![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I have reverted this edit, which implies that it is not a fact that the FRC has promoted false and discredited claims about LGBT people and opposed their equal rights. This article extensively discusses the group's false and discredited claims that gay and lesbian people are a danger to children, that allowing gay and lesbian people in the military would promote molestation, and that gay and lesbian people have "negative psychological and health effects." These are factually untrue and no reliable source currently cited states otherwise; ergo, that the FRC has made such false and discredited claims is not merely a claim, but an undisputed statement of fact. Similarly, it is an undisputed fact that the FRC opposes equal rights for LGBT people - they proudly and loudly state as such. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Central to the lobbying campaign to ban transgender people in the military has been the Family Research Council (FRC), one of the largest and most influential anti-LGBT groups in the U.S., and which describes itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power.” For decades, the group has smeared homosexuals in its publications, insinuating that gay people are more likely to sexually abuse children.EdChem ( talk) 01:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is more to FRC than its position on homosexuality. That one issue permeates the entire article and is in danger of eclipsing the rest of it. Other parts of the article need expansion.
- Southern Poverty Law Center isn't God. It is an organization that promotes a particular point of view, just as FRC is. SPLC's views are closer to the views of most Wikipedia editors than FRC's are, and it's easy to tell that from the article. SPLC's opinion about FRC has a place in this article, but it doesn't need to be in the lede and it doesn't need to be all over the place in the rest of the piece. If SPLC's opinion of FRC is going to be in the lede, the opinions of those who spoke out against its hate designation of FRC belong there as well.
- Lines like "the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior" and references to "widely criticized" views or "widely-rejected" claims are not encyclopedic. It's enough to state the facts about what FRC has said and what others have said.
In closing, I want to make clear that while I agree with FRC about many things, I find several of the statements it has made on the topic of homosexuality to be unfortunate. However, it is also unfortunate that editors sometimes use Wikipedia articles as a vehicle to express our displeasure with people or groups with whom we disagree. It's an encyclopedia. It's supposed to communicate facts. Let's all remember that. If one of us wants to write something about how much we disagree with someone, that person can write an op-ed and publish it somewhere. I have very little confidence that we will be able to reach consensus given the obvious ideological slant being pushed, but I wanted to draw attention to the problem. SunCrow ( talk) 18:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Lines like "the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior" and references to "widely criticized" views or "widely-rejected" claims are not encyclopedic. It's enough to state the facts about what FRC has said and what others have said.To the contrary, it's entirely encyclopedic. Please read WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, along with WP:MEDRS. We are required to put fringe theories, such as the FRC's repeated claims that gay and lesbian people are a danger to children, in context of the undisputed mainstream viewpoints which reject those claims. We are obligated by policy and guidelines to
include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. This article is not a platform for repeating the FRC's claims, unchallenged. It is a platform to present the organization and its viewpoints in context of how reliable sources view it. Mainstream reliable sources in the context of its claims about homosexuality being unnatural and posing a threat to children unanimously dismiss and reject its viewpoints. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 18:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behaviorif the support for it was strengthened to including a list of mainstream organisation (in a single reference) and their statements on the subject? To me, this would demonstrate that it is the consensus view. EdChem ( talk) 22:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the current version of the FRC website [1] it appears that FRC is now using biblical arguments to support their position on traditional marriage. Not surprising since social conservatives have switched to using Free Exercise arguments (i.e. First Amendment)in the campaign for traditional values. In regards to this article we should remove content based on abandoned policies and not use archived research papers which no longer represent the current policy of FRC. This means that their position no longer falls under WP:PSCI--it falls under WP:RNPOV. Obviously this significantly reduces the need to refute any fringe theories since the opposition to homosexuality is bible based. Thus this discussion in large part is now moot. – Lionel( talk) 08:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn.is not a "biblical argument". Claiming that something has "negative physical and psychological health effects" is literally a medical claim. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 10:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
"Family Research Council's vision is a culture in which all human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives." (italics mine)
"Family Research Council's mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview."(italics mine)
In the above threads, editors have suggested that FRC in now using biblical arguments to support their position on same sex marriage. That's interesting given their apparent disinterest in calling out allegeded infidelity involving porn star Stormy Daniels and a certain leader of the free world. This may be worth mentioning somewhere in the article. Sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] - Mr X 🖋 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
"Family Research Council President Tony Perkins recently told Politico that evangelicals were willing to give Trump a “do-over.”
“We kind of gave him — ‘All right, you get a mulligan. You get a do-over here,’ ” Perkins said in an interview for the latest episode of Politico's Off Message podcast."
— The Washington Post
After some reflection, I have decided to propose changes that I believe would strengthen the article and restore NPOV to it. They are:
Thoughts? SunCrow ( talk) 04:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
It also makes it clear that whether or not homosexuality (or anything else) is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior is not a matter of science, but of opinion.No. It's a matter of psychological science. The FRC can, of course, present an opinion that is in conflict with the consensus of psychological science; we just have to make clear that it is. I'm unsure why you believe that we can ignore WP:MEDRS in an article about a group which purports to present research that it believes demonstrates that homosexuality is not a normal, healthy variation of human behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link), which was a report prepared by the US IoM (now the
National Academy of Medicine) at the request of US
National Institutes of Health.
Received a ping. Tend not to get involved with US politics. But with respect to whether or not being gay / homosexual is "normal", yes that is a biological / psychological question. And the answer to the question is yes it is biologically and psychologically "normal" per the sources provided. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Mention in the lede that FRC and prominent elected officials strongly opposed the SPLC's "hate" designation.The purpose of the lede is to summarise the article and to provide readers who only look at it with the most important information about the FRC. On the latter basis, I can't see why it would be included – that a group designated as a hate group opposed the designation is obvious, and that a religious group would have defenders from the Christian Right of US politics is equally unsurprising. However, references like the present 91 to 94 probably should be added to the lede after "which generated some controversy." On the former basis, as something that is part of a section of the article, it's inclusion in a summary is debatable. If the lede were expanded to the four paragraph length of a typical GA / FA, there would be much more space for its inclusion and less basis for an editorial choice to exclude it. Having said that, your comments suggest the existence of uncovered positive contributions from the FRC, and adding them to the article would logically lead to likely needing to summarise them in the lede.
Create a new subsection under "Controversies and criticism" for criticism of the organization's views on homosexuality. Move the criticisms there.No. Definitely Not. Absolutely Not. Just No. Policy and Practice discourages criticism sections, and separating the FRC's views on homosexuality from the criticism of it would be incredibly inappropriate. When an organisation spouts prejudice and makes medical claims that are blatantly untrue, those facts should be immediately noted and a refutation provided. As for
why not get rid of the existing section altogether and move the information to other parts of the article?– that's a reasonable question and I would favour investigating this option. Criticism belongs integrated with the body of the text, and ending up with controversy like Duggar separated but the rest integrated would be an improvement, in my view.
Rather than using terms like "widely criticized" and "widely-rejected"--which seem to me to be POV, vague, and perhaps even original research--set forth who it is that the cited source says has criticized and rejected the FRC's claims.Remember that if reliable sources use those terms, it is neither POV nor OR. Further, listing every person and organisation that has criticised the FRC might be over-weighting the criticisms. Saying a group has been widely criticised when there is one tweet posted by a non-notable person would be POV (and false), but widely criticised can be appropriate when it is accurate.
Work on expanding the "History" section.Sounds perfectly reasonable so long as it is based on reliable sources, is not UNDUE, and written in an NPOV manner.
SunCrow has marked the following sentence as neutrality disputed.
It opposes and lobbies against equal rights for LGBT people[neutrality is disputed] (such as same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography.
In what way is this sentence not a neutral representation of the sources?- Mr X 🖋 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
"The SPLC’s decision to categorize the Family Research Council as a hate group, while subjective, nevertheless relies on FRC’s record of purveying stereotypes, prejudice, and junk science as a justification for public policy that would deny gays and lesbians equal rights and criminalize their conduct."
— Jones
"Kenneth Connors, a Florida attorney and leader in the pro-life movement, served as president from 2000 to 2003. During his tenure, the FRC’s agenda focused on abortion, traditional marriage (i.e. one man, one woman), religious liberty, parental choice in education and tax relief for families, though a central part of its mission is still working against equal rights legislation for LGBT Americans."
— SPLC
"The Family Research Council opposes and actively lobbies against equal rights for LGBT persons"
— The Independent
The organization is the victim of a high-profile domestic terror attack, the incident is featured heavily in the body, yet it's nowhere to be found in the lede? That's nonsensical, and perhaps guilty of whitewashing. This is certainly
WP:DUE.
ModerateMike729 (
talk)
15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I was told to explain myself as to why I made my recent edits to the FRC article's lead section. Without further ado, I shall state my reasons why. Firstly, I corrected several long-standing errors in the article's text and improved its wording, such as adding "the" before the "Family Research Council (FRC)" segment in the lead and the subsequent acronyms, removing unneccessary parentheses from the LGBT rights sentence, and clarifying that LGBT adoption refers to adoption of children, among other things. Secondly, I referred to the FRC's policies as fundamentalist Christian because the reliable sources I've cited do indeed describe the organization and its policies as fundamentalist Protestant, and its publicly expressed stances match with the priorities of Christian fundamentalists. Thirdly, I described their beliefs and canards as pseudoscientific because reliable sources overwhelmingly describe its "research" as junk science, or outright misrepresentation of legitimate scientific material, in addition to them repeatedly using unfounded accussations that LGBT people are "more likely to molest children", et al. 78.99.168.120 ( talk) 00:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified FRC as an anti-gay hate group due to what it says are the group's "false claims...to
n 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group due to the FRC's persistent promotion of pseudoscientific beliefs and canards with the intention of denigrating the LGBT community...with refs
78.99.168.120 ( talk) 15:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
References
The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems....failed verification
... the web sites of the "Southern Poverty Law Center" [...] and the Anti-Defamation League [...] are authoritative sources for identifying domestic extremists and hate groups.
politico
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).While the fabled nonprofit has long had its critics, many of them hatemongers like Gaffney, the new chorus included sympathetic observers and fellow researchers on hate groups, who worried that SPLC was mixing its research and activist strains.
A recent edit suggesting removing the shooting from the lede with the justification "not needed in lede - doesn't pass the 20-year test." I believe this is incorrect, as the conservative press in America has not forgotten, and continues to bring it up in just about every discussion of the SPLC. A few examples, which I do not propose adding to the article and do not assert are either RS or NPOV sources, include: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. If anything, the FRC's influence on policy or legislation has been seemingly permanently overshadowed by what appears to be the only well-documented hate crime by the left against a right-wing American organization. FWIW, all of these stories, commentaries, press releases, etc. date from after Corkins' 2013 conviction and sentencing for the crime. Jclemens ( talk) 15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I have reverted this edit, which implies that it is not a fact that the FRC has promoted false and discredited claims about LGBT people and opposed their equal rights. This article extensively discusses the group's false and discredited claims that gay and lesbian people are a danger to children, that allowing gay and lesbian people in the military would promote molestation, and that gay and lesbian people have "negative psychological and health effects." These are factually untrue and no reliable source currently cited states otherwise; ergo, that the FRC has made such false and discredited claims is not merely a claim, but an undisputed statement of fact. Similarly, it is an undisputed fact that the FRC opposes equal rights for LGBT people - they proudly and loudly state as such. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Central to the lobbying campaign to ban transgender people in the military has been the Family Research Council (FRC), one of the largest and most influential anti-LGBT groups in the U.S., and which describes itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power.” For decades, the group has smeared homosexuals in its publications, insinuating that gay people are more likely to sexually abuse children.EdChem ( talk) 01:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is more to FRC than its position on homosexuality. That one issue permeates the entire article and is in danger of eclipsing the rest of it. Other parts of the article need expansion.
- Southern Poverty Law Center isn't God. It is an organization that promotes a particular point of view, just as FRC is. SPLC's views are closer to the views of most Wikipedia editors than FRC's are, and it's easy to tell that from the article. SPLC's opinion about FRC has a place in this article, but it doesn't need to be in the lede and it doesn't need to be all over the place in the rest of the piece. If SPLC's opinion of FRC is going to be in the lede, the opinions of those who spoke out against its hate designation of FRC belong there as well.
- Lines like "the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior" and references to "widely criticized" views or "widely-rejected" claims are not encyclopedic. It's enough to state the facts about what FRC has said and what others have said.
In closing, I want to make clear that while I agree with FRC about many things, I find several of the statements it has made on the topic of homosexuality to be unfortunate. However, it is also unfortunate that editors sometimes use Wikipedia articles as a vehicle to express our displeasure with people or groups with whom we disagree. It's an encyclopedia. It's supposed to communicate facts. Let's all remember that. If one of us wants to write something about how much we disagree with someone, that person can write an op-ed and publish it somewhere. I have very little confidence that we will be able to reach consensus given the obvious ideological slant being pushed, but I wanted to draw attention to the problem. SunCrow ( talk) 18:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Lines like "the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior" and references to "widely criticized" views or "widely-rejected" claims are not encyclopedic. It's enough to state the facts about what FRC has said and what others have said.To the contrary, it's entirely encyclopedic. Please read WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, along with WP:MEDRS. We are required to put fringe theories, such as the FRC's repeated claims that gay and lesbian people are a danger to children, in context of the undisputed mainstream viewpoints which reject those claims. We are obligated by policy and guidelines to
include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. This article is not a platform for repeating the FRC's claims, unchallenged. It is a platform to present the organization and its viewpoints in context of how reliable sources view it. Mainstream reliable sources in the context of its claims about homosexuality being unnatural and posing a threat to children unanimously dismiss and reject its viewpoints. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 18:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behaviorif the support for it was strengthened to including a list of mainstream organisation (in a single reference) and their statements on the subject? To me, this would demonstrate that it is the consensus view. EdChem ( talk) 22:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the current version of the FRC website [1] it appears that FRC is now using biblical arguments to support their position on traditional marriage. Not surprising since social conservatives have switched to using Free Exercise arguments (i.e. First Amendment)in the campaign for traditional values. In regards to this article we should remove content based on abandoned policies and not use archived research papers which no longer represent the current policy of FRC. This means that their position no longer falls under WP:PSCI--it falls under WP:RNPOV. Obviously this significantly reduces the need to refute any fringe theories since the opposition to homosexuality is bible based. Thus this discussion in large part is now moot. – Lionel( talk) 08:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn.is not a "biblical argument". Claiming that something has "negative physical and psychological health effects" is literally a medical claim. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 10:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
"Family Research Council's vision is a culture in which all human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives." (italics mine)
"Family Research Council's mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview."(italics mine)
In the above threads, editors have suggested that FRC in now using biblical arguments to support their position on same sex marriage. That's interesting given their apparent disinterest in calling out allegeded infidelity involving porn star Stormy Daniels and a certain leader of the free world. This may be worth mentioning somewhere in the article. Sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] - Mr X 🖋 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
"Family Research Council President Tony Perkins recently told Politico that evangelicals were willing to give Trump a “do-over.”
“We kind of gave him — ‘All right, you get a mulligan. You get a do-over here,’ ” Perkins said in an interview for the latest episode of Politico's Off Message podcast."
— The Washington Post
After some reflection, I have decided to propose changes that I believe would strengthen the article and restore NPOV to it. They are:
Thoughts? SunCrow ( talk) 04:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
It also makes it clear that whether or not homosexuality (or anything else) is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior is not a matter of science, but of opinion.No. It's a matter of psychological science. The FRC can, of course, present an opinion that is in conflict with the consensus of psychological science; we just have to make clear that it is. I'm unsure why you believe that we can ignore WP:MEDRS in an article about a group which purports to present research that it believes demonstrates that homosexuality is not a normal, healthy variation of human behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link), which was a report prepared by the US IoM (now the
National Academy of Medicine) at the request of US
National Institutes of Health.
Received a ping. Tend not to get involved with US politics. But with respect to whether or not being gay / homosexual is "normal", yes that is a biological / psychological question. And the answer to the question is yes it is biologically and psychologically "normal" per the sources provided. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Mention in the lede that FRC and prominent elected officials strongly opposed the SPLC's "hate" designation.The purpose of the lede is to summarise the article and to provide readers who only look at it with the most important information about the FRC. On the latter basis, I can't see why it would be included – that a group designated as a hate group opposed the designation is obvious, and that a religious group would have defenders from the Christian Right of US politics is equally unsurprising. However, references like the present 91 to 94 probably should be added to the lede after "which generated some controversy." On the former basis, as something that is part of a section of the article, it's inclusion in a summary is debatable. If the lede were expanded to the four paragraph length of a typical GA / FA, there would be much more space for its inclusion and less basis for an editorial choice to exclude it. Having said that, your comments suggest the existence of uncovered positive contributions from the FRC, and adding them to the article would logically lead to likely needing to summarise them in the lede.
Create a new subsection under "Controversies and criticism" for criticism of the organization's views on homosexuality. Move the criticisms there.No. Definitely Not. Absolutely Not. Just No. Policy and Practice discourages criticism sections, and separating the FRC's views on homosexuality from the criticism of it would be incredibly inappropriate. When an organisation spouts prejudice and makes medical claims that are blatantly untrue, those facts should be immediately noted and a refutation provided. As for
why not get rid of the existing section altogether and move the information to other parts of the article?– that's a reasonable question and I would favour investigating this option. Criticism belongs integrated with the body of the text, and ending up with controversy like Duggar separated but the rest integrated would be an improvement, in my view.
Rather than using terms like "widely criticized" and "widely-rejected"--which seem to me to be POV, vague, and perhaps even original research--set forth who it is that the cited source says has criticized and rejected the FRC's claims.Remember that if reliable sources use those terms, it is neither POV nor OR. Further, listing every person and organisation that has criticised the FRC might be over-weighting the criticisms. Saying a group has been widely criticised when there is one tweet posted by a non-notable person would be POV (and false), but widely criticised can be appropriate when it is accurate.
Work on expanding the "History" section.Sounds perfectly reasonable so long as it is based on reliable sources, is not UNDUE, and written in an NPOV manner.
SunCrow has marked the following sentence as neutrality disputed.
It opposes and lobbies against equal rights for LGBT people[neutrality is disputed] (such as same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography.
In what way is this sentence not a neutral representation of the sources?- Mr X 🖋 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
"The SPLC’s decision to categorize the Family Research Council as a hate group, while subjective, nevertheless relies on FRC’s record of purveying stereotypes, prejudice, and junk science as a justification for public policy that would deny gays and lesbians equal rights and criminalize their conduct."
— Jones
"Kenneth Connors, a Florida attorney and leader in the pro-life movement, served as president from 2000 to 2003. During his tenure, the FRC’s agenda focused on abortion, traditional marriage (i.e. one man, one woman), religious liberty, parental choice in education and tax relief for families, though a central part of its mission is still working against equal rights legislation for LGBT Americans."
— SPLC
"The Family Research Council opposes and actively lobbies against equal rights for LGBT persons"
— The Independent
The organization is the victim of a high-profile domestic terror attack, the incident is featured heavily in the body, yet it's nowhere to be found in the lede? That's nonsensical, and perhaps guilty of whitewashing. This is certainly
WP:DUE.
ModerateMike729 (
talk)
15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I was told to explain myself as to why I made my recent edits to the FRC article's lead section. Without further ado, I shall state my reasons why. Firstly, I corrected several long-standing errors in the article's text and improved its wording, such as adding "the" before the "Family Research Council (FRC)" segment in the lead and the subsequent acronyms, removing unneccessary parentheses from the LGBT rights sentence, and clarifying that LGBT adoption refers to adoption of children, among other things. Secondly, I referred to the FRC's policies as fundamentalist Christian because the reliable sources I've cited do indeed describe the organization and its policies as fundamentalist Protestant, and its publicly expressed stances match with the priorities of Christian fundamentalists. Thirdly, I described their beliefs and canards as pseudoscientific because reliable sources overwhelmingly describe its "research" as junk science, or outright misrepresentation of legitimate scientific material, in addition to them repeatedly using unfounded accussations that LGBT people are "more likely to molest children", et al. 78.99.168.120 ( talk) 00:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified FRC as an anti-gay hate group due to what it says are the group's "false claims...to
n 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group due to the FRC's persistent promotion of pseudoscientific beliefs and canards with the intention of denigrating the LGBT community...with refs
78.99.168.120 ( talk) 15:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
References
The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems....failed verification
... the web sites of the "Southern Poverty Law Center" [...] and the Anti-Defamation League [...] are authoritative sources for identifying domestic extremists and hate groups.
politico
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).While the fabled nonprofit has long had its critics, many of them hatemongers like Gaffney, the new chorus included sympathetic observers and fellow researchers on hate groups, who worried that SPLC was mixing its research and activist strains.
A recent edit suggesting removing the shooting from the lede with the justification "not needed in lede - doesn't pass the 20-year test." I believe this is incorrect, as the conservative press in America has not forgotten, and continues to bring it up in just about every discussion of the SPLC. A few examples, which I do not propose adding to the article and do not assert are either RS or NPOV sources, include: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. If anything, the FRC's influence on policy or legislation has been seemingly permanently overshadowed by what appears to be the only well-documented hate crime by the left against a right-wing American organization. FWIW, all of these stories, commentaries, press releases, etc. date from after Corkins' 2013 conviction and sentencing for the crime. Jclemens ( talk) 15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)