Wikipedia

Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 3

< Talk:Family Research Council
Latest comment: 13 years ago by PrBeacon in topic SPLC Intro Reference
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

SPLC Intro Reference

Latest comment: 13 years ago160 comments29 people in discussion

As I predicted, the reference to the SPLC designation of FRC as a hate group in the lede has once again bloomed out of proportion. As I did last week, I've once again ran the numbers: greater than 30% of the introductory summary is devoted to prefacing a component which comprises barely 18% of the article. While this is a step in the right direction from where we were originally, it is worse than the compromise previously established which concluded the labeling deserved mention in the summary, not a full explanation. Greater detail is given its proper place: in the appropriately titled subsection of the article. That consensus edit can be viewed here: [1].

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

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

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

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

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What happens in other articles is irrelevant for this article. I have no problem that it is lead and proportionally bigger. I do object to any effort to remove it all together. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Kim, if you would, please explain how exactly you are invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a counter to my argument. I am quite familiar with the policy and nothing I've said runs counter to it. In fact, you yourself have contradicted the policy with your statement "What happens in other article [sic] is irrelevant for this article." If you do object, please provide legitimate grounds for doing so. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, you are the one making the comparison with other articles, not me.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
And, per the policy you cited, they are legitimate comparisons. I might suggest a quick perusal of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to be more familiar with what it actually says. Contrary to what you seem to be saying, it doesn't automatically discredit my sort of argument; in fact, it concedes they are perfectly valid if used correctly. If you contest that I have made such an argument incorrectly, kindly voice your concerns. Otherwise, I and any other person reading the discussion in which we are engaged would be forced to believe you are allowing your own POV to cloud your judgment. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think that the comparison is invalid. But beyond that, a hate-group listing by the SPLC is very substantial and should therefore be mentioned in the lead. Personally, I would like to see it s a single word with ref added to the lead (The Family Research Council (FRC) is a conservative, Christian right hate[1] group), but that is probably even more objectionable as people really want to have the response of the FRC linked to it. So, the controversy might be over, the hate-group listing is valid and remaining. Until the SPLC removes the group from its hate-group listing, it should stay in the lead. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
At this point I would venture to say we are incapable of serious discussion on this topic. You have self-admitted your own bias and have proven that you are incapable of forming an objective opinion that does not include your own apparently very positive view of the Southern Poverty Law Center. And, if the consensus is to remove the information from the lead, I will expect you to adhere to it as you have so faithfully adhered to the prior consensus. Otherwise, I will be forced to seek outside intervention to ensure that objectivity and fairness is upheld. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we have entered the phase where it is not the content that is discussed, but the editor. Which is telling by itself. Anyway, lets see if we can separate the two discussions.
Lets start with me. Because I know myself best as far as I can tell, and when people start to tell me how I feel about for example the SPLC, it is always weird to see what they think. That reminds me of that day, years ago, that I was labeled a anti-Semite and a Zionist at the same day. People, especially single-purpose accounts generally have that tendency to label people things once they fail to have a sensible response. It is far easier to start discussing the editor than to keep focused on the content. As you divulged in what you think is my idea about the SPLC, let me state it here. I think they do good work tracking hate-groups which is reflected in that they are generally considered a reliable to go to source such as the FBI[2][3] and scholars [4][5][6][7]. I have an issue with them as they have an endowment that is far larger than what I think is sensible. So, my opinion about them is mixed, and I would appreciate if you would refrain from telling what I think.
I find it telling that you have to tell me that: "At this point I would venture to say we are incapable of serious discussion on this topic.". Yes. you are right, once the discussion is diverted to discussing the editor and not the content, it indeed has strayed away from the possibility to have a serious discussion about the content. Instead of trying to blame me for that, please stay on topic yourself. In this context, you might want to reread WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Because what you wrote is assuming bad faith, if not more.
As for the content, I think that the argument that it is too large relative to the main text is correct. However, I disagree with the proposed solution, namely that the whole section should be removed. To the contrary, that does not mean the whole section needs to be removed, but that it should be condensed, as in the articles that it is compared too. The reasons that it should stay in the lead are that the FRC made this thing far bigger by going on television and repeating the same things that landed the FRC on the hate-group list in the first place. Adding the advertisement in some major newspapers that was a clearly designed to suggest support for the objection of the hate-group label, while in fact the support was just for a general freedom of speech statement.
But there is more, WP:LEAD explicitly states that: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." Currently, the lead is deficient. First of all, lets do the numbers. When I count the number of words in the various sections, I get the following.
  1. Lead non-controversies: 120 words
  2. Lead controversies: 49 words
      • This is a 29% of the lead.
  3. Main non-controversies text:570 words
  4. Controversies text:399 words
      • This is 41% of the main text
  5. The Peter Spriggs controversy: 180 words
  6. The hate group listing: 219 words
      • The Hate group listing alone is 27.7% of the main text
So, what we have established here is that the hate group listing is getting near exact the same amount of coverage in the lead as in the main article. Removing that part would render the lead directly not representative to the content of the article, of which it should be a summary. What is more, the Peter Spriggs controvery is not even mentioned in the lead and should be added as well. Currently, it is deficient in omitting a substantial part of the content. So, contrary to your assertion, the lead should be expanded upon, not reduced.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Aside from misrepresenting what I said, your argument is well formed. Even so, you've missed what I said previously. It's more than just a matter of whether or not too much space in the lede is devoted to mentioning the "hate group" label. It's a matter of too much space in the entire article being devoted to the SPLC, especially considering the precedent which has been set in other articles on organizations labeled as "hate groups" by the SPLC (and, yes, despite your interpretation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, these precedents are relevant). Regardless, the question at hand now is whether or not the information is needed in the lede, which the consensus below is negating. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, you seem to miss a few things. First is that the FRC by its own choice has made the hate-group listing far more notable than it otherwise would have been. It was their choice to get all kind of politicians (including the speaker of the house) involved in it. So, comparing this to other articles faisl here, as those articles do not have this beefed up controversy surrounding the hate-group label. Similarly, Tony Perkins was dumb enough to go on television to repeat the myth that homosexuals are more likly to be pedophiles, the same myth that landed them on the hate-group list in the first place. Finally, they make a whole website dedicated at this issue. So, various factors orchestrated by the FRC themselves have made this hate-group listing far more prominent than it otherwise should be, and it therefore rightfully has more prominence in the article.
As for the lead, the lead has to summarize the article content, including notable controversies. Currently, you are proposing to gut the reference in the lead to a substantial part of the main text in violation with clear wikipedia policies.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
We simply have different interpretations of Wikipedia policy, Kim. I also stand by my belief that your own POV concerning FRC and homosexuality in general is preventing you from seeing the situation objectively. The poll below shows a growing plurality of Wikipedia editors who believe the information is unnecessary in the lede, even in light of Wikipedia policy on leads. The controversy itself has fizzled out and is no longer, in my view, notable enough to warrant a special mention in the summary, which is why I stand by my prior arguments in favor of removal. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, like I said before, comment on the content, not the editor. As far as I know, the hate-group listing stands as it is, and therefore not disappeared. The media frenzy might be gone, but the website [8] and the rest are still as intact as they were a few weeks ago. So, this controversy is still present, and by design, is not likely to go away. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, I'm commenting on the content of your argument, Kim, which is POV-driven. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming once again the point I am making. My POV is irrelevant, it is the arguments I make that are relevant, regardless of where it comes from. And in many of your responses, you argue on my perceived POV like here: "your own POV concerning FRC and homosexuality in general is preventing you from seeing the situation objectively". It is irrelevant. You think you have deduced my POV, and you use it as an argument against me. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
To be quite honest, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
My apologies that it didn't make sense to you. Let me try again, maybe this time I explain it better. Standard practice at wikipedia is to separate the content and the editor. Ergo, if a user makes a comment like for example: "I think this source is reliable", two basic responses are possible. The first type of responses is to address the editor: "You are talking nonsense, you have no clue where you talking about because you have an obvious POV". Such a comment is not helping the discussion because it avoids dealing with the content. The second type of responses is to address the content: "I think this source is not reliable because it was published at a blog". This helps the discussion because it helps determine whether the source is reliable. (Blogs are opinion pieces, therefore not generally reliable). In many of your responses (I gather that my initial assessment that you were familiar with Wikipedia policies was incorrect), you address what you percieve as my POV, and use that I have a POV as a reason to push my arguments to the side. And that is not done. I hope this is clearer, but do not hesitate to ask for more clarification. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There hasn't an occasion for me to push your arguments aside because of your POV because your POV has in many cases been your argument. At any rate, I think both of us are just fundamentally incapable of understanding each other. So, I think it's clear we've exhausted the subject. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, but you just keep doing the same thing, respond to the editor, not the content. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Other than partisan sites, I haven't seen even one source call it a "hate group" as a fact (I think many of them call it conservative as a fact). Drrll (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It is proportionally large in part due to inclusion of the FRC's response, which needs to be there if the designation is mentioned in the lead. Drrll (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I suggest you assume good faith over my edits instead of be so disparaging. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't be so dismissive of Kim and her views. Drrll (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Her views are irrelevant unless she can back them up with Wikipedia policy (as are mine) or an argument that says something beyond a simple, "I think the information should be there." If Kim would like to respond to what I've said, then we have more to talk about. So, I'm not being dismissive, as you've suggested. I'm simply acknowledging that Kim's assertions aren't grounded in anything other than her own POV, which has no bearing in these discussions. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove or Keep

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

  • I say Remove per Wikipedia policies and facts which I have outlined above. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove, although there has to be a strong consensus to overrule the previous consensus. My reason for voting remove is that I think that we should wait until future stories on the FRC appear and see whether they regularly mention the hate group designation. Drrll (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove from lede. Not notable enough to warrant inclusion in the lede, and the information is amply covered later in the article.184.74.22.161 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead, per previous consensus and lack of new arguments to remove it. This repeated starting the same discussion again with the same arguments is really not done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove from lede. This is UNDUE and in connection with the fact that the same sort editors who adding it in summary of this article removing how FRC labeled SPLC from summary of article about SPLC also unbalanced. --Dezidor (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep We have had this discussion before, and the result was to keep. Why is this being brought up yet again? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Per comments which have been explained above. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove - look at Black Panther Party. The ADL and SPLC consider them to be a hate group and their intro does not mention it. KKK spends less time devoted to it than this article does and nobody would dispute that they are a hate group. I randomly clicked on articles in Category:White supremacist groups in the United States and none of the ones I clicked on mentioned in the intro that they are hate groups. Dove World Outreach Center, one of the other recent designees - these were the guys having national burn a Koran day - doesn't mention in its intro that it is a hate group. My suggested line in the sand for when to mention it in the lede is, "is hate what an unbiased observer would conclude is the main purpose of the group". Surely most people here are reasonable and can see that there is a difference between a real hate group (like the KKK) vs a group like the FRC that, while it does lots of things completely unrelated to their so-called "hate", has a view that the SPLC considers hateful. --B (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Humm, the Black Panther Party does not exist anymore, and is NOT listed at the SPLC website. The successor, the New Black Panther Party is listed and has it in its lead.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Consensus was reached and in the short time since the consensus no new information or arguments have been presented to suggest that it is time to reconsider it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove per my previous reasoning, and per B's rationale. I find it unfortunate and unconvincing that the best the pro-inclusion folks can come up with is "but we already settled this!" in the face of detailed analysis of how the coverage is disproportionate. Consensus can change. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove from lead, keep in the body. It should be fairly obvious that putting the information in the lead represents undue weight being given to the opinion of one particular group, and a group, moreover, whose reputation, even in progressive circles, is far from pristine. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove from introduction. Calling the Family Research Council a hate group in the introduction is extremely unwarranted, especially because the Southern Poverty Law Center is also a political group that stands on the opposite side of a political debate. If one goes to the Wikipedia article for supporters of the same-sex marriage in the United States, one can see that the "Southern Poverty Law Center" is listed there, while the Family Research Council is listed in the opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States article. Placing the assertion of calling the Family Research Council a hate group is a violation of WP:NPOV. This criticism is already mentioned in its own "Controversy" section and does not need to receive special attention in the lede, especially when it's known that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not neutral on this issue. If we include this bit of information, than we must include the Alliance Defense Fund's criticism of the Southern Poverty Law Center on its article. Once again, it is best be neutral here. There is no reason to give an organization that supports the opposing point of view's position in the introduction of an antithetical organization. I have noticed that this classification not only stands in this article but has been unilaterally added to other articles as well, such as the American Family Association. That classification in the introduction also should be removed for the same reasons listed here. I should also note User:Dezidor attempted to also insert a criticism of Southern Poverty Law Center in that article as criticism was inserted here (upholding of WP:NPOV); however, User:KimvdLinde quickly removed that insertion. I think that if criticism is to be included in an article, we must be fair. If the SPLC's criticism is mentiond in the FRC's article, then the FRC's criticism must be mentioned in the SPLC's article. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a line in an article about I find one line about SPLC Research Director Heidi Beirich that is profoundly interesting [9] - "As Beirich told me, there is no difference between the FRC and the KKK in the eyes of the SPLC now." That is absolutely ridiculous and no fair-minded person would ever reach that conclusion - the FRC isn't out there lynching people and burning crosses and churches. If we all have common sense and are reasonable people, we should be able to realize that there is no moral equivalency here and if the SPLC thinks there is, their opinion should not be taken at face value. It can still be discussed later in the article, but putting it in the lead of the article gives, if not an implied endorsement, at least preferential treatment to a highly controversial and politically biased claim. Some have objected to the removal only because it was discussed before. That isn't a reason to not do the right thing - this is not a court of law. Unless someone can come up with a really good reason that it belongs in the lead here, when it's extremely controversial in this case, and it's not even in the lead for articles where it would be far less controversial, I believe we should remove it from the lead and detail the controversy at the appropriate spot in the article body. --B (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be Remove the introductory paragraph detailing the labeling by the SPLC of FRC as a hate group. Currently there are 8 in favor of Removal, and 3 in favor of Keeping. No arguments have been introduced to refute claims which I and others in favor removing the information have asserted other than a deferral to prior consensus. So, I will remove the information from the lede. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
This is totally inappropriate. You only opened the straw poll a few hours ago, and many regulars have not yet been given their opinion, as well as an ongoing discussion above. So, I suggest you revert yourself and give it at least a week before getting to the point of making a conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
User:ObjectivelyWise, do you think that the same situation that applies here applies to the article on the American Family Association? Also, why should one keep the "controversy" section here when the article on the SPLC lacks one? In my opinion, both should probably be mentioned or none at all. I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
This was an amazingly short straw poll for removing content that was in the article per consensus previously. The information should be Kept, the fact that other articles don't clearly mention the SPLC's listing is not a reason to remove from this one but to add to the other one. User:ObjectivelyWise, why does your account look suspiciously like a single purpose account? WikiManOne 05:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The previous "consensus" was far from universal, and appears to have cleanly changed. Being an WP:SPA, by the way, is not against the rules. If ObjectivelyWise is acting improperly, by all means call him on it, but restricting one's edits to one primary article is not forbidden. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, I think it's important to qualify that: though not technically against policy, SPAs are discouraged because of the potential for improper "promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy". At the least they are usually suspect, especially when a new account seems so well-versed in wiki ways. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Five for keeping including PrBeacon from the edit history reverting the removal, and only eight for removal of sourced information, doesn't really sound like clear consensus yet.. this should be kept open till a more clear consensus can be reached. As such, the information should be left in the article until there is a more clear consensus in one way or the other. I realize its not against the rules, but the guideline also state not to use an account to push an agenda, which this editor seems to be doing... but WP:DFTT and wait for them to hang themselves. :) WikiManOne 07:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that article talk pages aren't the place to have discussions about individual editors (if I'm incorrect, please let me know). I will, however, respond to the accusations which have been made against me, here and elsewhere. Let's take them point-by-point:
By prior concession of editors on this talk page, this is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. And, as I do my utmost best (as we all should) to back up my assertions with policy and facts, I'm unclear as to why this is relevant.
  • ObjectivelyWise knows too much about Wikipedia policy to be a new editor. He must be a sock puppet (or engaged in some similar act of impropriety).
This, quite frankly, is humorous. Although the prevailing notion appears to be the contrary, Wikipedia policies aren't rocket science. This is also a clear logical fallacy. You will find that I've made mistakes of policy in my time here and I've done my best to learn from them. When someone throws out a policy page as a counter-argument to something I've said, what do I do? I go and read so I know what is being discussed and am able to engage in debate intelligently. If having a working knowledge of Wikipedia policy is a mark against my credibility, then lock me up.
Everyone has bias; bias is inseparable from the human condition. I've done my best to admit my bias and to avoid using it as an argument. Furthermore, everyone has an agenda--and there's nothing wrong with that. People tend to apply the term "agenda" almost pejoratively when, in fact, even Wikipedia has an agenda. The real question is, "Does a person's agenda line up with Wikipedia's agenda?" (which, for the record, is to build an encyclopedia). My agenda is make sure that information is presented in a fair and even way so as to not persuade the casual information-seeker to believe one way or another about the topic at hand. At present, my efforts are focused on Family Research Council as I came to the page looking for information, thought it to be biased, and decided to work to fix it.
If it was inappropriate for me to close the poll and remove the information when I did, by all means keep it open and revert my edit (this has already been done, of course.) My own opinion is that the information shouldn't be in the lede; but, if more people think it should be, then I will respect the consensus. Understand that I'm learning as I go and I do encourage those with whom I am engaged in debate to assume good faith. I do not deny the fact that I am human and capable of mistakes; hopefully no one else will either.
Now, we've got that out of the way hopefully and we can continue with the discussion. And, if there's an accusation I missed, feel free to point it out. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind including PrBeacon--while you were reverting, I was inviting him to this discussion. Previous straw poll was 11 to 4 in favor of keeping it in the lead. Now that the recentism has died down, it's 8 to 5 to remove it. In other words, the proponents (of including it in the lead) have halved and the opponents have doubled. In fact, per WP:CONLIMITED, I'd say that the original consensus can't overcome WP:LEAD: if there's a consensus to include it in the lead, great, but it must be proportionate to the coverage in the article, else it's WP:UNDUE and an NPOV violation. The opportunity still exists to expand the article such that it merits a longer lead where discussing the designation neutrally doesn't bias it. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, WP:LEAD suggests that the controversy should be included:
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."
Contrary to most organizations, the FRC has promoted this controversy themselves quite substiantially by repeating the falsehoods on prime time television, having a bunch of politicians including the speaker of the house sign a petition related to this and even have created their special website related to this. This has become a very prominent controversy because of that. It should therefore be included in the lead. Currently, the percentage text devoted in the main text is within a percent of the text devoted in the lead. So, no undue prominence in the lead at all.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If you Google News Archive for "Family Research Council", you get about 200 hits. If you do a custom range to cover November/December of last year, that's another 150. If you Google News Archive for the same string, you get 21,000. Thus, by gross estimation, at most 1% of the total RS coverage of the FRC surrounds this controversy. That's UNDUE recentism which pervades the entire current text of the article, let alone the lead. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, if the controversy was sourced by only news sources, you would have been right. It isn't. Unless you call the SPLC a news source, the FRC a news source, the website they created a news source, the speaker of the house a news source, etc., you would be correct. If we would determine what is covered in wikipedia based on the google news counts, wikipedia would be vastly different. What we have here is a clear case in which a group is labeled a hate-group by a reputable hate-group tracking organization. That is not recentism, that is solid facts. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Your interpretation of WP:RS is interesting, though not particularly supported by Wikipedia policy. UNDUE requires that we give due weight to RS'es, not SPSs such as the Blogosphere. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I lost you here. I am not talking about the blogosphere. Based on what you write, each and every article should be heavily biased towards the far past even when new things occur. Most RS'es of a person will indicate that he is alive, while maybe only the most recent bunch indicates that he has died. What you are telling me is that I have to ignore that he died because that would be undue based on the weight of the RSes? Of course not, the reality is that he died and even if we have only one reliable source, it should be reported. It all depends on the importance of the event. Receiving a hate-group label from the most reliable hate-group tracking organization in the US is not a minor event, that can be brushed aside because it did not have sufficient weight in RSes that we can find. Undue does not mean each RS is of equal weight, but that you have to consider the source and the relative weight of each RS, which will vary between sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to restate: We have 21,000ish Google News hits from the duration (27+ years) of the FRC's existence. Over its history, it has been covered in any number of ways that aren't currently reflected in the article. While recent controversies should absolutely represented, if they are all that is focused upon, NPOV is violated--regardless of whether what the FRC asserts is a falsehood, regardless of how well the SPLC is respected at labeling other organizations as hate groups. The frustrating part about all this is it's really a simple fix: we just need a volunteer or two to go back and fill in the history of the FRC with those 20k+ reliable sources, and the current coverage ceases to be UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now I get what your point is. So, yes, the article is in bad shape. Agreed. The addition of recent stuff and not old stuff is a problem. Agreed. The question is now the following. Do we fix the NPOV by removing valid material, or by adding missing material? The first solution is not going to make it more NPOV, because changes the bias towards the previously existing material, which most likely is not really representative for those 21,000 RSes (which by the way is an gross overstatement, many google news hits are blogs, partisan papers etc.).
The question is not whether the information should be removed from the lead, but how it should be represented. In most other hate-group articles, it is mentioned in the lead as a single line without details. As for the main text, I think that section is bloated as well, for the same reason the lead section is bloated. Namely, the urge of some editors to try to minimize the effect of the hate-group listing. So, instead of advocating the whole sale cut of a important aspect rerlated to the FRC, I would suggest to advocate for a trimmed version so that we can be in line with WP:LEAD. What we now get is a unbalanced lead. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
(EC) From looking at PrBeacons's edit summary I would disagree he/she should be counted as 'keep'. I would have done something similar myself, not because I believe the info should be kept (I haven't decided) but because starting a straw poll, waiting for about 12 response in 5 hours of which 8 are in favour of remove, 1 is a comment leaning to remove and 3 are keep then for the starter to remove the info which has been in the article for a while allegedly with prior consensus (I haven't looked in to the previous consensus and some say it's weak) is not appropriate. There's no reason we need to act so fast. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
So 8:5, a lead of only three votes when not even 24 hours has past since the poll opening is enough to override a previous vote with a seven vote margin in favor of inclusion? I'm not against whistling the section down, but it should be included per previous consensus and a straw poll that hasn't even given enough time for all contributors to participate. WM1 07:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we should give it a week to see what the results are. Drrll (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep the SPLC criticism & FRC response in lead, also expand section in body text. It should be enough here to say that the SPLC is endorsed by the FBI and prominent political figures. The FRC response was (partially) supported by other prominent political figures. WP:Lead policy allows for due criticism to be included, regardless of word count in body text. I too am disappointed that vote-counting is being substituted for more rational application of WP:Consensus, and that the exclusion stands while the poll is ongoing. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from previous Keep vote - the previous straw poll went from November 25th 2010 to January 23rd of 2011. That's nearly two months and showed a clear (7 vote) lead for including it. A straw poll conducted a mere 15 days after the previous poll's last vote seems in bad taste to start with, but even should it be appropriate, closing it before even 24 hours passes is entirely inappropriate. WMO 09:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Remove. It is like if we would add what Jim DeMint thinks about Barack Obama in the lead of article about Obama. --94.113.49.32 (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This editor has virtually no edits other than this vote. WMO 18:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Removed the SPLC is not the be all end of all of commentary, what they think of other groups is interesting but it is highly undue to include their description in the lead. - Haymaker (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove: A single partisan organization (one that I normally support) deciding that the FRC's POV is "hate" because it doesn't agree with it isn't what belongs in the intro. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
This straw poll should be a continuation of the one previously done, there is no reason to throw out editor's previous votes. Any objections to merging them? If so, why? WMO 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense, why would we do that? - Haymaker (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove: A single groups opinion MAY warrent mentioning in the article but mentioning it again in the lead shows undue weight. Marauder40 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although I hesitate to add my vote for keep, the arguments against just are not valid. False equivalencies and denials of facts just irks me. The SPLC is a well respected organization that many, many, many reliable sources use to base their journalistic work on. Not only that, but government agencies seek to work with the SPLC for help on hate crimes and information on potential violent groups. The SPLC base their designations on groups that discriminate people/s based on who they are. Last I checked Homosexuals were people just like Jewish peoples, Arab peoples, Black and Hispanic peoples. I don't know how many times I have seen the reasoning as 'placing the "FRC" in the same category as the KKK is (insert variable-ridiculous/absurd/wrong/etc...)'. Well, that's not the only example of the type of groups on the SPLC 'Hate List". The Nation of Islam, Jewish Defense League and Council of Conservative Citizens are on the same list as the Neo-Nazis and Klu Klux Klan. The reasons for the FRC being on the list is stated as "propagation of known falsehoods about homosexuality", which can't be denied due to numerous facts and reliable sources. Perhaps if some of the "Remove" editors gave better reasons it should only be mentioned in the section lower in the article, I would agree. But currently, the reasons are akin to the same kind of defense given to the groups who discriminated against Black people in the 50's. And I am sure if Wikipedia was around then, the same kind of defense would be used, making claims that the "White Nationalist" should not be in the same group as the "Neo-Nazis" because the Nazis want genocide and the WN only want to deport all the Blacks and have separate facilities. Dave Dial (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The tally as of this point in the discussion is 12 Remove, 6 Keep. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's only fair that whoever is responsible for this new vote notify all the voters from the previous vote to the fact that this is being rediscussed over consensus. WMO 04:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This kind of thing is not determined by a tally of votes, but by the validity of the arguments.
It should be pointed that validity in this circumstance is a subjective determination which is tallied by votes. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to your assertion, please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That said, I'll say Weak keep. I admire James Dobson and his ministry to parents and children. Wrt gays, he woefully misunderstands the issue. He decidedly does not hate them, but neither does he accept them as they are or realize they can be no other way. Still, the wording in the lede is so clear the fact that the SPLC has labeled the FRC a hate group says as much about one group as it does the other. I would think anyone looking for information on the FRC would appreciate knowing how it is viewed by the SPLC. Or maybe not. I would. Yopienso (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What, you mean that we ought to reach out to a bunch of previously uninvolved editors who swooped in at one point a few months back, said "definitely goes in the lead", and promptly vanished, as opposed to editors who've not focused on press releases? Or do you have a better explanation for why so many of those editors haven't revisited this discussion? Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about you but I assume good faith and try not to question other editor's intentions. I will notify them all if they're still active recently. WMO 05:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that per this, User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling appears to have maintained his opinion, as expressed above, that the SPLC designation does not belong in the lead. I notice that at least two of the other participants in this thread posted after that note was included on the blocked user's talk page, but did not report it here. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Since when have blocked editors a vote? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Since when were they not allowed a say? More to the point in this case, since when have administrators been allowed to re-block an editor with whom they've been in a content dispute? LAEC's talk page makes interesting reading... I'd be interested in hearing your perspective on your actions with respect to LAEC, vis-a-vis WP:INVOLVED. At the very least, I find it interesting that you've protested the legitimacy of a blocked user's right to express an opinion, while not disclosing that you personally had (re-)blocked that user as an administrator, even after being involved with a content dispute on this very page... But I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation. I'd love to hear it. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Since they got blocked? Unless we're holding a poll on their talk page, they don't have a vote since they can't come post their vote. Simple enough? This questioning of administrator's motives is off topic, just AGF and move on. :) WMO 06:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    WikiManOne, shill, the situation is already tense enough here. he can ask, I can answer. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    LEAC was blocked indef by another admin for outing of a editor. I added the talk page protection to it once he was gaming the system to keep advertising the same information. At that time, he and I were actually e-mailing and I had provided him with advise regarding his editing. If anything, I was the most unlikely person to block his talk page access. I unblocked his talk page access once he promished not to use his page for the outing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    As for the voting, what would be the difference between you recording his vote here, he himself presuading another user to edit for him here (meat puppet), he himself editing as a sock puppet, etc. All cases would be the same effect, namely that a blocked user just has evaded the block. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Wikipedia routinely lets banned users create content, which is copied with permission from another Wikimedia site from which they are NOT banned. On the other hand... if LAEC is only blocked for Outing, and has promised (per your block log entry) to never do it again... why is he still blocked? How does that ongoing, indef block serve to protect the community, in light of what you've said about him? Is there a community ban somewhere which hasn't been noted in his block log? Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    As I wrote, he promised not to use his talk page to promote the ongoing outing, not that he would not do it again. He explicitly stated that it should be okay to out this editor and has indicated he is using the same stuff again. The outing blog post is still up and running and he has explicitly stated he will follow up on it.[10]-- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Wow. How in the world do you have access to the tools you do, and try to include a vote for a blocked editor? And then carry innuendos and accusations here on this talk page? I suggest if you have problems and those type of accusations, you take them to the appropriate venue and not try to act as a meat puppet for a blocked editor. Dave Dial (talk)
    Sorry if you don't like it, but I was trying to bring NPOV to this and similar articles well before I was elected to ArbCom. If there's an existing rule or precedent that expects that the opinions of blocked users should be ignored, I'd be interested in seeing it. Absent that, trying to assert that there's anything improper about noticing when someone makes their opinion known and reporting it appropriately here is baseless. For what it's worth, I don't have LAEC's talk page listed, and only saw his note when I was reviewing the CANVASSing that WikiManOne had done. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove I find Jclemens to be sound on this. Not only is using a pejorative claim problematic on any WP article, especially where the reasoning for the use of "hate" is not given, the tendency on WP to categorize everything with the most extreme terminology rather than more moderate terminology is eventually going to be a problem on a great many articles. Collect (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep --rpeh •T•C•E• 06:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment If this is an effort to reach consensus--and not a mere vote, as I am coming more to understand--should not editors who wish to weigh in on the conversation provide reasoning for their assertions? Gilgamesh gave his reasoning in an earlier straw poll; however, T has yet to weigh in on why he believes the information should be kept. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Obviously, the same standard should apply here. Reasoning should be given so that this does, indeed, avoid becoming a poll. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove per Jclemons Lionel (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep I cannot imagine a rational person wanting to remove a such important info from the lede about FRC due to portrating homosexuals as pedophiles (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/a-mighty-army#8) for other than bigotic and homophobic reasons. And this kind of people have done a lot of evil in the world that permitting them to continue to use the Wikipedia as propaganda machine could not be tolerated. Period. I cannot understand how this discussion is even possible. It's absolutely outrageous to permit those hateful editors to protect FRC article! --Destinero (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep – that the FRC has been designated a hate group by a reputable source is a noteworthy controversy. That their chosen tools are aimed at harming all homosexuals by manipulating the political systems to deny them rights and manipulating public perception by spreading known falsehoods makes the FRC different from other hate groups advocating violence against individuals, but it doesn't stop the FRC being accurately classified as a hate group. WP policy supports inclusion of the SPLC's designation. Common sense supports the accuracy of the designation. EdChem (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Very interesting to see the POV of some editors who clearly do not like the FRC very much and want their negative opinions of the organization mirrored in this article.184.74.22.161 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion to close

Please see the ANI discussion. The consensus is against inclusion, why let the drama escalate? - Haymaker (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I notified the remaining editors of that discussion. It therefore has become within the accaptable range of WP:CANVASS: On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics),-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Is eight days enough time to make a decision? By my count, the "removes" have it. I think everything that could possibly be said has been said. Any objection to me going ahead and removing the material from the lede?184.74.22.161 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not a vote, its consensus, so the number of votes doesn't matter, the arguments do, and since you have clearly taken a position, you are not a neutral arbiter of the consensus, so yes, this is an objection. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The inclusion of the "hate group" statement in the introduction is very contentious. It is evident that most editors do not even agree to its inclusion there. As such, the statement should be removed and this discussion should be closed. Cheers, AnupamTalk 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The issue has been extensively publicized and discussed ad nauseum. The argument to remove is compelling, the minority view has been considered, and a clear majority of concerned editors find it so. Removal from the lede is indicated by consensus. Time to close. Lionel (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The argument to keep is also compelling. Many of the remove votes are nothing more than a personal dislike of the hate-group listing, and much of the discussion has been shot down by the nominator who has come into the cross hairs of the ArbCom. I think we better wait till that has been concluded. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The argument to keep was compelling two months ago. Obviously that is no longer the case. Back then you were eager to certify that consensus, Kim, but now that the consensus has changed you want to "wait." What ever happens or doesn't happen to ObjectivelyWise will not alter the consensus here. Well the consensus is to remove the item from the lede. Either we follow consensus, or we don't. Well, which is it??????? Lionel (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, we disagree whether there is consensus to remove it. As long as many 'remove' votes are based on just personal dislikes, false equivalence between organizations, and other fishy issues, I don't see that consensus. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do not use "ArbCom discussions" as a club to attack other users in content disputes. If there is an issue that ArbCom thinks we (the Committee as a whole) need to speak up about, we will do so as a Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, if the Arbcom can confirm that this single purpose account in question does not have a conflict of interest, I am willing to accept that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"...based on just personal dislikes, false equivalence between organizations, and other fishy issues": well so much for WP:AGF. While I wasn't there, the editors in the minority back in December were probably thinking the same thing but didn't have the unmitigated gall to accuse anyone of it. At this point I think we're at WP:IDONTLIKE. Lionel (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I will give you the diffs to back it up tomorrow. I do not base what I say on assumptions, but on what people actually write. I am going to sleep now. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here are the diffs for the first two claims:

WP:I DO NOT LIKE THE SPLC:

  1. undue weight being given to the opinion of one particular group, and a group, moreover, whose reputation, even in progressive circles, is far from pristine
  2. especially when it's known that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not neutral on this issue.
  3. the SPLC is not the be all end of all of commentary, what they think of other groups is interesting but it is highly undue to include their description in the lead.
  4. A single partisan organization deciding that the FRC's POV is "hate" because it doesn't agree with it (Huh no, it bases it of promoting known falsehoods)
  5. A single groups opinion MAY warrent mentioning in the article but mentioning it again in the lead shows undue weight.
  6. We don't have an article which states for Obama that he "hates" Christians, or whatever in the lead, just because some otherwise notable group may have labeled him that way.
False equivalents:
  1. who adding it in summary of this article removing how FRC labeled SPLC from summary of article about SPLC also unbalanced.
  2. If the SPLC's criticism is mentiond in the FRC's article, then the FRC's criticism must be mentioned in the SPLC's article. and from the same user:Also, why should one keep the "controversy" section here when the article on the SPLC lacks one? In my opinion, both should probably be mentioned or none at all. I look forward to your response.
  3. It is like if we would add what Jim DeMint thinks about Barack Obama in the lead of article about Obama.
-- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Arguments are clear. Adding SPLC is the summary is UNDUE. Claims of opposing groups can be included, but articles should not be unbalanced. Equivalents are not false, you just like SPLC and don´t like FRC. You falsely believe that left-wing groups like SPLC are something better or "more reliable" for Wikipedia than conservative groups like FRC when they comment and label opposing groups, but that is your personal bias not the correct way, how Wikipedia should work. --Dezidor (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Lets see, the SPLC is trusted by the FBI[11][12] and scholars [13][14][15][16] and the FRC is not. I think that says enough about the false equivalence. I would really like to see:
  1. Some reliable sources that say that the SPLC is left wing. (we have gone over the liberal label already, see below.)
  2. Some reliable sources that say that the FRC is at least equally reliable as the SPLC.
  3. Where in WP:LEAD is the provision that major controversies should NOT be included in the lead.
And furthermore, I suggest you discuss the content, not the editor.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
8 days ago it was moved to close debate. Since then numerous reasons have presented merely to postpone removal of the content, as well as questioning the motivations of editors. And this Talk page is not the venue for attacking the consensus process nor raising questions about the partipants. Consensus doesn't work when a single editor thwarts its mandate. Removing the content over the objections of the editor in question. Lionel (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that you just did this despite that there was obviously no consensus.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Readded, clearly no consensus. If there is no new consensus, we stick to the previous consensus decision, and there is no new consensus. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
So let me get this straight...
1) You WP:CANVASS most or all of the editors who had earlier opined that the SPLC designation should be included in the lead.
2) In no particular order you were a) roundly ignored by the editors you canvassed, b) reprimanded at WP:ANI for the inappropriate canvassing, c) Blocked for multiple days for unrelated edit warring, and d) semi-retired, whatever that means.
3) Now you insist they be included anyways, and their months-ago input be calculated into consensus.
I have a one-word response for you: no. By inviting them to rejoin the debate, you've accepted that their previous answers don't figure into the current consensus. It's too bad you didn't get the result you wanted, but you no longer have clean hands sufficient to assert that method of counting consensus. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I refer you to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL which you seem to have violated. I did not canvass and there was no reprimand issue. The blocks were questionable and as you said unrelated. Nobody insisted on their inclusion, I insist that previous consensus stand till a new clear consensus appears which has not occurred. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I find the irony of one user arguing against a clear consensus while protesting about a lack of consensus to be palpable. When I said you lack clean hands, that is neither an attack nor incivil, but merely an impeachment of your ability to determine when consensus has or has not been met. I'll note for the record that prior to this point I placed a 3RR warning on your talk page, which you summarily removed. If anything, your response here is simply WP:IDHT, as it introduces no new arguments. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
One user? Maybe you should look down... I did remove the 3RR warning, First, do the courtesy of starting a new section with header as I clearly ask at the top of my talk page. Second, I have no intention of going over 3RR. There is no clear consensus as three editors have now asserted. If I can't judge consensus here, then neither can you or any other participant in the discussion. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
While PrBeacon may be protesting (and if you'd like to see some actual WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL violations...) the new consensus, he is not edit warring against it, as you are. Please review WP:3RR, specifically, "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions..." Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Correction: I am not protesting a 'new consensus' I am arguing that there is no new consensus. And your aside about 'WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL' is inappropriate. I am allowed to disagree with you -- that is not uncivil. If you take issue with how I disagree, then please provide diff(s) of exactly what I've said to which you take offense. Frankly I'm surprised that someone with Arbcom privileges can be so un-objective. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no clear consensus to remove the lead criticism. Editors commenting as such in this subsection are pushing their own POV. User:Lionelt in particular is actively promoting the WP Conservatism project all over and is therefore in no position to judge how 'compelling' the arguments are. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Also a note that the previous discussion which resulted in the clear "Include" consensus took TWO MONTHS, why are people trying to rush it here when there is no clear consensus? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No one's in a hurry. Discussion has died down, with no new posts in a week. Consensus is clear, and all your previous efforts have failed to change it. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently you and others are in a hurry to clear the lead of criticism, against previous consensus and despite lack of consensus above. One of the first votes above to Remove said it well enough: "there has to be a strong consensus to overrule the previous consensus" -PrBeacon (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
What part of WP:NPOV do you not understand? I've said before, and it continues to be my position, that by adequately sourcing the rest of the article, an SPLC mention in the lead would not violate WP:UNDUE. As is, there is no hurry, but nor is there any excuse for indefinite foot-dragging: no one has expressed a bolded opinion in the above poll in well over a week. You reverted with an edit summary suggesting WP:DR was ongoing, and that previous consensus should hold while it was in progress. First, I am not aware of any formal dispute resolution being enacted: this talk page is what we have, as far as I can determine. Secondly, I find the latter assertion unsupported at Wp:DR--is there another policy or guideline you're using to support the notion that previous consensus must be maintained in the face of a clear change, until certain conditions are met?
The fact is, every week that goes by demonstrates the diminishing relevance of the label. A current Google News search shows 15 references within the past month. Of those, only two are clearly mainstream RS (WaPo, MSNBC), and one is an opinion piece and the other a blog entry. It was a press release that stirred up some controversy and added to the vocabulary used in partisan politics, but it is not a defining characteristic of the 27-year-old group. Jclemens (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Try to contain your scorn. Patronizing and dismissive remarks are not helpful. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Please answer the questions I posed. Jclemens (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Not unless you strike your condescending question at the start of that post. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove as per WP:UNDUE. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would just like to address PRBeacon's accusation, assertion, charge, whatever, that I am promoting the Conservatism wikiproject. I am shocked and surprised by this. How could he/she do such a thing? I've heard that it is the most fun & exciting thing to hit WP since the undo button, but really, to associate me with this. To write such a thing about me, Lionelt, is... well... true. Lionel (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, there is no clear consensus

And despite some claims to the contrary, afaict consensus-building is not entirely subject to vote tallying. Nonetheless, the above discussion includes the following support and opposition:

Note: additonal RFC in separate section, below.

Even if we counted the questionable votes by SPAs ObjectivelyWise (who may or may not be subject to COI restrictions) and anon-IP 94.113.49.32, as well as indef-blocked User:LAEC, there is no clear consensus. And certainly not one strong enough to override previous consensus. Somewhat remarkable that the editors against inclusion stopped counting at a certain point, then claimed that there is a consensus in their favor, yet no such claim can be properly supported. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC) revised 24 Feb.

With all due respect, my views will be counted, PrBeacon. I have added my name to the list in favor of removing the material and I expect it to remain there. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
In addition to the three editors you're not counting for no actionable cause, you're overlooking Drmies's comments below. That's a numerical superiority equivalent to what the "include" side had before, is it not? More telling is the fact that multiple active editors previously opining include who have been canvassed to respond here have failed to do so. Jclemens (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"numerical superiority" is simple vote tallying and thus not in the spirit of building WP:consensus. Users Jclemens, ObjectivelyWise and others keep claiming there is a clear, solid or strong new consensus yet there is no such thing: 16 to 11 is too close to call either way. Thus, previous consensus should hold and thus affect any compromise wording. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, even with the corrected tally, a lot of oppose votes were nothing more than "I don't like the SPLC" and false equivalence votes. As wikipedia works by consensus, not votes, it is obvious the consensus is still absent. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Two of the Keeps were nothing more than the word "keep". 94.133.49.32 and NYY51 should be on the remove list. There is a solid consensus again inclusion. - Haymaker (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, if we would remove all entries that did not provide a substantial argument, we would have to remove 8 remove and 2 keep. We have 16-8=8 oppose left and 11-2=9 keep left. So, when we discard the non-argument votes, we have a draw (8 oppose vs. 9 keep). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Only with you as the arbiter or what constitutes a worthwhile vote. The first three keeps were noting more than "I don't want to talk about this again", several are little more than "I don't like the FRC" (one of them even describes the FRC as "evil" in his voting rational). Even without wading into the LAEC and canvassing business there is a solid consensus against inclusion. - Haymaker (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the key is, it is not about votes, but about consensus and policy. And votes that are nothing more than 'I don't like the SPLC' are not really arguments that have anything to do with wikipedia policies.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Nor do votes that are nothing more than "I don't like the FRC". Barring those as well, the consensus to remove holds. - Haymaker (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, those 'votes' should also be discarded. Until now, I only have heard about two votes without a reason. Care to point to me which votes are just nothing more than 'I don't like the FRC' votes? I think that is fair when you claim they are there (I haven't looked yet). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Will you point out the 8 you think are undeserving? - Haymaker (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the question of "I don't like the FRC" votes, that's basically Destinero's argument. --B (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Granted, but she said 8, I'd like to know which ones. - Haymaker (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem.
WP:I DO NOT LIKE THE SPLC:
  1. undue weight being given to the opinion of one particular group, and a group, moreover, whose reputation, even in progressive circles, is far from pristine
  2. especially when it's known that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not neutral on this issue.
  3. the SPLC is not the be all end of all of commentary, what they think of other groups is interesting but it is highly undue to include their description in the lead.
  4. A single partisan organization deciding that the FRC's POV is "hate" because it doesn't agree with it (Huh no, it bases it of promoting known falsehoods)
  5. A single groups opinion MAY warrent mentioning in the article but mentioning it again in the lead shows undue weight.
  6. We don't have an article which states for Obama that he "hates" Christians, or whatever in the lead, just because some otherwise notable group may have labeled him that way.
False equivalents:
  1. who adding it in summary of this article removing how FRC labeled SPLC from summary of article about SPLC also unbalanced.
  2. If the SPLC's criticism is mentiond in the FRC's article, then the FRC's criticism must be mentioned in the SPLC's article. and from the same user:Also, why should one keep the "controversy" section here when the article on the SPLC lacks one? In my opinion, both should probably be mentioned or none at all. I look forward to your response.
  3. It is like if we would add what Jim DeMint thinks about Barack Obama in the lead of article about Obama.
One person used both arguments. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it at least slightly hilarious that all this time, nobody has felt it worth adding to the intro of Dove World Outreach Center. That organization was behind the 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy and actually is a hate group. No person not looking to score political points thinks that the Family Research Council is the equivalent of the KKK, but the SPLC does think that ("As Beirich told me, there is no difference between the FRC and the KKK in the eyes of the SPLC now.") --B (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can have your opinion about how valid the hate-group label is comparatively or otherwise) , it does not change the facts in the case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
What "facts" exactly? You have an opinion that it is a legitimate label. I have an opinion that it is not a legitimate label. That's a value judgment and in both cases, probably involves confirmation bias. If you think it's a "fact" that there is moral equivalence between the FRC and KKK, then that's a you problem, not a me problem. Endorsing that ridiculous view by putting this content in the lead for the article is nothing resembling appropriate. --B (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
What my opinion or your opinion is should be irrelevant for writing an encyclopedia. The fact that people think in POV terms is the problem. So, what are the facts:
  1. The SPLC lists the FRC as a hate-group.
  2. The SPLC is considered a reliable source for hate-group information. (FBI[17][18] and scholars [19][20][21][22])
  3. The FRC choose to respond with:
    1. A website.[23]
    2. A page size add in two Washington newspapers.[24]
    3. Multiple television interviews where they repeated the debunked claims about homosexuality (like homosexuals are far more often pedophiles) that landed them on the list.
    4. Getting a bunch of politicians including the current speaker of the house to sign a letter of support to them.
  4. This response magnified the controversy about the listing substantially.
This are facts, and have nothing to do with how I think about the FRC. How many reliable sources have indicated that they think the hate-group listing is incorrect? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, conservative sources think it's incorrect; liberal sources think it's correct; most of the non-opinion media simply acknowledges it and presents both sides without opinion. For example, this columnist in The Washington Examiner says "the Southern Poverty Law Center has basically sacrificed it's last shred of of credibility". A Washington Times column says "the SPLC has become an extremist wolf in “watchdog” clothing" and points out that the SPLC's director Mark Potok is a columnist for the far-left Huffington Post. I also find this mea culpa from the SPLC astonishing - they said that they "were wrong to assume that any scholar who challenges the Armenian genocide narrative necessarily has been financially compromised by the Government of Turkey". Basically, they assumed that anyone who is a denialist pertaining to the Armenian genocide had to be funded by Turkey. They didn't do actual research there - they just reported their own biases and assumptions as facts. In any event, we don't disagree on any of the facts that you expressed, except perhaps for #2, where I say that "mostly" needs to be inserted somewhere. What we do disagree about is whether or not this attack should be covered in the lead for the article. That's it. That's an opinion. --B (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, many conservative opinion sources generally think it is incorrect, while many liberal opinion sources, including moderate Christian scholars like Warren Throckmorton [25] had a slightly different opinion. Your columns are nothing more than unreliable sources, especially the Washington Times column by Matt Barber, whose own Liberty Counsel has made the SPLC hate-group list. The fact that the SPLC is willing to admit they have things wrong when they have things wrong only adds to their credibility. AS far as I have seen, no such admission has been posted about the FRC or related group. You can call it an attack, but we are not here to have our opinion included, but to report that what is reported in reliable sources. When we exclude all the editor opinions and the non-reliable sources, we have not much more than the facts listed above by me.
Yes, it is all about whether it should be in the lead, and this controversy has been magnified substantially by the FRC themselves, so yes, it belongs there. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus Impossible to Achieve

I think it should be pointed out (assuming, that is, that we haven't all realized it already) that it's going to be impossible to reach a consensus in this discussion. The question over which we have been in ongoing--often rancorous--discussion for near two weeks is this: "Do we keep or remove the information concerning SPLC from the lede." In other words, either the information is included in the lede or it isn't. As should be obvious, there is minimal room to negotiate on this question and really the only way forward is to try to convince others to believe in a way contrary to the way they do at present. That has consistently failed to happen. Hypothetically speaking, if we were discussing how best to word such an inclusion, consensus would be achievable theoretically. But that isn't the discussion we're having and as plurality of people have made it clear they hold any inclusion of the material as undue with the rest asserting a variety of arguments to the contrary, we've reached a stalemate in the debate.

Understand that I'm not advocating beginning the discussion again; I and many others have made it clear we stand opposed to any inclusion of the material in the summary and those views are unlikely to change, at least for myself, unless the controversy becomes noteworthy again.

I say all this to make it clear to the folks who refuse to concede defeat that what they hope for is not possible in these circumstances and sooner rather than later, someone is going to have take action to make sure that the majority opinion is upheld. Yes Kim van der Linde, I realize polling is not the preferred method of resolving edit conflicts. But once all efforts to achieve consensus through discussion have failed, the vote must be allowed to run its course. If Wikipedia policy prohibits such an action, then Wikipedia policy is fundamentally flawed to put it bluntly, primarily in what would be its assumption that consensus is reachable in every case across the board. In such a case, another course of action would need to be considered. Since I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I am unaware of any of these other options; if more experienced editors could point those out, I would be greatly appreciative. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

When people keep discussing the editors and not the content, it indeed becomes near impossible to achieve consensus. When editors actually do discuss content only, it might be possible and wikipedia has developed a full range of dispute resolution, including WP:RFC's and WP:RFM's. I have started a request for comments on the issue below. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
To add, maybe we can start with making two lists. The first list should be about what policies and guidelines are applicable, and how they should be applied. The second list should be the bare facts as represented in reliable sources. Are you up to that? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that the title of this subsection ("Consensus Impossible to Achieve") should be changed to something more akin to the collaborative nature of this project. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of WP:Consensus is that it's more of a process than a straight up or down vote, especially when there is no overwhelming majority. In that spirit, I am changing the title of the previous section and adding some introductory wording. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsure of voting

Latest comment: 13 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion

Read the insertion of the hate group in the lead. Thought it was voted to exclude it. New to article. I would think the blurb could be included in the article. This would be consistent with most political articles. We don't have an article which states for Obama that he "hates" Christians, or whatever in the lead, just because some otherwise notable group may have labeled him that way. This is clearly WP:UNDUE.

While I question whether FRC "hates" or urges "hate" of homosexuals, another group may so label them as such. If the labeling group is notable, it almost has to be reported somewhere, doesn't it?

Note that this sort of thing allows yet other extremists to label Family Planning and Pro-Choice groups as "Hating Babies." Student7 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To catch you up on previous back-and-forths, Student7, basically, the Southern Poverty law Center is being accorded the honor of having its opinion about the Family Research Council mentioned in the lead because some editors regard the SPLC as THE SINGULAR AUTHORITY on hate groups in the USA. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No one has proposed removing it from the article entirely. The "remove" in the straw poll above is to remove it from the lead. It's not the most important thing about the FRC, even if it is the most recent controversy in the FRC's 27 year history, and placing it in the lead, in the general opinion of those opposing such a placement, does violate WP:UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Student 7, what happens here is that a bunch of wikipedia editors, who often on personal grounds disagree with the SPLC, want to remove part of the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, and the hate-group label and the controversy that followed is a substantial part of the article, because the bloating of the section so that every minute aspect can be discussed. I think that both the lead section as well as the main article section needs to be trimmed down to what reliable sources say about it. As of yet, no reliable source countering the adding of the hate label by the SPLC has been put forward. The SPLC has very clearly stated when they consider a group a hate-group, and the FRC has actually confirmed the reasons they are put on the hate-group list. Anyway, the straw poll obviously seem to go one way, and despite that Wikipedia is supposed to work by consensus, I expect the opponents of including to claim victory based on the polling numbers and remove it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The SPLC is considered a leading authority and its opinions are notable. TFD (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
An organization having notable opinions doesn't necessarily mean that we should note that organization's opinion about another organization in the lead paragraphs of our article about that other organization. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
When describing political organizations, we should mention their ideological perspective. Unfortunately, the terms used to describe right-wing organizations tend to be rejected by their supporters. How else would one describe the FRC? TFD (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
We currently describe the FRC as "Christian right", unlike the SPLC, which goes unlabeled. Drrll (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
.... which, based on the lack of substantial reliale sources for the latter, is perfectly within the policies of Wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is, there isn't a large percentage of reliable sources that label the FRC as "Christian right." So why are we using that definitive label? Drrll (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The FRC themselves. Problem solved. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Huh? They identify themselves as "Christian right"? If they do, then yes, problem solved. Drrll (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Kim, where do they identify themselves as "Christian right"? Drrll (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
See this earlier discusion #Use of "Christian right" and section after that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
While they clearly self-identify as "Christian", they don't self-identify as "Christian right." And only a small percentage of reliable sources identify them that way. Drrll (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.. So, the lead follows the main article. Well, the main article spends a wopping 27.7% on the hate group listing. So yes, it should be in the lead. Maybe what should happen is that the main text is developed to a more complete article, which will reduce the prominence of the hate-group listing and will consequently result in a much smaller footprint in the lead. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
...Which would be a good argument, except for the fact that the article itself spends far too much time on the controversy. Two UNDUEs don't make an NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Except that the argument is flawed because removal now results in a violation of WP:LEAD that should summarize the main text and is suspiciously silent about the controversies surrounding this organization. Violating WP:LEAD because the main text is flawed is one of the more absurd cases of rule bending I have seen here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, the consensus version that mentioned controversies without singling out the SPLC seemed pretty appropriate and well within the expectations of WP:LEAD, which is a style guide and cannot trump a policy like WP:NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, but your preferred lead does not mention the hate-group listing. So, the LEAD remains POV. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether one includes the FRC's specific listing as a hate group by the SPLC in the lead or one only makes a general reference to the FRC being involved in controversies over its positions on homosexuality, it can ALWAYS be argued that either represents a POINT OF VIEW. The question is which is more appropriate given the existing POINT OF VIEW of Wikipedia rules and guidelines about leads. Wikipedia guidelines want leads to concisely reflect (but obviously not go into detail) about what is in the body, and want leads to avoid giving undue weight to the subjective opinion of any one source about the article's subject. For example, an article about the Southern Poverty Law Center which IN THE LEAD included specific mention of the SPLC's F grade by the American Institute of Philanthropy would be inadvisable. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:LEAD states: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.. Contrary to any of the other anti-gay hate groups, the FRC has chosen to make this a major controversy. As such, it should be included. I agree that the previous inclusion was to bulky, but brushing it under the generic "controversy concerning its position on homosexual behavior." is not a valid alternative. Yes, it should be shorter, but removing it is basically a violation of wikipedia policies. As for the SPLC, can we discuss that at their talk page, as far as I can tell, this is the FRC talk page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that the consensus version violates WP:LEAD. But since LEAD is only a style guide, compliance with WP:UNDUE, which is part of WP:NPOV (not just a policy, but a pillar) this is the lesser of two possible violations. I notice you haven't tried to refute this, which is actually a good thing: you know the limits to which your own POV can be accomodated within Wikipedia policies, unlike some other participants in the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that removal of the lead passage does not resolve the issue at all. This is because there are two issues that get mixed up all the time.
  1. The first issue is whether the article at a whole is balanced. I think we agree here, it is not. A major reason is that the controversy section is bloated because there is a lot of POV-pushing going on because various editors desperately wants to add their rebuttal to the facts that are pretty straight forward. The other half of the reasons is that the main text is poorly developed.
  2. The second issue is whether removal of the lead sentence resolves this imbalance issue. It doesn't. To the contrary, it increases the imbalance in the article because the lead is now seriously out of sink with the remainder of the article. It effectively trades one imbalance for another.
My problem is that the proposed solution of gutting the lead of some sentences in order to make it more 'balanced' might indeed reduce the footprint of the controversy, but also makes the article less balanced because the lead and main text are more out of sink, aka, the lead suggest a different content than the article contains. Instead of fixing the lead to mask the problem, the main text should be fixed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Let me add this summary of my thought. The article is unbalanced (we agree on that). Once we remove the lead sentences, the article is still unbalanced, with as added bonus that the lead is now also unbalanced. So, why 'fix' the article in a way that does not fix the issue, but just adds to the issues with the article? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

While you all thrash this out, I've protected the article for a week until consensus is (re?)established. I'm sure I've protected it on the wrong version, but that's almost inevitable. GedUK  22:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note for the record that prior to this protection, no editor but WikiManOne had broken 1RR on this article. I want to especially comment KimvdLinde, who hasn't actually reverted anyone else recently on this article, for engaging politely rather than edit warring. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Research_Council/Archive_3&oldid=1136719458"