclined to include it in the lede (see, for example, VDARE and KKK). Uncle Dick (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UD -- That is, in effect, a straw man argument (I'm not suggesting it was disingenuously made, only that it's not germaine). "Multiple, independent sources" is what we have in the article already (see most of references 17-30 in current version of the article). Those sources support the language under consideration, which is that the SPLC designated the FRC a hate group, and also establish sufficient weight to mention it in the lead. Your argument would apply if we were discussing different language, e.g., if we were debating whether to say that the FRC is considered a hate group by multiple organizations. --Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my argument. I'm not trying to make a policy-based objection to adding the content per WP:RS. Rather, I'm trying to determine a sufficient burden of proof for including the highly pejorative "hate group" description in the article lede to avoid WP:UNDUE. In other articles that include the "hate group" pejorative in the article lede, there are multiple, independent organizations who have made that assessment. Only one interest group has labeled the FRC a "hate group", and it is highly contested label, especially if you read some of the news reports which note, somewhat incredulously, that the FRC is now equated with truly notorious organizations like the Aryan Nations. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Include per Kim van der Linde and also due to extensive media coverage. Phoenix of9 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Include - extensive media coverage, generally accepted reliable source, the FRC misrepresents scientific research to continue discrimination and oppression of one particular minority. --Destinero (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tallying so far - The "includes" outweigh the "don't includes" by abnout a 2:1 margin, providing a supermajority that is sometimes taken as consensus on WP. The editors arguing "don't include" have presented a range of arguments, some of which are not well-supported by fact or reason, have been refuted by editors in favor of including the material in the lead, and have not (yet) been counter-refuted. Moreover, we have a large number of sources for the "hate group" topic, thus establishing that it is far from undue weight to mention it in the lead; see most of references 17-30 in the current version of the article. I would say these facts are pretty strong reasons to include the wording in the lead and move on. Obviously, no rush, and we can discuss more (hopefully avoiding some of the red herrings I've seen above). What do other editors think? --Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may outweigh in numbers, but not in reasoning. One side cites and applies Wiki rules to keep SPLC out of the lead but in the body, whereas the other side proclaims everyone knows the SPLC is the worldwide expert on hate crimes so whatever it says goes, and if it doesn't, we'll edit war to make sure it does, since the SPLC deserves to have its wonderful view in both the lead and the body. I see a major qualitative difference that outweighs the quantitative difference. I also love the MSM extensive coverage reasoning, like any media would ever report anything critical about the SPLC, so let's have Wikipedia join in on spreading how people should think about the SPLC. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see it the other way round, with the opposes not providing any substantial argument to keep it out of the lead. As long as the FBI considers the SPLC a reliable resource with regard to hate groups, I think we can lay that puppy to rest. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim - yes, I agree. Outstanding catch re the FBI; someone should put that in the SPLC's article if it's not already there. LEAC, I don't know how you can reasonably say what you do about discussion here when you didn't even respond to my reply at the top of the thread (see comment starting with "Hi LEAC, thanks for your reply"). Every point made by editors who don't want the material in the lead has been addressed by one or more editors who do. The converse is not the case (although there are one or two editors who seem to have perfected the art of repetition (WP:IDHT) and going off on irrelevant tangents). As for the notion of liberal media bias, well, we might as well throw out all of WP:RS. Conservapedia has more or less taken that tack. Why should Wikipedia duplicate something that already explains, in great detail, how Young Earth Creationism explains everything under the 6,000-year-old sun? --Groovyman1969 (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeouch! Groovyman1969, I didn't respond because I didn't notice the question. Yes, it appears right after I spoke with you, but this is Wikipedia and we know what it's like in real life, so I missed it. I'm not really sorry, however, because no one here is responsible for reading and responding to everything. I did neither. Didn't notice it, until now, until you gave me the text I could search. Even now I won't answer as in real life I do not have the time right now. There is a reason WP:AGF is a good policy, and your accusations about my being unreasonable in this instance illustrate that. Please don't make such assumptions in the future. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is not an immutable condition of collaborative editing as LAEC thinks it is, apparently. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. " After failing to persuade enough editors here, he has taken his fight to the SPLC article, enlisting others to help there as well. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeouch! "Contrary evidence" has nothing to do with my not seeing and responding to a question. "Failing to persuade" is not the issue here--rather I simply have been editing elsewhere or doing other things in real life. I asked you to please stop attacking me just a few hours ago and you did, then you came here and continued your campaign of making false comments about me. You really should stop this. I'm not "enlisting" others, by the way, I'm gaining consensus as I should. I wish you would do the same and stop making it your personal mission to make false statements about me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the victim-card bullsh!t. No one is attacking you. If you really think so, bring it to WQA. Otherwise, stop deflecting the issues everytime someone calls you out on your tendentiousness. I'm saying that we don't continue to assume good faith just because it's a policy that you like to bring up every other post. You're actually fighting against consensus: your edit-warring at SPLC over the bias tag, arguing against regular editors there ad infinitum, and now emboldened mischaracterizations of said editors because another POV-warrior (Badmintonhist) supports and encourages you to "enjoy the battle"[4] -- these all amount to contrary evidence for WP:AGF. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Include: WP:LEDE clearly states "The lead should ... summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." (my emphasis) Does anybody wish to claim that the SPLC designation is not a 'notable controversy'? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Include There appears to be a consensus, or as close to it as feasible, that the SPLC hate group designation should be included in the lead. However, edits made along these lines are being treated as vandalism. Why? ThisJustInTime (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do any other editors have a problem with the sentence removed here and here? It could be attributed, and of course it is refuting a claim made by FRC Tony Perkins, that homosexuality is a risk factor in child molestation; the sentence is taken from this source, which is linked by this source when it says the following:

Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.” (emphasis added)

Under those circumstances re the sources, I think the sentence saying that men who molest boys are not necessarily homosexual is relevant. Other's input much appreciated (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements that imply / declare that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles are unsupported by relevant research, and should not be included without balancing material stating the mainstream scientific view. To leave such incorrect statements uncorrected is a violation of WP:NPOV. EdChem (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; this is a very clear cut case of a policy violation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 07:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:NPOV says no such thing about balancing. It is about reporting the topic neutrally. There is no requirement to spend nine tenths of the creationism article on evolution because creationism is scientifically hogwash. What is relevant to a topic is what's been written about the topic which here is the Family Research Council. Going down a sideroad diverting an article from its topic is turning it into a WP:COATRACK. There are lots of articles about aspects of homosexuality without turning this one into another one. Do you really think people are so ignorant that one needs to stick an article about it wherever one of these homophobic organizations occurs rather than writing about the organization itself?

That said I believe it would be okay to put that stuff back in, it is cited well enough. However I thing that section should make it more clear that the Poverty Law Centre is pointing out these respected sources refuting what the FRC has said. At the moment they just look like what someone with a chip on their shoulder stuck in. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." WP:UNDUE (emphasis added). KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm the editor who last deleted the sentence in question I should probably weigh in here. As I said in the edit summary, there are quite a few things wrong with it. For starters, it stands out in tone like a sore thumb. A paragraph that seems to be neutrally presenting the claims of contending experts suddenly seems to take sides with a declarative editorial statement. It just doesn't fit in with the tone that an encyclopedia is supposed to have. Moreover, I would contend that the subject that these contending organizations are dealing with is inherently subjective. What is the nature of homosexuality (or heterosexuality or bisexuality)? Is it merely sexual desire for members of the same sex? Is someone who primarily desires sexual relations with members of the same sex but has never acted on it but has instead had relations only with members of the opposite sex (and there have probably been hundreds of thousands of such people throughout history) a homosexual? Is someone who would really prefer sexual relations with the opposite sex (a prisoner perhaps) but who instead regularly engages in sexual relations with members of the same sex a homosexual, or someone who seem to have an equal propensity for both sexes but instead engages with members of the same sex because of convenience? I don't feel we should have copy in the article that takes sides on the issue, especially copy that, frankly, seems to be written ham-handedly. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S> The deleted statement is also, as Dmcq points out, a COATRACK in an article on the Family Research Council. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you don't like the phrasing/tone. We can change that. As to your other objections, I have no opinion... but the source does. If the source has an opinion directly related to a statement made by FRC, shouldn't we include the info? Dmcq, if it were attributed to its expert, that be better right? It's not actually coatrack because it's a) just one sentence and b) directly from the source and c) relevant and d) part of a section on criticism. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it presented as that source's finding or opinion and not as a declarative editorial statement. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be fine. I just want it to report about the criticism and what each side said rather than start getting Wikipedia personally involved as it were. As I said before I'd like it more clear that the Poverty Law Centre pointed out these sources to support its case and counter what the FRC has said. Dmcq (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then people here would agree to put it in if it were attributed to the researcher? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inappropriate to attribute the majority view specifically. Imagine if we wrote "Charles Darwin said life evolves" instead of "life evolves". The former might be acceptable if we were discussing the history, but otherwise it would leave us with the false impression that it's just what this one guy says.Dylan Flaherty 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You of course don't mean "majority," but rather "reliable source," as your example makes very plain. As you see with the attribution to the APA, attribution increases the forcefulness of the argument, it does not decrease it. I do not care from what perspective people are arguing here. I would use attribution because it is good encyclopedic writing and increases the persuasive power of the information. For one thing, everyone with a brain knows that absolute statements are the result of absolutist thinking, and that absolutist thinking is not data-driven and therefore often wrong. For another, if the attribution does serve to decrease persuasive power, then such is deserved. One can't use attribution when it increases the power of the argument, as with the APA, and then refuse to do it when one (falsely in this case) believes it detracts from the argument's force. Research by A. Nicholas Groth, writing for the United States House Committee on the Judiciary, found that it is not true that men who molest boys are necessarily homosexual." (Sexual Exploitation of Children: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives (pp 106). University Press of the Pacific. 2002.) And were it in some other case fact that attribution detracted from the persuasive power, that is something we'd have to accept. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 09:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I understand your point here. You've said nothing about the fact that we do not need to attribute every fact. Dylan Flaherty 17:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)The discussion abou[reply]

This article is about the FRC. The criticism should be in that context. There's lots of other articles about other things. That the Poverty law centre called them a hate group and provided their reasons is what the citations show and is relevant to the article and is what should be said. Providing facts without showing direct relevance to the topic is what WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH warn against. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is directly relevant to the topic, Dmcq. People in Wikipedia need to settle for what they can get under Wikipedia rules. In this case, though in Wikipedia we don't need to attribute every fact, we should attribute the statement we're discussing because it is controversial and, in this case, from a single source. It's not like evolution with hundreds of the most reliable sources behind it. In that case, the enormous weight of the reliable sources outshines the fact that it is controversial and not widely believed. If you read the Atlantic recently, there was a large article about how even the best blinded medical studies are wrong quite often. This is original research on the part of Groth. Attribution in this case not only strengthens the readers impression over simply stating it as fact, but it also is necessary for all those reasons that Wikipedia has a policy endorsing prose attributions. That is, use them whenever a statement is controversial, disputed, widely believed to be false, or concerns a matter of opinion. It's not Groth's opinion, but it's disputed. Even though FRC and its influence is despicable, we need to distance ourselves emotionally, and remember that good scientific/encyclopedia writing requires certain things of us... one of which is to remain distanced from the subject and not worry too much about the influence we're having, so long as we're doing things properly. Public opinion is not something to be considered. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to figure out what the 'it' at the start of all that referred to. Dmcq (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Killer Chihuahua--this is not an article about sexuality of any sort, it's an article about an organization. One which has controversial views on some things, however, but those UNDUE bits on those viewpoints should be hashed out in those articles, not here. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) UNDUE and ArbCom say otherwise - we are not to post a fringe view without also including the mainstream view. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Enlighten me. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." WP:UNDUE (emphasis added)
• "In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Undue_weight (emphasis added) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, in other words, the most reliable sources should not be ignored. Setting aside all terminology such as "mainstream," we rely on the best sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is specifically about views not sources. We may be agreeing, but your choice of words is confusing in that case. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More appropriately that is referring to articles about views, which this is not. I see no support for your statement above "we are not to post a fringe view without also including the mainstream view". I see plenty of support for "we are not to have an article on a fringe view without also including the mainstream view", which is what I'm arguing: discussion of a fringe view belongs in the article on the fringe view, and need not be repeated in every article which references the fringe view. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it clearly states "points of view on a subject" not "articles on a subject". In this case, the subject is whether homosexual are more likely to be pedophiles. The majority POV is no, absolutely not. The unsupported fringe view is yes it is. We cannot present the FRC's fringe view without also presenting, however briefly, the majority view, without running afoul of NPOV#UNDUE. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject here is FRC. The article is presenting the views on the FRC. The subject is not whether homosexual are more likely to be paedophiles. The point of view expressed by the Poverty Law Centre is that the FRC is a hate group. Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To KC: Yes, it talks about points of view. But the article doesn't need to describe points of view. It shouldn't. It should reference one of those battlefield articles like Homosexuality and Christianity or something. The difference is important, else every article on evolution in the 'pedia would have to mention its controversies--which is stupid and unworkable. Controversies over sexual orientation should be treated the same: a good NPOV approach worked out once and then referenced from everywhere else relevant, so we stop polluting articles like this with redundant debate material. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is not fringe; so your argument is flawed. If this article mentions the view, held and promoted by the FRC, that homosexuals are more likely to be pedofiles, we must add a brief note that this is not supported (not necessarily that phrasing.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote FRINGE right back at you: "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article" There's no denying creationism is a "significant-minority position", so if we have to hash out everything in every article, then yes, everything that mentions evolution has to discuss both evolution and creationism. If, on the other hand, we can mention a fringe view and then wikilink to where it's discussed, we're fine. Which one is it: everything discussed everywhere, or link to the controversy in articles which aren't about the controversy? Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article". You forget to mention "As reported by reliable sources". Evidence for creationism in reliable sources is exactly zero. So, no, it does not have to be mentioned in each and every article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, such is reported in many RS, just not as fact. Further, WP does not cover things in a way which promotes a truth, but rather reports notable ideas relative to a subject. So yes, we mention creationism in an article on evolution. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have articles about the various forms of creationism, but the article about evolution has nothing about it anywhere where the science is reported, except min the last section in cultural responses or something like that. There are no reliable sources that show that it is at equal par with evolution. Creationism is a religious phenomena, just like the idea that having gay parents is bad for the children. Once you get down to the science, those religious based ideas evaporate faster than a drop of water on a white-hot plate. Neutral point of view does not rewquire to balance a science topic with cultural non-scientific ideas. There is no scientific evolution-creationism controversy, there is a cultural or better, religious evolution-creationism controversy, which is not thye same and the scienc does not have to report the cultural issues related to a controversy that does not exist in science. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who gets to decide what is "religious" vs "scientific"? That's a false dichotomy. My whole point is, the controversy is bigger than the FRC and does not belong in this article. Nothing about NPOV or FRINGE requires us to rehash every debate in every tangentially-connected article, and if I started applying the viewpoint expressed here in different circumstances, it would be construed as disruptive... because it would be. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having it be about views would make a mockery of Wikipedia. Evolution, for example, is a fringe view. It's just not fringe in RS. Of course we aren't going to have a view/response format in Wikipedia. Rather reliably sourced views should always be presented when views which are not reliably sourced are being described. But you're right, it's on a per-article basis, not a per-sentence or per-paragraph basis. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---> Becritical: excuse me, are you actually saying Evolution is a fringe view? Please confirm you meant to say that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. How many Chinese, Indians, Africans, Americans believe in it? It's a mainstream view only among scholarly sources. But it is by far the minority view. Thus, I say that Wikipedia has its terminology very wrong. WP follows the scholarly sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to read up on WP:FRINGE. Really. Its not a popularity contest. [Please [User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]^?!?Advice 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, which Wikipedia makes very difficult for new editors by not properly explaining that mainstream equals the mainstream of reliable sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what UNDUE says. You're welcome to think that, but the problem with that is that following through with that approach turns every related article to an inconsistent rehash of debates. Far better to put the debate into a view article, meet UNDUE there, and link to that article from everywhere the fringe theory is mentioned. Thus, we can keep articles like this one focused on their subject, rather than the mainstream reaction to views held by the organization. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay explain to me what UNDUE says that I'm missing? I'm not saying that an article on a controversial "fringe" view should be about the RS view. I'm just saying that the RS view shouldn't be ignored. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jclemens, I would agree with you about not needing to rehash arguments but rather link to them. Of course you have to give a sentence or two with the link. I didn't really notice that anyone was arguing that we would have to turn all articles like this one into a showcase for RS/mainstream versus non-RS/fringe. I don't think there's any reason not to have a criticism section though or let major points go unchallenged in such a section which is how this debate started. Could you please show/tell me what your approach would be to a criticism section for this article? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The world is filled with views that have significantly more support among the general population than in reliable sources. Last I heard, a significant minority of the US population believed that President Obama is a Muslim, though (AFAIK) no WP:RS suggests this. Should we then suggest in Barack Obama that he may be a Muslim based upon popular opinion? I think not. Where popular and expert opinion diverge, we weight by expert opinion, and merely note popular opinion (where relevant) using reliable third party sources that have commented upon it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right and thank you for not using the "majority/minority" terminology which makes a mockery of what we actually do at WP. Maybe the view should be mentioned though since reported in RS. It's a matter of weight. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but I don't think this is a very relevant discussion. Take it to homosexuality. Homosexuality by definition includes any sort of sexual behaviour involving members of the same sex. This obviously includees, but just as obviously isn't limited to, men approaching boys.

KillerChihuahua, there is also such a thing as "protesting too much". Everybody who is half awake and half literate is aware that biological evolution is absolutely undisputed, to the point that it is not even a theory, just an observation of the kind "things change as time passes". As Dmcq has pointed out, it isn't necessary to angrily defend the obvious in every article on every cranky religious group. The article on Pegasus isn't stuffed with disclaimers that scientists have never managed to observe winged horses flinging lightning bolts. Turning Pegasus into an elaboration on meteorology and equine anatomy would be WP:COATRACK. Yes, there are no winged horses. No, people reading about Pegasus are either already aware of this, or they aren't interested in the fact. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, with all due respect, you might wish to address your remarks to jclemens and becritical, both of whom have stated that evolution is a fringe theory. Both of whom are editing this article, and arguing using "evolution is a fringe theory" as a pint to give weight to their arguments. I have merely responded to them. Unless you are saying I should tell jclemens and becritical that neither of them is "half aware (or) half literate?" I think that might be a problem. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KillerC, if you continue to misrepresent what I said by leaving out essential parts of my observations which I very clearly communicated, I will remember not to respond to you in the future. Please give some indication that you understood what I said. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that criticism section, the start of the last paragraph has no citation so either it should be removed completely or a source found and read to see what was actually said by both sides rather than the business about the APA tacked on. That may be relevant but at the moment it is synthesis applied to an uncited statement.

The second last paragraph is better but the last part of it has been tacked on as a coatrack. The relevance should be shown and if the sources are inspected you'll see the page that talks about '18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda' at the top talks about the 'facts' they disseminate which references their page about '10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked' so this is their page about debunking what the anti-gay groups say. So the paragraph could say something like:

In its Winter 2010 Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the FRC as a hate group,[28][5] saying that the organization "pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia."[29][30] FRC President Tony Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as the result of a political attack by a "liberal organization" and "the left's smear campaign of conservatives,"[5] but reiterated that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. The Southern Poverty Law Centre lists a number of respected studies and organizations to debunk anti-gay propaganda.[32: 10 anti gay myths] In particular, according to the American Psychological Association, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” [33] Also one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities Gregory Herek, reviewed a series of studies but found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.[32]

here the relevance to the article has been established so it doesn't all look like something just stuck in by POV pushers. Dmcq (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A deeper problem

I think the issue could be ameliorated considerably if the only source for this passage were not the SPLC itself. The one MSNBC link really doesn't count because it's simply an alternate path to the material pointed to by the SPLC. One might also think that the FRC has some response to these statements which is at present apparently being suppressed in the article. Can we not find an outside source to report on all this? Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If MSNBC reports it as "SPLC says", then I agree. However, if MSNBC endorses the contents, then that's a different matter. Dylan Flaherty 13:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've a problem with the line 'Leading scientific authorities have repudiated publications of the American College of Pediatricians, saying their claims are unfounded and accusing the ACP of distorting and misrepresenting their work'. I was unable to view the MSBC broadcast to see what the SPLC actually said when the FRC said their bit about the American College of Pediatricians but what is there sounds to me like some editor sticking in their own argument rather than reporting on what happened. Dmcq (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that sentence is not sourced to MSNBC - the reference used is that to the article "University of Minnesota professor's research hijacked". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I can see the reference to FRC in that citation. It would have been nice if the link was more obvious in the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole back-and-forth "yes they are" "no they're not" stuff should go. This is not the article for it and the issues simply cannot be thrashed out in proper detail. So we get juxtaposed soundbites from both sides of the debate. Since the policies of the Family Research Council seem to be identikit US Christian Right stuff, there is no point is discussing the pros and cons of particular issues that are debated properly elsewhere (eg at Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality#Association_with_child_abuse_and_pedophilia or Anti-gay slogans). Nor is there any reason to focus on homosexuality. We could as easily have a whole section filled with criticism of Intelligent Design as pseudoscience, or of anti-porn activism as an attack on publishing freedom. Link to relevant articles. Paul B (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So long as we mention a bit here before linking, that's just fine. Dylan Flaherty 21:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Paul Barlow. Do not agree with Dylan Flaherty. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the shock! Call an EMT, my heart has stopped. :-) Dylan Flaherty 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Paul B and LAEC. Link to the debate, don't rehash it. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could be re-written to link to proper discussions of the debates. Yes, of course Dylan you have to have a sentence or two here, you never just use a link alone. That's really a good idea... but seriously folks, we should try and make this a showcase example. Do it right, then write an essay on how we did it, and promote it as an official recommendation for WP. We could eliminate a lot of POV pushing from articles like this, on all sides of the debate, by centralizing the debates and thus having sufficient editorial eyes on these central debate hubs to keep them NPOV. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"SPLC's Cowardly Lyin'", FRC, 8 December 2010 - brand new response from FRC about SPLC listing it as a hate org. The response appears to contain material that might fit into this Wiki page, and it contains links to other potentially reliable sources as well. I won't comment on what it is saying or linking now, but it appears both may be useful for building this page. I'm adding a similar note to the SPLC page. I'm wondering if the propaganda page and the censorship page might benefit from this as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the FRC issues another attack on the SPLC, and again, without a solid rebuttal on the issues that landed them in the hate-group list. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia shouldn't be listing pages from any site except for reliable sources except the obvious front page or something like that without a secondary source pointing them out. That applies to the SPLC as well plus they aren't the subject of the article. Dmcq (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't necessarily agree that is a position without any exceptions, this is not one of those times. The piece is, as Dmcq points out, by FRC, and we already have their view of the SPLC's placing them in the hate group status, sourced to third parties. As Kim points out, there is no new content here. The article is already a bit unbalanced - we have nothing much on any of their other positions, and while its clear that the anti-gay bit is garnering the most attention, we don't need to make the article yet more unbalanced in that direction. We should be keeping our eyes open for fleshing out the rest of the article, and hopefully at some point integrating the "criticism" section and not having it stand-alone. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, and it makes no pretension of neutrality. Furthermore, if it were biased in the opposite direction, we'd immediately remove it from consideration due to its low quality. Dylan Flaherty 14:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is practically totally irrelevant. The point is we should not be trawling through sites, we should be working from reliable sources. Please see Conservapedia for instance, editors can't just pick pages from it they have to be referenced from a reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, an entity's self-published material is acceptable as a source for the entity's own take on things, per WP:SELFPUB. As long as it's not making claims about a third party, it's not only OK to include an FRC statement, it's hard for me to imagine a circumstance in which it would be improper to do so. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After removing the information on SPLC from the summary, I noticed this has been quite controversial in the past. My reasoning is thus: the information is redundant and does not constitute as a topic that gives an "overview" or "introduction" to the organization as it is. The designation by SPLC didn't change anything about FRC; with or without the decision, FRC would still be an unabashedly conservative Christian right lobbying group. Feel free to respond if you so desire. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it because it was added to the lead after achieving consensus here. You are free to obtain a new consensus that it should not be there, but unilaterally overriding the consensus achieved is not done. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Another solution could be information what FRC thinks about SPLC in summary of article about SPLC. --Dezidor (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus decision to include information (a complete paragraph, even!) on the SPLC's "hate group" designation may or may not have been well-intentioned, but the result is that the article is completely unbalanced by the mention of one event in the life of a 28-year-old organization with national prominence. I would add that the article is currently blatantly unbalanced. This information belongs in the article, not in the lede. It's not even a close call.

I find it interesting and ironic that the same information that is deemed lede-worthy in the FRC article has been banned by consensus from the SPLC's Wikipedia page as lacking in notability. The double standard stinks to high heaven.184.74.22.161 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like you want to break open the current consensus. Well, the arguments you make were made at that time as well, see a bit higher up at this page Talk:Family_Research_Council#Mentioning_SPLC_designation_as_.22hate_group.22_in_the_lead_section. I do not see a novel argument other than that you experience as unbalanced, while I would experience as unbalanced if it was NOT mentioned in the lead. I think the section can be trimmed, and probably should be trimmed. To add, that it is not in the SPLC header is not a reason not to add it here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be proportional to the coverage in the article, and it currently is not. WP:CONLIMITED does not override WP:LEAD. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the section should be shorter. I will take a stab at it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kim van der Linde and the above consensus that is IS necessary ("lede-worthy") to include the hate-group designation. It would also be a disservice not to have that designation adequately explained as it is in its current form. The designation is not a mere representation of "one event in the life of a 28-year-old organization with national prominence." The designation came after many years (a chain of events and actions) by the FRC, and was NOT merely the result of the group opposing certain rights for LGBT persons at "one event". Propagating the statements for which the SPLC designated the FRC as a hate group have become a CENTRAL and DEFINING purpose of the FRC in recent years, and it is appropriate that the lead would include recognition of this. FRC's response to the SPLC designation is well covered in the lead directly following the SPLC view, providing balance and recognition that the designation is contested by both the FRC and other conservative public figures. It is far from being "blatantly unbalanced." As was noted by Kim van der Linde, a consensus has been reached to include the hate-group designation in the lead. I do not see this as a double standard. The SPLC has designated numerous groups as hate groups, and the FRC is certainly not the most note-worthy among those. Therefore, the FRC designation is not of central importance to an article on the SPLC. However, the SPLC designation is of central importance to the FRC, as it serves as a testament to a central purpose of the FRC that has defined it in the public sphere over several years. ThisJustInTime (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted an edit that changed the lede describing the SLPC's reasoning for labelling FRC as a hate group. ObjectivelyWise's version of the text was not backed by the provided source, the original was. I believe the current wording is clear that what is being described is SLPC's stated view, however, if there is a consensus that the wording there is unclear on that point, I'm open to changes that clarify that. But representing a source that says "we're including you on the list because you're falsely accusing people of raping children" as "we're including you on the list because you don't support same-sex marriage" is, without a doubt, not a defensible use of that source. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to address that remaining concern by using the word "citing" rather than "because of". --j⚛e decker^talk 20:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The present wording appears to present SPLC's opinion as though it were a statement of fact (i.e., that FRC propagates "known falsehoods"). Regardless of persuasion on this issue, this is a statement of opinion and should appear as such. It would better read, "In late 2010, the organization was labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,[3] citing FRC's continued propagation of what it believes to be falsehoods about homosexuality." Both FRC and SPLC cite their own research sources, so what is really the case is a difference of opinion, not a contradiction of fact. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if the intent really is to "cite," then known falsehoods should appear in quotations. Indeed, either approach would have the same effect, which is to make clear that the "known falsehoods" being cited are based on SPLC's and their research souces' interpretation of data, just as FRC's and their research sources' opinions are based on their interpretation of data. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not provide parity for the SPLC and the FRC. SPLC is a reliable source with a respected opinion, while FRC is not a reliable source and promotes fringe theories. TFD (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary, a clear and unbiased reading of Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories will yield no basis for a claim that FRC's stance constitutes a "fringe" assertion, let alone that the group itself is a "fringe" group. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, if this were homosexuality and christianity or homosexuality and psychology, your WEIGHT assertion would be more appropriate. As is, this is the article on one particular group, and what the group says about itself (and in response to external criticism) is at least as (if not more) important to NPOV than the assertions of an external group. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectivelyWise's revision was incorrect because the SPLC explicitly states that the designation is not because of their opinion, but because of falsehoods and name calling. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, which is opinion. The article should reflect that. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It already does. Would you be so kind, by the way, as to explain where in the SLPC source you got that their listing was relating to same-sex marriage? I can't find that in the source document. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear I'm guilty of an oversight. While the SPLC cited other organizations' views on same-sex marriage as contributory to their being classified as hate groups, it does not appear from the source material that rationale explicitly extends to FRC. I apologize for the confusion that caused. And as for the current wording, I edited the line in question to reflect that "known falsehoods" is a characterization made by the SPLC. If we're all in agreement that the current wording is satisfactory, then I see no reason to make any further changes to it. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the scare quotes. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad to know I didn't miss something in that source, much appreciated. I still prefer including the additional clause I added regarding the type of false accusations, I guess I consider "so and so told a lie" and 'so and so told a lie calling a third party a child rapist" very different animals. Were we talking about individuals (and of course, we're not, to be sure) instead of groups one would be prosecutable as libel or slander, for example, the other likely wouldn't. As a result, to me, the phrase really makes a qualitative difference in what's being said. I'm sympathetic to the desire for pithy prose, but with my addition we were spending no more time on SLPC's reasoning than FRC's rebuttal, so I didn't feel it out of line. Perhaps there's another way to convey this with fewer words, dunno. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did seem and still seems appropriate from my view to merely introduce that a designation of "hate group" was made by one party and rebutted by the other in the lede and then allow the rest of the article to explain why this was a significant exchange. Though, in the end, it really doesn't matter one way or the other; it's just that the inclination of editors (not just here; elsewhere as well) seems to be to steadily expand the introduction to include more and more information which is already covered in detail later and in its proper place. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is based on facts, as indicated at the page. When the scientific community says one thing and activist groups say something else, it is pretty clear what is going on. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In this instance, it's pretty clear that the "scientific community" is promoting a pro-gay POV that does not allow for alternate perspectives. It's also pretty clear that the "scientific community" has been co-opted by other activists. This is not news--at least not to anybody who knows anything about what's been happening in the social science realm regarding homosexual issues since the 1970's.184.74.22.161 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but conspiracy theories have no place on wikipedia. Maybe if you can find a few reliable (non-activist) sources to back up your assertion we can discuss it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the Family Research Council a hate group in the introduction is extremely unwarranted, especially because the Southern Poverty Law Center is also a political group that stands on the opposite side of the debate. If one goes to the Wikipedia article for Supporters of the same-sex marriage in the United States, one can see that the "Southern Poverty Law Center" is listed there. Placing the assertion of calling the Family Research Council a hate group is a violation of WP:NPOV. This criticism is already mentioned in its own "Controversy" section and does not need to receive special attention in the lede, especially when it's known that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not neutral on this issue. If we include this bit of information, than we must include the Alliance Defense Fund's criticism of the Southern Poverty Law Center on its article. Once again, please be neutral here. There is no reason to give an organization that supports the opposing point of view's position in the introduction of an antithetical organization. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like most people and even the FBI will disagree with you about the SPLC. Being neutral requires to add it, not to remove it. Sorry that it does not conform to your POV, but we are here to promote NPOV,. not your POV. MAybe you can try to document the inreliability of the SPCL before you claim that they have a leftist political agenda. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not state my argument incorrectly. I simply stated that both the Family Research Council and the Southern Poverty Law Center stand on opposing sides of the same-sex marriage debate. This is one reason why Wikipedia has two articles: (1) Southern Poverty Law Center is listed as one of the Supporters of the same-sex marriage in the United States while (2) the Family Research Council is listed as one of the Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States. I never mentioned "leftist political agenda" once in my post. Moreover, The Washington Times neutrally presents this issue here calling the Southern Poverty Law Center a "liberal group" while calling the Family Research Council a "Christian conservative organization." You on the other hand, changed the word, "Christian" to "Christian right" in the introduction of the article. User:KimvdLinde, it is clear that neither of these organizations takes a neutral position on this issue as evinced by "The Washington Times" article on this topic. I don't object to having a "Criticism" section but demonizing the Family Research Council by stating its criticism in the introductory paragraph from an opposing non-neutral organization is unwarranted. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You call the Washington TIMES a reliable source and then go about telling me to be neutral? It is as biased as you can get it, and it is not even close to be considered a reliable source. The designation as a hate group has nothing to do with the same-sex marriage debate, so it is irrelevant that they are at opposing sides. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:LEAD, the introductory paragraph should "summarize...any prominent controversies." The controversy over the SPLC designation is arguably the largest controversy the FRC has faced in the past year, and it is appropriate to discuss this in the lead. Furthermore, the FRC's rebuttal is noted directly following the SPLC reasoning. This is hardly "demonizing," but rather provides a balance of views. Comparing the neutrality of the FRC and the SPLC is also not equitable logic. The SPLC is recognized by the FBI as a reliable source. What comparable recognitions exist for the FRC? It has been noted previously and I will reiterate that the FRC was not designated a hate group because of their opinions, but because they spread views that have no backing in any pier reviewed science and demean an entire group of people for attributes that are out of their control. While FRC does cite its own research, this research has been discredited by peer reviewed sources. Comparing the reliability and neutrality of non-peer-reviewed sources created expressly with funding from and purposed for the FRC with third-party sources developed by independent researchers that were peer-reviewed is a negligent portrayal of the facts. We are not discussing a mere difference of opinion. We are talking about fact vs. politically sponsored pseudo-science. ThisJustInTime (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite the clash of ideologies. Whether or not the Washington Times is a reliable source--as BozellHammer contested in his most recent edit (viewed here [5]) and as others have contested in their exchanges on this talk page--is a matter of opinion. There is no escaping that fact. But the issue isn't The Washington Times. The issue is whether or not undue weight is being given to one side in this argument and whether or not too much of the introduction is being devoted to a relatively minor element. ThisJustInTime's citing of WP:Lead is accurate; however, his interpretation is questionable.

The policy dictates that the introduction be a concise overview of the topic; currently, 44% of the introduction is devoted to an element that itself comprises just 11% of the article. Undue emphasis? The math would appear to say as much (note: figures based on word count that does NOT include headings or footnotes; margin of error would be roughly +/- a percent point or two). Look, we all have our own persuasions (personally, I'm a New York Times fan), but remember this is an encyclopedic entry whose purpose is to provide information only. And as that the debate between these two sides appears to be ongoing, we must all put our political preferences aside.

I suggest this alternate wording:

"In late 2010, the organization was labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, citing what the SPLC calls FRC's "propagation of known falsehoods" about homosexuality. FRC President Tony Perkins dismissed this as a political attack and twenty-three members of the U.S. Congress and four state Governors signed an open letter of support for the Family Research Council in response."

Even this is arguably an excess amount of emphasis given to the topic, but it is in line with prior consensus that dictates the SPLC controversy be included in the introduction as well as WP:Lead which calls for mentioning notable controversies. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is too long. I however think that the letter is irrelevant as it not even mentions the SPLC, making it original research. Furthermore, if we are going to add third party responses, I think we have to add also responses in favor of the hate-group listing. I propose the following:

"In late 2010, the organization was labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, citing what the SPLC calls FRC's "propagation of known falsehoods" about homosexuality. FRC President Tony Perkins dismissed this as a political attack."

Short and to the point covering both sides of the story without third party stuff. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I like the shortened version you've suggested, I disagree with your reasoning. As someone might have pointed out before, the article is not about SPLC labeling FRC as a "hate group" or even about what SPLC and other similar groups have said or would like to say about FRC: it's about FRC in general. Based on that fact, what any group--be it SPLC or Congress--says carries the same importance when mentioning controversies. Members of Congress made a statement of support for FRC and, whether or not they directly mentioned SPLC, what they said is important and as long as that information remains in the Controversy section and no one else objects to the wording you've presented, I think we're okay to move forward. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. The open letter does not mention the SPLC, and should therefore not be linked to the hate-group labeling by the SPLC. Even if you gop to their own website, you can find so many responses to criticism entries at their blog etc. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are hidebound on keepong SPLC in the introduction of this article, despite it already being mentioned in the "controversy" section, I endorse User:ObjectivelyWise's version since it mentions an organization that lambasted the FRC as well as a prominent group of individuals who dismissed the attacks, thus fulfilling the requirements of WP:NPOV. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 18:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following from here [6] in total is the text of the statement that was signed off on by the prominent individuals:

"We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans."

There is no mention of the SPLC in that statement. The statement was then added to a paid advertisement by the FRC that the prominent citizens may or may not agree with. Since this is a BLP issue you need to be cautious to the extreme in what words you are putting in people's mouths. The expression "twenty-three members of the U.S. Congress and four state Governors signed an open letter of support for the Family Research Council in response" strongly implies a support for the entire FRC agenda when all the statement mentions is free speech and "protect and promote natural marriage and family". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per my below response to Kim van der Linde, whether or not the open letter was in response to the SPLC designation is so obvious, it simply isn't a topic for debate. The sources referenced in the article themselves attest to that fact. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not missing the point. It is unquestionably obvious that the letter signed by these individuals was in response the SPLC designation. That quite simply isn't a matter for discussion. And, as for the SPLC's responses to criticism, those belong in the Southern Poverty Law Center Wikipedia entry. As I have said before, this article is not about SPLC, SPLC's views, or people who support SPLC's views; it's about Family Research Council, what people have said about Family Research Council, and what Family Research Council--and others speaking on behalf of them--have said about what these people said about them.

Even more importantly, this article cannot be allowed to become an indictment of FRC; everyone loses if Wikipedia becomes a smear tool for either side. If this "hate group" label persists and is a consistent media topic, then it would be arguable that it warrants its own Wikipedia entry. Until such time, FRC's response to an allegation is more important in this article than what others have said they liked about the organization that made the allegation.

But, we're quibbling over policy and philosophical intricacies much too complex to be fully articulated and discussed here. We may have arrived at the same solution via different routes, but we agree on what needs to be done. The controversy is fully explained in its appropriate section and Kim van der Linde's version of the paragraph for the lede is satisfactory to me at least. Unless any one else objects, I think we're okay to proceed. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you keep missing the point that the signed part does not say anything about the SPLC and the hate-group listing. But I will change the lede accordingly.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the letter and I'm also able to interpret events in context, which this one must. Had the open letter been signed six months or a year after the "hate group" labeling, it would be rather absurd to try to link it to SPLC. As it is, the letter came a mere two weeks after the controversy made headlines. So, I haven't missed your point; I simply don't agree with it. But, at any rate, it's been pleasant. Happy editing. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources, including the SPLC, support that the signatories signed off on more than just the "we the undersigned" portion, and all the reliable sources I've seen make clear that what was signed off on was directed specifically at the SPLC. Nonetheless, even though I think that there should be a mention of the signed statement in the lead, I'm OK with most of the changes that Kim made. Drrll (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should describe the SPLC as liberal both in the lead and in the body. The FRC is described as conservative right at the top and numerous reliable sources describe the SPLC as liberal, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Drrll (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can source it, maybe, if not, no way. Currently, it is unsourced. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC is described as liberal (in American sense) organization that runs the left's smear campaign of conservatives .. and the American public is losing patience with their radical policy agenda as seen in the recent election and in the fact that every state by FRC. Will we also add this description in the summary about SPLC or will English Wikipedia use double standard when criticism by left wing/social liberal organizations is in summaries of articles about conservative organizations but criticism by conservative organizations is not in summaries of articles about left wing/social liberal organizations? --Dezidor (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your personal POV is invalid for wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not speak about my personal POV but about Wikipedia articles. Should we allow criticism by left wing/social liberal organizations in summaries of articles about conservative organizations but not criticism by conservative organizations in summaries of articles about left wing/social liberal organizations? --Dezidor (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should always strive for a balanced approach, but the lack of criticism in another article is not a reason to change this article. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced it to The Washington Post and The New York Times. Though that should be enough, plenty of other references exist. Drrll (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, claiming that the Washington post claims it is a liberal organization is incorrect as they quote the FRC for that:

Council President Tony Perkins, who was also named in the report, called the hate-group designation a political attack by a "liberal organization.".

Notice the quotes. Well, the FRC is not exactly a reliable source as it comes to judging the SPLC. I have therefore removed the liberal label (basically reverted your bold edit) and suggest we discuss it first here before it is added back. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the "liberal organization" to the sentence by Tony Perkins as he is saying it, not the WP and therefore not a fact but an opinion by the FRC president.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a misunderstanding of the sourcing (compounded by me posting discussion in the SPLC article, instead of here). I added sources to the article body about the SPLC being called liberal by The Washington Post and The New York Times (not by the FRC). The WaPo reference in the lead is not supporting "liberal"--it is supporting that the FRC was labeled as a hate group by the SPLC (I didn't add that WaPo reference to the lead; I didn't add references to the lead supporting "liberal" since they were in the article body already). Drrll (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, do you want to see the references to the "liberal" characterization of the SPLC in the lead as well, or do you see the sources in the article body as sufficient? Drrll (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I predicted, the reference to the SPLC designation of FRC as a hate group in the lede has once again bloomed out of proportion. As I did last week, I've once again ran the numbers: greater than 30% of the introductory summary is devoted to prefacing a component which comprises barely 18% of the article. While this is a step in the right direction from where we were originally, it is worse than the compromise previously established which concluded the labeling deserved mention in the summary, not a full explanation. Greater detail is given its proper place: in the appropriately titled subsection of the article. That consensus edit can be viewed here: [7].

Now, to my knowledge, Wikipedia has no set guidelines to establish how an introductory summary should be divided up amongst the various components of an article (if there are indeed such guidelines, if someone would direct me to them I would be most grateful). However, even the most average reader can come to the conclusion that undue weight is being given to a classification that becomes less and less notable with each passing day it fails to make headlines or affect FRC's ability to function. A quick check of news stories regarding the acrimony between FRC and SPLC will yield few references in anything other than self-admitted left-wing blogs beyond late December of 2010.

Furthermore, a quick investigation of Wikipedia articles on other organizations which have been labeled as "hate groups" by the SPLC return even more interesting numbers. Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries? The SPLC labeling of his organization as a hate group takes up a mere 2.5% of the article. American Vision? 8.4% The Chalcedon Foundation? 5.7% Concerned Women for America is a 2000-word, multi-sectioned article and the SPLC designation accounts for just shy of 8.0% and its introduction makes no mention of the SPLC at all. Even more noteworthy is the article on the American Family Association, a group arguably every bit as influential as the Family Research Council. In AFA's article (greater than 3500 words), the information that SPLC has labeled it a hate group accounts for less than %1 of its totality and isn't even hinted at the introduction.

That was from simply moving down SPLC's own self-published list alphabetically (no, I did not choose the articles most favorable to any position I might appear to favor). In fact, a quick run through of all the existing Wikipedia articles on organizations named by SPLC as "hate groups" will reveal that in all of them, SPLC's actions are mentioned only briefly if at all. The point I am being insufferably laborious in making is this: SPLC's opinions are being given far too much credence and decidedly unfair weight when it comes to this article. The consensus invoked to shut down any attempt to remove or greatly reduce the references to the controversy in the lede is two months old and was established at a time when it was still "hot news" to discuss it. The fact is, this particular controversy (which, to be clear, is FRC being labeled as a "hate group" by the SPLC for this year in its 2010 Winter Intelligence Report and the subsequent fallout) is over--at least as far as the mainstream is concerned.

So, at this point I suggest we seek a consensus to remove information that is, in my opinion, superfluously detailed in the lede. From there, we can look at what information is notable in the controversy section and discuss removing that which might be unnecessary. Otherwise, we run the risk of setting the precedent that this article is little more than an information dump of everything anyone has ever said or will ever say about FRC from the the beginning until now and henceforth, regardless of its legitimacy or lasting notoriety. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What happens in other articles is irrelevant for this article. I have no problem that it is lead and proportionally bigger. I do object to any effort to remove it all together. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, if you would, please explain how exactly you are invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a counter to my argument. I am quite familiar with the policy and nothing I've said runs counter to it. In fact, you yourself have contradicted the policy with your statement "What happens in other article [sic] is irrelevant for this article." If you do object, please provide legitimate grounds for doing so. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, you are the one making the comparison with other articles, not me.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, per the policy you cited, they are legitimate comparisons. I might suggest a quick perusal of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to be more familiar with what it actually says. Contrary to what you seem to be saying, it doesn't automatically discredit my sort of argument; in fact, it concedes they are perfectly valid if used correctly. If you contest that I have made such an argument incorrectly, kindly voice your concerns. Otherwise, I and any other person reading the discussion in which we are engaged would be forced to believe you are allowing your own POV to cloud your judgment. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that the comparison is invalid. But beyond that, a hate-group listing by the SPLC is very substantial and should therefore be mentioned in the lead. Personally, I would like to see it s a single word with ref added to the lead (The Family Research Council (FRC) is a conservative, Christian right hate[1] group), but that is probably even more objectionable as people really want to have the response of the FRC linked to it. So, the controversy might be over, the hate-group listing is valid and remaining. Until the SPLC removes the group from its hate-group listing, it should stay in the lead. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would venture to say we are incapable of serious discussion on this topic. You have self-admitted your own bias and have proven that you are incapable of forming an objective opinion that does not include your own apparently very positive view of the Southern Poverty Law Center. And, if the consensus is to remove the information from the lead, I will expect you to adhere to it as you have so faithfully adhered to the prior consensus. Otherwise, I will be forced to seek outside intervention to ensure that objectivity and fairness is upheld. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than partisan sites, I haven't seen even one source call it a "hate group" as a fact (I think many of them call it conservative as a fact). Drrll (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is proportionally large in part due to inclusion of the FRC's response, which needs to be there if the designation is mentioned in the lead. Drrll (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is, if no one is able to produce a substantive argument as to why the SPLC designation should remain in the lead, I will edit to remove it. Kim's logic is flimsy if not nonexistent. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove or Keep

On the question of whether or not to keep the information in question in the lead:

I say Remove per Wikipedia policies and facts which I have outlined above. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]