Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 5

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

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

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


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


 * The global warming language was simply a lie. Neither of the sources given say anything remotely similar to what was stated in the article.   Belch fire - TALK  21:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I see where in WP:3RR it says that it's ok to edit war as much as you like, so long as you're convinced that the article isn't the WP:TRUTH. No, wait, I misread. It says the exact opposite! Who would have imagine?!
 * I'm going to recommend that you disengage. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always good to do some research before making claims that other editors are conflating issues in an article. For example, Family Research Council Lobbied Congress on Resolution Denouncing Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill.


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

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

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

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

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


 * Honesty is on page 3.-- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  23:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Needs better sourcing. Nothing on Scribd is usable.   Belch fire - TALK  00:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The United States House of Representatives? -- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  00:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [CBS]
 * [Washington Post]
 * [Huffington Post]
 * -MrX 00:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been buffing my crystal ball, and I predict that LuckyWikipedian will never be seen again. After all, his entire record is a bunch of edits here, followed by a block. If he returns, it'll be under a new and hopefully more original name. I can only hope that he acts more moderately. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This may also be relevant to the Uganda bill. Sure sounds like they're supporting and defending the bill (or at least opposing opposition to it.) I would also ... suggest that a careful reading of the claims there vs. a careful reading of the bill itself would prove instructive. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I came across that when I was doing research for the Ugandan Resolution section that I added earlier today. I was not able to find any secondary or tertiary references though, and I did not want to introduce original research. &mdash; MrX 03:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I've moved it once. Viriik moved it back. I'm getting pretty tired of this muscle-arming. While we're here talking, Belchfire and pals can apparently can do anything they want with it. -- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  00:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's not a controversy.  ViriiK (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And because it's part of FRC's history. This isn't complicated, nor should it be controversial.   Belch fire - TALK  00:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The motive for the shooting is, notably the Chick-fil-A section you removed a while ago which is now figuring prominently here. I can't help but notice just now that you, Viriik, and Lionelt have really been at this for months. That just tops the cake more or less for me. Have a great day propagandizing. --  O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  00:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPA. If you want, we can always have it as a separate category outside of history.  See Luby's and have a fork.  ViriiK (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter anymore. Tag teaming beats consensus any day. -- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  00:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still personally attacking. ViriiK (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. Take it to ANI if you think you have a valid complaint.  Otherwise, please refrain from flinging poo.   Belch fire - TALK  00:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a Chick-fil-A sammich in your talk page. I know I'm flinging poo right now, but Call a spade a spade. -- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  00:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just the pot calling the kettle black. I'm unimpressed.  PAs are unconstructive, end of story.  Back to work...   Belch fire - TALK  00:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Dear editors - if we could get back to the topic, please. I have just added a quite important detail to the shooting incident, given what might be otherwise read into the incident because of Corkins' volunteer work with the DC Center for the LGBT community. It also seems to me that the shooting incident makes more sense in the context of FRC's published strong-line statements against homosexuality and, notably, its subsequent listing as a hate group by SPLC. The latter is surely just as much (if not more so) notable in FRC's history as is the shooting: shouldn't the section "Listing as a hate group by SPLC" be moved and made a subsection preceding "Shooting incident"? Certainly that's the logical sequence which would make more sense of that incident. Alfietucker (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * However there is an issue with that though. We don't know his rationale for this shooting incident since it is still too premature.  He apparently had a backpack full of Chick-fil-A bags and related accessories so it could belong in the Chick-fil-A under the same qualifications too.  ViriiK (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Alfie's idea has a lot of merit, so I rearranged the sections thusly. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Belchfire. Just to repeat that, regardless of Corkins' motivation (whatever it turns out to be), I think there's still a case for placing "Listing as a hate group" as part of the history, which it undoubtedly is. Alfietucker (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound callous, but the fact that the organization had a security guard shot in the arm doesn't REALLY seem significant enough to me to be listed BEFORE their policies and other central information such as that. I mean, um... Codenamemary (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well what do people think of shunting the entire history part so it follows policies? Alfietucker (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a regular contributor here, so I don't want to horn in on people who've spent a lot of time editing this article...I was just surprised to see an event that happened TODAY detailed so high up in the article. Usually, I'm just accustomed to seeing a subject and it's distinctions laid out first, then you eventually get into it's current events, etc. So given the choice, I would put "History" below "Politics & Policies", myself. Codenamemary (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I tagged this section. These events happened approximately 12 hours ago. I think everyone ought to settle down and let events unfold before making radical changes to the article, although that seems to already have happened. MsFionnuala (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by National Organization for Marriage
A statement by NOM in response to the shooting was included in the article: since, as a non-US reader, I wasn't familiar with that organization it was only when I did a bit of research that I discovered it had also been criticized (albeit not quite as severely) by SPLC. It seemed to me rather crucial for the sake of WP:NPOV to include this information (which makes clear NOM's statement was not from a disinterested party), but it has just been edited out as 'Not appropriate in this article'. My feeling is that if the nature of NOM's statement can't be clarified, then it has no business being in the article at all: otherwise it looks like a very POV addition. Any other thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection here. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. See my comments above. I think the 25 LGBT groups condemnation should go as well. - MrX 01:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: no objection to the addition that Alfie suggested. I'm not consenting to the removal of the reactions.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC)I see that both this and the NOM statement have now been edited out, but I still feel that the LGBT statement is significant enough to be included. The reason I put in the joint statement by the LGBT groups, as I explained in the thread immediately above, was because it balances out any implication that might be read into the fact Corkins did volunteer work with the DC Center for the LGBT community. Any other thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement, Alfie. It just took me two edits to get it back to where you had it earlier.  I think the reactions are important, and your addendum concerning NOM's status is an important bit as well.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Belchfire - I actually was trying to amend my previous post, but hit an edit conflict. Anyway, glad we're agreed. Alfietucker (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting confusing. I agree that the NOM statement should be removed. Does anyone want it in? StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait - belchfire. I think I read his or her initial statement as "I'm not contesting..." BUT you can't say "there is no consensus to take it out" - there was no consensus to insert it. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think both the soundbites should go. StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious to understand why these reactions are important. It seems to me that it's a lot of detail with no real significance. With regard to Alfietucker about needing balance the implication that somehow Corkins represents the LGBT community (paraphrasing), I think it's unnecessary. This was one person's irrational act; not much different than Aurora, CO. and other recent shootings. - MrX 02:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The reactions are important for context. If nothing else, they help establish the notability of the event.  And by the way, somebody needs to put the quote marks back in.  That's a direct quote, and the quote marks are in the original.  They aren't scare quotes per our MOS.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll go with the flow on this. - MrX 02:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous - you can't have a one-word quote like that. StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I notice that the NOM has been mentioned in a CNN article, which makes me think their statement should stay BUT it would be much better to go with CNN's designation of them ("has actively campaigned against same-sex marriage efforts") rather than mentioning the SPLC. StAnselm (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to mention SPLC, because they are at the root of this. But what's your reasoning?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that it is original synthesis to connect it to the SPLC. That is, it might not be the listing in particular, but the comments of the president, the recent coverage concerning Chick-Fil-A, etc. etc. With the CNN article, we have a reliable source putting it in the context of opposition to same-sex marriage, and we should adopt that, and not go beyond it into more specific connections. StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, and yes that should probably be addressed. Well, we could accomplish the SPLC tie-in merely by expanding the NOM quote: "Today’s attack is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. “The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Family Research Council a ‘hate group’ for its pro-marriage views, and less than a day ago the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement calling FRC a ‘hate group’ – they even specified that FRC hosts events in Washington, DC, where today’s attack took place.”  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  03:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would be an improvement on what we have, but it turns into rather a long quote from a small organization. I still prefer using the CNN article. I realise the NOM press release mentions the SPLC, but perhaps we have all been reading the incident in the light of the hate group listing, having been in the middle of discussing it, while CNN fails to mention it at all. StAnselm (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * CNN is certainly far more notable and noteworthy than NOM, as well as more neutral. NOM has, shall we say, intense partisan bias here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 10:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I only did a quick search and i'm quite late to this discussion, but here's a few sources i found with the "hate-group" bit thrown in and mentioned: 123456. Hope that's useful in some way ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding a bit Jenova. The issue on the hate group designation is a separate discussion above. What Belchfire wants to do is link the shooting to the SPLC designation, which is not supported by any sources other than NOM. Which is not exactly a neutral party here.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  17:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that would be some stretch. NOM is not the least bit reliable on these matters. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: NY Times article, Perkins has mentioned SPLC saying "Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center". And SPLC has denied the connection saying Perkins is "using the attack on their offices to pose a false equivalency". -- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  01:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So now it's not just NOM by itself any more, we also have AFA and FRC itself, and the criticism has been sufficiently well-reported that it has its own notability. What's your next argument?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What? You should be thanking me for even pointing that out. Next argument: don't say it in Wikipedia's voice, make it clear that it's the allegations of the said groups, and include the rebuttal. But that's me. Ask the others what they think first, because if I know you, you'd be adding this just about now.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing what out? The comments that I added to the article 2-1/2 hours ago?  Um, thanks, I think.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, sweetie pie. -- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  02:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that since i first gave my opinion. If NOM isn't neutral enough, what about NARTH or the Vatican? =P They're neutral on this lol. For argument sake i'm actually going to point out that this is sarcasm ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Very wise. When I'm sarcastic, it gets reported as a personal attack or legal threat. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Slow down everyone!
Without prejudice as to what changes were made and by whom, I've returned the article to the state it was in at 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC). I believe these changes have been far too rushed - they should only be implemented after a period of time sufficient enough to allow all editors of this article to participate - allow only roughly half a day cuts off editors living in several time zones from participation. --Scientiom (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not going to help. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Scientom, it has not been rushed. It has been discussed and there has not been issues except for a certain user. Plus there has been clear headed discussion prior to that. Please do revert it back to the latest version. ViriiK (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That has to be the most preposterous excuse for a disruptive edit that I've yet to see. "Hey, stop!  I wasn't here when you did all that stuff!"  Please.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  08:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AGF. --Scientiom (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Belchfire is being uncivil, but I think it's pretty clear that your bold edit is unpopular. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't revert a whole day's worth of edits without reason. You've offered no rationale for this other than "I wasn't here".  That's not nearly good enough, and I think you know that.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  08:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Scientom, am I to understand you are reverting ALL of the changes made because you weren't here to discuss them? It's like saying that Obama's speech on "You didn't build that" and there's a wikipedia about it and you reverted all the way to 0 bytes because you weren't there to discuss it.  ViriiK (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems StAnselm has reverted my reversion - I don't object, but I still think that these changes were far too rushed. --Scientiom (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're free to bring up an issue that you have. Here's your chance.  ViriiK (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresenting FRC's position on climate change.
Here's the bogus claim being made: "The Family Research Council opposes... the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for global warming..."

Based on the several sources brought forward, this is simply false. Let's begin here, with the primary source being used to push this horseshit: "Little wonder, then, that evangelicals who dispute the cause of and remedy for global warming are critical of fellow evangelicals who signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) statement last year. They have three complaints, outlined in a March letter to L. Roy Taylor, chairman of the board of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). First, they believe too many evangelicals are uncritically joining the global-warming campaign. Second, they criticize the campaign for adding another priority to our crowded agenda, shifting emphasis away from 'the great moral issues of our time.' And third, they argue that evangelical leaders lack 'the expertise to settle the controversy, and that the issue should be addressed scientifically and not theologically.'"

FRC isn't disputing anybody's theory on global warming here. Rather, they have 3 specific complaints: (1) that other evangelicals are joining a political campaign, (2) that evangelicals already have enough on their plates, and (3) that the whole thing is not a religious issue. It is original research, and a misrepresentation of this source, to claim that FRC is taking a position against anthropogenic global warming.

The next source, CNN, similarly outlines that FRC's position is NOT opposed to global warming, but rather that it's an internicine conflict over priorities and agenda."A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives..."

And finally, in a rather silly and desperate attempt to push this false information, an editor has brought us that mighty edifice of journalism... yes, The Greenville News. (I tremble at it's awesomeness.) "Other groups, however, such as the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, have questioned climate science and said human efforts to stop it are “largely futile.” Adherents included figures such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council."As we can clearly see here, at most FRC's position might be said to that humans can't stop global warming. They take no clear position on what is causing it. They simply don't want to see other religious organizations spending their time and political capital worrying about it. There is zero evidence that they "oppose the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for global warming".

Now that we can all see how preposterously some editors are misrepresenting their sources, I think it might be a good idea for them to simply admit that they are wrong and self-revert. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 17:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. They are complaining that other evangelicals are supporting man-made global warming. FRC hosted a policy discussion on global warming in 2007 as an effort to bring the Evangelical Environmental Network (which were arguing for man-made global warming) panelists back into their "fold". Which is listed on their policy page, unfortunately I can't seem to access the audio. Perkins has posted several official FRC blogs critical of government attempts at mitigating global warming. And there's one "prayer" that criticizes EEN for joining the "liberal" cause for global warming (note that he does not criticize those who are against man-made global warming, and specifically describes it as "alarmist"). There's also Chris Gacek.--  O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  18:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making my point for me. We don't have a source that supports the statement being made in the article, which is the result of original research.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  18:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that this particular content has invoked so much ire, and I apologize if I have not acted in good faith as an editor.


 * I concede that the first reference is weak, although I do think it supports the idea that the FRC has a stated position on the anthropogenic global warming debate.


 * "One of the men who signed the letter, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, said global warming was part of a leftist agenda that threatened evangelical unity." This is from the CNN article. The statement that "global warming [is] part a leftist agenda" seems to me to be consistent with "The Family Research Council opposes...the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for global warming." from this Wikipedia article. My interpretation, however, may be wrong.


 * From The Greenvile article, "Other groups, however, such as the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, have questioned climate science (emphasis added) and said human efforts to stop it are “largely futile.” Adherents included figures such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council."


 * Is there a rewording of "opposes...the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for global warming" that would reconcile your concerns with these cited sources that clearly document that the FRC has at least taken a contrarian position in the global warming debate? &mdash; MrX 19:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * MrX, you provide further evidence of original research, in that you must apply your own reasoning in order to reach the conclusion that exists in the article. Your "interpretation" has to remain on the sidelines.  If interpretation is needed, that should be your first clue that you are substituting your own judgment for that of your sources.


 * With the sources that exist, FRC's "contrarian position" can only be shown in opposition to other evangelicals taking their current positions. It is an error of logic, as well as a violation of core policies, to carry that a step further and assign a position to FRC that the sources to not clearly elucidate.  Stating that something is part of a leftist agenda is a far cry from taking a position on the putative man-made causes of climate change.  "Questioning climate science" is NOT the same as "opposing" anything.  A leap is required in order to reach the statement being made in Wikipedia's voice.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  19:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the video. So change the wording to FRC opposes attempts to address global warming and environmental issues by other evangelicals because people dying speeds up the second coming. Sounds better right? -- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So BelchFire, is your proposal to change the wording to "The FRC questions the idea that humans are mainly or completely responsible for global warming and opposes other evangelicals who affirm the validity of global warming."? &mdash; MrX 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not offering any specific proposal; I'm just insisting that we don't use OR to pile on fictional derogatory claims about FRC. If we have reached the conclusion that FRC doesn't verifiably hold the position that some are attempting to assign, then I think we need to ask why there would be any mention of it at all, especially in the lead.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it in the lead? In any case, a re-wording is probably in order in light of your well-articulated concerns. I will offer my previous re-wording as a first draft, and perhaps other editors can help with this. &mdash; MrX 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, it's not in the lead right now. I believe it was in the past, maybe as recently as yesterday.  Of course, I'm open to your proposal for compromise.  Thanks.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have re-worded it to align with the cited sources. It could probably benefit from a little tweaking, to avoid sounding awkward. &mdash; MrX 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think removing the offending text is the first step, and worry about new text later. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The offending text has been removed. &mdash; MrX 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not crazy about it, but it's definitely an improvement.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Did FRC question climate change via official statements, or was it leadership making personal statements? More importantly the new language needs to indicate why FRC is displeased with other evangical organizations. If BF is correct (I haven't read the sources) then the reason seems to be with respect to resources and not because FRC does not support anthropogenic climate change theory, which the current text implies. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The closest approach that's been demonstrated so far is that FRC "questions the science" behind the theory of AGW. Saying "we aren't sure about this" is a far cry from saying "we think this is wrong".  My reading of the sources is that we are talking about official positions, not personal, which may help to explain the caution that is evident.  The position against other evangelical organizations taking sides is less ambiguous.  All of it raises a question of general relevance.  To be sure, FRC has positions on a number of matters, controversial and non-controversial, that we have not seen fit to include.  I have not seen a satisfactory explanation - nor any attempt to provide one - as to why the new, altered wording constitutes something that merits mention in the article.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  22:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no doubt whatsoever that FRC is on the Republican bandwagon against admitting that global warming has significant human causes. They stated:
 * The crisis du jour is global warming, but even that is just another excuse to fund "Planet" Parenthood and similar groups.

That's their own admission. We also have no shortage of reliable secondary sources that confirm this:
 * Founded in 1983, the Family Research Council opposes same-sex marriage, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and disputes that global warming is the result of human activity.

I chose the Chicago Tribune, but it's actually Reuters, so it appears all over the place.

I think you need to drop the stick and back away; this isn't something you can sweep under the carpet. Really, the only thing I don't understand is why you're even trying, given that FRC is hardly shy about it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The shooting doesn't belong under "controversy."
Which is why it got moved to "History" earlier yesterday. But, it doesn't really belong there either. Yet, this shooting isn't worthy of its' own section in the article; nor is it worthy of its own article. So, where should it be? I think in the end, in some time, it will be out of the article altogether. I think that folks like Tony Perkins, NOM, and others are using this shooting to go on the attack against groups with which they disagree, and I don't think Wikipedia should act as his mouthpiece. A nut job walked into the lobby and wounded a security guard. It's in the news now, but in the big scheme of things, I'm not certain how notable this is going to end up being. With that in mind, I think the section is large enough, if not too large already. MsFionnuala <sub style="color:green;">T <sup style="color:red;">L <sub style="color:green;">C  23:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur, the event is arguably in the "History" category. I think it's clear that the shooting would never rise to the level of notability in its own right, but in the context of FRC's history, it isn't hard to see the lasting significance.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  23:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If Fox News' breathless allegations turn out to be true, then the shooting was based on FRC's controversial policies. Thus controversy section. It lacks context because Belchfire above removed the Chick-fil-A section a few months ago on specious grounds. Lasting significance is determined later, as the case with SPLC listing which has turned out to be demonstrably lasting. This event might not, despite the current media flurry (which is more because of the recent spate of gun violence), there wasn't even any fatalities.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  01:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the perpetrator is convicted of a pro-LGBT hate crime, it will certainly be of lasting significance. StAnselm (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'd certainly agree with that. But there aren't enough details yet.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Inconveniently, it isn't just a Fox News allegation any more. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was when it first hit the press, and we both know Fox News isn't exactly neutral. How much of that is media osmosis, we don't know.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor does it matter. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion, but it doesn't seem to have any basis in Wikipedia policy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Washington Post destroyed your position on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could provide a link.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 11:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I just moved it into its own section. It doesn't hurt for it to be at that level, and if you guys get it settled as to what *other* section now named, or under a future rename, it will be ready to move. -- Avanu (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC case
I've now worked on Listing as a hate group by SPLC, making clear that much of their case was based on the statements made by FRC representatives earlier in 2010, as described in the previous section, as well as touching on the evidence presented by SPLC to justify some of its other claims. I hope that's gone some way to address the concerns raised earlier by Cynwolfe in Proposed hate group mention in the lead thread. Alfietucker (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That pamphlet
The pamphlet entitled "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys" is mysteriously unavailable at the FRC, but don't despair, you can read it in all of its original glory at http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf. Hope that helps. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC Response
The article now reads as follows:

FRC president Tony Perkins issued a public statement calling the shooting "an act of domestic terrorism" and criticizing the Southern Poverty Law Center for being "reckless in labeling organizations as hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy."[49] Mark Potok of SPLC called Perkins's accusation "outrageous" and said that "Perkins and his allies, seeing an opportunity to score points, are using the attack on their offices to pose a false equivalency".[48] SPLC's statement reads: "The FRC routinely pushes out demonizing claims that gay people are child molesters and worse - claims that are provably false. It should stop the demonization and affirm the dignity of all people."[49]

The boldfaced part was added by one editor, restored by two different editors, and removed twice by a fourth editor. Discussion appears to be in order. The fuller response is in order because Perkins makes a specific charge against the SPLC when he says that the SPLC is "reckless in labeling organizations as hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy." Simply reducing the SPLC response to the first sentence by Potok leaves unaddressed the issue of how the SPLC determined that the FRC was a hate group. Both sides of the issue need to be adequately addressed and a reader should not be left with the idea that nothing but "public policy" is at dispute. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems quite clear to me as well. The false equivalency comment says nothing about why SPLC considers FRC to be a hate group in the first place, which is why we need that quote from written statement. Given the amount of space given to NOM and FRC on this matter, it doesn't seem out of place to give SPLC a chance to at least address both claims against it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC


 * Nope. The reasons for the the SPLC's designation of the FRC as a "hate group" are ALREADY GIVEN in the article. We don't need to give the reader a refresher course each time there is a hostile exchange between the two organizations. If you feel the need to more fully explain their reasons then suggest additions to the Listing as a hate group. . ." section, but don't make it too long; this article is about the Family Research Council, not the Southern Poverty Law Center's take on the Family Research Council. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And the FRC charges against the SPLC are also given elsewhere. If the charges are worth repeating then so is the response. It's the reader friendly thing to do. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The section on the shooting should be focused on, you know, the shooting. The text I removed is not related to the shooting; it's related to SPLC's justification for listing FRC as a hate group.  That makes it irrelevant to the section.  It should go.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perkins' statement IN THIS SECTION on why he wants people to believe the FRC is classified as a hate group makes the SPLC response IN THIS SECTION relevant. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (EC)And if we're going to carry a serious accusation from one party, then if there's a response reported in the media then we include this for NPOV. As for Badmintonhist's point about repeating info, fair enough: I have replaced the quote from SPLC's recent statement with another (as quoted by a reliable third party) which is still pertinent but doesn't rehash SPLC's case against FRC. As to adding to Listing as a hate group, Cynwolfe has already pointed out earlier in the "Proposed hate group mention in the lead" thread SPLC's case was insufficiently outlined there. So yes, I think it's time to do some work there. Alfietucker (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good compromise. I also agree with Cynwolfe's analysis.  Part of the problem is that specific  SPLC criticisms appear in other sections of the Criticism attributed to other sources who reached the same conclusion.  Perhaps the separate SPLC section should be merged. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a double non sequitur, Tom. Try to remember, the section is about the shooting .   <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, it's about the shooting, which is why we must allow the SPLC to reply to the charges leveled at it as a result of the shooting. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I must say, I kinda get a kick out of editors who in the article on the SPLC don't want to include any response from any of the numerous groups it condemns, but who, on the other hand, want to provide the SPLC an elaborate forum when it is mentioned negatively in an article on any other organization. Shilling anyone?Badmintonhist (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The FRC isn't mentioned at all in the SPLC article, is it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because editors such as yourself, particularly yourself, in fact, fought long and hard to keep it from being mentioned. And you fought to keep it from being mentioned so that it wouldn't have the "right to response" that you so eagerly champion for the SPLC. 21:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Badmintonhist (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true. I suggested adding the SPLC rationale at some point, but your side wanted to reduce the SPLC argument to a single sentence in order to create a false equivalency. If both sides were represented, then you would have an SPLC argument with numerous specifics and an FRC response that addresses none of the specifics and simply attacks SPLC motives. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It probably would be if you hadn't defensively begged for page protection, Tom. Your ownership issues with that article really aren't relevant here.  We've included the segment of SPLC's response that is relevant to the shooting, and nothing else is needed.  Let's move on.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Page protection is an entirely responsible action when folks decide to ignore discussions and add material to a stable article (beyond merely BRD) without consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point for me, very helpful of you. There simply is no such thing as a "stable article" on Wikipedia, our editing policy does not support your continued insistence on gaining permission before editing, and your actions are highly symptomatic of ownership. Let go, Tom. It doesn't belong to you. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure there is. It's already been explained to you on the SPLC discussion page that "stable article" is a common wikipedia term. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy link, please. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, in my view the wording in the Shooting incident section of the article is quite adequate now. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On second look, while the wording of the individual sentences and basic info in the section is okay, I think the order of the information should be rearranged so that the objective stuff about the crime and the legal handling of it is in one place and the political snipings by the various organizations are in another.Badmintonhist (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Badminton, I think the sequencing could be improved.
 * And I'm still waiting for Tom to show us the "stable article" policy, by the way. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Statements on homosexuality
I'm a bit confused about the last sentance


 * <i>The opinions expressed by Perkins are contradicted by mainstream social science research on same-sex parenting[32] and the likelihood of child molestation by homosexuals,[32][33] and some scientists whose work is cited by the American College of Pediatricians, a small conservative political organization formed when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed adoption by same-sex couples, have accused the FRC of distorting and misrepresenting their work.[34][34]</I>

The first part about mainstream science is clear, but what point is being made about the likelihood of child molestation AND the ACP? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 13:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a very awkward sentence that probably should be split in two. If somebody else doesn't do it I'll work on it when I've had some more coffee.Badmintonhist (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite a confusing sentence. The information which is being conveyed here is basically three points: (1.) That Perkin's opinions are contradicted by social science research & (2.) That the American College of Pediatricians, which is a small conservative political organization which was formed when the AAP endorsed LGBT adoption, has misrepresented the work of scientists & (3.) The FRC has also misrepresented the work of scientists. --Scientiom (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alfietucker made a nice fix. I removed one blurb about the ACP, but I think is a major improvement. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That detail should not be removed - it acts as an explanatory sentence to readers. --Scientiom (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to label them "small" or "conservative". Matter of fact since ACP is blue-linked, there is no reason to label them whatsoever.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is verifiable that they are small & conservative - and they were formed specifically because a small group of people in major professional organization, the AAP, were not happy with an action the AAP made. We need to look at this from a reader's perspective: the sentence helps readers understand the paragraph in question better - they are not likely to click on a link to go to another page. --Scientiom (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * However it is undue/not neutral. We are not labeling other orgnaizations in this article.  Should we be labeling SPLC as leftist?  I wouldn't prefer that myself.    little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is neutral and due because the ACP was formed for a singular purpose and have distorted scientific research. The SPLC is a civil rights organization and no mainstream source calls it "leftist". --Scientiom (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So now we only use mainstream reliable sources? A RS is a RS.  Why aren't we tagging SPLC a "civil rights" orgnaization?  It too further clarifies its function for the reader.  The graph currently states that ACP distored research and that FRC frequnetly cites them.  It should be left to the reader to draw their own conclusions about ACP instead of stating it in wikipedia's voice.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure we can call the SPLC a "civil rights organization", no problem there. I am in favor of brief explanatory descriptors applied to blue-linked terms or groups—such descriptors help to keep the reader here at this article rather than ping-ponging around the encyclopedia trying to understand who is who. However, the SPLC is definitely not "leftist". Sheesh. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I think taging SPLC leftist is over the top, though I did see a RS that defintly used that term. I'm not even advocating labeling SPLC as liberal, left-leaning or one of many spectrum related tagging which has been applied inconsistently to ACP.  I'm asking for ACP to get the same neutral treatment that other organizations in this are getting.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you that we should say that SPLC is a civil rights organization to readers - if it's helpful to readers then it's a positive addition. --Scientiom (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to earlier stuff. I don't see a problem with calling the ACP "small" -- the 200 to 60,000 membership ratio with the AAP pretty much says this. However the source ''doesn't" call the ACP "political" as we now do in the article, and, as far as I can see, it doesn't mention the FRC at all.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the L-word for SPLC? If the sources back this, the same logic would apply as that used to label ACP.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in my last comment and my last edit to the article based on it, I'm merely going by the article in the Twin Cities' newspaper, the source of the last sentence of the section. That article doesn't mention the FRC or the SPLC.Badmintonhist (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at American College of Pediatricians, you'll see that it's identified as conservative. Since nobody's fighting over this, it's safe to say that the article's sources must back this up.
 * I noticed that Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't identify that org as liberal, so maybe we should think twice before doing so. Again, this is based on the assumption that this issue has come up on that article and been resolved in this direction.
 * Obviously, a previous consensus is not eternally binding and we should consider all reliable sources. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Inadequately explained removal from the lead
Scientom recently made this reversion with the edit summary the consensus was only clear in favour of including the classification, nothing else - I suggest a separate RFC/thread for your addition. However he/she has failed to address my point that the edit conforms with WP:LEAD which states (wiki markup removed, emphasis added in bold):


 * Introductory text. As explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Lead section#Introductory text, all but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs. The lead itself has no heading and, on pages with more than three headings, automatically appears above the table of contents, if present.

The RfC only disucssed mentioning adding the "hate group" to the lead, however per this guideline and the current text, the controversy of the label is not addressed. My proposed text is as follows:


 * The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy, notably in controversy concerning its position on homosexuality. In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center which drew sharp criticism due to the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan.


 * Does this text fulfill the Rfc?
 * Is the labeling of the FRC considered controversial?
 * Does this text adequately and succinctly address the controversy?
 * Is this text neutral?

While Scientom suggested an RfC, I see no need to bother the rest of the community at this time for what should be a trivial and guideline based addition to the lead. I'd much prefer to see if any of the watchers here see if we can work it out on our own first. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "notable criticism or controversies" here means criticism or controversies related to the subject of the article at hand - which is already included. --Scientiom (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LGR, we already had an RFC on your version and it lost out. The consensus is to mention that it's a hate group, not to "teach the controversy". I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Scientom, I have no idea what you menat. Are you disputing the fact that the label is controversial?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In part yes, in part no. Per WP:WEIGHT, the objections of certain elements to the classification do not deserve to be in the lead alongside the single sentence about the classification of the FRC as a hate group. It can be covered in the body of the article. --Scientiom (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "do not deserve"? If the labeling is controversial, it needs to be at least briefly described.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The addition of "...which drew sharp criticism due to the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan" is unwarranted in my opinion. It doesn't rise to the level of a major controversy justifying inclusion in the lead. It is merely the opinion of Dana Milbank, Opinion Writer. Also, it does not establish a neutral POV, but rather a dismissive POV, again, in my opinion. &mdash; MrX
 * With respect to the opinion aspect, I would agree with you if the sole source were Milbank's column. However this particular column by Milbank has receieved quite a bit of coverage in other reliable sources for his calling the SPLC attribution "absurd" due to the inevitable comparison to the KKK.  It is undue NOT to mention the critcism of the label.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do see now that Milbank's comments have been widely covered, a fact of which I was not previously aware. My remaining concern is that, if this is a major controversy, then it is a major controversy spawned by Milbank's op-ed comments, and should be properly attributed to him so as not to lead the reader to assume that the sharp criticism came from multiple vectors. &mdash; MrX 17:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposed language suggests that there was an immediate uproar after the 2010 listing. If the language is based strictly on an article written two years after the listing (and there is nothing in the article to suggest otherwise), then this is really a new controversy and unrelated to the original listing.  The fact is, that at the time the RFC was initiated, the article wasn't even written.  What did happen back in 2010 was that the FRC objected to the listing.  I suppose you could add to the lead the fact that the FRC disagreed with the listing, but that pretty much goes w/o saying.


 * As far as the Milbank article, the responses to his article have been both positive and negative -- the proposed lead language as well as the body of the article suggests that there was only support for Milbank. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Mr X, valid points. Any suggestions?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tom -- excellent point. We need to capture that as well.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something along these lines:


 * "In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In 2012, the classification drew sharp criticism from Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank because of the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan."


 * I would prefer more brevity, but it's a start. &mdash; MrX 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * However that would be giving undue weight to the opinion of one author, whose opinion is used by very very few sources - which pale in comparison to the thousands of sources which cite the SPLC classification. This material would be fitting for the body, not the lead. --Scientiom (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True. WP:UNDUE warns about giving undue weight to recent events, isolated events and criticisms. It also speaks of the importance of treating each aspect (Milford's criticism of the SPLC) to the overall subject of the article (Family Research Council). &mdash; MrX 18:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We should also include the 2010 response, how about:


 * "In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center which prompted a rebuttal critical of the designation by the FRC and 150 conservative leaders. In 2012, the classification drew sharp criticism from Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank because of the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan."

I'm still thinking about Tom's point of negative response to Milbank. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There was no rebuttal from 150 conservatives. TFD (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the same problems of recentism that others have about adding Milbank to the lead, but also have a problem with the phrase "and 150 conservative leaders". This contradicts what the body of the article says -- it reads:


 * "A section of the letter supporting the FRC and certain other organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC had signers which included twenty members of the House of Representatives (including then soon-to-be Speaker John Boehner), three U.S. Senators, four state Governors, and one state Attorney General."


 * The point is that the open letter advertisement has two parts -- one part attributable to the FRC which specifically criticizes the SPLC and another part (the petition portion) that is signed off on by the famous folks. This is what Slate at has to say about the petition and advertisement:


 * The extremely low-key statement they've [referring to the Congressmen] all agreed to:
 * 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.


 * The famous folks offer general support for the FRC but avoid a direct attack, or even mention, of the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Tom, et al. Good point, the pols don't specifically challenge the designation. How about these 3 versions? Version 3 introuduces the shooting to the lead and ties in the Milbank incident, as those are what spawned the condemnation of the label. The 24hr new cycle has stopped caring about this event, so WP:RECENT isn't really relevant at the moment.


 * 1) In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation which the FRC dismissed as a politcal attack.
 * 2) In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation which the FRC dismissed as a politcal attack. In 2012 the classification drew sharp criticism from Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank because of the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
 * 3) In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation which the FRC dismissed as a politcal attack. In response to the 2012 shooting of a security guard at FRC headquaters in Washington, D.C. by a LGBT volunteer, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank sharply critized the classification because of the categorization of the FRC with groups like the Ku Klux Klan.


 * little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I could live with your first proposal or with AzureCitizen's. It is not clear to me whether this discussion will center on determining what people can live with or will become another polarized debate (as evidenced by the three reverts from St. Anselm already). — Preceding unsigned comment added by  North Shoreman (talk • contribs)

Proposed text
After the RfC, I think the key points that are relevant here for brief mention in the lede are that 1) the SPLC designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group and 2) the FRC disputes the designation. When we start to add additional POVs and perspectives from other players in the lede, it becomes contentious figuring out where that should end and what the right balance is. If we add in that a number of conservative congressman have voiced their opposition, do we add in that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation uses the SPLC's list in tracking hate groups? If we add in that a journalist opined maybe it's a mistake, do we add in another journalists perspective that maybe it's warranted? Maybe we should just leave those items for the body of text, and keep the statement in the lede simple, something like this: -- AzureCitizen (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please read the talk page, people. This was decided a week ago, at Talk:Family Research Council StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not true. How could you possibly reach consensus on how the SPLC would be mentioned in the lead when there was not yet a recognized consensus to place it in the lead.  I have reverted your edit, but you are certainly welcome to submit it as a proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's rubbish. The discussion was specifically held so that when the RfC was closed, we would already have words to insert. I can't help it you missed out on the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever your alleged purpose was, the every existence of this discussion and the one above indicates that seven editors believe t is a live question. Stop your edit warring and join the discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think you have to be clear why the SPLC named FRC as a hate group. It wasn't because the FRC had a controversial position on homosexuality, it was because of the lies the FRC spread about LGBT people themselves. It seems disingenuous to not accurately portray the FRC's actions, not beliefs, earned them the hate group label just like all the rest of those groups. Insomesia (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate the importance of answering "why?" for the reader. However, the body of text in the article gets into the issue of why the SPLC classified the FRC as anti-gay (e.g., leadership's defaming/demonizing statements) and why the FRC disputes the designation (e.g., liberal political attack).  When we summarize it in the lede, we need to either explain "why" for both the SPLC and the FRC, or omit the "why" for both.  The proposed text in the quote box above attempts to do the latter, for the sake of simplicity and avoiding lengthy editor contention over just exactly how to balance that equation (see threads above). AzureCitizen (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement opens with The organization has been involved in the politics of social policy, notably in controversy concerning its position on homosexuality. Then notes the hate group designation. This seems to be a false analogy that they have been designated as a hate group just because of their politics. Wrong, they have been designated as a hate group because of their actions. Perhaps open with the designation as a hate group then cite specifically why the designation and that the FRC dispute and why. I think 2-3 sentences can accomplish this. Insomesia (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have had to issue a 3RR Warning to St. Anselm -- he has reverted text three times over a 34 minute period. It is a shame that after a lengthy and controversial RFC that an edit war has broken out.  I invite St. Anselm to revert his last revert and argue the merits of his proposal, Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: StAnselm is correct. This was decided a week ago at Talk:Family Research Council The thinking was to have text ready in the event that the RFC supported inclusion. Why edit war when it is clear that (1) the discussion happened and (2) that StAnselm's text obtained consensus? Why not just try to form a new consensus? – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 00:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're certainly right that nobody should be edit warring to push it one way or the other. I'm unable to see where there was consensus, however.  Can you indicate the point at which consensus was reached?  Looking over the thread, it appears to have been an ongoing discussion that hadn't yet culminated in a decision. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Lionel, I just read that section and I did not see any indication of a consensus. I personally leaned toward supporting a version that says some conservatives. BelchFire said: "This section is purely academic and quite likely a waste of time. There is no consensus to add any of this language to the lead (emphasis added), per the ongoing discussion [Rfc] above." TFD and Badmintonhist were vocally against it as well. Most of the others in that thread were either weakly for or weakly against the wording. Then there was further debate about the actually wording, but ultimately the thread fizzled out without any conclusion.


 * Is it possible we are talking about different threads? The one I am referring to is called 'Proposed hate group mention in the lead'. &mdash; MrX 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Per WP:LEAD we are supposed to list controversies. The hate group designation while in the lead, is not noted as a controversey.    little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * StAnselm's edit was neutral, necessary, and 100% appropriate. That edit should be allowed to stand, for the simple reason that this was one of the most controversial "hate group" listings SPLC has ever made, a fact that is richly sourced AND covered in the body of the article.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with his version in the interim. It is more in line WP:LEAD than we have now.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What we have now in the article is exactly what the RFC decided -- nothing more and nothing less. It seems like you want to make this a referendum on whether or not consensus has already been reached. In fact, no such consensus was reached nor has any consensus been reached on any "interim" language -- especially since there has been no discussion here on the actual merits of the "interim" language. Besides, St. Anselm has raised the issue (frivolously to my mind) at AN/I. Let's see how that comes out. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article states what was decided in the RfC. Do you deny that WP:LEAD requires that all controversies be listed in the lead?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes -- I totally agree and that was an argument I made in the RFC. Rather than discussing whether additional language is appropriate (and I thought we were getting close -- I said one of your suggestions was acceptable), you and others want to argue about whether or not consensus had already been achieved elsewhere. This is nothing but a distraction that can only lead to polarization. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. I endorsed (and still do) the closure of the RfC. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't change the subject -- I recognize that you accept the RFC determination. What I object to is your apparent support for the bogus argument that some sort of consensus was reached in the thread that St. Anselm is pushing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I posted it at ANI because you were edit-warring. StAnselm (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. You made three reverts in 34 minutes yet I'm the one who is edit warring? I try to adopt a 1RR restraint on myself, but in this case I allowed myself another one.  I knew when to stop -- you required a 3RR warning. The bad thing is that we were close to narrowing the differences when you injected your bogus argument about a prior consensus into the mix as an unnecessary distraction. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My apparent support? What thread are you reading?   I never said anything remotely supporting that his version of consensus was reached.  I said his text was ok, not the same thing as saying that it was the pferred text of the rfc.  Sheesh.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I took your support for adding the language "in the interim" as meaning that you agreed with adding it immediately while this discussion continued. If what you actually meant was that the language should be considered along with all of the other proposals and that NOTHING should be added until a consensus was reached, then I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did mean I found STA's edit to be acceptable in the interim and have no objections to it be added immediately because; I have no problem with incremental change. IMO STA's edit is better than the current edit. I would prefer putting it in now and continue discussing even more improvements. Apparently other editors think the edit is fine, perhaps for different reasons. If there is consensus to add, then we add it. If not, we don't. I remind you the RfC is over and we are proposing new additions to the lead and not discounting the RfC. There is no requirement for us to come up with a final version. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 06:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The edit satisfies the terms of the RfC
 * 2) The edit somewhat satisfies my concerns about WP:LEAD


 * North Shoreman wrongly asserts that the earlier RfC somehow freezes the language. It doesn't.  It merely addressed the generic question of whether a particular fact should be mentioned at a given point in the article.  Most agree that the fact should be included, and it has been.  His pedantic insistence that nothing can now be added, regardless of relevance, is simply incorrect.  He conveniently forgets that consensus can change, and in this case there has been a major national news event (the FRC shooting) that changes the landscape of what is relevant.  Adjustments to the article are necessary.  North Shoreman has made his point - we all get that he wants to freeze time as of two weeks ago - but now he needs to stop resting on an outdated and not-especially-clear consensus to keep relevant and policy-compliant material that he doesn't like out of the article.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  03:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not true, is it. Rather than "freezing the language" I have actually voiced support for two different proposed changes -- changes we could be discussing if St. Anselm, with your support, had not decided to implement his own language (adding it three times) by making a bogus claim that it was sanctioned by consensus. I also reject your criticism of a just closed RFC as "an outdated and not-especially-clear consensus".  It reflects extreme bad faith on your part to criticize a consensus decision simply because you disagree with it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this the most civil you can be? I encourage you to be just a little more civil. Otherwise, we might imagine that you're just baiting poor, innocent Tom. He's not being "pedantic", and WP:CCC doesn't mean we can form a consensus through RfC and then immediately ignore it. You need to argue for your desired changes on their own merit, not by attacking Tom. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've all been highly impressed by your sterling example of civility during the relatively brief time you've been editing here, StillStanding. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I try! I only wish Belchfire would. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus has not changed in the four hours since the RfC closed. TFD (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is saying the consensus HAS changed, but that it CAN change. No one is saying that the just closed consensus which requires the the hate speech moniker has changed.  The text is in the lead.  No one is suggesting that a new consensus has formed that even hints at removing the moniker.   AFAIK the only thing being discussed are MORE additions to the lead, of which the previous consensus was silent.  So what is the problem?  I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know why people are getting heated over this.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 06:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I support the wording previously discussed with St Anselm and others as the most neutral. But not the versions inserted by little green rosetta which seems tailored to make it seem like the designation was frivolous. He even inserts the criticisms by various writers yet failed to include those who support it, despite the fact that both are in the very same sources (The Advocate and the CNN blog) he uses. In fact both sources actually end with the distinct impression that they too support the SPLC hate group listing, contrary to how little green rosetta makes it appear. Now why is that? --  O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  23:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The actual language that was inserted is "As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which has drawn criticism from conservatives." This implies that all conservatives hold this belief. The lead is supposed to summarize the article contents which list only the FRC itself, Dana Milbanks, and Jeffrey Berry as critics. A more accurate summary might replace the boldfaced text with from the FRC and some political commentators. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember, the reference we were going to use in the lead was the Reuters one, which specifically said "conservatives". I think we have to have a footnote in this lead statement, and I think the Reuters one is the best. StAnselm (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We use sources for more than mining quotes. The fact is that the Reuters article doesn't offer a clue as to who specifically has criticized the SPLC.  The only sources we need are already in the body of the article and we should summarize those sources rather than writing the lead based on some other source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Obsdian, I inserted that quote because it was made by a credentialed scholar and ignored a quote from a blogger with unknown credentials. Please try to AGF.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to AGF when the additions are all one-sided. Did you make the effort to find credentialed scholars who agree with the designation to balance it out?


 * @Tom and StAnselm, How about "As of 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a decision which has drawn criticism from some conservative politicians"? Or replace "politicians" with "leaders". That was the original wording agreed upon, wasn't it? It's a minor enough point to edit war all over again. I think we can all agree that it was certainly not all conservative politicians who signed FRC's online petition, but I also recognize that "some" might be too weaselly.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  00:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy with "some conservative leaders", though "some" people might not like it. I think we should have either politicians or leaders rather than just "the FRC and political commentators". StAnselm (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is what we say in the body of the article about the petition:
 * "A section of the letter supporting the FRC and certain other organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC had signers which included twenty members of the House of Representatives (including then soon-to-be Speaker John Boehner), three U.S. Senators, four state Governors, and one state Attorney General."
 * We don't say that they criticized the SPLC because the portion of the open letter that they actually signed off on only offers support for the FRC. This proposal that started this section is IMO better:"In 2010 the FRC was classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation the FRC continues to dispute." Everything else (i.e. why the SPLC made the designation, why the FRC disagrees, and who agrees with who and why) is details better discussed in a proper context within the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * PS This is what Slate at has to say about the petition and advertisement:
 * The extremely low-key statement they've [referring to the Congressmen] all agreed to:
 * 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. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that Reuters got it wrong, Tom, just like the Christian Science Monitor did? It seems like an awful lot of reliable sources have been duped... StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I made myself clear. WP:RS requires us to analyze how sources are used. To repeat, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.  Obviously an article with a brief quote without factual backup is not an adequate source for what all conservatives believe about the SPLC.  As usual, you don't address most of what I raised.  Why is this? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The source(s) in question are all acredited news sources with editoral oversight and fact checking. That is all the reliablility we require.  Seriously, if the AP told us the moon was made of green cheese, we could run with it.  Though I suspect we wouldn't be using them much longer after that.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the original discussion I posted a link to the original Fox News (not that unbiased, I know, but ignore the rhetoric and focus on the listing) article which do list some of the leaders involved, also already mentioned in paragraph 2 of the "Listing as a hate group by SPLC" subsection. Note that we are referring to the original petition by FRC in 2010. Not the later additions by little green rosetta on the polsci professor and the columnist. Both of which I think should be removed if no balancing viewpoints are added. The more important thing here, is what then should be the wording? I'm still siding with StAnselm on this one, the signers did dispute the designation, even if the wording of the petition is the usual wishy washy deniable political bullshit. I don't think there's a better way to describe the actions of those signers than "criticized". --  O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  02:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:VNT is a policy, not a guideline. If we can attribute something to a reliable source (and in this case we can) it is eligble for inclusion, unless it has been retracted or corrected.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's an actual quote from the policy's lead:


 * The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight.


 * This leads us back to the Reliable Sources guideline to determine appropriateness. It is not appropriate to state as fact in wikipedia's voice something that other sources (in this case Slate) disagree with. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, both can be stated as point-counterpoint, no? (I'm out of here for the night.  Gotta get up early)   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @OS I searched for as many sources as possible. I didnt find any other quotes either denying or affirming the label.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty popular topic, even back in 2010. There's Chad Griffin of HRC. Wayne Besen of TWO, Brian Levin of CSHE, Burt Neuborne an NYU law professor, and dozens of other quotable quotes either pro or con, with varying levels of personal notability. Milbank and Berry are relatively minor talking heads and there are plenty of such opinions floating around including the ones I just mentioned, if we add two of them, why shouldn't we add the remaining dozens? --  O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  02:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)