Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 6 October 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MassResistance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about MassResistance. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about MassResistance at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages'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. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. 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 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1

RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?

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.

MassResistance has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism? Insomesia (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Employee arrest

I'm going to have to ask the editor who removed the entire employee arrest section to explain themselves. The edit comment was the emphatic but unclear, "not POSSIBLY relevant to the organization". It turns out that this isn't some irrelevant aside about some employee doing weird things on their own time, but rather a long-time employee arrested for activities he performed while on the clock and with the support of MassResistance. He was, according to MassResistance, shooting footage for one of their anti-gay documentaries. Our secondary sources avoid any original research on our part, as they discuss this. In short, it seems that it's entirely relevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement sourced doesn't imply relevance. It's possible that the source does, but neither the statement nor the quote from the source implies relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if there were a connection, there would need to be some indication of significance, per StAnselm's edit summary, related to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't apply. The fact that one of their employees was arrested for action committed while doing their job is obviously relevant. If you disagree, take it to WP:BLPN or some other drama page, because it's clearly not getting any traction here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the article says that (and I don't think it's adequate for inclusion), the text you added doesn't say that he was "on the clock" or his actions were part of his employment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think it's significant, but Insomesia's version seems relevant to the article. I won't comment on WP:UNDUE at this time, though. It still doesn't explain why StillStanding added material which didn't and doesn't appear relevant 3 times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Being arbitrarily negative is not helpful. The article does say that MR backed up his claim that he was filming for their documentary, hence he was on the clock (my phrase, not theirs). As for being relevant, I think it's obvious now just why it is. If it's not obvious to you, I'm not sure how I can help you understand, but I suggest that you avoid edit-warring when dealing with subjects that you can't quite wrap your mind around. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says he was filming for MR, but you didn't, so the text appeared to be WP:COATRACKing an employee's arrest to the organization. As you have frequently attributed employee actions to that of the organizations in regard other far-right organizations, I assumed you were doing the same here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you mean you were participating in this discussion without even reading the citations?! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If the text suggested wouldn't belong in the article, regardless of citations, why not? There is another concern that should be dealt with, whether WP:BLPCRIME applies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, no. At most, it suggests omitting his name. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Contested addition of templates: LGBT and discrimination

The addition of templates {{LGBT}} and {{discrimination}} is contested for this and other related articles. The discussion is occurring here: Talk:American Family Association#Navboxes – MrX 20:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hate group designation section

I have revised this section based on the last unjustified revert. There did not seem to be any attempt to revise the content, so I have done so. Comments are invited.

If a general statement is made about a set of organizations, followed by more specific (non-contradictory) statements about one of the organizations, then I think a reasonable inference can be made that both the general and the specific statements apply. – MrX 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm - we have a lot of statements here about claims that MassResistance have made. Have we checked the claims out? Do we have access to primary sources? Yes, I know we are all about verifiability rather than truth, but this is all from a single source. StAnselm (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel compelled to check primary sources rather than the reliable sources provided you can do so. It's not the job of content providers to rely on self-published sources. Insomesia (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should engage in original research to check one reliable source against another. On the other hand, if two reliable sources contradict each other, that may provide a reason to check a third source. – MrX 00:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I think the case for the addition of the generic reason is very weak - and the addition of MR's opinion (an addition which is fine in itself, in my opinion), if used to back up the generic reason merely produced original synthesis. StAnselm (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement applies generally (not generically) to all of the 18 groups. It is cited in two sources and is supported by even a basic reading of the sources, including the organizations web sites. Common sense is needed.

It was also not appropriate to tag the section with a one source tag, when there are four sources.

– MrX 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No other source cites the reason. The Sacramento Examiner article (blocked by the spam filter) says an organization called an "anti-gay hate group" by Southern Poverty Law Center, while the Bay Windows article has added Mass Resistance to its list of anti-gay hate groups. Neither of them have the reason you mentioned. And so, I count three sources, but two of them are merely backing up the text of the designation. Everything we know about MR's statements comes from a single source. StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no synthesis involved in reading the lead of the document we're citing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You are merely asserting that no synthesis is involved. There is, as yet, no consensus to include this addition, that I can see. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So am I. This tired argument has failed to gain consensus before and seems to be POV pushing. – MrX 02:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

2nd Source:

Prop 8 opponents argued throughout the campaign that no one taught Joey Wirthlin more about same-sex marriage than did his parents, who were part of the Mormon heirarchy (Grandfather, Joseph Wirthlin, headed the church for decades), members of MassResistance , an organization called an "anti-gay hate group " by Southern Poverty Law Center, and were believed to have enrolled their son at the embattled Estabrook elementary school...

I believe consensus has been reached, based on the weight of the respective arguments and the preponderance of reliable sources. – MrX 03:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

All of you need to stop with the edit war. There is no consensus at the moment, and I'm not seeing any resolution anytime soon. How about opening a new incident at DRN?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this approach is working all that well. Perhaps StAnselm and Arthur Rubin could compile a list of guidelines that they believe should apply to all gay-related articles, them we can take that list to dispute resolution, formal RfC, or whatever, and determine consensus without having to suffer this protracted death by 1000 paper cuts. I, for one, am quick approaching WP:IDONTGIVEAFUCK and will simply disconnect from this topic if the community is unable to move toward some stability in these article. – MrX 03:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My take I hadn't really paid attention to the content of the EW until now, I just noticed the series of reverts. I think we've covered this issue of the "general" characteristics of SPLC hate groups in another article already. I think it would be a poor decision to use the general reasons, especially when there are specfiic SPLC complaints against the organizations in question. Yes the SPLC is a RS. We rely on them to present "facts" that we can take at face value. However let us not forget that their "hate group" label is NOT fact, but rather opinion and it is the reason that other RS (and here at wikipedia) always attribute this label to the SPLC. Are the "general" attributes of a specfic anti-gay hate group opinion, or a fact as researched by the SPLC? I'm comfortable with SPLC reporting that if they say "Group X published a leaflet advocating the death penalty for homsexuals" I can believe it. I'm not comfortable using their editorial voice as staement of fact. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is why we should use the specific reasoning per group, and not the general.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC does not pretend to be a neutral voice, they present a POV.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you also notice the tags that were in that section? Then when that was addressed with multiple sources, another objection materialized. Two issues I see that prevent this from being fully addressed here;

1. Inordinately high standards for inclusion imposed by a few editors
2. Shifting goal posts. One argument is addressed, only to reveal another, ad infinitum.

I don't wish to repeat what I have already written on Talk:Parents Action League and I really don't want to have this specific argument again, only to resolve it and have it pop up tomorrow. I think it needs to be addressed at DRN, RSN or some other process (but probably not ANI). – MrX 04:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Template:why that was in the section? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind your "shifting goal posts" claim. As I see it, there are ongoing issues, because there is an ongoing addition of dodgy content - first calling groups anti-gay in Misplaced Pages's voice, then adding dodgy templates, then adding POV categories, etc. So it may seem like one issue is addressed only for another to be raised, but that is because you and a handful of editors keep on damaging the article. Now, I'm still convinced of your good faith - I know you don't think you're damaging it. You think you're improving it. Hence the ongoing talk page discussions. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that the Washington Times used the phrase

anti-gay "hate group"

and the point is that it is the term "hate group" that should be most avoided in Misplaced Pages's voice.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Having said that, the WT article does seem to take the "propagation of known falsehoods" to apply to all 13 groups. I can see how it does apply to MR, but I don't think it applies to American Vision or Chalcedon Foundation. I am OK with your edit as a compromise position here, but I wouldn't be comfortable with the sentence in every single article, since its relevance will vary from group to group. That is to say, it doesn't always apply. StAnselm (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative editing

The latest change by Unscintillating addresses the issue quite well, and I believe is an great example of how articles should be edited. Notice, he or she did not simply delete a chunk of content, but instead took the sourced content and presented it in a neutral fashion. Well done.

I think there needs to be much more willingness to compromise, negotiate and sometimes yield by all concerned, but especially editors who have strong biases on the SPLC, sexual orientation, politics, religion, civil rights, etc. In my opinion, content from reliable sources should not simply be removed; if it poorly presented, it should be rewritten, or if it's removal is challenged (usually for POV), then an alternative proposal should be offered by the deleting editor, and a discussion should ensue.

I acknowledge that in my attempts to expand these related articles, and to connect and organize information, I sometimes/often/always(?) introduce content that is not presented in a properly neutral way, and may unintentionally reflect my biases. When I research, I collect information from several sources, and I try to stay as close to the source as possible. Then I hope for other editors to read the content and the associated sources, and make incremental edits to improve the article. When an editor instead removes material or tag bombs an article, or a section, it communicates that there may be another motive afoot. There are editors who, via their user pages, talk page posts, or the topics they typically edit, have articulated strong political, religious, or social/cultural viewpoints. It's been my observation that the more extreme that these viewpoints are, the more likely that an editor is blind to them.

As a partial solution going forward, I humbly propose that we all take more measured steps when editing, especially when deleting. Also, tagging should be used as way to coax other editors to improve the article, not to brand it as dubious. With the exception of citation needed tags, I think most tags should have a corresponding topic started on the talk page by the tagging editor. If there is not a consensus that the tag is valid, it should be removed in a week, in my opinion. – MrX 13:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I disagree with you about when a tag should be removed. However, except in BLP cases, tagging is probably better than removing, but I think a tag should not be removed (without also removing the tagged material) unless there is a consensus that it be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How to creatively misinterpret an RFC and use it to justify edit-warring.

Here's what the closing note to the above RFC says:

No consensus on including the SPLC's general reason for such designations—propagation of known falsehoods ...; two editors object to WP:SYNTH in going from the "generally this is why the SPLC designates ..." statement in the source to the specific case here; objection has not been rebutted strongly enough to be considered a virtual consensus.

No consensus means no consensus. It doesn't mean a consensus to remove. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It means no consensus to include. Insomesia's edits here and here, and your edit here constitute Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point" . StAnselm (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what an astonishing leap of bad faith. I guess we'll have to do another RfC to stop this latest round of deletions. Insomesia (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the anti-gay hate group designation in the lead be explained at all?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Religion and philosophy Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In the lead of the article we already reveal that MassResistance has been designated an anti-gay hate group. It was decided in the last RfC that this information was notable to be included. Now there is disagreement if we should explain why this group has been designated an anti-gay hate group. Some feel this has no place in the lead while others feel this is a statement that needs explaining why exactly they were designated as such. Insomesia (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Include explanation, even if it's brief The Southern Poverty Law Center is the nation's leading authority on hate groups and their reasoning, even if generalized is better than no explanation. Insomesia (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Include explanation, as much as fits comfortably in the lead The complaints keep changing as old ones are knocked down, but the current version is that it's SYNTH. Really? Read the source and tell me that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Include explanation - To not include a brief explanation of the general reason why the SPLC lists MassRestance in the category of anti-gay hate groups defeats the purpose of the lede, and leaves readers wondering why. Note also that nothing in the previous RfC closure prevents the explanation from existing in the lede. No consensus for inclusion ≠ Consensus for no inclusion, so I will be returning the lede to its original, stable version per WP:STATUSQUO. – MrX 14:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to a diff of the version that you mean? This version lasted from the 20th September to the 30th September and did not include the text. WP:STATUSQUO is one reason not to include it at this present time. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was incorrect. I retract my statement about the status quo including the reason. – MrX 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude information, unless sourced. The statement there is not sourced in the lead or present in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Note that the "stable version" is not to have the designation in the lead. The RfC found that the designation should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, the stable version is the one that existed when the RfC closed, right before another editor popped in to remove this relevant and necessary content. – MrX 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  The stable version is the one that existed when the RfC opened, which did not have the material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  The stable version only exists without the explanation as the RfC was opened to avoid more edit-warring. Ergo there was no stable version because it was edit-warred over until this process started. Insomesia (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I fail to see the point of this RfC if its result is going to be ignored they way the previous one's result was. StAnselm (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is noted. Insomesia (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• include explanation, per stillstanding and mr x. Pass a Method talk 02:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Omit at this stage. As with the similar RfC at Talk:Chalcedon Foundation#RfC: Should the explanation of why the Chalcedon Foundation has been designated a hate group be omitted from the lead?, deciding in principle without deciding on a wording is fraught with difficulties. StAnselm (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Include explanation, per stillstanding and mr x. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Everyone should please refer to the section directly below this one for the discussion about the specific text that will be used in the lead if and when this RfC concludes that the explanation should be included in the lead. – MrX 15:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems a bit inconsistent with your approach elsewhere. Obviously, all the above comments are only for an inclusion in principle. I have a feeling we've been through all this before at Talk:Illinois Family Institute and Talk:Family Research Council. No, logically, another RfC would be necessary to determine the specific wording. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Only if you continue to engage in Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. Otherwise Mr. X has proven to be quite competent at sourcing and writing, as well as discussion language. No reason to waste the community's time in - yet another - month long dispute process. Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one posting all the RfCs. In any case, I have already spoken against the use of the generic reason. StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Propagation of known falsehoods—claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities—and repeated, groundless name-calling

There's still no source associating that reason with MassResistance. The SPLC source says that that's generally the reason for declaring a group an anti-gay hate group. The San Francisco Examiner gives no reason. Added {{failed verification}} tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly.

Generally, 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. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.

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

1. propagates of known falsehoods
2. claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities
3. repeated, groundless name-calling

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

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has designated MassResistance as an anti-gay hate group. "Generally, 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. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups."

Please feel free to substitute in this text, without the multiple 'reason not there' tags. – MrX 16:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That would clearly be undue weight, and of questionable relevance. Unlike lgr, I think a reason should be there if sourced and if it would fit in one sentence. It's your choice whether to include the unsourced reason (with appropriate tags) or just the fact of the listing, as I would prefer in the absence of an actual source.

Alternatively, we could double the length of the lead by including information from other sections of the article in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(added) "Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups" should clearly not be in the lead. It's about SPLC, with no likely reference to MassResistance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the weight is more than appropriate. I don't really care if we include the last sentence, but some form of the first is required in my opinion. The alternative I proposed in the green box more than addresses any sourcing issues. I really hope that there is not an intention to hold the lede hostage with the three tags placed there. I'm really striving for a compromise here, and I seem to be getting intransigence in return. – MrX 18:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the relevance of the proposed "explanation" is in question, as well as weight. If SPLC declares MassResistance to be an anti-gay hate group, and (even in the same source) the reason for declaring a group to be an "anti-gay hate group" is generally the specified criteria, that does not even imply that SPLC declares that MassResistance meets the criteria. To even make that implication is original research, not just synthesis. And if we're not making the implication, there's no reason for including the "reason". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple matter of good writing to attribute the statements made with due weight. There are proficient editors available to help with this if needed. Insomesia (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I think you may want to review WP:SYNTH and especially WP:SYNTHNOT. Especially "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition.

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

Once again,

1. The SPLC publishes a list a hate groups
2. At the top of the list are the general reasons for inclusion in the list
3. Misplaced Pages editors (those who have written the article and done the research) see that clearly all of the general reasons are validated by other sources and common sense interpretation fo the actual published statement and article by the MassResistance.
4. Shazam! We have the text in the green box, or the less weighty text "The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated MassResistance as an anti-gay hate group for their "propagation of known falsehoods—claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities—and repeated, groundless name-calling." " – MrX 13:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The only reason for including "Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups...." is for the reader to determine that the reason applies to this group, when it would be WP:SYNTH for us to make the statement. Juxtapostion of statements where the reader is invited to make a conclusion is still WP:SYNTH, even if we don't say it in Misplaced Pages's voice.

If a reason is to be included in the lead, as indicated by consensus, we must use a reason attributed by SPLC for this particular group. Summarizing the detailed reasons given in the SPLC reference would be acceptable; using SPLC's general reason is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

To quote another section from WP:SYNTHNOT: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." That's exactly what we would be doing if we were to include the proposed subsection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This would be a misapplication of WP:SYNTH, as we're not talking about "two or more reliably-sourced statements". It's a single article which includes a broad explanation at the top and a more specific one for each hate group. There is no synthesis is repeating the broad explanation alongside the specific one; that's how our source did it. Rather, you would first have to separate the two in order to claim they're being put together. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. As usual. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Your disagreement, without explanation, is deeply unconvincing. Your incivility doesn't help. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

<redacted what SS would consider a personal attack, even though it only describes his edits, not his intent or knowledge.> Your "reason" has few phrases which are correct, so there's nothing to explain. However, the correct approach would be to use what the article actually says about MR, rather than the "general" reason at the top of the article, which we cannot necessarily use against MR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you write something that you reasonably expect to be taken as a personal attack, don't redact it with a message, just omit it. It was never posted, so there's no reason to comment on it. Leaving a "<here's where I would have said you have a small penis so you should be glad I'm redacting myself>" message amounts to a personal attack on its own; it's transparently disingenuous.

The correct approach is to stick close to our sources. Our source for the hate group listing offers a general explanation that we are free to use, so long as we make it clear that it's general. No synthesis involved; we just quote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I think it would be best for us to acknowledge that this comes down to an interpretation of what constitutes unacceptable synthesis, and we have failed to convince each other of our respective interpretations. Ultimately, this will be decided by (local) consensus. I hope that you would agree that there is no strict policy that could possibly be applied here. – MrX 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Robocalls

A section on Robocalls was added. This doesn't appear to be a MR activity, but an activity of "Jews and Christians Together". MR says that JCT "asked Brian Camenker of MassResistance to be a part of it." They also say that "Millions of emails and robo-calls with MassResistance's information went to voters in key states leading up to Super Tuesday" - which falls far short of organizing the thing. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment