Talk:American Vision/Archive 1

Untitled
Suggesting/requesting an external link to http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/gary-demar.html. This is a review of a debate that American Vision sells in its bookstore between Gary DeMar and Edward Tabash of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The review has some very interesting independent analysis of who won and who lost and serves also as analysis of American Vision, per se.Tmarkets (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR
Adding new cat Category:LGBT rights opposition is not appropriate here for reasons stated on the cat's Talk page section entitled, "Cat violates Wiki policy?"

Further, as illustrated on Concerned Women for America, the cat may be controversial, and cats are not used for controversial material. The existence of controversy evidences the cat is inappropriate for the page. In particular, WP:CAT says:

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:
 * It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the Category unsourced template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the Category relevant? template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Obviously, it is not "clear from verifiable information in the article" if the wiki comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Vision&action=edit&section=1munity keeps removing it.

I urge and support removal of the cat, else I urge the addition of either or both cat templates shown above from WP:CAT.

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is clear from the reference that this group is an activist group opposed to LGBT Rights. You were mistaken to have removed this category.

this is a quote from AFA's direct-mailer "For the sake of our children and society, we must OPPOSE the spread of homosexual activity! Just as we must oppose murder, stealing, and adultery!" says one such recent fundraising letter. "Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, the only way for them to 'breed' is to RECRUIT! And who are their targets for recruitment? Children!"

Furthermore, the group supports execution for homosexuals, as cited here; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Religious+Right+activist+calls+for+execution+of+homosexuals.-a0219900363

The group also supports Uganda's "Kill the Gays" bill advocating harsh penalties, including death for homosexuality--DCX (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

--DCX (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

American Vision and Southern Poverty Law Center
Hi,

I am reverting a deletion by an anonymous user, 72.54.64.166. The user removed the sentence:
 * The Southern Poverty Law Center has described American Vision as one of "a dozen of today's most influential anti-gay groups" as well as labeled it on a list of "hate groups." (Ref: 'A Mighty Army', Southern Poverty Law Center)

Unfortunately, the user did not state a reason for the removal.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 72.54.64.166, please state your reasoning. Depending on what you say, I may be in favor of your revision and I will guess Kevinkor2 will oppose it.  However, we both and others not yet here will need a basis for your removal of that sentence.  I can think of a few possibilities, but I am looking forward to what you had in mind. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Scare quotes
Question, why does the designation hate group need scare quotes? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. hate group does not need scare quotes. Removed them with this edit.
 * hmmm... I don't see a Wikipedia policy on scare quotes. However, I do see discussion about them in two sections:
 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 15
 * Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada
 * I am guessing because the source does not use scare quotes around "hate group", we don't need scare quotes in our article when we are accurately summarizing what the source says.
 * --Kevinkor2 (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Views
I think we should add a Views section to this article that outlines what the group believes. Here is a rough outline of some views we could add:


 * Abortion - they are opposed
 * Church and State - their view is complicated, but I will work on it
 * Homosexuality - they are opposed and have butted heads with the SPLC, content from Advocacy section can be merged into this new section
 * Christian Millennium - they are postmil, or at least many of their individual authors are
 * Atheism - they think it is bad for culture and have published many resources on this subject
 * Christian education/homeschooling - in favor, have written much about this topic
 * Creation vs. Evolution - see atheism above, they have published many resources in favor of a literal reading of Genesis 1-2

These are just the main views that come to mind for this group. I have gone ahead and added Abortion and Church and State, both of which could be expanded. I plan to add all of these views over time. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not exist to simply repeat what groups have to say about themselves. WP:NPOV means that all significant sources must be included, and the corollary is that if there are no outside comments on these views then they should not be included at all. Readers who are interested in getting a one-sided perpsetive of the subject can simply go to the website. So it's fine to include the significant views of this group, but only if they've been noted by independent sources.   Will Beback    talk    16:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Outside sources should not be too terribly difficult to find for many of these views. Having the SPLC as the article's only major reference is not very NPOV either.  It is a work in progress, as I don't have much time to spend on Wikipedia, but since I am currently researching many of these issues for other reasons, I will likely work what I find into this article, sourcing it appropriately. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of sources means the article might be deleted, since it's the number and quality of sources which are used as the indicators of notability. If the SPLC source were removed then there'd be little to show the groups is noteworthy. But if you can find more sources, both about the group in general and about their views, then that'd be great.   Will Beback    talk    22:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Count of groups
Actually, only 2 3 of the "9" have the hate designation in the lead. 6 5 don't have a lead (and I just nominated one substub for speedy deletion), and the last has a mention that it's "considered a hate group by many organizations[ref], and monitored as such by the SPLC and ...". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors can look at the 15 articles (linked above) and see for themselves how they're handled. And if any of them don't technically have a lead, then it makes the case even stronger that the hate group content is lead-worthy. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. An honest editor will see that 5 of the 9 do not have leads, and that 1 of the remaining 4 does not exactly say SPLC designates it as a hate group.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the "is there a lead or isn't there" discussion is totally irrelevant to these RfCs. It's just semantics and a distraction. Obviously, if for example there's a substub which technically has no lead, then the hate group content will appear within the article's very limited content, which is equivalent to lead inclusion. Fixes to layout will eventually be done. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alleging dishonesty is not civil, please assume good faith. Insomesia (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Insomesia. As I said, editors can read those 15 articles and make their own determinations. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have said "careful" rather than "honest", although there is a lot of dishonesty in the real world related to these issues (on, at least, both sides). — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed the "argument" that something appearing in an article without a lead is stronger than appearing in the lead of an article with a lead. I consider it absurd, but others may differ.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? That it's stronger? I see the example about a substub that has no lead being equivalent. Even if someone did say that, calling someone's views absurd is not civil at all. Another editor cautioned you about not being civil just a few hours ago. It's a shame to see an administrator behaving this way. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's still inconsistent with common sense and with Wikipedia policies. "Absurd" may be overstating it.  But not by much.  All of you seem to be unable to understand that supporting SPLC is not the only reason for this encyclopedia; in fact, it's not an acceptable reason for editing Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You evaded both issues. You provided no proof for your allegation, which simply required providing a quote. And you're ignoring the issue of your incivility. But that's fine because this thread is a distraction from the issue at hand. So back to the RfC. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC as a reliable source.
Mark Arsten deleted a paragraph because it was unsourced, so I restored it with new citations. Belchfire then removed it anyway,, claiming "Rv per WP:BLP. SPLC not a reliable source for this, because it has a COI. See policy for details."

Well, I've read both WP:BLP and WP:COI and neither one applies, so I restored it again and directed him to WP:BLPN, where he can report it as a BLP violation if he truly believes that it is. He didn't. Instead, he reverted it again, commenting, "Strongly suggest you get consensus for SPLC as a RS for this, otherwise it's a BLP issue and not subject to this kind of game-playing." Note how, rather than accepting that he has the burden of going to WP:BLPN if there's really a BLP violation, he's trying to push me to get a consensus. If it's really a BLP violation, consensus doesn't matter; the policy beats out any local majority.

Really, does anyone doubt that the SPLC is a reliable source for quotes from a hate group's leader? Like the ADL, it is a leading authority on hate groups and a resource recommended by the FBI. It is a reliable source for calling an organization a hate group, which is a very strong claim. Why wouldn't it be reliable for quoting some of the things that got that organization designated as a hate group in the first place?

Here's the paragraph that Belchfire removed:

Can anyone offer a reason not to restore this? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WELLKNOWN says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out" (emph. mine). You did say that you read WP:BLP, didn't you? – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 08:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no, that doesn't actually work. Got anything else? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The SPLC is vital because it's a secondary source that allows us to avoid any risk of synthesis. But just in case someone actually doubts that Demar said these things, I think it's best to cite Demar's book, where these quotes all come from. Conveniently, it's available as a free download as a PDF.
 * Well, that settles it. We'll be restoring that paragraph. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that Gary North is a reliable source? No, I guess not.  I have doubts that his web site is appropriate for a courtesy copy, but, granting, for the moment, the book is as it appears.... The book is (apparently) published by American Vision, so they might be considered to be a source for the content, but that's not a 3rd party source.  It's an acceptable source for the Demar's exact words, in sn article about Demar.
 * No, neither SPLC nor ADL is a reliable source for the words of one of their subjects, to say less of interpretations of those words. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur, it's Demar's book. It has Demar's own words. It is an ideal primary source. Gary North is entirely reliable for publishing Demar's book without bizarre substitutions, and we have plenty of secondary sources that not only confirm the passages we quote but show notability and avoid synthesis. I'm at a loss as to explain what your objection is. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Arhur Rubin, I'm inclined to agree with StillStanding here. A primary source for the quote, and SPLC for their view; what is not RS here? Are you arguing a book written by someone is not n RS primary source for their own views? KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have doubts about Gary North's integrity. (Personal experience.)  However, aside for that, it's appropriate for an article about DeMar, not necessarily for an article about American Vision.  We have to avoid attributing DeMar's opinions to the group, and SPLC is not a potentially BLP-reliable source about their subjects.  I do see a potential way this could be added, but we'd have to quote DeMar, and quote SPLC about their interpretation of DeMar.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Demar is the organization's president, so his personal views are relevant, even if you think they differ from the org's. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with attribution; we do not want either Demar or SPLC to appear to be Wikipedia's voice. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone disagreeing with this. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I don't get it. As of right now, Arthur is removing this section on the claim that SPLC isn't a reliable source. First, that's false. Second, we have the primary source above. Why not dual-cite it? The primary source confirms that he said exactly these words, the secondary shows relevance and avoid synthesis. Why delete when we can fix the citations? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph should not be restored, because it is original synthesis. That is, it is stringing a few different opinions together in such as way that it might look, at first glance, that the writer is in favour of the execution of Muslims. StAnselm (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To remind you, "the secondary shows relevance and avoid synthesis". Do you dispute this somehow? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph quotes neither DeMar nor SPLC, which I thought we all agreed was necessary. See KillerChihuahua's comment above.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you write it? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I must voice my strongest objection to Scientiom re-adding the disputed text in the middle of the discussion without any semblance of consensus. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 12:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. Now how would you write it? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to encourage all of you to participate constructively by working together to make a version we're all happy with as opposed to just rejecting our efforts. Can you meet me halfway? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Has there been any evidence, just wondering here, that SPLC has in any way not been credible in their reporting, or in any way not retracted or amended their notes with new information? Insomesia (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not one bit, and I looked hard. I've asked Arthur and others why they think SPLC isn't a reliable source but haven't yet gotten anything that looks like an answer. It's a bit frustrating, to be honest. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm open to new information and anything critical of SPLC in reliable sources, let's see if anything useful is presented. Insomesia (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Insomnesia, your contributions to the discussion at Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center make this claim of yours, well... hilarious.  Belch fire - TALK  18:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stick to actually improving articles. Several (poor) sources were suggested and none of them seemed to rise to any use on that article which has sourcing questions constantly. If you just want to argue I'm not really into that. Insomesia (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think they aren't a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. We can determine right here that SPLC fails the criteria: clear conflict of interest, and no editorial oversight.  That should pretty much end the discussion, unless you are arguing to make an exception to policy.   Belch fire - TALK  19:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that SPLC is a reliable source, by our definition. That others (may) rely on them is not evidence.  WP:SPS suggests they should not be considered reliable, although I can see a potential argument based on statements not yet suggested to be accurate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think IRWolfie's suggestion is a good one, specifically asking if the SPLC can be included as a source for the statements made. The editors there specialize in these questions. Is someone opposed to having more eyes on this issue? I think it might ease the situation. Insomesia (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * SPLC seems to be a very reliable source, not sure why this has even come up unless some seem to be trying to push their own views to remove this with a false assertion. Even the FBI finds them more than reliable "The Southern Poverty Law Center is named as a resource on the Federal Bureau of Investigation web page on hate crimes". 2605:F700:C0:1:0:0:1DE4:1454 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As others have replied to you on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center, there is both truthful and relevant to Wikipedia in that statement. (Some have said there is nothing truthful, period, but the last sentence is just not relevant to the question of whether SPLC is reliable for Wikipedia's purposes.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The SPLC is an eminently reliable source on the radical right. Contra OP, the article's poster is identified in the byline, and SPLC has editorial oversight from a board of directors and a program staff.
 * SPLC is a reliable source. They have many detractors in far right publications because they investigate the far right, but their accuracy is not challenged in mainstream sources.
 * as others have questioned its neutrality, then the text which is referenced to it, should attribute the information
 * SPLC is a reliable source, as they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * SPLC is a reliable source for facts about particular individuals and groups in the U.S., though possibly more questionable on whether the general trend of right-wing and racist activity is upward or downward, because that gets a bit closer to their own fundraising.
 * It's actually the Intelligence Report that is the source. The Report "won a second-place Green Eyeshade Excellence in Journalism Award in non-deadline reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists. Intelligence "Project staff have been involved in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's hate and bias crime "train-the-trainer" program since its inception in 1992. FLETC trains personnel for more than 75 federal law enforcement agencies and provides services for local, state and international agencies." "The editor of the Intelligence Report presented a paper on Internet hate as a United Nations-certified expert to the U.N.'s High Commission on Human Rights in 2000."
 * If it is sourced, look for the original source, if possible.
 * "About 50 percent of the statistical estimates provided in stories about the militia movement were provided by experts from either the SPLC or the ADL."
 * It appears to qualify as reliable within the area of investigative journalism. It has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards . Unless there is a specific reason for questioning the content of one of their articles, I don't see any problem in using them as a source.
 * Where those sources have a history of fact checking and responsibility (e.g. Brennan Center for Justice, Southern Poverty Law Center or the Center for Public Integrity), we can feel comfortable summarizing published material that they create in articles which relate to their areas of expertise.
 * Anti-Defamation League's views should probably be used with caution and attributed as an opinion of that org. I would consider Southern Poverty Law Center more reliable as it has a legal background.
 * Anti-Defamation League's views should probably be used with caution and attributed as an opinion of that org. I would consider Southern Poverty Law Center more reliable as it has a legal background.

Specific to SPLC in this case: "Yes, it is appropriate. The SPLC is the best judge of this sort. If we doubted them (which we don't), we could independently check some of the quotes ourselves by looking for bits of them online. For instance, the SPLC reference says DeMar wrote "Homosexuals aren’t content with only having the bedroom" in April 2010. DeMar blogged that phrase in April 2010, according to another blog. The problem with americanvision.org is that the Wayback Machine does not archive it because its website tells the archive bots to stay away, by the wording of robots.txt, a file on the website. To know what DeMar wrote on a particular day, you would have to have been looking at it. SPLC has people who do this and document the site." I hope this will resolve this issue. Insomesia (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I should comment on your "hatted" selected quotations, but consensus is that SPLC is reliable for their own opinions. ONLY.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears I was wrong. There's no recent consensus, but consensus in 2010 is that they have sufficient fact-checking to be considered reliable, but not WP:BLP-reliable, for statements which are clearly facts (which are the statements covered here); there's no consensus as to whether their statements about opinions can be used, except for their own opinions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness I didn't read everything going back many years but the consensus of the comments was that they are definitely considered reliable and have staff expressly to research their statements. On Wikipedia care should be taken to attribute contested content and on BLPs care should be taken to note their original sourcing (the primary source) whenever possible. The RSNB can be utilized for any article so any BLP issues can be addressed there. Insomesia (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, I was correct. You've selected the individual opinions from RSN archives which support your POV.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider taking Insomnesia's assertions seriously unless he can show us some examples of SPLC retracting its own statements, the way a news organization would do when it makes the inevitable errors that occur when publishing such a large volume of information. That would demonstrate at least some semblance of internal accountability and editorial oversight.   Belch fire - TALK  02:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your concerns are noted, I don't see any value in arguing with either of you any more on this matter. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard can be utilized by anyone for any article and other boards exist as well. Happy editing! Insomesia (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we're at the point where anyone who still insists that the SPLC isn't a reliable source should visit WP:RSN. If they choose not, then we must continue to act on our conclusion that the SPLC is highly reliable for information about hate groups. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're at the point where anyone who states that the SPLC is a reliable source (for BLP purposes) should visit WP:RSN. There seems to be a consensus, at RSN, that it's reliable under WP:SPS, although there is no evidence that they do fact-checking.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're at the point where reasonable people would just use the reliable source noticeboard if they still want to argue about the same reliable source that has been shown to be reliable again and again, BLPs and otherwise. As for fact-checking you could just take a 10-second look at their website "The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. We publish our investigative findings online, on our Hatewatch blog, and in the Intelligence Report, our award-winning quarterly journal." If you're determined to not accept them then there's little to persuade otherwise, luckily we have the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to help break intractable arguments on sourcing. Insomesia (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Insomesia, WP:RSN has just confirmed that it's a reliable source. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is the editorial oversight? Without some sort of a showing that they have it, he hasn't approached the policy-based problems.  Then there is still the obvious COI to contend with.  This isn't a matter of anybody's opinion on their reliability; this is a matter of SPLC not meeting our own Wikipedia-wide criteria that applies to all reliable sources.  As I mentioned earlier, showing us some examples of SPLC making a retraction would be very helpful.   Belch fire - TALK  16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if SPLC were generally a reliable source, it's being used here for SPLC's interpretation of DeMar's opinions, based on his statements. If you this WP:COATRACKed statement is to be in the article, quote DeMar's book for his actual statments, rather than the extremely biased SPLC for their interpretation of his statements.
 * It appears the "regulars" at WP:RSN have decided that SPLC is reliable, in spite of the absence of evidence that they do any fact-checking, and partially because the "regulars" are misinterpreting previous consensus (or lack thereof) on RSN. Unless this can be corrected at RSN, or by an RfC, we have to deal with SPLC on the rest of Wikipedia as if it were (generally) reliable.  (It's still not reliable for stating their opinion as fact; hence the correction still needs to be made.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the paragraph Belchfire removed (shown above) is ready to be restored, with the PDF as the secondary citation. If you disagree, I recommend that you explain what further changes you'd expect. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PDF is primary (and tagged with "format=courtesy copy"), SPLC is secondary (and a valid source for notability, whether or not SPLC is a reliable source). That is, if it's really in the PDF.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the source in the above paragraph (in the grey box)? I disagree, it appears to me that SPLC is tertiary in that context.   Belch fire - TALK  05:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur, I encourage you to check, if you have any doubts. Otherwise, I agree. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To Belchfire: Perhaps you're right.  If so, we shouldn't use the source without evidence that there really are secondary sources.
 * To StillStanding: It's not even a reasonable interpretation of that book.  You can use the sections which are actually quotes.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * DeMar didn't say that in that book. The quoted sections are there, but the interpretation is implausible (I would say, impossible to honestly interpret in that manner, but I may be mistaken.)  A valid section sourced to that book would be:
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see what we can come up with once the page is unprotected, then. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Error in attribution
The third reference, to the book "Ruler of the Nations", shows the author as Gary North. North's site is publishing it, but the author is Gary DeMar. You can confirm this by clicking through to the PDF.

I would like the author to be corrected. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed; in fact, Gary North is the editor (see top of p. ix), so Yes check.svg Done, see - you'll note that I've added some more info, based on what's shown on the book's title page and the back of that (below the copyright notice). -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing such a comprehensive job. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

edit request
On the last sentence, Islam is another enemy; he said in August 2010 that "the long-term goal of Islam is the abolition of our constitutional freedoms."[citation needed]

Please add the following cites:

The first cite notes the exact quote being published as notable whereas the second cite notes the original source. Insomesia (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would advise against it, as it still leaves the BLP violation in the first part. Let's develop a draft here and replace the entire paragraph.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the first part of what? Please explain. Let's get sources on these statements as has been requested. Insomesia (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Demar has said that not all homosexuals would be executed under a “reconstructed government", " is not sourced. Removing that clause, and correcting "abortionists and their parents" to "abortionists and the parents who hired them".  Completely diffeernt meaning.  Adding sourcing, although we can agree it's generally a good idea, should take second place to removing BLP violations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur, when we correct the quote, we should do it correctly. There is no "the" before "parents". I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes it even less understable how the error got in, but let's get it right, unlike SPLC. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just notified them. Let's see if they correct errors. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Whilst Arthur Rubin's concerns (hatted above) are valid, they don't directly address this edit, which is, as far as I can tell, neutral and appropriate. Added to the article accordingly. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)