This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Mississippi Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pornography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I just finished reading this entire article. I don't know anything about this organization. I only found it because I Googled "One Million Moms." But it is obvious that this article is not at all encyclopedic and needs to be rewritten. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the template documentation states, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." AV3000 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'criticism/controversy' section is WP:UNDUE and redundant. By contrast, the Million Mom/Dad section is barely one sentence. That's a significant subgroup within the organization yet it's given no weight. There is overemphasis on the SPLC designation as a "hate group." The SPLC is not anymore important than any other group. They have no legal authority and their so-called "designations" don't carry any legal weight. They're just name-calling. But that is not mentioned and the emphasis gives it more credibility than it deserves. That's not encyclopedic, that's negative POV. There is far too much use of selective quotes, taken out of context, followed by counter-criticism crafted to make a point against the group. That's nothing more than WP:OR. A neutral article would be about half the length. It's obvious this group is against homosexuality, and yes, that makes them sound out of step with the times. But the article shouldn't be an attack piece against them. The article should be encyclopedic. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The simple solution is to expand the Million Mom section. Regarding SPLC, they are a respected authority, definitely important in American culture, more than a great number of other groups. Their credibility is high. The article is not an attack piece, it is a neutral description of the SPLC designation of AFA as a hate group. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Binksternet. TFD (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to rewrite the article to remove the obvious bias and make it more encyclopedic. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Malke. SPLC section is excessively long and needs to be trimmed. And their "credibility" has come under increasing scrutiny as of late as they devolve into an attack group of their own admission.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section is already the result of careful work by editors who initially disagreed and then worked out a compromise. There is no change in the designation or the published coverage of that, so there's no pressing need for change here. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lionel. Definitely needs to be trimmed. I noted your work there, Binksternet. But what you probably don't realize, because you're so close to it, is that it reads as if the SPLC is some higher authority and they are not. The article can always be improved. Nothing's permanent. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC papers are cited by university scholars and professional researchers. The 2010 "Active US hate groups" report was cited by 13 subsequent papers. One very recent paper by a U of Chicago scholar discusses the exact issue we have in the article: "The Right to Name Hate: Utilizing Hate Group Designations to Reframe Political Challenges to LGBT Rights". There is no loss in SPLC's high status and reputation. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a concern that there's too little info on "Million Moms" then it'd be better to add more to that section than to delete material from other sections.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much weight given over to criticism and the SPLC. There's also concern about the lack of neutral point of view. I explained all that above. There's too much SPLC here. They are just another organization. They are not anything special but the undue weight makes it sound as though being on their "hate list" totally discredits this organization. It does not and the article should not suggest that. It especially should not be in the lead. Also, Binksternet, the SPLC calls a Catholic Jesuit group a hate group because they use the Latin Mass. And the cites are all academics using the SPLC references to bolster arguments, etc. It's not like the SPLC is being cited in Supreme Court cases, and even if they were, they're still just another group. They carry no legal weight. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression your Jesuit group argument is founded on hearsay rather than a balanced appreciation of the case. If you can point to the case with a reliable source I would appreciate it.

I don't agree with any kind of SPLC reduction here in the article. The hate group section is smaller than the AFA's "Boycotts" section, and smaller than the section about the group's anti-gay stance. There's no undue weight here. Any reduction of the well-honed SPLC section would be a reduction of a very visible and prominent part of AFA's history. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The history about how SPLC promoted AFA from "engaged" to "hate group" is UNDUE. Kagan has nothing to do with the "designation" and is superfluous in this section.

Malke, may I suggest that you draft a balanced version of the section without the deficiencies and post it here. We'll discuss it and implement what the consensus decides.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC is the best source for describing this sort of organization and is relied up by mainstream media and academic writers. TFD (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lionel. Drafting a version to review is a good idea. Also, TFD "this sort of organization" is no different from an organization that promotes the things this group advocates against. Also, the academics and "mainstream media" are overwhelmingly liberal and are anti to all the things this group advocates. Claiming they are the last word on the subject is the same as having the 700 Club weigh in on GLAAD's efforts to pass gay marriage rights and claiming that the 700 Club is the best source for "describing this sort of organization." Malke 2010 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Sources do not need to be neutral, in fact most are not. And weight requires us to give more prominence to the most widely held views, which in this case is represented by the SPLC. If academics and the media are "liberal", then that is not something that we as editors can correct. We get the same arguments in articles about climate change, evolution, 9/11, the New World Order, etc. Neutrality does not mean we provide parity to WP:FRINGE views, in this case the way an extreme group sees itself. TFD (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we're going to use it as a SPS I'm not sure what good they are. They're neither neutral nor terribly informative save for the opinion of said organization. - Haymaker (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep edits like this:

• “Individuals in the media industry have criticized Donald Wildmon, the founder of AFA. Gene Mater, Senior Vice President of CBS Television, has stated, "We look upon Wildmon's efforts as the greatest frontal assault on intellectual freedom this country has ever faced" and Brandon Tartikoff, former NBC Entertainment President, stated that Wildmon's boycott campaign was "the first step toward a police state."

Also relevant:

• In July 2000, the AFA sent out emails and letters calling for openly gay Arizona Republican United States House of Representatives member Jim Kolbe to be barred from speaking at the Republican National Convention. Sending out emails and complaining about gays, that’s what they do.

• Delete all the bits about Cyber Patrol. That’s just a website selling software.

• The Marilyn Manson bit is UNDUE. First, people do have sex and violent fights and do drugs at his concerts and there are plenty of reliable sources to back that up, so it’s hardly defensible, which is probably why Marilyn Manson is not somebody the world looks to for moral guidance. And giving him his own section is totally UNDUE.

• Two sections on "homosexuality" is confusing. Keep only one section and label it "Gay Civil Rights." Then I'd fill in specific, important instances of the AFA's opposition to gay rights or mention of gays in media, etc. But only the relevant bits, not all the stuff about Rudy Homosexual. I'd mention instances of opposition to health benefits, marriage, etc. especially as promoted by media outlets, like television shows the portray gay couples, etc. And then mention the specific boycotts against Disney, CBS, NBC.

• I'd delete the bit about the AFA rewriting AP copy. It's not notable. They subscribe to the AP wire feed. They can do what they want with it so long as they attribute the original source. So what that a Christian group doesn’t want to use the word “gay” in it's news stories. Using the word faggot is hate speech. Using the word homosexual is not.

• I'd delete the bits about the blog posts. Not relevant to anything. Individuals writing their opinions on blogs mean nothing. It’s the policy statements, the boycotts by the organization that count.
• Delete the bit about the former AFA guy writing a book called the Pink Swastika. Not notable here. It would only be notable on his page. He didn’t write the book for the AFA, it’s not an AFA official publication and has no relevance to the AFA.

• Use of copyrighted images. Not relevant.

• Mention of Equity Mississippi is not relevant. What does GLAAD have to say? That’s a national organization. The AFA is a national organization. Who cares what a local group thinks?

• Delete: “In 1998 multiple organizations voiced opposition. . .etc. “ They don’t mention specific acts by the AFA against them. If the groups aren't big media providers, they're comments are not relevant. It comes across as having been put there because there aren’t enough ‘bad’ things to report on.

• The SPLC should be concise and just say what they did and stop there: "In November 2010, the civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center called the AFA a hate group. The SPLC said the AFA propagated “known falsehoods and demonizing propaganda” about homosexuals and gay marriage." The AFA called the designation "slanderous".[117] Throwing in bits about “they increased from “ hate speech” to the “much more serious hate group” is OR/POV.

• Claims like this: “Multiple groups expressed oppostion. . .” What groups? That’s just more OR/POV. If they aren’t big media providers, they’re not relevant.

• The San Francisco Board of Supervisors statement is UNDUE by itself. What did the AFA ad say that caused the SF Board of Supers to comment? All that is mentioned is the criticism but not the act AFA committed that prompted the SFBOS to make a statement. Again, all these descriptive accusations but no verbs, no actions.

• I'd eliminate the criticism/controversy section and just incorporate under a section entitled: "Opposition to Gay Civil Rights." That's much more attention getting and focused. And then just specific acts they've done.

• I'd delete all the "tit for tat." I'd summarize all the things the group does and then I'd mention the criticism. It makes both the acts and the criticism stand out. Also, they obviously have their supporters. It's not all opposition. I'd mention any groups or specific peeps who support them. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of the SPLC section. The chronology of the designation is important; that AFA first was classified as using hate speech but later was upped to hate group.

Don't delete blogs from expert observers, just non-notables. Binksternet (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the SPLC, you did a lot of work on that and it's great. I think mentioning both weakens the impact of being called a hate group. The SPLC changing their own opinion from hate speech to hate group would be relevant if they were a regulatory/law enforcement agency who first issued a warning and escalated to the punishment when the behavior persisted. But everything the AFA says offends them so what makes the SPLC draw the line? Malke 2010 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPCL designation of AFA as a hate speech – producing organization, prior to being a hate group, is important enough to stay in the article. Snopes covered it, debunking an AFA leaflet about hate speech vs freedom of speech, and earlier in 1997 the software CyberNOT blocked AFA for hate speech: "Recently, a company that makes a software filter called Cyber Patrol decided that among the sites it would block out for hate speech was, believe it or not, the PG-rated American Family Association website of the Reverend Don Wildmon." (Liberty magazine, 1997, volumes 92–93.) Dr. Thomas R. Hensley of Kent State U. wrote about it: "For instance, in 1998, the American Family Association, an organization that advocates for public library filtering, found its Web site was blocked by the filter CyberPatrol as an 'intolerant' site..." The hate speech designation was what catalyzed the action by San Francisco City Council. The friction made it into the Congressional Record. There are many more references I can bring if necessary. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see your point, but the bit about the software I think is off the path, as are all the commentaries and debunking. Every organization, especially libraries, block out all sorts of websites for all sorts of reasons. The point is, the article needs to be focused. The entry about the SPLC should not be so large as to be overwhelming. This isn't the SPLC's article. And how many times can claims of hate speech be cited before it loses it's punch? Mentioning CyberPatrol and some guy at Kent State is distracting. There has to be encyclopedic balance. The AFA is obviously an easy target and putting in all sorts of condemnations by all sorts of groups is overkill. Most people have heard of the SPLC and if they haven't then the wikilink will enlighten them. And debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech happen everyday. One guy debunking means another guy confirms. And there still needs to be an equal amount of comments from the AFA defending themselves that are not immediately followed by "In response, Joe said on his blog. . ." which is just another way of attacking the group and shutting down their perspective. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Cyber Patrol has also blocked the Bible for hate speech against gays. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RdAbKc1mvLwJ:www.arthurhu.com/98/10/nochris.txt+Cyber+Patrol+blocks+American+Family+Association&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting article from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/politics/04family.html?pagewanted=all Malke 2010 (talk)

You are equating "one guy debunking" with another guy confirming, but in this case there is no such equal balance. The SPLC is very much more respected than AFA and its backers. The scholarly cites that SPLC receives confirms this. Per NPOV, we cannot allow two opponents in a debate to be called equals if one side has strong scholarly backing and the other side does not. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about two different things entirely. The first: actions by third parties as a result of what they label as "hate speech" e.g. Cyber Patrol and second: the SPLC designation. They are not dependent upon one another. The superfluous and UNDUE content about the designation can be removed without impacting Cyber Patrol et al. Since the SPLC already classifies AFA as a so called "hate group," the SPLC hate speech designation is UNDUE. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am empathetic that you've done a lot of work on the SPLC and the hate speech material. Is the transition from hate speech to hate group all that dramatic a change? Or is that how the SPLC does it anyway? First the speech designation, then the group? And agree with Lionel that what one group does is not dependent on another. But what a sponsor like Home Depot had to say about their boycott does. And it doesn't have to go to the phrase 'hate speech' or 'hate group to be relevant.' The sponsors reaffirming their choices says the same thing in a different way. And Home Depot did reaffirm their choice. I think they sponsored a Gay parade. And Disney/ABC came out with "Modern Family" two years ago. That can be added, "In 2009, Disney/ABC debuted Modern Family, a sitcom that included a gay couple who adopt a child." Malke 2010 (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Home Depot was doing that stuff.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides conflating the designation and Cyber Patrol are there any other arguments that the "hate speech" designation is not UNDUE?– Lionel ^(talk) 03:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be crude, but Stephan Colbert's colon is in the congressional record. I don't think SPLC's opinion is DUE for this article. - Haymaker (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatewatch and Right Wing Watch are blogs of SPLC and PPFAW respectively. They are not newspapers so they fail WP:NEWSBLOG and should be removed. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blogger is critical to whether the blog post can be used. Topic experts and respected authorities are okay. A blog post by a leader of SPCL is usable for his or her opinion. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the article's content does come from this article on Right Wing Watch. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-family-association Malke 2010 (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That particular source on the blog website that Malke posted is unsigned: we have no idea as to the credentials of the person that compiled the information. It should go.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." The SPLC "blog" therefore meets rs. I do not know about the other source, we could always as at RSN. TFD (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a news outlet and neither is Right Wing Watch. It would be okay to use the New York Times or Los Angeles Times newsblogs. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, the SPLC is a highly respected research and opinion source. No matter how much you repeat yourself, you cannot erase the fact that scholars cite the SPLC, making them very worthy of note. None of your comments here have addressed that aspect. You appear to be ignoring it, but it won't go away. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop following me around Wikipedia as you did here: [1]. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the SPLC, I've been very agreeable to their inclusion in the article. It's the UNDUE aspects that I question. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was just yesterday on this thread that I realized you respond to the argument "There is a problem at 'A'" with "Here's a fact about 'B'". You do not tackle 'A'. I was curious whether you did that elsewhere. You do, and I think it harmful to the project. Even in the link you just provided, I said Flyer22 and the Dubai IP do not appear connected, and your response was that it's obvious the IP is from Dubai, You left the doubtful Flyer22 connection unanswered. Binksternet (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how I might best tackle A right here with this article. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a real big issue, but I deleted the sentence "Following a flood of pro-equality comments on the One Million Moms Facebook page, the OMM deleted their Facebook page, telling members that they would be offline to focus on vacation Bible school." User:NatGertler has been careful to frame this so that it doesn't imply causality, but there is a hint of it here, just as there is a hint in the cited source: "Victory Over One Million Moms?" (note the question mark). Trouble is, I don't think that's a neutral source (note the word "victory") and the source is more likely to interpret the deletion as being the result of the "flood of pro-equality comments". So, perhaps we could have something like: "In May 2012, OMM deleted its facebook page, citing a desire to focus on Vacation Bible School. The Advocate suggested that it might, in fact, have been the result of a flood of pro-equality comments posted on the page." StAnselm (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Advocate is not the only source to have noted the context; [2], [3]; I cannot find an independent source on the closure of their Facebook page that doesn't note the context. That would seem to make the noting of the con

text appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You realise both of those are blogs, right? StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Blog" does not make something illegitimate, in Wikipedia term (plenty of things are sourced to news services). "Self-published" does. Neither is a self-published blog. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, The Advocate is a legitimate news magazine published in print as well as online. It's not a mere "blog."  — AMK1211^talk! 21:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Advocate is a reliable source, usable with attribution per WP:YESPOV. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine how either link could possibly pass WP:SPS, but we could take it to WP:RSN if you like. StAnselm (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let me correct myself - I copied one wrong link (not awake enough yet to hunt down the right one); comicbook.com is, I believe, a SPS. The Comic Book Resources link is definitely not, however; Comic Book Resources is a significant comics news source, which is not owned by the writers of the blog entries there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly obvious that they deleted their facebook page in response to the flood of pro-equality messages, the question is whether or not that is notable. I have heard that they have done this before and plan to put their facebook page back up once controversy blows over.

Good luck to them with that... Orpheus (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That being said I found some sources: editorial by The Georgia Voice, article by GayStar News on them deleting a Facebook comment about the Green Lantern that mentions previous times they left Facebook, article about Green Lantern comment and about their deleted facebook page by the New Civil Rights Movement, and another brief article by Instinct magazine. Unfortunately I haven't seen any mentions in any mainstream news sources. AerobicFox (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article American Family Association include mention in the lead that it has been designated a hate group by one of its political opponents, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or should this be mentioned only in the body? Belchfire-TALK 21:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]