Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:American Family Association: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 67: Line 67:
::You skipped over Saturday. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 23:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
::You skipped over Saturday. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 23:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
::When in my editing zone, I tend to forget what time and date it is. — [[User:Becksguy|Becksguy]] ([[User talk:Becksguy|talk]]) 08:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
::When in my editing zone, I tend to forget what time and date it is. — [[User:Becksguy|Becksguy]] ([[User talk:Becksguy|talk]]) 08:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Unfortunately, there is often a disconnect when debating controversial articles. To clarify, the major thrust of my argument is that the lede should fairly represent all significant views in the article. If the SPLC had designated the AFA as a hate group without any significant news coverage of that action, and of the reactions, then I would agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. However, as shown by Binksternet, there has been major coverage of that designation, and especially of the reactions, in the mainstream press and elsewhere. Interestingly, the reaction by the AFA, and other like minded organizations, actually added gasoline to that particular fire, for example, by calling for Congress to defund the SPLC, railing against the designation, and creating a media campaign against it. Basically they went ballistic. It's no longer really whether SPLC is, or is not, a neutral source, as the coverage related to that issue has ballooned to the point that it’s become fully notable in of itself. And that makes it a notable and significant part of the article. I'm restating the pertinent part of [[WP:LEDE]] here: <i>"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article and, if possible, its first paragraph should be able to stand alone as a concise definition. The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."</i> If we leave out almost all mention of all the gay related content, and anti-gay activities, from the lede, we are violating not only the policy and guidelines LEDE, NPOV, UNDUE, but journalistic integrity, as the lede does not fairly summarize the article. Currently almost 42 % of the article relates to anti-gay issues generally (up from about 34 % before the rewrite by Binksternet), and about 13 % relate specifically to the hate group designation, by my count. How can we have a lede that does not adequately mention such significant and prominent points and controversies, and yet call ourselves neutral? Without an adequate summary, one could read the lede (which I suspect is all many readers do) and walk away without really knowing about the controversies swirling around the AFA. No one is saying that AFA is notable only for it’s stance or activities on gay issues (there is also Christmas, Islam, pornography, abortion, oil deregulation, and media morality issues, as examples), but it’s an enormous part of their totality (probably more than half), and certainly that part which garners much of the press coverage, and almost 42 % of the article. The lede needs to be rewritten to reflect that totality without favoring any one view. That's what I'm trying to say here, and why I titled this thread as I did. I’m not pushing any particular POV, only pushing neutrality and not leaving significant issues out. And that includes leaving the SPLC statement alone, as it is, without a counter viewpoint. It’s just bad journalism to leave the lede as it is. — [[User:Becksguy|Becksguy]] ([[User talk:Becksguy|talk]]) 08:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Unfortunately, there is often a disconnect when debating controversial articles. To clarify, the major thrust of my argument is that the lede should fairly represent all significant views in the article. If the SPLC had designated the AFA as a hate group without any significant news coverage of that action, and of the reactions, then I would agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. However, as shown by Binksternet, there has been major coverage of that designation, and especially of the reactions, in the mainstream press and elsewhere. Interestingly, the reaction by the AFA, and other like minded organizations, actually added gasoline to that particular fire, for example, by calling for Congress to defund the SPLC, railing against the designation, and creating a media campaign against it. Basically they went ballistic. It's no longer really whether SPLC is, or is not, a neutral source, as the coverage related to that issue has ballooned to the point that it’s become fully notable in of itself. And that makes it a notable and significant part of the article. I'm restating the pertinent part of [[WP:LEDE]] here: <i>"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article and, if possible, its first paragraph should be able to stand alone as a concise definition. The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."</i> If we leave out almost all mention of all the gay related content, and anti-gay activities, from the lede, we are violating not only the policy and guidelines LEDE, NPOV, UNDUE, but journalistic integrity, as the lede does not fairly summarize the article. Currently almost 42 % of the article relates to anti-gay issues generally (up from about 34 % before the rewrite by Binksternet), and about 13 % relates specifically to the hate group designation, by my count. How can we have a lede that does not adequately mention such significant and prominent points and controversies, and yet call ourselves neutral? Without an adequate summary, one could read the lede (which I suspect is all many readers do) and walk away without really knowing about the controversies swirling around the AFA. No one is saying that AFA is notable only for it’s stance or activities on gay issues (there is also Christmas, Islam, pornography, abortion, oil deregulation, and media morality issues, as examples), but it’s an enormous part of their totality (probably more than half), and certainly that part which garners much of the press coverage, and almost 42 % of the article. The lede needs to be rewritten to reflect that totality without favoring any one view. That's what I'm trying to say here, and why I titled this thread as I did. I’m not pushing any particular POV, only pushing neutrality and not leaving significant issues out. And that includes leaving the SPLC statement alone, as it is, without a counter viewpoint. It’s just bad journalism to leave the lede as it is. — [[User:Becksguy|Becksguy]] ([[User talk:Becksguy|talk]]) 08:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


== SPLC hate group sources ==
== SPLC hate group sources ==

Revision as of 08:59, 27 April 2011

Designation by SPLC as a hate group

In 2010, AFA was designated as an "Anti-Gay" hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an internationally known American nonprofit civil rights organization. The lede content sentence in question is: In 2010 the Organization was added to the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Hate Groups. This sentence is appropriate per WP:LEDE as there is significant content describing AFA as a hate group, especially related to it's anti-gay positions, and SPLC is a very significant monitor of hate groups. I reverted the last removal and added additional references. — Becksguy (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess whitewashing the hate group, AFA, is easier than finding reliable sources that say they aren't a hate group. Probably because there are no reliable sources that state that. Well, I guess we'll have to fix it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this was whitewashing wouldn't I/other editors be trying to remove the criticism from the rest of the article? SPLC's commentary does not belong in the lead. - Haymaker (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SPLC in the lede is WP:UNDUE. Additionally, there is no consensus, in fact substantial opposition, to add SPLC to the lede. Note that it is currently in the article because of protection. To add SPLC to the lede against consensus is disruptive. Lionel (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it is undue weight in the lede, giving one sentence to SPLC's classification. The ruckus raised by SPLC saying AFA was a hate group was very prominent in the news, and is now a significant part of AFA history. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fully protected for three days (as of 21:38, 21 April 2011 UTC) due to edit warring/content dispute. There is currently no consensus, as we are here to develop consensus, and encouraged to do so by the article being locked down. — Becksguy (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a consensus. BlueboyLI added SPLC to the lede yesterday. It was immediately reverted. The current consensus, based on article history, is that it should not be in the lede. Your efforts here are to change that consensus, and of course consensus changes all the time. But as of right now, as far as I can determine, there is no new consensus. See WP:CON, WP:BRD. Lionel (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Current consensus of....whom? Whitewashing AFA supporters? Just asking. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OM, you know what I'm referring to pertaining to BRD, and please cease the soapboxing. Just because an editor feels that SPLC doesn't belong in the lede doesn't make them a "whitewashing AFA supporter." You have no right to call the good editors here names, nor question their motivations. As best I can, I always assume good faith. I even assume good faith with you, OM. I suggest you do the same. And btw, I am also against hate in all its forms and manifestations. I try to live by the Golden Rule. You do not have a monopoly on "hate." "Hate" is not a political term to be used to attack perceived enemies. Lionel (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. There has never been a talk page discussion establishing consensus for the inclusion or exclusion of the SPLC statement in the lede, such as the one I started here. That is what I mean by consensus, per WP:CON, as there is an edit war over the content. However, the process is the same whether creating or changing talk page consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate summarization in lede

About 34 % of the article's content relate to homosexuality. About 25 % relate to the controversial anti-gay positions and activities taken by AFA and the responses to them. Having only six words in the lede ("..in particular its views on homosexuality") about that major controversial issue violates WP:LEDE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. And that sentence is buried at the end of a paragraph on the AFA budget in the lede.

Without the statement about the designation of AFA as a hate group, the lede reads like a travel brochure. No one would have any clue about the extent of the controversy related to homosexuality from reading the lede.

Quoting in pertinent part from WP:LEDE: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article and, if possible, its first paragraph should be able to stand alone as a concise definition. The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

The single statement about the designation as a hate group is actually insufficient. There should be a whole paragraph on that issue in the lede. It's our responsibility to reflect the reliable sources on the homosexuality issue in the lede, per policy and guidelines, as well as in the body. But as a bare minimum, the SPLC statement needs to be reinserted, at least until a new paragraph is written. — Becksguy (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I see that the SPLC designation has been reinserted as part of the last paragraph. That's a good beginning. But is it sufficient? — Becksguy (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom. Becksguy (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no consensus for SPLC's mention in the lede: summarized or otherwise. Lionel (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, AFA has numerous campaigns it's involved with from the War on Christmas to indecency to the Ground zero mosque. Opposition to homosexuality is not it's only activity by a long shot. Criticism of AFA's position on homosexuality comes from several quarters. Singling out this pronouncement by SPLC, a biased source, in the lede is WP:UNDUE. The lede in the pre-edit war (stable) version is balanced. Lionel (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course the solution is to add the "several quarters" to the lead, to augment SPLC's sharp criticism. It does not matter that AFA does other works if they do not stir up so much response from the public. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. AFA getting tagged as a hate group stirred a giant hornet's nest of response. We must mention this event in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Calling the American Family Association a hate group in the introduction is 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 American Family Association is listed in the opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States article. Placing the assertion of calling the American Family Association a hate group is a violation of WP:NPOV. This criticism is already mentioned in the body of the article 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. This issue was addressed already on the article of the Family Research Council and it was decided to remove the SPLC designation from the introduction. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There are reliable sources that support the statement that the AFA is a hate group. Let's maintain NPOV and make certain the reader knows that right up front. We're not here to whitewash the exact nature of any hate organization whether it's Stormfront or AFA. And using a strawman argument that SLPC is or is not biased...well, then edit the SLPC article. Simple solution. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think it belongs in the lead unless you designate AFA a "hate group" without qualification. While it is a matter of one group designating another group as a "hate group" I think it belongs in the article proper, but not the lead. If there is demonstrable, widespread acknowledgement that AFA is a "hate group" then it should go in the lead. --Thepm (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if this was whitewashing folks would be interested in removing the commentary from the article all together. Please stop making baseless assertions. - Haymaker (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The lead already speaks to the AFA's controversial positions. The SPLC is the be all end all of nothing. Their commentary is probably notable and belongs in the body of the article but does not belong in the lead. - Haymaker (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The SPLC is a highly respected and neutral hate group monitor that reports on documented positions and activities of hate groups. From the SLPC article (with cites there): "The [SPLC's] Intelligence Report provides information regarding organizational efforts and tactics of these groups, and is cited by scholars as reliable and as the most comprehensive source on U.S. right-wing extremism and hate groups." If the SPLC is a biased, advocacy or political group, then so is every news organization that also reports on the same subjects. About 34 % of the AFA article relates to homosexuality, and about 25 % relates to AFA's anti-gay activities and positions. It's a violation of WP:LEDE to fail to "...summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." There are only a few words in the lede to summarize 34 % of the article, clearly a violation of LEDE, NPOV, and UNDUE. SPLC is a reliable source for this article, and this discussion is not a referendum on SPLC, per se. — Becksguy (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summation The 21 citations that Binksternet so awesomely provided are clearly way more than sufficient to support the hate group designation. That, and the clearly inadequate abstraction, by proportion and prominence, of the controversial content and hate group designation in the lede are more than sufficient to show consensus to include. There are 3 editors that support inclusion, and 4 that oppose, however consensus is not by headcount. I believe it's clear that the strength of arguments, clearly using policy and guidelines with extensively documented facts and citations, support inclusion. If those that oppose don't agree, then we need to include the wider community in the discussion, ask an uninvolved admin to determine consensus, or go to dispute resolution. I suggest that the protected version be kept until discussion is completed here. Note that no opposers have commented since the 21 citations were posted. All that really remains is to decide how to rewrite the lede. — Becksguy (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here. One group of editors, the opposed camp, keeps says "X probably shouldn't be in the lead" and you keep responding with links that say X happened. I have no doubt that X happened, but I don't think X belongs in the lead, providing links that prove that X happened does not release me of this conviction. I also think your faith in the SPLC as a neutral institution is misplace, mind you there is no neutrality requirement for inclusion but SPLC is a 501c3, just like AFA is. - Haymaker (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Note that no opposers have commented." Did you stop to think that the commenters were at church and with their families? Friday was Good Friday, afterall; I think Catholics were kinda busy going to Mass, fasting and reflecting on Christ's sacrifice. And Sunday was the most important day of the year: Easter. Lionel (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You skipped over Saturday. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When in my editing zone, I tend to forget what time and date it is. — Becksguy (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unfortunately, there is often a disconnect when debating controversial articles. To clarify, the major thrust of my argument is that the lede should fairly represent all significant views in the article. If the SPLC had designated the AFA as a hate group without any significant news coverage of that action, and of the reactions, then I would agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. However, as shown by Binksternet, there has been major coverage of that designation, and especially of the reactions, in the mainstream press and elsewhere. Interestingly, the reaction by the AFA, and other like minded organizations, actually added gasoline to that particular fire, for example, by calling for Congress to defund the SPLC, railing against the designation, and creating a media campaign against it. Basically they went ballistic. It's no longer really whether SPLC is, or is not, a neutral source, as the coverage related to that issue has ballooned to the point that it’s become fully notable in of itself. And that makes it a notable and significant part of the article. I'm restating the pertinent part of WP:LEDE here: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article and, if possible, its first paragraph should be able to stand alone as a concise definition. The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." If we leave out almost all mention of all the gay related content, and anti-gay activities, from the lede, we are violating not only the policy and guidelines LEDE, NPOV, UNDUE, but journalistic integrity, as the lede does not fairly summarize the article. Currently almost 42 % of the article relates to anti-gay issues generally (up from about 34 % before the rewrite by Binksternet), and about 13 % relates specifically to the hate group designation, by my count. How can we have a lede that does not adequately mention such significant and prominent points and controversies, and yet call ourselves neutral? Without an adequate summary, one could read the lede (which I suspect is all many readers do) and walk away without really knowing about the controversies swirling around the AFA. No one is saying that AFA is notable only for it’s stance or activities on gay issues (there is also Christmas, Islam, pornography, abortion, oil deregulation, and media morality issues, as examples), but it’s an enormous part of their totality (probably more than half), and certainly that part which garners much of the press coverage, and almost 42 % of the article. The lede needs to be rewritten to reflect that totality without favoring any one view. That's what I'm trying to say here, and why I titled this thread as I did. I’m not pushing any particular POV, only pushing neutrality and not leaving significant issues out. And that includes leaving the SPLC statement alone, as it is, without a counter viewpoint. It’s just bad journalism to leave the lede as it is. — Becksguy (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC hate group sources

The November 2010 SPLC designation of AFA as a hate group brought very strong responses. This was a major event in AFA's history, and must be included in the lead section. Here are some of the stronger sources found online, listed in chron order:

  • McEwen, Alvin (November 22, 2010). "The American Family Association must address Bryan Fischer's hateful comments". HuffPost Politics. Huffington Post. Retrieved April 22, 2011. But for the American Family Association to remain silent about Fischer's comments contradicts everything the organization claims to stand for – truth, virtue, decency, and morality. (McEwen's piece was picked up by Digg.)
  • McEwen, Alvin (November 23, 2010). "Family Research Council, American Family Association Named as Anti-Gay Hate Groups". HuffPost Politics. Huffington Post. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Yesterday, the Southern Poverty Law Center added five more organizations to its list of anti-gay hate groups, including some names that are long overdue. The new groups are: 1. American Family Association...
  • Eichler, Alex (November 23, 2010). "13 New Organizations Added to Anti-Gay 'Hate Groups' List". The Atlantic Wire. The Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved April 22, 2011. In the winter issue of Intelligence Report, the quarterly magazine of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Evelyn Schlatter takes a look at 18 advocacy groups that speak out against homosexuality. The report says that the groups, which include the American Family Association and the Family Research Council, are responsible for 'demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities.' Schlatter notes that 13 of the 18 groups will make SPLC's list of 'hate groups' next year.
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Defames Mainstream Pro-Family Groups as 'Hate Groups'; DefendChristians.Org Calls on Congress to Defund the SPLC". Christian News Wire. Christian Communication Network. November 24, 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2011. The Southern Poverty Law Center has released a new list of 'hate groups' that includes many highly regarded, mainstream Christian organizations because of their opposition to homosexuality. 'The Southern Poverty Law Center has utterly discredited themselves by this provocative attack on organizations that promote traditional family values,' said Rev. Gary L. Cass, of DefendChristians.Org, a ministry of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. 'Labeling mainstream conservative organizations as "Hate groups" is defamatory and is simply an intimidation tactic. We call on Congress to cut off their funding.'
  • Barber, J. Matt (November 26, 2010). "SPLC: The wolf who cried 'hate' – Self-marginalizing left turns itself into a punch line". The Washington Times. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Most notably, the SPLC has placed alongside the Klan and other neo-Nazi organizations, the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council (FRC) and the Mississippi-based American Family Association (AFA). Their crime? 'Anti-gay ... propagation of known falsehoods' (read: recognition of stubborn, politically incorrect scientific and theological facts that are beyond serious debate). I say 'most notably' because these two groups alone contain membership rolls in the millions.
  • Mantyla, Kyle (November 29, 2010). "Religious Right United In Outrage Over SPLC Hate Group Designations". Right Wing Watch. People For the American Way. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Many influential Religious Right groups found themselves placed upon the SPLC's updated list, including the Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women for American, National Organization for Marriage, and Liberty Counsel. And to say that they are not happy about it would be a massive understatement.
  • Banks, Adele M. (November 29, 2010). "Religion News Service: Hate group watchdog adds Family Research Council to its list". The Pew Forum. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Mark Potok, director of the center's Intelligence Project, said the groups were not chosen because of their beliefs that homosexual activity is sinful. 'The religious nature of these organizations has absolutely nothing to do with our listings,' he said in an interview Monday (Nov. 29). 'The listings are based on the propagation of known falsehoods and demonizing propaganda.'
  • Nelson, Josh (November 29, 2010). "Judge-ouster supporters blast 'hate' label". WCFCourier.com. Retrieved April 22, 2011. The law center, which has monitored extremist groups and hate speech for 40 years, is known for its successful litigation against white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations. The group said it listed groups like the American Family Association because they 'have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities.' The report said mere opposition of same-sex marriage isn't enough to get listed as a 'hate group.'
  • Rossomando, John (December 6, 2010). "Southern Poverty Law Center: Social conservative organizations are hate groups". The Daily Caller. Retrieved April 22, 2011. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says it will not back down from its decision to label the Family Research Council and other socially conservative groups as hate groups, on par with the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations, for their views about homosexuality. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins recently asked SPLC to retract the hate group designation, but SPLC Intelligence Project Director Mark Potok told The Daily Caller that will never happen. SPLC's Winter 2010 edition of its Intelligence Report magazine lists the Family Research Council as a hate group alongside the American Family Association, the Traditional Values Coalition, and 11 other social conservative groups.
  • "Start Debating/Stop Hating". Family Research Council. December 15, 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2011. We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans.
  • Potok, Mark (December 15, 2010). "SPLC Responds to Attack by FRC, Conservative Republicans". Hatewatch. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved April 22, 2011. This morning, 22 members of Congress and a large number of other conservatives signed on to a public statement attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for listing several anti-gay religious right organizations as hate groups. Published in two Washington, D.C., newspapers as a full-page ad, the statement was organized by the powerful Family Research Council (FRC) and other 'pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and the family.' The statement, whose signatories included House Speaker-Designate John Boehner and the governors of Louisiana, Minnesota and Virginia, ran under the headline, 'Start Debating/Stop Hating.' It accused 'elements of the radical Left' of trying to 'shut down informed discussion of policy issues' and decried those who attempt to suppress debate 'through personal assaults that aim only to malign an opponent's character.' The SPLC, it said, was engaging in 'character assassination.'
  • Weigel, David (December 15, 2010). "Boehner, Cantor, Bachmann, Pence and More Against the Southern Poverty Law Center". Weigel: Reporting About Politics and Policy. Slate. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Mark Potok is quoted as saying, "the SPLC's listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods – claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities – and repeated, groundless name-calling."
  • Birkey, Andy (December 15, 2010). "King, Hurley sign letter of support for 'hate groups': Conservatives come to the defense of Family Research Council, American Family Association". Iowa Independent. The American Independent News Network. Retrieved April 22, 2011. The Mississippi-based American Family Association recently said Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should be disqualified from office because she's a lesbian (she's not). The group's director of issue analysis for government and public policy, Bryan Fischer, has said nearly all of Hitler's stormtroopers were gay, because 'he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after.' Fischer has also argued for laws making homosexual sex illegal, claiming it is as lethal as intravenous drug use.
  • Rayfield, Jillian (December 15, 2010). "Boehner, Cantor Back Family Research Council Campaign Against SPLC". TPMDC. Talking Points Memo. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Unsurprisingly, the FRC was not happy about the designation, and labeled the list 'slanderous.' And today they launched a 'Start Debating, Stop Hating' website, and took out a full page ad in Politico, Dave Weigel reports. The ad says: 'The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that.' ... Ironically, the ad argues that 'our debates can and must remain civil – but they must never be suppressed through personal assaults that aim only to malign an opponent's character,' right after it refers to the SPLC as 'the radical Left' that's 'spreading hateful rhetoric.'
  • Williams, Ken (December 17, 2010). "Commentary: Bravo to Southern Poverty Law Center for calling out hate groups like NOM, Family Research Council". San Diego Gay & Lesbian News. Hale Media, Inc. Retrieved April 22, 2011. But this week, the law center is under attack by conservative Republicans and right-wing groups that oppose equality for all Americans, especially LGBT people. Why? Last month, the SPLC published its list of the 18 anti-gay groups that are demonizing the LGBT community with lies, distortions and discredited claims. The notorious 18 were listed as hate groups and included the well-funded National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the Family Research Council (FRC) and the American Family Association. FRC quickly organized a public response to being included on the SPLC list of haters by promoting an online petition – ironically titled 'Start Debating, Stop Hating' – that accuses the SPLC for 'attacking several groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including marriage as the union of a man and a woman.'
  • Benen, Steve (December 18, 2010). "This Week in God". Political Animal. Washington Monthly. Retrieved April 22, 2011. In November, the SPLC, a respected source for decades on monitoring extremists and hate-based organizations, raised quite a few eyebrows with its updated lists, which included some leading religious right entities – including the Family Research Council and the American Family Association – along side mainstays like the KKK.
  • Martin, Martin, CBN News (February 28, 2011). "Family Research Council Challenges Homosexuals to 'Debate' not 'Hate'". Black Christian News. BCNN1.com. Retrieved April 22, 2011. However, the SPLC's recent inclusion of Christian and pro-family organizations as hate groups has drawn scrutiny. SPLC leaders label them as anti-gay groups spreading lies about homosexuality that could lead to violence against gays.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Coaster, Lefty (March 20, 2011). "Newt Gingrich channeled $125K to Hate Group targeting 3 Iowa Supreme Court Justices". Daily Kos. Kos Media. Retrieved April 22, 2011. Newt Gingrich gave the repulsive anti-LGBT hate group the American Family Association $125,000 to target three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of LGBT equality: Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, Justice David Baker, and Justice Michael Streit.
  • Mahanta, Siddhartha (March 25, 2011). "Huck, Newt and Haley Palling Around with Anti-Muslim Extremist". Mother Jones. Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress. Retrieved April 22, 2011. For GOP presidential hopefuls, it's become necessary to court the crazy. Earlier today, Tim Murphy told you about Newt Gingrich's remarks at an American Family Association forum in Iowa, where the former House Speaker – and likely Republican presidential contestant – lavished praise on Islamophobe conspiracy theorist David Barton. But wait, there's more: The Iowa Independent reports that Gingrich, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are scheduled to appear on Bryan Fischer's radio show today. Fischer, the AFA's issues director, has long been a leading basher of Muslims and gays and lesbians. He has said that inbreeding causes Muslims to be stupid and violent; he has equated gay sex with domestic terrorism; and he has claimed that Hitler and his stormtroopers were gay. Yesterday on his blog, Fischer wrote that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion does not apply to Islam. ... Despite Fischer's hateful rhetoric, GOP heavyweights continue to chase after him to win over social conservative voters, undeterred by the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center recently classified the American Family Association as a hate group.
  • Gressinger, Jim (April 8, 2011). "Gays, Muslims, and Hitler". Tucson Citizen. Gannett. Retrieved April 22, 2011. And while I can appreciate the AFA's and CAP's determination to save us from the scourge of homosexuals, Muslims, and other non-Christian types, who's going to protect our nation and our families from bigots?
  • Besen, Wayne (April 6, 2011). "Extremism Flying Beneath The Radar". Falls Church News Press. Falls Church News-Press Online. Retrieved April 22, 2011. On Sunday, The New York Times reported on a new Religious Right figure, David Lane, who is quietly organizing Pastor Policy Briefings in presidential battleground states. The invitations to his meetings come from Mike Huckabee, and presidential aspirants Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) have attended. The Times describes Lane as a 'stealth weapon for the right' who rarely gives interviews and 'shuns publicity as he crosses the country forming local coalitions under names like Renewal Project and securing outside financing to put on the pastor conferences.' It is hard to blame Lane for wanting to slither beneath the radar, considering much of his financing comes from The American Family Association, a Southern Poverty Law Center-certified hate group. Indeed, the AFA's noxious views were on full display this week, when the group's star radio personality, Bryan Fischer, insulted African Americans. 'Welfare has destroyed the African-American family by telling young black women that husbands and fathers are unnecessary and obsolete,' said Fischer. 'Welfare has subsidized illegitimacy by offering financial rewards to women who have more children out of wedlock. We have incentivized fornication rather than marriage, and it's no wonder we are now awash in the disastrous social consequences of people who rut like rabbits.'

This collection goes from SPLC mentioning AFA to classifying AFA as a hate group, to the launching of the reactionary Start Debating/Stop Hating website and responses to that, to Newt Gingrich giving AFA money to fight three judges in Iowa, and the connection seen between that act and SPLC's classification. There is plenty here to uphold SPLC being part of the lead section of the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual freedom subsection

What is this section referring to? Which of Wildmon's efforts and what boycott campaign is Tartikoff talking about? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to 2009 hate crime law

NYyankees51 removed a connection I described existing between the AFA and Congress's 2009 expansion of federal hate crime laws (Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act) to include gender hate. A connection does exist.

The story arc goes something like this: For years the AFA fought against any expansion of federal hate crimes to include gays. In 2007 they issued false statements saying that such an expansion would make it illegal to speak out against homosexuality, and that the law would enable bestiality and necrophilia. In mid-2008 the AFA repeated the falsehood that the proposed expansion of hate crimes would make speaking out against gays into a crime. Same thing in mid-2009 when the AFA was involved in a campaign to stop the proposed hate crimes act. The act was signed into law November 2009. In early 2010 the AFA challenged the law in court but in late 2010 the suit was dismissed. In early 2011, the AFA appealed the dismissal.

There is plenty here describing the AFA's opposition to gays protected by federal hate crimes law. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A general connection may exist between AFA and hate crimes law, but the connection you established between the passing of the law and the SPLC's adding of AFA to their list is unfounded. Perhaps AFA's advocacy in the area of "hate crimes" belongs in another part of the article, but not in this section unless you can establish a direct connection. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F426175112