Talk:MassResistance/Archive 3

Robocalls redux
My edit summary got chopped off, but it's probably better to post on the talk page anyway. I have removed the Robocalls section. The primary reason is the lack of relevance, as I have argued above. The secondary reason is that there is no consensus at this stage to include the section. WP:CON says In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. I note the word "commonly", but I think it is interpreted by the following sentence - with contentious BLP issues, the statement does not apply. In any case, our lack of consensus must mean the default is not to include it. I am very happy to re-start the discussion to see if consensus can be achieved, but the section should not be added back in until that happens. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording of that line in WP:CON may be ambiguous, but the following sentence by contrast makes it crystal clear that it's referring to “discussions of textual additions” that have already occurred—in other words, no consensus means that the information is not removed. There's already been an edit war and RfC over this; stop removing it inappropriately. —$Kerfuffler plunder thunder$ 20:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that is a radically different interpretation of WP:CON. I will post the question on the talk page there. StAnselm(talk) 20:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We have received a response at Wikipedia talk:Consensus. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Notably, the question was phrased as a 'proposed' addition, when in fact it was an existing addition before any reverting or discussion occurred. Also, the inclusion of the robocalls activity has existed for more than seven months in this article. All that has changed is that some clarifying detail has been added, it has been put into a section and several sources have been added. As proposed below, I think the article would be benefited best by striving for a compromise. – MrX 22:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the mention of robocalls is the consensus position. Your expansion of it into a section constituted an addition which did not have consensus. Are you suggesting that Consensus allows for the material to be included? StAnselm (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to explain why I expanded the material. It was not well written or well sourced, so I expanded it so that readers would have more context with which to understand the content. I make no assertion that the current version is ideal. My interest is focused on working toward a version of this content that makes sense for the encyclopedia. My guiding principle is that if a rule prevents me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, I should ignore it. I think this would be a good opportunity to explore some compromise options. – MrX 23:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Except I don't think it was an improvement, so WP:IAR doesn't apply. StAnselm (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In my mind, omitting all of this content is untenable.
 * I would propose, as a way forward, that we seek a compromise and craft a shorter version of this section that balances its relevance with the rest of the article. Perhaps we can omit the actual script, or include a smaller portion. – MrX 20:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss robocalls section
There are now two editors (StAnselm and a new participant, Little Green Rosetta) who insist that the robocall section should not exist in this article. I would invite them to discuss why they felt it was necessary to delete the entire section, as opposed to copy editing it to improve the article. Try to avoid repeating arguments that have already been refuted in the closed discussion above. – MrX 04:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation. I do have other arguments I could use. But I am reluctant to present them while you are labouring under the misapprehension that you have adequately refuted my previous arguments. That's why it was "no consensus". StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the discussion point is rather loaded. My argument is that deleting the entire section does indeed improve the article, since the section is about the activity of a separate organization. StAnselm (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have adequately refuted your reasons for exclusion. If your response to that is to simply assert that I haven't, without providing counter-arguments, then I have to assume that you intend to maintain an unyielding position and will stop asking you to compromise. We will have to hear from other editors to see what they think. Meanwhile, I see no reason why this content shouldn't remain in the article. – MrX 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but why should it go that way in particular? I believe that I have adequately refuted your reasons for inclusion. If your response to that is to simply assert that I haven't, without providing counter-arguments, then I have to assume that you intend to maintain an unyielding position. StAnselm (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to the content remaining in the article, it was removed on the basis of WP:CON. Are you suggesting that this guideline does not apply here? StAnselm (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Please do not presume to speak for me, eg ... insist that the robocall section should not exist in this article. I don't hold such a position. I'd be happy to support an addition to this article if a consensus can be reached which would require the material being prsented in a NPOV fashion. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 12:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't hold such a position, may I ask you why you removed all of the content from the article? – MrX 12:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also didn't say that I did support this section either. I've no problem with including a sentance or two about the robocalls, but the diff in question is undue with respect to the rest of the article. In other words, it doesn't dserve its own section. It also is a bit POV in the first graph. This and the Romney criticisms could be rolled into its own section along the lines of "Political canvassing", though I'm certain a better title could be crafted.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 13:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I am happy with the way the "Political involvement" subsection currently stands. It states the facts, and does not imply that MR itself engaged in the robocalls. StAnselm (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – MrX 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the anti-gay hate group designation in the lead be explained at all?
In the lead of the article we already reveal that MassResistance has been designated an anti-gay hate group. It was decided in the last RfC that this information was notable to be included. Now there is disagreement if we should explain why this group has been designated an anti-gay hate group. Some feel this has no place in the lead while others feel this is a statement that needs explaining why exactly they were designated as such. Insomesia (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include explanation, even if it's brief The Southern Poverty Law Center is the nation's leading authority on hate groups and their reasoning, even if generalized is better than no explanation. Insomesia (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is an incorrect explanation better than no information? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include explanation, as much as fits comfortably in the lead The complaints keep changing as old ones are knocked down, but the current version is that it's SYNTH. Really? Read the source and tell me that. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include explanation - To not include a brief explanation of the general reason why the SPLC lists MassRestance in the category of anti-gay hate groups defeats the purpose of the lede, and leaves readers wondering why. Note also that nothing in the previous RfC closure prevents the explanation from existing in the lede. No consensus for inclusion ≠ Consensus for no inclusion, so I will be returning the lede to its original, stable version per WP:STATUSQUO . – MrX 14:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you link to a diff of the version that you mean? This version lasted from the 20th September to the 30th September and did not include the text. WP:STATUSQUO is one reason not to include it at this present time. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was incorrect. I retract my statement about the status quo including the reason. – MrX 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Exclude information, unless sourced. The statement there is not sourced in the lead or present in the article.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the "stable version" is not to have the designation in the lead. The RfC found that the designation should be there.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the stable version is the one that existed when the RfC closed, right before another editor popped in to remove this relevant and necessary content. – MrX 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The stable version is the one that existed when the RfC opened, which did not have the material.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The stable version only exists without the explanation as the RfC was opened to avoid more edit-warring. Ergo there was no stable version because it was edit-warred over until this process started. Insomesia (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I fail to see the point of this RfC if its result is going to be ignored they way the previous one's result was. StAnselm (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted. Insomesia (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * include explanation, per stillstanding and mr x. Pass a Method   talk  02:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Omit at this stage. As with the similar RfC at Talk:Chalcedon Foundation, deciding in principle without deciding on a wording is fraught with difficulties. StAnselm (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include explanation, per stillstanding and mr x. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Everyone should please refer to the section directly below this one for the discussion about the specific text that will be used in the lead if and when this RfC concludes that the explanation should be included in the lead. – MrX 15:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit inconsistent with your approach elsewhere. Obviously, all the above comments are only for an inclusion in principle. I have a feeling we've been through all this before at Talk:Illinois Family Institute and Talk:Family Research Council. No, logically, another RfC would be necessary to determine the specific wording. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if you continue to engage in Tendentious editing. Otherwise Mr. X has proven to be quite competent at sourcing and writing, as well as discussion language. No reason to waste the community's time in - yet another - month long dispute process. Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the one posting all the RfCs. In any case, I have already spoken against the use of the generic reason. StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to be more clear on this. Your editing tendentiously is at the heart of many of these RfCs. If it wasn't for your eagerness to delete until you get your way-until-forced-to-accept-concensus is the recurring pattern. Insomesia (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Include explanation The only valid reason to omit it, I believe, would be if the lead were too long; that's certainly not the case here.  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 20:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include explanation particularly given the source in this case. -- No  unique  names  15:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That closure is not helpful; it does not support any particular wording. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The closure is correct. There was no particular wording given in the RfC (which is why I was opposed), but the consensus is clearly to include something. I have inserted what seems to me to be a non-controversial wording, but some people may want more. I suspect we will need another RfC to determine the wording. StAnselm (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; we'll probably need another RFC to determine the wording, unless "the usual suspects" are willing to place something in the article which is actually in the sources. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Propagation of known falsehoods—claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities—and repeated, groundless name-calling
There's still no source associating that reason with MassResistance. The SPLC source says that that's generally the reason for declaring a group an anti-gay hate group. The San Francisco Examiner gives no reason. Added failed verification tags.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly.


 * The attributes apply generally (as a rule, usually, typically) to all of the groups. A simple review of the sourced article corroborates that MassRessitance


 * 1) propagates of known falsehoods
 * 2) [makes] claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities
 * 3) [engages in] repeated, groundless name-calling


 * A common sense interpretation is required. Failing that, we can substitute this text:


 * Please feel free to substitute in this text, without the multiple 'reason not there' tags. – MrX 16:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would clearly be undue weight, and of questionable relevance. Unlike lgr, I think a reason should be there if sourced and if it would fit in one sentence. It's your choice whether to include the unsourced reason (with appropriate tags) or just the fact of the listing, as I would prefer in the absence of an actual source.
 * Alternatively, we could double the length of the lead by including information from other sections of the article in the lead.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (added) "Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups" should clearly not be in the lead. It's about SPLC, with no likely reference to MassResistance.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the weight is more than appropriate. I don't really care if we include the last sentence, but some form of the first is required in my opinion. The alternative I proposed in the green box more than addresses any sourcing issues. I really hope that there is not an intention to hold the lede hostage with the three tags placed there. I'm really striving for a compromise here, and I seem to be getting intransigence in return. – MrX 18:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the relevance of the proposed "explanation" is in question, as well as weight. If SPLC declares MassResistance to be an anti-gay hate group, and (even in the same source) the reason for declaring a group to be an "anti-gay hate group" is generally the specified criteria, that does not even imply that SPLC declares that MassResistance meets the criteria. To even make that implication is original research, not just synthesis. And if we're not making the implication, there's no reason for including the "reason".—Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a simple matter of good writing to attribute the statements made with due weight. There are proficient editors available to help with this if needed. Insomesia (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur, I think you may want to review WP:SYNTH and especially WP:SYNTHNOT. Especially "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition''.


 * All we have to do is use the text in the green box and your synth argument vanishes. Your assertions of 'clearly undue' and 'questionable relevance' are simply not supported by cogent arguments. Also, to claim that it is unsourced, and then completely ignore the SPLC as a source, reveals a bias against the community's already-well-established consensus.


 * Once again,
 * The SPLC publishes a list a hate groups
 * At the top of the list are the general reasons for inclusion in the list
 * Wikipedia editors (those who have written the article and done the research) see that clearly all of the general reasons are validated by other sources and common sense interpretation fo the actual published statement and article by the MassResistance.
 * Shazam! We have the text in the green box, or the less weighty text "The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated MassResistance as an anti-gay hate group for their "propagation of known falsehoods—claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities—and repeated, groundless name-calling." " – MrX 13:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason for including "Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups...." is for the reader to determine that the reason applies to this group, when it would be WP:SYNTH for us to make the statement. Juxtapostion of statements where the reader is invited to make a conclusion is still WP:SYNTH, even if we don't say it in Wikipedia's voice.
 * If a reason is to be included in the lead, as indicated by consensus, we must use a reason attributed by SPLC for this particular group . Summarizing the detailed reasons given in the SPLC reference would be acceptable; using SPLC's general reason is not.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote another section from WP:SYNTHNOT: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." That's exactly what we would be doing if we were to include the proposed subsection.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This would be a misapplication of WP:SYNTH, as we're not talking about "two or more reliably-sourced statements". It's a single article which includes a broad explanation at the top and a more specific one for each hate group. There is no synthesis is repeating the broad explanation alongside the specific one; that's how our source did it. Rather, you would first have to separate the two in order to claim they're being put together. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. As usual.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement, without explanation, is deeply unconvincing. Your incivility doesn't help. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 *  Your "reason" has few phrases which are correct, so there's nothing to explain. However, the correct approach would be to use what the article actually says about MR, rather than the "general" reason at the top of the article, which we cannot necessarily use against MR.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you write something that you reasonably expect to be taken as a personal attack, don't redact it with a message, just omit it. It was never posted, so there's no reason to comment on it. Leaving a "" message amounts to a personal attack on its own; it's transparently disingenuous.
 * The correct approach is to stick close to our sources. Our source for the hate group listing offers a general explanation that we are free to use, so long as we make it clear that it's general. No synthesis involved; we just quote. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I think it would be best for us to acknowledge that this comes down to an interpretation of what constitutes unacceptable synthesis, and we have failed to convince each other of our respective interpretations. Ultimately, this will be decided by (local) consensus. I hope that you would agree that there is no strict policy that could possibly be applied here. – MrX 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree. Attributing the statement, without saying "generally", would be a WP:BLP violstion. With it, it's fairly clear it's synthesis; the "generally" statement has no relevance to the article unless it's intended to imply that it refers to SPLC's view of MR, and saying that would be synthesis. If you're willing to keep an "irrelevant" tag on the statement permanently, I have no objection to including it. Otherwise, I still think it's pretty clear synthesis. Perhaps it should be brought to the OR board for more general discussion.
 * Still better would be to use or summarize the specific (sourced to the same SPLC document) reasons given in the body, then to use the inapplicable "general" term. The "generally" seems marginally allowable in the body, but not in the lead.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so you disagree that we disagree? :P
 * I agree that we should take it to a noticeboard, and the OR board seems fine to me. As far as I can tell, there are no published specific explanations that would not require some level of interpretation, and certainly none that would meet your's and StAnselm's rather rigorous criteria for inclusion. So let's get more eyes on it and try to get it resolved once and for all. Note that this "general" criteria question applies to 18 hate groups, so let's not leave that out of the equation. – MrX 01:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should go back to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as they are used to this nonsense and would be fine helping arbitrate some language. Insomesia (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem reasonable. The dispute is not whether the source is reliable, but whether we can combine two sections of the source to imply a conclusion. It seems closer to the OR/SYNTH board. And the "general" question does not necessarily apply to all 18 of the groups for which this reference might be used, especially those for which there is consensus the reason should not be in the lead.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is well equipped to address those concerns, as I think you are well aware. Additionally they are familiar with the ongoing SPLC anti-gay hate groups arguments and objectors. Insomesia (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment to the above which I missed. I didn't say or imply that my redacted statement would reasonably be considered a personal attack, just that it would be considered a personal attack.  I'm sure you can see the difference.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Abortion
If anyone wants to have a discussion about how this organizations position on abortion should be used on the article, this is the place to do it. We must take particular care not to mischaracterize their position as stated in a self published source. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the edit I just made. I quoted more of the source for accuracy. Ideally, we would find a secondary source from which to draw. - MrX 17:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Pink triangles
I've removed part of a sentence that read: MassResistance has claimed that no homosexuals died in the Holocaust of World War II, that the "pink triangle the Nazis forced imprisoned gays to wear actually signified Catholic priests..." ...as I can't find a WP:RS for the quote. There seems to be a misquote somewhere along the line - in this article on the SPL, it quotes a member of MassResistance saying this:

"During legislative testimony supporting the amendment, Camenker falsely claimed that no homosexuals died in the Holocaust and that the pink triangle the Nazis forced imprisoned gays to wear actually signified Catholic priests". But in the link to that quote, another article on the SPL site, Camenker actually says something rather different (though no less inflammatory):

''"While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"''

The first SPL quote has been echoed in a few other places online, but it appears to be a misquote by the SPL, and I can't find any WP:RS online of Camenker or anyone else from MR saying that the Nazis actually used the pink triangle for Catholic priests. Since we're straying into WP:BLP territory with a controversial quote from a living person, we need better sourcing before that original quote can be added back in, or else a correction of what was actually said. Norvoid (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a more accurate version of the quote is here, he did mention Catholic priests but the context was garbled. https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2009/12/10/anti-gay-hate-group-massresistance-is-source-fo/158025 JamesG5 (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on MassResistance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/990.php?ein=043271722&yr=201012&rt=990EO&t9=A
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313134713/http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/there_goes_the_neighborhood/ to http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/there_goes_the_neighborhood/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115125035/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1528.01A to http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1528.01A
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012033947/http://www.jewsandchristianstogether.org/ to http://jewsandchristianstogether.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904073106/http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2012/03/07/here-is-the-anti-gay-robocall-that-almost-won-rick-santorum-ohio/ to http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2012/03/07/here-is-the-anti-gay-robocall-that-almost-won-rick-santorum-ohio/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305135123/http://wallbuilderslive.com/archives.asp?d=201101 to http://www.wallbuilderslive.com/archives.asp?d=201101

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Use common sense people
There is nothing biased about labelling mass resistance as a hate group or extremist group. Simply go on their website and read their latest article. The explicitly say they are “unlike any other socially conservative/religious group” and that they “need to do more than just complain” and that “a cultural revolution needs to happen” massresistance has a long history of bullying and harassing people too.

If you have a problem with my labelling, I will simply add “which is known for its use of inflammatory hate speech, especially against LGBT+ people” which is not “biased” in any way shape or form, it’s a tangible fact. T20011 (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs should be rearranged.
I believe the opening paragraph should be rearranged so it's SPLC designation comes second. It need to underline the fact that MassResistance has accused gays of pushing pedophilia on children, sex with animals and "propaganda". These points are much more pertinent the the hate group designation than the current sentence which merely mentions it's claims about suicide prevention. --Sxologist (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. (Swap third and second paragraphs in the lead). You could also probably move the Mitt Romney sentence after the anti-gay statement, since the anti-gay is more far-reaching/important. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

SPLC Hate Group Classification
I thought we should stop edit-warring with obscenely long edit messages. So: I feel that the general opinion is that SPLC hate group classification is notable, and belongs in an article. If you want to discuss, we should do so here and come to a WP:CONSENSUS instead of constantly reverting each other. 173.162.46.33 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * North Shoreman, the SPLC is a discredited organization.
 * North Shoreman, the SPLC is a discredited organization.


 * The co-founder Morris Dees was fired for fostering a work culture of racism, sexism, and engagement in sexual misconduct against female employees.
 * 


 * The President, Richard Cohen, was forced to resign for enabling this culture of abuse.


 * The Southern Poverty Law Center is being sued by other entities for mischaracterizing them as "hate groups."
 * 


 * The SPLC was forced to issue an apology and pay a settlement for calling a reformist Muslim an "anti-Muslim extremist":
 * 


 * The President of MassResistance is an Orthodox Jew who endured discrimination himself as a youth in Minnesota. He does not fit the profile of a leader of a hate group. The labeling does not make sense.


 * The Southern Poverty Law Center has admitted that they simply want to "destroy conservatives." That was the opinion of one of their former writers, Mark Potok, who also served at their PR guy. This is the basis for determining that they are not a credible source of information and that as such they violate Wikipedia Terms of Use


 * The SPLC has lost credibility with a number of media, including the Michigan branch of NPR. The SPLC a exist merely to smear groups that they disagree with as "hate groups." This moniker has endangered the lives of others in other groups, like Family Research Council.


 * Again, using the SPLC as a source is a violation of Wikipedia rules, because it is a biased source.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Schaper (talk • contribs)
 * You seem to be using a number of ad hominem attacks against the SPLC and for MR. Behavior of individuals does not necessarily reflect upon the organization in question. That being said, despite being repeatedly discussed (15 times) scroll down here, Wikipedia has historically found coverage by the SPLC to be a notable example of a third party opinion and therefore worthy of being covered in an article as long as it's attributed to them. 173.162.46.33 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As the info you've provided readily shows, there has been a long standing consensus on wikipedia that the SPLC is a reliable source. I am restoring the status quo.  Mr. Schaper is certainly entitled to resubmit the issue to the appropriate board, but a better use of his time might be for him to research wikipedia procedures before he lectures, after his less than 10 edits, on why "using the SPLC as a source is a violation of Wikipedia rules."  As far as "bias" is concerned, he needs to follow the link you provided to see how "bias" is actually treated in relation to reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Using SPLC as a source is not against Wikipedia rules. You don't get to make up your own WP rules when it suits. SPLC apologized removed those designations, which by the way, have nothing to do with anti-LGBT groups. SPLC quite clearly states that "Viewing being LGBTQ as unbiblical or simply opposing marriage equality does not qualify an organization to be listed as an anti-LGBTQ hate group." But rather, "SPLC hate list often link being LGBTQ to pedophilia, claim that marriage equality and LGBTQ people, in general, are dangers to children, that being LGBTQ itself is dangerous, support the criminalization of LGBTQ people and transgender identity, and that there is a conspiracy called the 'homosexual agenda' at work that seeks to destroy Christianity and the whole of society". As per WP:FRINGE, the SPLC designation should be featured in the lead paragraphs. --Sxologist (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)