Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 2

Opinions
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)
 * 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)
 * Indeed; this is a very clear cut case of a policy violation. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 07:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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


 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * ---> 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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. <span style="font-family: Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * If MSNBC reports it as "SPLC says", then I agree. However, if MSNBC endorses the contents, then that's a different matter. <span style="color: #007f00; font-family: Script MT Bold, cursive; font-size: medium;">Dylan <span style="color: #007f00; font-family: Script MT Bold, cursive; font-size: medium;">Flaherty  13:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * So long as we mention a bit here before linking, that's just fine. <span style="color: #007f00; font-family: Script MT Bold, cursive; font-size: medium;">Dylan <span style="color: #007f00; font-family: Script MT Bold, cursive; font-size: medium;">Flaherty  21:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Paul Barlow. Do not agree with Dylan Flaherty. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, the shock! Call an EMT, my heart has stopped. :-) <span style="color: #007f00; font-family: Script MT Bold, cursive; font-size: medium;">Dylan <span style="color: #007f00; font-family: Script MT Bold, cursive; font-size: medium;">Flaherty  21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Paul B and LAEC. Link to the debate, don't rehash it. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

FRC response to SPLC
"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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. <span style="color: #007f00; font-family: Script MT Bold, cursive; font-size: medium;">Dylan <span style="color: #007f00; font-family: Script MT Bold, cursive; font-size: medium;">Flaherty  14:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Removed SPLC Info from Summary
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

SLPC's reasoning for hate group designation in lede
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 &#9883; e decker  talk  19:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to address that remaining concern by using the word "citing" rather than "because of". -- j &#9883; e decker  talk  20:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Again, which is opinion. The article should reflect that. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 &#9883; e decker  talk  21:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#9883; e decker  talk  22:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, AnupamTalk 19:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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, AnupamTalk 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 ) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, AnupamTalk 18:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The following from here 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Unbalanced Tag
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)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Disagree completely. The part about the FRC not being "the most note-worthy" of the organizations labeled as hate groups is actually pretty funny.  A strong argument could be made that the FRC is actually more notable than the SPLC itself.184.74.22.161 (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Description of the SPLC as liberal
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Sorry, but your personal POV is invalid for wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Seems counterproductive to me to be debating this issue in two places. I'm posting a counterargument to rationale for using the the WaPo & NYT sources at the SPLC talkpage, but here's the short version: the sources provided so far are not enough to satisfy WP:Due. - PrBeacon (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Liberal label
I removed the word "liberal" from the discussion of the SPLC's report. It was worded badly and is a violation of WP:LABEL. Also, it is redundant as the next sentence quotes the chief of the FRC calling it a "left wing group" which is pretty much the same thing. WMO 07:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How can a single-word adjective be worded badly? If using "liberal" to describe the SPLC is a violation of WP:LABEL, then certainly "conservative Christian right" is a violation in the opening sentence of this article. We need to be consistent in using or not using labels. Drrll 13:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Drrll. Perhaps SPLC is deserving of a more descriptive label, but they are not undeserving of any label. - Haymaker 13:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My primary beef in this disagreement is NPOV violations. Whatever rules are regarding labels, they need to be applied universally.  I personally prefer the direct quote approach: each label should be a direct quote indicating, with appropriate context, who said what about whom else when. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask for a clarification - is this about questioning whether or not the SPLC really is liberal, or, rather, is it about saying that they are liberal, but we should not label them as such because liberal is a dirty word, on a par with the loaded words given in the MOS like "cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist"? Their own bio of their founder, Morris Dees, says that he worked for Jimmy Carter and George McGovern.  Their President is pro-Obama.  Calling them liberal is as axiomatic as calling the sky blue.  As for whether or not the word "liberal" is on a par with "cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist", etc?  That's probably a no. --B (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's about whether we label the SPLC as "liberal" in this article and whether we label the FRC as "conservative Christian right" here. I say we use the terms used in reliable sources, regardless of whether "liberal" is considered a dirty word. Drrll (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think liberal is a dirty word, I love the word, and that's irrelevant. This is about improving the article, and the word liberal is unnecessary in that sentence when its stated in the next sentence making it redundant as well as a violation of label without proper sources to back it up. WMO 18:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Copied from WP:AN/I
 * Far too much weight is being given to the labeling of the southern Poverty southern opinionated label - imo - the factoid that they have labeled this and that group as hate groups - over 900 of then as I saw the other day - the Southern poverty group are diminishing what a hate group is. I would say this factoid about them should never be in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to decide whether we leave off "conservative Christian-right" or we put back "liberal" in describing the SPLC. BTW, "liberal" was sourced to two prominent news sources; "conservative Christian-right" is not sourced at all. Drrll (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to connect this with something quite irrelevant, perhaps that could be phrased better as well. These are not peas in a pod issues. Those two extremely old sources aren't enough to establish due weight to call the SPLC liberal. There is a discussion on that at the SPLC page. Perhaps you would have a case to include that if the Times and Post included that qualifier, *every* time they wrote on the SPLC. Right now, it just looks like someone is trying to discredit them (which I don't consider liberal to be discrediting) and is adding information that is unnecessary and undue weight. WMO 18:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're going to label the SPLC liberal, might I be able to ask that we also label them "one of the nation's most respected civil rights organizations" per this source? How about this that calls it "a long-established and highly respected nonprofit center which tracks extremist groups," does that label merit inclusion? Including the word liberal is a POV WMO 19:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to apply WP policies/guidelines consistently as to labeling. Do reliable sources *always* call the FRC "conservative" and "Christian-right"?  There are much newer sources that call the SPLC "liberal", such as a July 2010 USA Today article. The articles describing the SPLC as "one of the nation's most respected civil rights organizations", etc. are opinion articles, so it is not the same as news articles. Drrll (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say, leave the liberal label, even when incorrect, it is not worth the fight. It only highlights that when it comes down to civil rights and hate-group tracking, apparently, it are the liberals that are doing it, in stark contrast with the absence of a comparable reputable right-wing organization doing the same work. I think the right would be better off recognizing that not labeling the SPLC actually would help them in the long run, because labeling them one way or another is not going to change that they are considered a reputable source for the FBI and scholars.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * False equivalencies x2: the FRC is not politically parallel to the SPLC, despite the current climate. And the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are not equally used by opposing camps in a derogatory sense. I encourage editors to review sources on Google scholar for journalism studies and analysis. - PrBeacon (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure conservatives everywhere are delighted that you have their best interests at heart and will give your advice every bit of consideration that it is due. --B (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I am glad that serious researchers and the FBI don't mind. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I often find the sword-wielding Kim delightful, I must point out that her last comment rather makes it seem as if she sees Wikipedia editing as a battleground. We aren't supposed to put something into Wikipedia "even when incorrect" because doing so makes "our side" look good. As for the issue of whether or not our narrative should label the SPLC "liberal," I don't actually see the need. The Perkins quote certainly shows that the FRC (along with most conservatives, I would hazard to say) considers the SPLC to be liberal. Incidentally, after a quick glance at the FRC webpage I didn't see where the organization explicitly labeled itself conservative. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The FRC publishes a periodical called The Social Conservative, they don't seem too unhappy with that label. WMO 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine then, because the lead, as it stands now, describes the FRC as pushing socially conservative policies. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, the liberal tag is well sourced with two ancient news articles. I am at wikipedia to make good articles, and I do not see it as a battle ground, but I do experience it as a battleground quite regularly. To me, articles need to be neutral and balanced, based on reliable sources, weighted properly keeping in mind the available sources, etc. Ultimately, I don't care if the word liberal is used or not, or if the SPLC designation is in the lead or not, what I care about is that the article adheres to what I just wrote.
 * We have now gone three times over the lead designation, and multiple times over various pages over the liberal tag. All we have for the liberal tag is some responses of the people added to their hate-group list (duh) and a few ancient references labeling it liberal. Really, there are 17,000 article mentioning the "Southern Poverty Law Center". Ten add the liberal tag. Whow. And I have not seen any scholarly articles labeling them liberal. And then you want to suggest I edit this as a battleground? In any non-controversial article, this would not have been more than a one line discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to answer Drrll asnwer below, if we do the saem google news archive game with the Family Research council and conservative in front, we get almost 9000 hits for the "conservative Family research Council" versus 21,000 in total. To ask to treat that equivalent is a false comparison. It is obvious that the FRC is often seen as conservative, while the SPLC is rarely seen as liberal. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, google scholar has 104 articles with "conservative Family research Council" versus one for "liberal Southern Poverty Law Center".-- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So what arbitrary threshold do we use before we can definitively label a group as "conservative" or "liberal"? Even on Google News, which includes many partisan sources and some non-news (opinion) pieces within reliable sources, there is not a majority of sources that call the FRC "conservative". The support for "Christian right" is far less than that for "conservative." Drrll (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This was just an exercise in showing the hypocrisy in the debate. Debates are not based on what the reliable sources say, but based on rhetoric and POV-pushing. So, what should be the cutt-off value. 9000 out of 21000 means that about 43% of all publications label it a conservative organization. That is a HUGE percentage considering there is no need whatsoever to add it to the sentence, which basically means that it is reflecting the general feel of the people. I would say that this percentage is solidly in the range of adding it to the lead. It is very easy to dismiss this percentage as not the majority, but we can keep shifting the goal posts each time. If two or ten out of 17,000 references (0.01% tot 0.06% !!!!!!!!!!!!!) is enough to add the tag liberal to the article, why would 9000 out of 21,000 be too little to add the conservative tag????? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, if you check my earlier post below, you'll see that I changed my position on using the "liberal" label for the SPLC (and I haven't added it back to the article). My preference is to follow WP policy or guidelines on labeling groups.  If there is no policy or guidelines on it, then we need to be consistent in our labeling.  If we use Google News as our benchmark, we shouldn't label unless a super-majority of sources use that label, given Google News' use of so many partisan sources and some opinion pieces from reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the new bar that you set basically means that such a label can only be applied in the most extreme cases. I am pretty sure that this means that all over wikipoedia many touisants of tags need to be removed by this new criterion. Fortunately, policies like WP:UNDUE are covering this already and your demand for super majorities is not in there. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please quote the part of WP:UNDUE that would distinguish between several prominent sources using a label (in the case of "liberal") and admittedly many, but not a majority, of sources using a label (in the case of "conservative"). Drrll (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" 43% of news article.
 * "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. 0.06% of the news articles.
 * -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that language refer to theories of individuals, such as Flat Earth believers, hence the use of "adherents", as opposed to something like descriptive labeling in news reports? Drrll (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not necessarily as far as I can tell. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My preference is to use academic literature (or a respected source such as the SPLC) that explains what it means by conservative or liberal and why the FRC would be included, and indicates that this is the normal view of it. TFD (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

arb break

 * I'm actually fine with leaving the "liberal" label out for the SPLC as long as we take out the "conservative Christian-right" out for the FRC (and similarly for a host of other organizations). My guess is that many would object to taking out "conservative", etc. Do you see the FBI taking the SPLC's designation of the FRC as a hate group as seriously as the designation of a group like the KKK? Drrll (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. To some of our left-leaning friends here, conservative Christians = the KKK. --B (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoa, exaggerate much?! FRC != all conservative Christians. - PrBeacon (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. I saw in another post of yours at ANI that Heidi Beirich of the SPLC says that the SPLC views the FRC as no different than the KKK. Amazing. Drrll (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing? More like sad that dialogue is so polarized. However, the fact that public debate has such a poverty of politeness and mutual respect is one of the things that makes Wikipedia's NPOV stance more important than ever. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why there's any question or how this is relevant to the conversation. The fact is the #1 organization for recognizing hate crimes which most neutral media and the FBI, law enforcement and others work with consider the FRC a hate organization, along with many other organizations. Don't see what the issue here is. WMO 02:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Drrll's assessment - both articles must be treated equally. If a label is added on one article, it must appear in the other. I made a comment about this here. The same case applies for criticism: if a criticism section appears on this article, it too, must appear on the article for the SPLC. I hope this helps, AnupamTalk 03:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These articles are not peas in a pod. The fact that the SPLC noted that the FRC was a hate group is certainly notable on the FRC article as the SPLC is the premiere organization for that kind of thing and highly respected for its rankings, on the article should also list the FRC defending itself if appropriate. That is due weight on the FRC article, but if you bring it to the SPLC article it would not be due weight. Also, the SPLC does not consider itself liberal and there are not any good sources to claim it is, the FRC does consider itself conservative. As such, placing a label on the SPLC as "liberal" is by definition more controversial than the logical placement of the label "conservative" on the FRC. WMO 03:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The SPLC hate map says, "Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity". TFD (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The demand for balance in such a unequal comparison is very much inappropriate. Please check WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to see a reliable source that says that the FBI considers the FRC a hate group. I'd also like to see a non-opinion reliable source that considers the FRC a hate group (not just one that reports that the SPLC considers it as such). Drrll (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we still fighting over this? Can I join? From where I'm standing, I think the FRC is a shameful organization and I think Dobson--well I won't tell you what I think. This just to indicate the extent to which I disagree with the organization's mission. But I have another mission here, and that's NPOV and the proper weight distribution in articles--putting the material in the article is perfectly fine, but putting it in the lead is not: it is, in my opinion, a violation of the requirement that the lede accurately summarize the main thrust and content of the article. Did I see Drrl above, agreeing with my point of view? BTW, calling the SPLC the "#1 organization for recognizing hate crimes" is kind of silly; by the same token, denying that the FRC is conservative, Christian, and right-wing is silly as well. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like we have another vote to Remove the SPLC designation from the lead.


 * Drmies, I'm not denying that the FRC is conservative or Christian, I'm just calling for consistency in labeling the FRC and the SPLC--either leave the labels off for both organizations or label both organizations. Do you deny that the SPLC is liberal? Drrll (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Christian right"
I say that we drop use of "Christian right", often used as a pejorative, from the lead unless there is extraordinary sourcing that supports its use. Drrll (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only a pejorative to people who think that being a Christian or a conservative is something to be ashamed of. What term would you prefer to use in its place?  They self-describe as conservative Christian, but our article by that name is on a completely different topic. --B (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I say we use "evangelical Christian," even though that term also includes liberal groups such as Sojourners. We definitely shouldn't use "religious right", which is used even more so as a pejorative and which includes other religious groups besides Christians. Where does the FRC self-describe themselves as "conservative Christian" (I couldn't find it on their homepage or "About" page). Drrll (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Explain to me, a non-conservative organization publishing "The Social Conservative Review", are they monitoring the Social Conservative movement? Explain to me, What faith are they advancing, as they claim on each and every page of the website: "Advancing Faith, Family and Freedom". Are they Muslims? Or what about "FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview".-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not saying they aren't Christian, or even conservative Christian/social conservative. I am saying that we use the most well-sourced term possible (that's not a pejorative) in describing them. Drrll (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have me confused, Christian is nowadays a pejorative? Conservative is a pejorative? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that what's currently used in the article, "Christian right", and even more so, "religious right" is a pejorative. Drrll (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, they are not "Christian right" or "religious right"? They are obviously not "Christian left" or "religious left"....-- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Drrll's contention is that they should not be characterized as right/left/conservative/liberal or any other political bent. (I don't agree, I'm just restating what I believe the user's position is.) --B (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Terms like "Christian right", "religious right", "social conservative" etc. sound me neutral and non-biased. As well as "liberal" (in American sense of the term "liberal") or "left wing" for left wing groups like SPLC. Word "Christian" can be factually problematic if they have social conservative Jewish members and active supporters but I have no idea if they have some. --Dezidor (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the key here is does the group self-identify as being "Conservative", "Christian", etc., and/or do mainstream media identify them as such. If not the tags shouldn't be added.  Same thing goes with the term "liberal."  You will have groups that embrace the terms, you will have others that reject the terms.  Just because a newspaper or group with an extreme viewpoint on either end of the spectrum calls them one thing or another doesn't mean the term should be added.Marauder40 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "religious right" is often used as a pejorative (see this article). The term "Christian right", while preferable, is used interchangeably with "religious right" (I don't think you'll find many leaders in the movement using the term "Christian right" to describe themselves).  It may be unavoidable to use the word "conservative" to describe the group.  Perhaps "socially conservative Christian"? Drrll (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just from a quick search, Christian Right is in common usage. etc. WMO 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Edge Boston is a gay paper, I wouldn't use them as a guideline for what is mainstream. - Haymaker (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * {e/c} Indeed it is. You quote, however, from a hostile article that uses it as a pejorative. Nonetheless, it is certainly in mainstream usage and as such may be included although neither the FRC nor Focus on the Family use it to self-describe. This debate is a perfect example of WP bias. At Climatic Research Unit email controversy the bias will not permit the term "Climategate," widely, nearly universally used in the MSM, because it is deemed pejorative. But when it come to bashing Christians, of course we may use the pejorative term. (Personally, I think both debated terms should be included. It is well for editors to be aware of bias, especially when it means we must accept it as the editorial consensus.) Yopienso (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing over mainstream here, I'm sure mainstream outlets use it as well, in fact, I would bet good money. However, to dismiss a paper because it is marketed for a different sexual orientation is bigoted. I don't think we should use a "straight" paper because it might not represent what is mainstream according to the LGBT community. Doesn't work does it? Neither does your pronouncement. WMO 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't call me that. Do you want me to troll Christian papers to see what the call the SPLC? - Haymaker (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @WMO I was responding to Haymaker, not to you. you, not to Haymaker. Haymaker made no "pronouncement," but noted a simple and very applicable fact: Edge Boston is not a RS for WP. You are out of line to suggest he is bigoted. Yopienso (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm out of line to ask for the comment to be struck. - Haymaker (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind? - Haymaker (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the FRC explicitly Christian?
On its web homepage and in its mission statement I didn't see where the FRC explicitly calls itself Christian. I see a reference to promoting "Judeo-Christian" values but I didn't see anything that would indicate that it is exclusively Christian. Did I miss it? Badmintonhist (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Its widely considered christian right. WMO 23:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of that but it would be misleading to imply in our article that they are explicitly Christian if, in fact, they are not. Kind of like calling the Southern Poverty Law Center Law Center "liberal" or "progressive," except worse I suppose, because it implies a kind of exclusion of others based on religion. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)PS: More to the point., it is either officially Christian or it isn't, and if it isn't then we shouldn't be implying that it is. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, they are not, although they probably have their biggest base with Christians, but they themselves state they promote a Judeo Christian values. I think the current lead is misleading in keeping Christian in and removing concervative as they themselves do label themselves concervative, as do many many sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They are accredited by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.  Only evangelical organizations are so accredited.  Among their requirements are that you have a "written statement of faith clearly affirming its commitment to the evangelical Christian faith". --B (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here we go, I found their statement of faith: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WX10C02 . It sounds pretty Christian to me. --B (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep. Well done B. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. :) Looks like we caught the devil saying it. WMO 00:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FRC is not the devil, nor am I. Article subjects that you or I disagree with should still be treated with fairness and not called the devil, except perhaps if you are editing Satan. --B (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WM1, I can certainly appreciate your frustration in trying to collaborate at this article, but (as I've said at a similarly contentious article's talkpage) that sort of sarcasm can be too easily miscontrued & it's likely to make others less willing to AGF. - PrBeacon (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Having fun editing FRC?
Expand your horizons here... Lionel (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)