Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:American Family Association: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Navboxes: explained
Line 239: Line 239:


:The group's position on LGBT topics seems to be accurately described. Good for you that you realize that the effect of an accurate description will be seen by many as being "critical of the group" -- let's help all the readers make up their own minds. The bottom line, however, is that because LGBT issues are a prominent part of the group's agenda, a navbox titled "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics" seems to be perfectly appropriate. It is certainly reasonable to provide readers of this article (these articles are written FOR THE READERS) an easy way to follow up on any LGBT issues that may be suggested by this article -- as well as other types of discrimination. As far as your slippery slope argument, other additions can, and should, be discussed based on the merits of the particular case. Navboxes when closed produce very little clutter, especially since they are at the very bottom of the article. [[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] ([[User talk:North Shoreman|talk]]) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:The group's position on LGBT topics seems to be accurately described. Good for you that you realize that the effect of an accurate description will be seen by many as being "critical of the group" -- let's help all the readers make up their own minds. The bottom line, however, is that because LGBT issues are a prominent part of the group's agenda, a navbox titled "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics" seems to be perfectly appropriate. It is certainly reasonable to provide readers of this article (these articles are written FOR THE READERS) an easy way to follow up on any LGBT issues that may be suggested by this article -- as well as other types of discrimination. As far as your slippery slope argument, other additions can, and should, be discussed based on the merits of the particular case. Navboxes when closed produce very little clutter, especially since they are at the very bottom of the article. [[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] ([[User talk:North Shoreman|talk]]) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

:I added them and it was not to make a point at all, but to provide a focused collection of links that have a high likelihood of relevance for readers of articles such as this. The AFA (and One Million Moms/One Million Dads) are very vocal in their discriminatory views toward LGBT people, lobbying against same-sex marriage, gay adoption, education, visitation rights, etc. Further, they are notoriously listed as an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC. Whether you agree with that designation or not is not germane; the fact is that they have come into the public spotlight because of their controversial activism and lobbying. They hide behind a thin veil of pretense as defenders of marriage, family and religion, but their actions and words directed toward LGBT people are damaging.
:It would be absurd to omit these two navboxes (<nowiki>{{LGBT |selected=rights}} and {{discrimination}}</nowiki>) and try to pretend that the AFA is a wholesome defender of traditional culture. They stand out out from the crown for their vile rhetoric directed toward an class of people who have no control over who they are.
:With respect to AFA's stance on abortion, pornography, violence in the media, and Islam; that's a mixed bag ranging from social conservativism to outright racism. There three navboxes cover the key aspects. Perhaps there should be more, but there definitely should not be less. &ndash; [[user: MrX|MrX]] 16:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:01, 10 September 2012

Edit suggestions

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]

Hate speech

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]

Contentious claims sourced to blogs

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]

Facebook page

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."  — AMK1211talk! 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]

RfC

RfC Closed. Consensus: include in lede. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    • The phrase "one of its political opponents" was removed but then re-added to the RfC statement which is suppose to be unbiased; it remains contested as possibly not neutral and some editors feel is false. Editors should be aware of this underlying dispute beyond the main discussion, which may be cause for further discussion to gain consensus. Insomesia (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insomesia, I agree with you completely. WP:RFC instructs to "Include a brief, non-biased statement of the issue". The phrase "One of its political opponents" clearly violates the instructions. And besides being biased, it's not even true. They are not a political group at all. The SLPC is a non-profit civil rights group which monitors extreme organizations and takes no government money. If WP guidelines allow that term to be removed, it should be. In any case, this discussion has been going on for one week and there is currently overwhelming consensus for including the SPLC hate group mention in the lede. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in lead The SPLC is not "one of its opponents", but the leading organization for researching extremism in the US, whose reports are regularly used by law enforcement, academics and journalists. TFD (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPLC is, by it's own admission, slanted to the left, and only publishes hate group designations for right-wing groups, or left-wing groups containing right-wing elements. " “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”" [4] Belchfire-TALK 22:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. The National Review gotcha journalism is not a reliable source on this opinion. The SPLC takes on all groups and focusses them in issue areas. Right-wing and left-wing groups are both considered extremists groups, there may be more logical reasons why more right-wing groups have been researched and shown as hate groups, but that research needs to be conducted neutrally and by an uninvolved third parties. Insomesia (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it does not say "by it's own admission, slanted to the left". If left-wing groups began attacking people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc. they would cover them too. They do in fact track Larouchies, new black panthers, national anarchists, which are probably left-wing in your book. TFD (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in lead. The SPLC is the top acknowledged authority on the status of hate groups in the USA. Not an opponent of AFA, just ideologically worlds apart. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to hear more detailed arguments from User:Belchfire before expressing an opinion on this. For example, which WP policies would you cite in support of removal of this information from the lead? Do you have a description or categorisation of the AFA which you feel is more balanced, and can you cite multiple reliable sources for your view? What information, if any, do you feel is acceptable for inclusion in the lead in relation to the activities of the AFA which SPLC uses to classify it as a hate group? SP-KP (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The policies are WP:UNDUE and WP:MOSINTRO, which are violated here by assigning undue weight and importance to the pronouncement of a single organization that is not in accord with the organization's own view of itself. A balanced description of the organization is one that objectively describes it's size, nature, status and history. Since the article has a criticism section, it's fair to mention in the lead that such criticism exists, but the treatment given in the current lead inflates the importance of SPLC beyond what is reasonable. Belchfire-TALK 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence? Really?? You wish to reduce the one sentence about SPLC's determination of "hate group" status? I should think that the policy of WP:LEAD would tell us that this one sentence is a suitable summary of article information in the lead section, not undue emphasis. MOSINTRO says: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." The SPLC's hate group designation of AFA was very widely covered in newspapers, and AFA reacted strongly to it. This is not some flea bite that we can ignore; it's a very big deal, called such by every observer. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. Belchfire-TALK 00:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, my opinion is not printable. Here are the facts: the SPLC announcement received wide coverage, and their assessment entered the public discourse. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All political groups get disagreements from other political groups. To be balanced, the SPLC article should contain more criticism. Roger (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger, you know that isn't how NPOV works. We don't make all sides artificially "equal". Also, hey. I thought you'd given up on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per nom and reasons given in my subsequent comments. Belchfire-TALK 00:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. SPLC is not a political pressure group, but a research organization that is widely respected in academic and governmental circles. AFA may have politicized their designation, by smearing SPLC as a left-wing group, but you must discredit SPLC's judgments for all organizations, and not just for AFA, to bypass Wikipedia's ModuS operandi to mention all significant controversies in the lead. Also refer to Binksternet's list of secondary sources that refer to SLPC's designation to characterize AFA. Shrigley (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”" [5] Nope, nothing political about that, is there? Belchfire-TALK 01:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: The change that Belchfire is looking for is the removal of "hate group" from the lead section. If there is no consensus determined at this RfC the lead section will continue to hold one sentence telling the reader about the designation. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources and past discussion: Interested editors should check out earlier discussion on this point, especially the RfC and the 21 sources at Talk:American Family Association/Archive 7. The sources show wide coverage of the "hate speech" designation, the wider coverage of the upgrade to "hate group" designation, and the highly visible website AFA mounted to protest the designation. Anyone who looks at these sources will see how big of a deal it was. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take note, the RfC only addresses the matter of including material in the lead. It does not involve matters of sourcing and there is no argument over keeping it in the article. Belchfire-TALK 01:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extensive sourcing puts to bed your assertion of UNDUE emphasis. The hate group designation was a huge event in AFA's history, as will be obvious to anyone looking at the sources, and noting AFA's prominent reaction. Per WP:LEAD, if the event was important and it is described in the article body, it should be summarized in the lead. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. Sourcing establishes facts and notability, but it cannot be used to justify undue emphasis. At the end of the say, SPLC is still just one organization, operating on political motives, and the fact that it's actions are covered widely doesn't make it an almighty moral judge that deserves coverage alongside the subject organizations basic characteristics. We should mention in the lead that AFA has its detractors, but singling out the opinions of SPLC for special mention is UNDUE weight by definition. Belchfire-TALK 02:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the entire concept of due weight is based on coverage in reliable sources, yes, sourcing is what determines the emphasis we put on things. Your claim that you're fine with including criticism of the AFA's actions in the lede as long as we don't mention SPLC is unconvincing given that you removed all criticism from the lede, but as an intellectual exercise, why don't you suggest a criticism bit in the lede that would be acceptable to you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The model for this is Ku Klux Klan, which matter-of-factly mentions the hate group status in the first paragraph. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include/Keep per TFD --Scientiom (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support include/keep, I also changed to question to remove "one of their political opponents" as it's simply not true. SPLC is non-partisan, if they found LGBT groups that met the definition of hate groups they would have no problem labeling them as such.

    The AFA operates as a Christian group yet this is in tension with their blatant actions so obvious that the nations's leading hate group authority, SPLC, deemed them as such. This is notable criticism not from a political opponent but from an expert organization. If AFA changes how it operates and the designation is dropped it should still remain as "although the group was designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, they were declassified as of ____." Until then this should remain as a stated notable criticism in the lead. Insomesia (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly support keeping The SPLC is widely recognized as an authority in this domain and the designation is an important perspective on the AFA. Furthermore, it was highly inappropriate to use such loaded language and phrasing in the RfC. In the interest of civility and progress, please rephrase the RfC neutrally, in line with Wiki policy. Glaucus (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - Mainstream sources will commonly mentioned the "hate group" designation in explaining who the AFA is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. In both lead and body.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in Lead - The SPLC is widely regarded as an authority on hate groups. If the claim was by some lesser known group, it would probably go in the body. Because SPLC can be perceived as liberal, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requires that any mention of "hate group" in the lead must be attributed to SPLC, rather than written in the encyclopedia's voice. --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in both I had not realized just how singular SPLC's generally-accepted authority, how widely cited it was on hate groups and hate crimes until researching the question for the parallel FRC-RFC (Say that three times fast.), but I found the breadth of references to SPLC's designation surprising. SPLC's listing, right or wrong, clearly carries a lot of weight as measured by sources. From there, my view roughly follows that of Noelander above. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • include, in lead and body as well -- Joe Decker is right on target in perceiving the SPLC's role/stature on this topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in both lead and body for the same reasons as my arguments in FRC. Same with other organizations but only if the designation itself has become notable by being widely repeated in reliable sources as in this case and the FRC's.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include The SPLC is the authority on this. AniMate 04:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include The knowledge that a group has qualified for a hate group designation by the SPLC never WP:UNDUE. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Belchfire, I'm still not sure what you would like to see in the lead on this subject instead, if anything. Above, I asked two questions: Do you have a description or categorisation of the AFA which you feel is more balanced, and can you cite multiple reliable sources for your view? What information, if any, do you feel is acceptable for inclusion in the lead in relation to the activities of the AFA which SPLC uses to classify it as a hate group? If you were able to answer these it would really help me to decide whether to support your suggestion. SP-KP (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...which would be a violation of WP:LEAD where it says that the lead section should "summarize the most important points [of the topic]—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Circular argument. It seems that most editors, yourself included, feel the hate group designation is non-controversial. Belchfire-TALK 18:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? The "hate group" designation was controversial to the AFA and its supporters. Still is. The designation was, of course, a great slap at the AFA's hate-filled speech and practices. Still is. However, our following of Wikipedia's LEAD guideline is in no way controversial. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it was controversial, but not political? Please. Belchfire-TALK 18:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong include in the lede. Why should the most prominent civil rights group not get mentioned? Pass a Method talk 11:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong include At the moment, AFA is making a lot of political hay with claims that their designation as a hate group is what motivated the recent attack on their DC office. Whether or not one agrees with that designation, it exists and the AFA is making use of it. It certainly seems significant enough to keep in the article lede. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, actually, that's the FRC, a different hate group. There's a similar RFC open on that article, which is why I was initially confused by this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong assumption regarding "one of its political opponents". The SPLC is not one of the AFA's "political opponents" as asserted by Belchfire. This label of Belchfire's diminishes SPLC's research work and posits them as partisan. No reliable sources describe the SPLC as AFA's political opponent. I suggest that this RfC be continued with the wrong assumption ignored. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a number of RSs that point to not only SPLC's partisanship, but to their left-wing partisanship. Deny this if you like, but it's still true. Belchfire-TALK 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply these sources. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "political opponents" claim sounds like OR to me. Or are you just synthesizing it? Got sources? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to find a source saying that the SPLC is the AFA's political opponent. Good luck with that: I looked for that already and found nothing out there. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be interested to see these sources, if they exist. a13ean (talk)
  • Comment I've added a comment under the original RfC which is apparently what I should have done originally, apologies for any inconvenience this has resulted in. Additionally I think the phrase one of its political opponents"" should be replaced with "the leading authority on hate crimes in America" for the lead. The FBI and researches point to SPLC work as leading the way in this field. Insomesia (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let the record show that there was edit-warring by this editor over the wording, discussion which lead to "let's agree to disagree", then an offer of help from an editor experienced in dispute resolution (and I did welcome a suggestion for compromise wording, by the way), which was subsequently withdrawn due to the edit-warring. This is now your fourth entry in the RfC discussion, and the second bulleted item in the main thread. Really, I think it would be most constructive at this point to simply register your opinion towards the emerging consensus, and let it go. Belchfire-TALK 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I think your comment looks too much like an attempt to intimidate an editor into silence. As per WP:AGF, I'm not going to claim that it's an intentional attempt -- that would be your least favorite thing to do -- but it certainly comes across as one and has the same (surely unintentional) effect. In short, let the editor speak. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insomesia, here's your cite: http://www.chattanoogan.com/2000/3/1/4848/Leading-Authorities-On-Race-Relations.aspx Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say edit war, I say looking for an unbiased RfC statement. I doubt that we are likely to change each others' views but I appreciate you're very passionate about process which certainly can be useful. I tend to more gravitate to what reliable sources state and follow where they lead. To each their own path. I'm not sure letting it go is advice you should espouse to others but advice is free I suppose. Insomesia (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is supposed to objectively reflect what is significant about the organization, correct? This is a significant thing about the AFA. I don't think it should be expanded on at great length in the lede, but it should be mentioned in the lede, and have a paragraph or section in the article. I can't think of any politically neutral reason to leave the information out of either place- when the AFA's actions are reported on in newspapers and magazines, it is more often in the context of their activities as a hate group than in the context of their activities as a pro-family organization. Certainly if there is a more reliable source than the SPLC on hate groups, we could discuss which one to use, but I'm not aware of such a source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in lead The arguments presented for its removal are superficial, and my two attempts to elicit further explanation have been unsuccessful. If presented with detailed & cogent arguments, I'd be prepared to change my vote, but at the moment I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith on the part of the initiator of this RfC: this just looks like disruptive victimhood. SP-KP (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Per Shrigley and Binksternet. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include also per Shrigley and Bink. a13ean (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include As many have stated above, from an objective standpoint this is a significant piece of information about the organization. The SLPC is a notable enough organization that their designation of the AFA as such deserves a mention. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless a few more organisations (and anything synonymous with that) classify it as such. Otherwise it is undue weight that may direct the reader to an opinion of the AFA that is held by only one organisation. Basically, wait and see if others classify it as a hate group. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include (Uninvolved invited by RFC bot) Per all the includes above. Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per Shrigley and Joe Decker. RFC opening statement is very biased, it's not true that SPLC is “one of the political opponents” of American Family Association.--В и к и T 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These 8 include the SLPC hate label in the lede:

These 7 do not include the SLPC hate label in the lede:

So it's currently about 50-50 for organizations similar to American Family Association. This issue reveals one of those unavoidable inconsistencies with Wikipedia. Because SLPC is an extremely well-known civil rights orgnization (whether you are a supporter or detractor of theirs), I feel that including the hate group label in the lede (and body, of course) is clearly appropriate and warranted. It should be in the lede of all those articles. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be in the lead if it isn't a loner in these hate listings. It's undo weight because it's only one organisation. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to close We of course do not vote count, but this discussion has been going on for a week and there is undisputable consensus to include the SPLC hate group content in the lede. If my counting is correct, 27 currently support keeping it in the lede and 4 do not. If it looked like there was any chance that "oppose" could turn this around and prevail, I would absolutely say continue the discussion. But that's not the case. Can we close this discussion and declare consensus? --76.189.110.167 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Binksternet. I have absolutely no idea how to initiate the process of closing this RfC. Haha. Can you do whatever's necessary to get someone to close it? --76.189.110.167 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it.[6] StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Thank you, SS. :) --76.189.110.167 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Extremely incorrect classification of the Southern Poverty Law center as a "political opponent". The SLPC is a highly regarded, nonpartisan organization by all but a deviant minority. Their opinion is WP:DUE based on reliable sources. Sædontalk 06:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include with the sentence reworded to note that it is SLPC, not "civil rights organizations". A reasonable balance, even though a unbiased reporter would call SLPC a "hate group". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The above comment raises a significant point, and one that makes me think this RfC should not be closed yet. For I missed this, and apparently everyone else did as well. Why does it say "civil rights organizations" when only the SPLC is cited? Clearly, the sentence cannot remain as it currently stands. StAnselm (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing this shortly as consensus to include. It'll be up to someone else to actually edit it into the lede or not (I don't know if it actually is already there or not. I'm just closing the RFC). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Talk:American Vision § Count of groups

I suggest that the false information presented in the RfC may require reopening, if any editors were swayed by the list of groups. 5 of the groups in the "include" list do not have a lede, and one doesn't exactly include SPLC's "hate group" designation in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only three editors have !voted after the list was given by 76.189.110.16. None of them refer to the number of articles with the listing in the lead as the reason for their support. I believe the point 76.189.110.16 was making is that all of them should have them in the lead, not that this article should have it because most of them did. You're also failing to mention your reason why: it's because of the technicality that substubs don't have leads per se (which I disagree with). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Obsidian. Arthur, the consensus here was overwhelming. Editors involved in this discussion stated their reasons for support or opposition, and the closing administrator reviewed the entire discussion. And if you had an objection to any comments, you should have brought them up while the RfC was open. Claiming, after-the-fact, that editors were "swayed" by content that could have easily been reviewed with the click of a mouse is not only inappropriate, but might also be taken as insulting. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "technicality". If you were arguing that the information be in the articles, then you should have worked on the remaining one of the 15 which doesn't have the designation in the article. Arguing that the information should be in the lead because it is in the lead of other articles, when, in fact, it is not, borders on dissembling.
However, it could have been easily checked, so I suppose it shouldn't have affected the results. If, on the other hand, the closer believed that to be a significant, valid, argument, he should reopen the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me restate: only TWO (I miscounted) editors have voted after 76.189.108.102 made the list - Sædon and you. NONE of you referred to the list as your rationale. Even if you discount your and Sædon's votes that still leaves about 26 supports vs. 3 4 opposes (just a quick count, but around that number). Not something favoring a reopening.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I believe the hate group content is worthy of lead inclusion in all similar articles, not that it should be included in this article because it's included in the leads of the others. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes

Two navboxes were added at the bottom of this article. One was for LGBT topics and the other for discrimination. Neither of these are sufficiently significant to be included and they appear to have been added just to make a point that is critical of the group. While this group has taken a stance on LGBT issues, it has also taken a stance on abortion, pornography, violence in the media, and Islam. By the same reasoning used to include the LGBT and discrimination navboxes we would conceivably be able to add navboxes on all of those issues, but it would be a lot of excessive clutter. I believe these navboxes should be removed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The group's position on LGBT topics seems to be accurately described. Good for you that you realize that the effect of an accurate description will be seen by many as being "critical of the group" -- let's help all the readers make up their own minds. The bottom line, however, is that because LGBT issues are a prominent part of the group's agenda, a navbox titled "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics" seems to be perfectly appropriate. It is certainly reasonable to provide readers of this article (these articles are written FOR THE READERS) an easy way to follow up on any LGBT issues that may be suggested by this article -- as well as other types of discrimination. As far as your slippery slope argument, other additions can, and should, be discussed based on the merits of the particular case. Navboxes when closed produce very little clutter, especially since they are at the very bottom of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added them and it was not to make a point at all, but to provide a focused collection of links that have a high likelihood of relevance for readers of articles such as this. The AFA (and One Million Moms/One Million Dads) are very vocal in their discriminatory views toward LGBT people, lobbying against same-sex marriage, gay adoption, education, visitation rights, etc. Further, they are notoriously listed as an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC. Whether you agree with that designation or not is not germane; the fact is that they have come into the public spotlight because of their controversial activism and lobbying. They hide behind a thin veil of pretense as defenders of marriage, family and religion, but their actions and words directed toward LGBT people are damaging.
It would be absurd to omit these two navboxes ({{LGBT |selected=rights}} and {{discrimination}}) and try to pretend that the AFA is a wholesome defender of traditional culture. They stand out out from the crown for their vile rhetoric directed toward an class of people who have no control over who they are.
With respect to AFA's stance on abortion, pornography, violence in the media, and Islam; that's a mixed bag ranging from social conservativism to outright racism. There three navboxes cover the key aspects. Perhaps there should be more, but there definitely should not be less. – MrX 16:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F511707498