| Revision as of 20:15, 16 August 2012 editInsomesia (talk | contribs)3,057 edits →RfC: let's try to ask a neutral question here← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:28, 31 January 2024 edit undoAlwaysgonnaedit (talk | contribs)30 editsm fixed minor typo |
| (341 intermediate revisions by 82 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=low|MS=yes|MS-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|auto=Inherit|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pornography|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|auto=Inherit|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pornography|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|MS=yes|MS-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Abortion}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchive}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchive}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|counter = 8 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 20: |
Line 23: |
|
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|
== Edit suggestions == |
|
|
|
] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. |
|
|
|
|
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". 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. ] (]) 05:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::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. ] (]) 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::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? ] (]) 14:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
===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: The hate speech designation was what catalyzed the action by San Francisco City Council. The friction There are many more references I can bring if necessary. ] (]) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
: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. ] (]) 20:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::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. ] (]) 20:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Here's an interesting article from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/politics/04family.html?pagewanted=all ] (]) |
|
|
:::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. ] (]) 22:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::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. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::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." ] (]) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I didn't know Home Depot was doing that stuff.– ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Besides conflating the designation and Cyber Patrol are there any other arguments that the "hate speech" designation is not UNDUE?– ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::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. - ] (]) 04:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 02:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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. ] (]) 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::A lot of the article's content does come from this article on Right Wing Watch. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-family-association ] (]) 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 14:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
== Paleoconservative how? == |
|
:::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.– ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::See ]: "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. ] (]) 05:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::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. ] (]) 05:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::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. ] (]) 06:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Please stop following me around Misplaced Pages as you did here: . Thanks. ] (]) 09:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::As far as the SPLC, I've been very agreeable to their inclusion in the article. It's the UNDUE aspects that I question. ] (]) 10:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::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. ] (]) 12:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how I might best tackle A right here with this article. ] (]) 13:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They just seem like an especially hard-line American Christian right group not particularly invested in foreign policy, immigration or trade. It doesn't seem like AFA has said anything critical of neoconservatives, their leadership probably supported Bush when he was president. I do not see how they would be classified as paleoconservative. What is the rationale? ] (]) 00:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
== Facebook page == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Christian fundamentalist or Protestant fundamentalist? == |
|
This isn't a real big issue, but I deleted the sentence "Following a flood of pro-equality comments on the One Million Moms ] page, the OMM deleted their Facebook page, telling members that they would be offline to focus on vacation Bible school." ] 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." ]] (]) 03:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:The Advocate is not the only source to have noted the context; , ; 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. --] (]) 03:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::You realise both of those are blogs, right? ]] (]) 04:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"Blog" does not make something illegitimate, in Misplaced Pages term (plenty of things are sourced to news services). "Self-published" does. Neither is a self-published blog. --] (]) 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: FWIW, ] is a legitimate news magazine published in print as well as online. It's not a mere "blog." ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::''The Advocate'' is a reliable source, usable with attribution per ]. ] (]) 00:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I cannot imagine how either link could possibly pass ], but we could take it to ] if you like. ]] (]) 09:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::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. --] (]) 14:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: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... ] (]) 06:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:That being said I found some sources: by ], by GayStar News on them deleting a Facebook comment about the Green Lantern that mentions previous times they left Facebook, and by the New Civil Rights Movement, and another by ] magazine. Unfortunately I haven't seen any mentions in any mainstream news sources. ] (]) 05:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The lead of this article calls them a "Protestant fundamentalist" group, but the ideology they push isn't specific to Protestantism. ] (]) 23:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
== RfC == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== SPLC == |
|
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=06754D1}} |
|
|
Should the article ] include mention in the lead that it has been designated a hate group by the ], or should this be mentioned only in the body? ]-] 21:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realized I've now twice reverted removal from the lead of the SPLC designation of AFA as a hate group. {{yo|Sebastienostertag}} can you explain further why you think it should be removed? Anyone else care to weigh in? ] (] / ]) 03:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
*'''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. ] (]) 21:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: The section Criticisms and Controversy already explains the SPlC designation in detail. Having it in the introduction makes it seem that the SPLC though is a credible organization. Theyve put Christian Jewish and Muslim groups in the same category as the KKK and Neo Nazis. They have been sued many times for defamation. ] (]) 03:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
**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.”"'' ]-] 22:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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. ] (]) 22:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
: Citing the SPLC as credible is like citing Donald Trump on the Central Park 5 ] (]) 03:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The independent, secondary sources that cite the SPLC do seem to view it as a credible organization. Unless that changes, I think it's reasonable for us to so as well. I disagree with your characterization of the SPLC's actions, and your analogy to DT, but I doubt it would be productive to debate those matters here. ] (] / ]) 03:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
*'''Comment''' I'd like to hear more detailed arguments from ] 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? ] (]) 22:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::: Their designation of the Family Research Council as a hate group, which they aren't, led to an individual going and shooting the security guard. They have been sued and are still being sued. Having them in the introduction makes it seem as though they are unbiased. ] (]) 03:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
::The policies are ] and ], 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. ]-] 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::: Having been sued is not a factor here, and neither is the FRC attack. I don't think that placement in the intro makes them seem unbiased, and we've attributed their view specifically because SPLC is a biased source. ] (] / ]) 03:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::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 ] 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. ] (]) 23:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::: Then I'll add a counter paragraph after that then. ] (]) 03:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::That's your opinion. ]-] 00:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::: Please make sure to cite reliable sources that are on-topic for this article. Also, please ] your talk page posts. ] (] / ]) 03:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::::No, my opinion is not printable. Here are the facts: the SPLC announcement received wide coverage, and their assessment entered the public discourse. ] (]) 00:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::{{yo| Sebastienostertag}} you added unsourced content to the article. Please self-revert. ] (] / ]) 04:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::::* (March 14, 2006) ''Consumer Affairs'' |
|
|
|
::::::::@] in any case, the editor is topic banned and should not be posting here. ] ] 18:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::::* (JUne 8, 2011) ''Houston Chronicle'' |
|
|
|
::::::::: The SPLC is a notable and respected organization and the SPLC’s designation of the AFA as a hate group is also notable. A mention in the lead is not undue.-] (]) 09:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::::* (November 30, 2010) ''On Top'' magazine |
|
|
|
::::If the fact that the SPLC labelled the AFA as a hate group constitutes stochastic terrorism, as a terrorist attacked the AFA's headquarters afterwards, don't you think that the moral outrage against LGBT people sparked by organisations as AFA also constitutes stochastic terrorism, due to ]? |
|
:::::* (August 4, 2011) ''Religion Dispatches'' magazine |
|
|
|
::::If you want to opine on this article that the SPLC is responsible for the attack against the AFA for this attack because they said the AFA was a hate group, then we would have to revise all US anti-LGBT groups' wiki articles to add all the anti-LGBT acts of violence and terrorism in the US that had ties with these groups. |
|
:::::* (November 30, 2010) ''Omaha World Herald'' |
|
|
|
::::Also note that we need ], and to maintain ] and ] on this article, to report on this, if you wish to further this endeavour. ] (]) 12:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::* (August 27, 2010) ''Des Moines Register'' |
|
|
:::::* (March 9, 2012) ''Dallas Voice'' |
|
|
:::::* (December 6, 2010) ''Daily Caller'' |
|
|
:::::* (November 23, 2010) ''Falls Church News-Press'' |
|
|
:::::* (October 5, 2011) "The Caucus" on ''New York Times'' |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' All political groups get disagreements from other political groups. To be balanced, the SPLC article should contain more criticism. ] (]) 00:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*: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 Misplaced Pages. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Per nom and reasons given in my subsequent comments. ]-] 00:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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 Misplaced Pages's '''Mo'''du'''S''' 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. ] (]) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:''" “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”"'' Nope, nothing political about that, is there? ]-] 01:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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. ] (]) 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''More sources and past discussion''': Interested editors should check out earlier discussion on this point, especially the RfC and the 21 sources at ]. 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. ] (]) 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:*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. ]-] 01:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::*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 . Per ], if the event was important and it is described in the article body, it should be summarized in the lead. ] (]) 01:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::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. ]-] 02:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::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? –] (] ⋅ ]) 03:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep''' in lead, of course. That has not become less notable or significant. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Exclude''' from lede: too much weight is being given to the opinion of one organization. These designations are controversal and contentious. And it is difficult to properly address the dispute in the lede. – Sir ], ]<sup>(])</sup> 07:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Keep'' in the lead. It is a defining characteristic of this organization, so giving it second billing would be a huge ] violation. ] (]) 08:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Include/Keep''' per TFD --] (]) 11:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
They just seem like an especially hard-line American Christian right group not particularly invested in foreign policy, immigration or trade. It doesn't seem like AFA has said anything critical of neoconservatives, their leadership probably supported Bush when he was president. I do not see how they would be classified as paleoconservative. What is the rationale? J390 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Pornproject_logo.svg){kind=link}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Disclogo1.svg){kind=link}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WPAbortion-logo.svg){kind=link}
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yurkot.