Talk:Family Research Council

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Opinion about the shooting[edit]

I have reverted a bold addition to the article lede by Jclemens. It's unnecessary detail in the lede, undue weight, and unbalanced. That the FRC blames the SPLC for the attack is not sufficiently relevant to include in the article lede, because it doesn't appear to be a widely-held view, and approaches WP:MANDY territory. Furthermore, if we were to include it in the lede, we would be required by NPOV to include other significant viewpoints that often reject the FRC's view. All of this would put far too much emphasis on the event in the lede; therefore, I don't think the change is an improvement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I didn't add it, I refined it. It was added a month ago by Viktory02, deleted by TrangaBellam, readded by me, removed by you, and readded by me rephrased to more closely align with what the cited sources actually say. Your opinion that it doesn't belong in the lead is nice, but your suggestion that only a widely held view should appear there is irrelevant and precisely what I reworded it to clarify: The FRC and at least one staffer blame the SPLC. Did you look at the date on the second reference? Oh, yes: did you closely examine the attached references at all? They both support the statement that you took out, not the preceding sentence. If USA Today thinks the opinion is worth reprinting seven years after the fact, then yeah, it's got enduring coverage and... belongs exactly right where I'm restoring it. Jclemens (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't start a new section for the same topic; the above section from May of this year involves the same issue. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You added it back, which means you took responsibility for it, and now it's your edit too. An opinion column written by a staff member of the organization is not an independent source of notability. I disagree that it belongs in the lede and you need to gain consensus for your proposed addition per WP:BRD. The burden is on you to justify inclusion.
Iff there's a consensus that it should be included, it will need to be balanced by opposing opinions which reject the FRC's attempt to assign blame - you can't include only one POV here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the collegial thing to do when you realize that you spoke in error is to say, "Ah, thanks for the correction" regardless of whether you really intended to say things that way or not. You've instead doubled down and moved the goalposts. That's readily construed as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, which I hope is not what you wanted to do. If it was your intention to do so, by all means feel free to change nothing, but I would welcome a revision acknowledging that your initial characterization was inaccurate.
Second, WP:NNC, so your reference to notability of specific content is evidence of non-policy-based rationale for deletion, or, at best, a non-sequiuter. I think what you're looking for is WP:WHYCITE, which supports the phrasing and inclusion of the sources.
Third, this remains a key feature of the FRC's memory. While references to Duggar and FRC political initiatives dominate the Google News current coverage of the FRC, we have this gem from TWO DAYS AGO: [1] Quoting from the last paragraph: "In August 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins II shot a security guard at the Washington headquarters of the conservative Family Research Council. Corkins said he was influenced by the SPLC’s designation of the Family Research Council as a “hate group.” A federal judge sentenced Corkins to 25 years in prison."
To summarize, we have a 2019 USA Today opinion piece--and not just anyone gets to write one of those--primarily about the attack, and a 2 day old Washington Times (conservative media, but among the biggest of it) article using the attack as context for FRC challenging SCOTUS to revise its 'actual malice' standard for defamation. Your options, should you believe that this is UNDUE, would include finding and including competing opinions, which you are welcome to do. Per WP:YESPOV, including multiple competing opinions is not just valid, but expected. Suppressing opinions because a contrary opinion is not present, especially one as well cited as this, is not. Hence, I am reinserting it as is for now, with the ball back in your court to find and include a competing opinion, rather than simply removing cited opinions because you don't agree with their inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have consensus for inclusion of this material, full stop, and it's your responsibility to gain consensus for a contested addition. Your bald declaration that "removal is against policy" is meaningless. The ball is in your court to open an RFC to gain broader opinions about the proposed inclusion, now that your bold addition has been reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN applies, since you have yet to offer a policy-based rationale for non-inclusion, while I have supported the inclusion with current citations. I've suggested next steps, but no editor needs another's permission to include appropriately cited content. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong policy quote, bud - BURDEN refers to whether or not something is verifiable. Scroll down some more and you'll find that the WP:ONUS for inclusion of any material lies with the person who proposes its inclusion. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You want it included, you'll need consensus. I've explained repeatedly why I believe it doesn't belong in the lede, and you don't get to unilaterally declare that my reason isn't supported by policy. Time for a third opinion and/or an RFC, if you want to go down that track. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and linked the SPLC's own reaction to it, although WP:MANDY suggests that may be superfluous. Again, feel free to improve the content or provide an actual policy-based reason it should be excluded from the lede.
A third opinion might be useful if our arguments were on equal footing. You've repeatedly removed cited content without any policy basis to do so. Simply saying "I dispute that!" isn't a policy-based dispute. There's no question about the truth of anything included, is there? Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter - not every true fact has to be included in any given point in the encyclopedia. We discuss the charge and countercharge in the body, where it is due; it is undue to go into detail in the article lede. Once again, you may not simply unilaterally declare that something has to be included somewhere. That's not how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think the right thing to do is rearrange both the lead summary and the body coverage of the attack. Given that (per below) we have WaPo confirming that Corkins explicitly stated he used "Southern Poverty Law" to find the target for his shooting, that, not Perkins et. al.'s reactions, should be in the lead. The reactions and their associated citations, should be moved down into the body, where... the sourcing could use work and the topic some good reorganization. I think the body suffers from having been written at or near the time of the event, rather than with a 9+ year retrospective. Any disagreements with that way forward, NorthBySouthBaranof? Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, you're presenting the inclusion of any of this as a fait accompli when it is no such thing - I do not believe opinions about the shooting belong in the lede, and you have no consensus for including any such material in the lede. That you do not believe my objections have a "policy basis" is neither here nor there - you are not a neutral arbiter of what is or is not based in policy, and what is explicit in policy is that you must have a consensus to include disputed material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it continues to be referenced by multiple reliable sources ever since means that WP:DUE requires its inclusion, so yes, it's required by Wikipedia policy and so the conversation can only legitimately be how not whether to cover it, but that's not what it typically meant by fait accompli. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requires its inclusion in the article? Sure, I would agree to that. Inclusion in the lede? No, I disagree, and your interpretation of policy holds no more weight than mine. As I have repeatedly stated, your next step is to open an RFC and gain broader input from the community. If there is a consensus that the FRC's opinion about the shooting belongs in the lede, then I shall yield my position to that consensus in accordance with policy and practice. But the onus is on you to establish that consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is definitely WP:UNDUE for the lead. Only a handful of sources cover that aspect, most of them only in passing, and none of them treat it as a major aspect of the Family Research Council's history. There's room to hash out exactly how it is covered in the body, but suggesting it could be seriously considered for the lead strikes me as very implausible; one or two sources indicating that a particular opinion exists does not make it remotely leadworthy on their own. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK on that aspect (especially given that opinions here seem lopsided at a glance), or start an RFC if you seriously think you could somehow get consensus to put it there. I feel such an RFC would be a waste of time, though - it's not a suggestion that has any realistic chance of happening given how minor this aspect is. --Aquillion (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That incident on a whole does not belong in the lead. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it's irrelevant who blames who here. Mvbaron (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, what RS say about who blames who is a necessary component of encyclopedic coverage. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, just not in the lead. Mvbaron (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And why not in the lead? Look at the relative amount of the article devoted to coverage of it... As I said above, it's the FRC's enduring contribution to the political discourse--to be the only ever right-wing organization so targeted, with coverage continuing to this day. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least based on the sources you've presented, coverage is slight relative to the topic as a whole - the only secondary sources you've presented are DCist, which isn't that strong; a WaPo article that only mentions the Family Research Council in passing; and WP:OR using the SPLC's website. That's not really enough - by trying to put it in the lead you're arguing that this is a core part of the Family Research Council that needs to be part of any balanced summary, yet when pressed for sources the best you can find is a passing mention in an article that isn't even about the FRC itself. The lead is meant to cover the most important part of the subject; none of the sources you've presented really treat this as a central part of the Family Research Council, so it's obviously undue for the lead here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New subject: Should the purported FBI confession of Corkins here, uploaded by the FRC itself, be included? Looks like the Washington Examiner covered it [2], but I haven't been able to find a better source yet. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WaPo covers that quote, so I think we don't need that video: [3]. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next Steps[edit]

I propose this rewording, which I suspect may be reverted. However, I think it succinctly sums up the motivation expressed by the shooter. With that sentence in the lead, I propose we remove Perkins et. al.'s blame and SPLC et. al.'s rejoinders back to the body of the article.
Is there any support for covering the designation and the shooting together? They read in anti-chronological order in the current layout, and could probably be made less redundant if covered together and chronologically. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I disagree with the wording, which is incredibly slanted, and unsupported by the citation in question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What wording would you support? "Corkins stated to the FBI that he identified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group from the SPLC website"? The motivation, as stated by the shooter, is clear and covered in multiple RS'es. He's even explained the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in terms of his objection to FRC's political stances. As I see it, there's a balancing act between oversimplifying and being too verbose. My wording was one attempt, which, like everything else around here, is subejct to rewording and improvement. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support no wording about the issue in the lede, and as there continues to be no consensus for inclusion in the lede, I've removed it again. Two separate editors have objected to your proposed change. You have an option here - that option is to open an RFC and bring more voices and opinions into the conversation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing removal of cited material without stating a policy-based objection is not appropriate editing behavior. Absent any proposed wording, I'm going to continue to try and guess what the objections might be and remedy them. I welcome collaboration in this effort. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clemens’ i don’t get it. You seem to be a very experienced editor. Instead of edit warring and threatening to edit war, why not engage in the discussion below about the material? I listed my reasons, just follow normal talk page procedures… and if you think it’s going nowhere open an RFC. I’m sure you know that Mvbaron (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring? Per WP:EW "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." and we've nothing of the sort here--I continue to try new phrasings and approaches, based on what RS'es actually say. Could you comment on how your opinion interacted with my most recent edit? I've agreed for some time that Perkins' et. al's comments don't belong in the lead; this would moot their inclusion by citing the gunman's own words. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oh, thanks, I missed that you said above: I propose we remove Perkins et. al.'s blame and SPLC et. al.'s rejoinders back to the body of the article. That satisfies my oppose below. As to your suggested edit above, I think it's a bit wordy and too much detail for the lead, the same goes for SPLC's reason: no need to include it imo. So my favorite version would be: In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified FRC as an anti-LGBT hate group due to what it says are the group's efforts to block LGBT civil rights. This designation prompted a 2012 attack on the FRC's headquarters by a gunman, resulting in one injury. Mvbaron (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here since I don't know where better to glom on this reply. I think it makes sense to mention the shooting in the lead. I do not think the lead needs any sort of synopsis of the minority viewpoint that SPLC is to blame for the shooting. Such characterizations are undue and do not satisfy the guidelines set forth in WP:BALASP and MOS:LEADREL. Verifiability is not a concern here. Neutral point of view is the concern. AlexEng(TALK) 09:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to separate out issues of blame vs. inspiration below: Just because Corkins was inspired by the SPLC list doesn't mean that the SPLC is automatically to blame for his deranged actions, and I hope we can agree on a way to discuss his motivations in a concrete and specific manner. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strenuously disagree with this wording; prompted is unsupported by the sources and coverage is plainly too minimal to support presenting that point of view in the lead at all. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing issues under dispute and options for moving forward[edit]

  • 1) The SPLC designation of FRC as a hate group--belongs in the lead or not?
    Yes, it belongs in the lead. Taking it out is one option to restore balance to the lead with respect to the issue, but certainly not the best one. I have seen no one seriously interested in removing it. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) The 2012 FRC HQ shooting--belongs in the lead or not?
    Yes, it belongs in the lead. There seems to be some consensus on this, though less than for #1. I believe that enduring coverage, 6+ years after the fact makes it far more significant than any other random attempted spree shooting that was foiled with no fatalities. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) The connection between the SPLC designation and the FRC shooting--belongs in the lead or not, and if so, how?
    This is the locus of the dispute, and I see at least three options:
  • 3A) Do not mention the connection in the lead.
    I believe this is inappropriate, because the number of RS covering the connection, both at the time of the shooting and more importantly in the years since Corkins was convicted, mean that an NPOV article must include some discussion of the connection. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By "the number", you mean two, correct? That's all I've seen you present so far. One of these is DCist and the other one is a passing mention in a WaPo article that barely discusses the Family Research Council. Obviously, if those are the only sources, this is starkly WP:UNDUE for the lead - if you have other, better sources, you ought to present them, but I strenuously disagree with your characterization of "the number" of RSes covering this opinion; the defining aspect of this dispute, to me, has been your failure to produce meaningful levels of coverage to support your contention that this is as important as you imply. --Aquillion (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put together a list, then, rather than assuming people have actually been following what I've included before being reverted. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously this. Coverage in RSes is minimal (as the smattering of WP:SYNTH, passing mentions, and WP:NEWSBLOGs above shows.) No version of this seems remotely supportable for the lead based on the limited coverage presented so far, and I honestly feel that more than a single brief sentence may be undue even for the body. It is honestly slightly shocking that a dispute has gone on for so long over putting something in the lead of an organization that normally receives reasonably heavy coverage, when the coverage for this particular aspect is so starkly minimal. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3B) Include it, but focus on the back-and-forth between FRC and SPLC partisans over whether the SPLC is responsible for the actions of a deranged gunman or not.
    I don't think anyone really favors this. This can go in the body, but it's very much "well, duh" that political opponents would blame each other. It takes up too much verbiage to say what could be said much more succinctly. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously no, but realistically any inclusion is going to amount to this, since the two other sources presented heavily base their opinions and interpretations on the FRC's opinions; the core of this dispute is a marginal opinion expressed by the FRC, which a smattering of sources briefly reported in passing. Obviously not leadworthy in any form. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3C) Include it, but focus on the gunman's own statements about his motivations.
    I think this is how we should proceed. Corkins clearly said he got the FRC name off the SPLC website. The FRC posted the FBI video, which independent RS's quote from. The SPLC acknowledges it in their current summary of the FRC. The WaPo Mag article from 2018 discusses all of this in great detail. Thus, we don't have to care about whether placing the name on the list makes the SPLC responsible or not--that's an ethical and legal debate that can't be condensed into the lead, and I don't think we should ever try. But rather, we focus on the stated motivation of the gunman--political activist, wanted to attack an anti-gay establishment, found FRC from the SPLC website--and the facts of the event--he carried 50 rounds and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. My most recent edit [4] to the article attempted to implement this in a way that was wooden but with absolutely clear attribution. I think "Corkins stated he got the FRC's name from the SPLC website" or even "Corkins got the FRC's name from the SPLC website" would be more succinct and sufficiently accurate, but again--my intent was to go a bit overboard on the attribution of exactly what was said to separate the issues of shooter motivation from organizational blame. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard no on this. Completely WP:UNDUE for the lead given the marginal coverage those statements have received. Also note that it is incorrect to say that the WaPo article discusses this in great detail - it mentions the FRC only once in the text, and only in passing as part of a larger discussion. It is nowhere near sufficient to justify any sort of inclusion in the lead. And given the length and passion behind this dispute, I can assume that that brief passing mention is the best source that could be found to justify putting it in the lead, which shows how weak the argument for such an inclusion really is. --Aquillion (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, which WaPo article are you reading? Obviously, there are plenty, and plenty linked in the article, but this WaPo Mag article from 2018 doesn't seem congruent with your statement at all. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That story leads off with the shooting, which makes sense for dramatic purposes, but it still gives it comparatively little space overall, spending at least as many column-inches on the FRC linking homosexuality to pedophilia. I'm just not seeing the case for presenting this one detail from the testimony of a man deemed mentally ill as one of the most important facts about the FRC's history. Worth recording, yes; worth prioritizing, no. XOR'easter (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts and reactions? Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone identify a post-conviction coverage in an RS that...
1) Mentions the SPLC designation of the FRC as a hate group, and
2) Mentions the FRC shooting, but
3) Does not mention that the shooter identified FRC as a target based on the SPLC website?
I have not been able to identify any, but I wanted to give everyone else a chance to identify relevant RS. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Later discussions of Corkins' motivation[edit]

  • [5] WaPo Mag 11-2018 in-depth analysis of SPLC and FRCs relationship, quoting both sides.
  • [6] SPLC’s own description of the incident, from their article on the FRC:
  • [7] USA Today Opinion piece, August 2019 vintage, references Corkins’ motivation:
  • [8] Snopes confirms that Corkins read the SPLC website, quoting WorldNetDaily quoting The Liberty Council:
  • Snopes goes on to deny a causal link, but they don’t rebut or debunk Corkins’ stated motivations—just that SPLC cannot be held responsible for them
  • [9] I’ve never run across Cernovich before, but I don’t see him blacklisted on WP:RSP. While clearly opinionated, it links to or images various interrogation transcripts, plea deal wording, and similar court/legal records, which are themselves primary sources
  • Articles from other generally partisan news sources in 2021 attributing Corkins’ attack to the designation and/or noting his stated motivation:
    [10] Catholic News Agency
    [11] Fox news. Links to the FRC posting of the FBI video with Corkins’ own words “Southern Poverty Law... lists anti-gay groups”
There’s a plethora of articles from 2012 and 2013 listing a link, but I don’t think they matter near as much as retrospectives like the 2018 WaPo Mag piece and the SPLC’s own summation of the issue. What I haven't seen is post-2013 mentions of the attack that don't highlight Corkins' motivations. Anyone got any of those? Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fox is not a WP:RS for politics, and the Catholic News Agency certainly isn't. Otherwise there's an opinion piece by someone affiliated with the Center and a handful of passing mentions - many of them, like Snopes, broadly dismissive that the connection is meaningful (and the blog of alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, really? RSP isn't exhaustive - you have to spend at least a bit of time researching unfamiliar sources before presenting them!) Again, you're not just trying to argue that this happened or that it's an opinion that some people hold; you're arguing it belongs in the lead, that it is a core part of a balanced summary of what the Family Research Council, as a whole, is. This isn't remotely sufficient for that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say Fox, Cernovich, or CNA were reliable sources. While inclusion is based on reliable sources, non-RS can be helpful to show that dialogue exists in other places, and thus the RS coverage we do have isn't just passing mentions, but part of a larger dialogue that encompasses the partisan press. Cernovich specifically includes court documents, which is what I would expect from an interested blogger: getting and publishing public records that he thinks will further his own agenda, whatever that is. If googling has shown me anything, it's that in the right-wing partisan press the attack is mentioned pretty much every time the SPLC comes up. That's not particularly helpful, but it does highlight that the conversation is ongoing. Again, the issue isn't that a ton of partisan sites do or do not cover Corkins' citation of the SPLC as much as it is that 100% of the post-conviction RS that cover the topic state as fact Corkins' use of the SPLC website. Here's another one for you:
[12] MSN republishing Fox news (I didn't realize they did that?) article (not labeled as an opinion piece) on a separate defamation case against SPLC:
Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about a 12-12-2021 edit that was revered. Main dialogue resumes below

Removal of material from lede against formal RFC consensus

I have reverted Jclemens' unilateral removal of material about the SPLC's view of the FRC from the lede, inclusion of which is based upon a formally-established community consensus. It is well-settled policy that an editor may not unilaterally reject an established community consensus; rather, they must attempt to establish a new consensus. If Jclemens wishes to open a new RFC on the topic, that would be their right - it is, after all, a 10-year-old consensus, and consensus can change. But it is indisputable that they cannot simply ignore said consensus because they don't like it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop casting aspersions. Removal of material to restore NPOV is expected by policy, and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, no matter how longstanding, can't change it. I'd prefer the entire final lead paragraph, about the designation and the violent consequences of it, be restored, but my efforts to provide that balance have been rebuffed, so here we are. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your interpretation of policy here holds no special weight over anyone else's - there's at least two people here who disagree with you, and an explicit RFC consensus says the SPLC bit belongs in. Time for you to open an RFC, or to move on and drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or simply wait for other editors to arrive and note that your removal has no policy basis. You still haven't articulated why the shooting doesn't belong. If the SPLC hate group designation belongs, surely the shooting it inspired* does, too. (* That is, according to the shooter himself, as documented in RS'es) Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion of the hate group designation (this is noteworthy). Weak Support for inclusion of the attack (doesn't really seem noteworthy, and doesn't take up much of the body of the article tbh). Oppose inclusion of the "FRC blames SPLC, SPLC denies it" because I think it's not noteworthy for the lead (there's always blame and no one cares who said what). --Mvbaron (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly bemused as to why the shooter would need the SPLC website to tell him that one of the most obviously homophobic organisations in the USA was, indeed, anti-gay. Regardless, IMO, this doesn't belong in the lede, though I wouldn't object to it in the main article. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 FRC HQ shooting has enough RS coverage to be its own article, but I don't think anyone here thinks that would be a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion of the hate-group designation; as Mvbaron says, it's clearly noteworthy. Support a mention of the attack, per MOS:LEAD; the intro is there to summarize the main text, and there's enough in the main text to warrant a line (but not really more than that, when considering that portion relative to the article overall). Oppose the FRC-blames-SPLC, SPLC-denies business per WP:MANDY; we shouldn't waste lead space with claims and counter-claims. We're here to inform readers, not engage in rhetorical posturing. XOR'easter (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with everything said by XOR'easter. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, XOReaster's cogent statement represents my position - I think it's fair and DUE to note the shooting in the lede, and potentially mentioning that the gunman was motivated by the FRC's anti-gay positions could be DUE, but using the lede to effectively lay blame on a single organization is wildly UNDUE. Compare Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. There is a reasonably strong argument for linking Dear's "no more baby parts" statement and the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy in that article's lead. While he didn't call out any specific organization, no one doubts in the least what he was referring to. Unlike Corkins', his statement wasn't as step-by-step, but it was covered in multiple RS. I'd favor taking the statement as worded in the body of that article and incorporating it into the lead of that article pretty much as is. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far right or not?[edit]

I've seen multiple IP addresses slo-mo edit warring over whether this organization is properly characterized as "far right" or not. What I haven't seen is:

  1. Anything in the body substantiating "far right"
  2. Any attempt to say who says FRC is "far right" rather than simply stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice.

I would encourage those who want to include "far right" to at least make an effort to source the statement; I suspect it can be sourced, but also suspect that it's going to be someone's opinion, and so would likely be better stated along the lines of "characterized as 'far right' by the SPLC" (or whomever). Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jclemens Yeah, this is one of those SKYISBLUE issues in that the FRC's policies are fairly obviously on the far right but because they style themselves as a religious organisation rather than a political one, it's rarely referenced outside those groups opposing them. Quite often, the term "religious right" or similar is used instead. Having said that, it's very easy to find sources describing Perkins as far-right, but less so for the organisation itself. However, I did find this, this (might be a bit SYNTHy), this (POV?), this. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree that the first one is enough to include "characterized as far right by..." in the body somewhere, with a reference. The problem with the lead placement is that we're seeing people add/remove stuff in the lead that isn't substantiated in the body. The lead is supposed to be a summary. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely avoid any SKYISBLUE approach to a phrase like this, since it used in so many different ways. It used to refer to anti-immigration white supremacy, but now it is used in relation to anti-LGBT positions. So not all that helpful a phrase, really. We can definitely include an attributed description of the organization (which we have above), but not, I think, in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The FRC should be characterized as "socially conservative" rather than "far right". The words "far right" are usually associated with neo-Nazism and the FRC is more associated with the Christian right (social conservatism). desmay (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right to me... but what do RS say? Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more useful to show how the FRC is depicted in sources. Certainly the FRC is into homophobia, xenophobia, nationalism and authoritarianism, all of which are part of the far-right spectrum. This piece positions the FRC as nationalistic. The FRC's form of "conservative" politics is reactionary—another indication of the far right. This piece says the FRC strives to remove hard-won rights from the downtrodden: a reactionary stance. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"xenophobia, nationalism" Out of curiosity, is the organization part of ultranationalism's recent rise in popularity ; or do they merely advocate religious nationalism ? Dimadick (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first piece is an opinion piece, which is suitable for "X says" but not Wikipedia's voice. The second piece talks a lot about the FRC, but seems to avoid labeling it as anything other than "New Christian Right" which seems a fair label. Puzzlingly, the second 2019 piece refers to Chuck Colson as if he were alive; he died in 2012. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for Corkins attack?[edit]

It appears we need one to get consensus. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What prompted this thought? I don't see a lot of edit warring on this page. The reference in the lead is pretty oblique ("in connection with") when the shooter stated the designation was his motivation for the attack. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall tone[edit]

Is it just me or is this actually a very biased piece overall? This article seems clearly written from the perspective of someone who does not agree with FRC. It has no neutrality, as it only paints a picture of pessimism? Where is the reference to its biblical worldview? Where are the accomplishments? Why is there so much emphasis on it opposing LGBT, and not even portraying their stance correctly? This is a very biased article. 63.138.59.176 (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the whole thing should be re-written 63.138.59.176 (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia doesn't balance all aspects of a subject but considers how they are covered in reliable sources, and bases our tone on the collective tone of those sources. When nearly all of the sources that we consider independent and reliable describe an organization as an LGBT hate group, then our article will reflect that. It seems to me that the organization's "biblical worldview" (opposing homosexuality and same-sex marriage, donating in support of homosexual execution laws in Uganda, opposing access to abortion, spreading disinformation about pedophilia, etc.) is fairly well documented here. If you think the tone of the article should change, please provide reliable sources which back up your position. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Research_Council&oldid=1211942122"