Talk:Parents Action League/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Published information

The relevance/appropriateness of his claim has been challenged by an editor. Please obtain consensus before adding it back in. StAnselm (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't defend that specific content, but I do take some umbrage with portions of direct quotes from the SPLC being removed in the Hate group designation section.

Could the reverting editors please a little more surgical with their cutting? – MrX 23:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What quote did you want in? StAnselm (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure that the quote was actually a quote, and not paraphrased but still included in quotes and attributed to SPLC. It looks like you or someone else collapsed the two quotes, which I'm fine with, as long as we keep the entire quote intact in the citation. – MrX 00:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Star Tribune article

What is the title of this article? I have accessed it on highbeam, and the title there is "Trying to track hate, in Minnesota and around the country; The Southern Poverty Law Center lists 12 hate groups in Minnesota, though the criteria for inclusion aren't always clear". User:Insomesia says "article title is from original". StAnselm (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess the citation template cut it off. The title is Trying to track hate, in Minnesota and around the country; The Southern Poverty Law Center lists 12 hate groups in Minnesota, though the criteria for inclusion aren't always clear.

The actual title ends at the semi-colon. [1] Belchfire-TALK 23:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, the version I cited, rather than the paywall one, had no subtitle. if you wish to re-add go for it. Insomesia (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Contested addition of templates: LGBT and discrimination

The addition of templates {{LGBT}} and {{discrimination}} is contested for this and other related articles. The discussion is occurring here: Talk:American Family Association#Navboxes – MrX 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Generic reason

I have removed the generic reason for anti-gay hate group listings, which User:Insomesia wanted to include. The SPLC says Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. [2] Now, this has been picked up by the Star Tribune, but it is still a generic reason - we don't know whether it applies equally to all the groups. In this case, we have a specific SPLC statement about this group, so that seems to be enough. StAnselm (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not just that it's enough; it's all we can use here. Stating SPLC's generic criteria without a statement that it was actually applied to PAL amounts to original research. We need the exact reason for the listing, and we have it. Belchfire-TALK 23:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Am I to understand that this quote was made outside of the context of the Parents Action Leaugue listing? That's not how I read the Tribune article, but if so, then perhaps it can be omitted. Can someone point me to where this 'generic' statement was originally made? Thanks – MrX 23:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the source please,

In the case of groups the center considers anti-gay, including the Anoka-Hennepin district's Parents Action League, the center says listings are based on "propagation of known falsehoods -- claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities -- and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups."

I think it's clear this covers PAL without question. Insomesia (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of what I thought also. – MrX 00:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, my earlier statement was based on a hasty reading of the source, and you guys are correct: the statement does include PAL. BUT, since we do have a specific explanation from SPLC concerning PAL, my earlier statement still holds - the generic explanation isn't needed (and, in fact, is redundant). Belchfire-TALK 02:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not seeing the redundancy. I see two complementary quotes by the SPLC that the Star Tribune juxtaposed, probably so their reader don't walk away thinking that the SPLC is capricious with their hate group listings. Could you be a little more specific about what exactly you find redundant? – MrX 02:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing complimentary about it ("complimentary" being taken to mean two things that are both needed to make up a complete whole). If both are used, the specific explanation just becomes a more precise restatement of the generic explanation. That's redundant. Belchfire-TALK 03:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, "complimentary" refers to expressing a compliment such as "you look great in that dress". The term MrX used, "complementary", is correct, as it's about combining so as to complete each other. MrX was right; the two are complementary; they say related but distinct things which, taken together, explain more. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not the place to discuss user behavior. Please discuss content, not personalities
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please don't WP:POKE. You should realize by now that you have at least one admin examining all of your diffs. As some have indicated that they feel you are making progress with your interactions, but comments like the one above may be misconstrued as antagonistic and may dilute that opinion. Don't give anyone ammunition to be used against you.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  04:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Key word: misconstrued. A sane observer will recognize that I am being helpful. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Considering the constant stream of visitors to your TP that have commented on your editing behavior, you might want to consider the possibility that when it comes to self examination you, might have a blind spot. And more to my original point, when it comes to Belchfire, you should bend over backwards not to antagonize him.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC) There's no such stream, and if anyone cites this as evidence, they'd be dishonest to do so. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC) You apparently don't read your user talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for sharing that. Now, do you have anything to offer with regard to editing this article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OR / POV dispute

Ive read the recent edit summaries and the diffs. Would someone care to explain what the edit war is all about?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the Horner ref?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one who wrote that section originally. I recommend that you look at the diffs starting on September 8 up to the point where the AfD was started, and then scroll up for more context. My first major edit was virtually a direct quote and then it went downhill from there.

On a related note, the article came from NewsBank, which I get for free from my local public library (I can log on at home). If you are in the US, you may be able to get access through your public library as well. – MrX 03:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Any chance you can give us the full text of the quote and attribution?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Which specific quote? – MrX 16:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The one relating to the 2nd graph of the hate group designation section.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From Louwagie (081212):

The center's Heidi Beirich said the Parents Action League was included on their hate list for "damaging propaganda about the gay community," including calling gays and lesbians "promiscuous, dysfunctional, unhealthy.

Parents Action League leader Laurie Thompson, in e-mails, did not comment on those particular accusations but posed pointed questions of her own: "How does being pro family/pro parental rights constitute a group as a hate group?" she wrote. "How does being an advocate for parental rights to raise their children come off as being hatred?"

from Horner (031312):

In an email seeking comment on the listing, the president of the parents' group called its inclusion "a privilege."

"It is a privilege to be added to the long list of pro-family organizations that have been labeled as 'hate groups," Laurie Thompson said. "The SPLC continues their strategy of defaming and name calling toward those whom they disagree with."

The group was listed for the way it defames and demonizes gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, said Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's quarterly Intelligence Project.

Specifically, Beirich said the group advocates resources and ideas that claim "homosexuals are promiscuous, dysfunctional, unhealthy and harmful to public health.

– MrX 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That very clearly supports the passages that cite it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite ISS seal of approval, there is still a little matter with the edit war related to "instead posed" vs "did pose" and claims of OR. Frankly, I'm not seeing OR as claimed by Insomesia, and agree that the current phrasing could be construed as doubt in Wikipedia's voice. I must comment however, this all seems very petty.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I improved the text, in what I hope is a NPOV manner void of OR.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks good to me. – MrX 19:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

GBLT LBGT LGBT and gay

OK, some of the articles use "GBLT". (I assume LBGT was a typo.) Should we replace the acronym by the "standard" "LGBT" (except in titles) to avoid confusion.

Also, some editors are changing "gay" to "LGBT" when the source uses "gay". Specific changes:

mentioning gays → discussing LGBT rights and issues

fought gay influence → fought LGBT rights

These don't seem reasonable paraphrases to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither is changing gay rights to gay influence. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I copied the source given; other sources might say "gay rights". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we need to stay as close to the sources as possible so as not to change meanings. LGBT is the accepted acronym, but that doesn't mean that one can simply search and replace the word gay with LGBT, or influence with rights. Editors need to read the sources before making these kinds of edits, or be very careful so as not to change meaning.

The Origins section is sourced from the Rolling Stone article, so there is not need to drop add {{cn}} tags to individual sentences. Also, someone duplicated the RS ref for some reason. I will fix that. – MrX 14:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added this hidden comment to the Origins section: The Erdely/Rolling Stone source applies to this entire sub-section. Please do not alter the meaning of words or phrases in this section without first reading the Rolling Stone article. – MrX 14:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Do the sources discuss the "T" part of LGBT?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes – MrX 15:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I of course meant do the articles discuss transgender people vs the article using the union jack term of non-heterosexual peoples. In other words, when LGBT or the combinatory mix gets used, the issue at hand is predominantly homosexual rather than the B or T groups which get short shrift.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but before reading them, you may want to steel yourself for a tragic journey through a dark forest of hate. – MrX 15:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The point of my earlier objection is that "rights" and "influence" are not equivalent at all. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation style

I would like to see if there are any objections to using a consistent citation style in the article. Specifically, I would like to use citation templates for better organization of author, date, source, title, etc. This is documented here Template:Citation and is also built into the WikEd toolbar. I am also trying to make sure that all of the references are named, to prevent confusion and to facilitate reuse. The convention I have been using is ref name=AuthorLastName with the first letter capitalized. Similarly, if the author wrote several (source) articles, I have been appending the date of the article in the scheme: YYMMDD, for example ref name=Jones120915.

Please let me know of of any objections. – MrX 16:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't object, as I'm one of the worst offenders when it comes to sloppy citations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest converting date formats as well; as this is an American organization, Month dd, yyyy, is the appropriate format for dates in the article and publication dates. As no one has yet used yyyy-mm-dd format, access dates should probably be changed to Month dd, yyyy, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I wish I could figure out how to get WikEd not international format when auto-filling the today's date field. – MrX 11:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann

I have restored Michele Bachmann to the See also list as she is a person who is very relevant to this topic, as discussed in the Rolling Stone article: One Town's War on Gay Teens:In Michele Bachmann's home district, evangelicals have created an extreme anti-gay climate. After a rash of suicides, the kids are fighting back.

Contrary to one editor's belief, a 'strong' connection is not required by the guideline WP:ALSO. See also links act in the same manner as wikilinks within the article, to link content throughout the encyclopedia to give readers a deeper understanding of the subjects. A similar discussion has taken place on a related page Talk:Minnesota Family Council, for firther context.

Of course, if consensus is against inclusion of this link, I will not stand in the way of it being removed. – MrX 02:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If all we have is the Rolling Stone article, that isn't enough, even for a "see also" link. We don't link to politicians from organizational pages just because the organization is in the politician's electoral district. If it is more than this, it should probably be in the body of the article. Anyway, you may want to consider posting this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. StAnselm (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Leave it out unless there is some direct tie. --Mollskman (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to understand this novel interpretation of requiring a strong link/connection, or multiple sources for adding a see also link. Does it occur to you that if there were a strong connection and multiple sources, that there would be wikilinks and no need for see also links?

Frankly, your argument would be just as credible if you just said I don't like it. – MrX 02:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it was edits like this one at Diving (football) that taught me to be vigilant about living people in see also links. There was a discussion a few years back at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 23#See also links and reliable sources for living persons but no change to the written policy resulted. Anyway, it's all very well to say the link is a matter of common sense, but many readers won't be able to see the connection - it might make them think, for example, that Michele Bachmann's ideas are the same as this group's. And that may well be the case - but we shouldn't just insinuate, we should make reliably sourced statements. StAnselm (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I see why no change was made to the policy based on the discussion you linked to. There was no consensus. I see many of the arguments both you and I have put forth. I took particular note of this one from Mr. Z-man

Really, you can't see any conflict between a guideline saying "Links in the see also section should direct readers towards information related to the subject, even if they are only peripherally related" and a policy saying "See also links must not link to controversial or contentious topics unless they are directly related to the subject of the article as established through several reliable sources." This kind of stuff is just BLP paranoia at its worst, obscuring real BLP problems in favor of imaginary ones that are easier to deal with.

Mr.Z-man

I acknowledge that the see also section could be abused, but I think it has to be left to judgement of involved editors, with the overarching principle of avoiding libelous statements about living people. I think that standard for what constitutes a libelous statement is much higher than simply a see also link, especially where there is clear connection that any reasonable person could ascertain from minimal research of the topic. – MrX 12:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest just adding relative text so we get past this. Insomesia (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a suggested statement? Obviously, merely saying the organization is in her electoral district would be just as silly as point outing that the Illinois Family Institute is in Barack Obama's home state. "Bachmann, meanwhile, has been uncharacteristically silent" - no, we can't have that, either. The only thing I can think of is, "Rolling Stone magazine has suggested that the Christian activists involved have been inspired by Michele Bachmann, herself a graduate of Anoka High School." StAnselm (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Why Michele Bachmann link?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202#ixzz26b2LgsFP starts with "In Michele Bachmann's home district, evangelicals have created an extreme anti-gay climate. After a rash of suicides, the kids are fighting back." I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

and?--Mollskman (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that anyone who has watched the news (in the US) in the past ten years would even question this. This is part of Michele Bachmann's legacy. – MrX 02:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't watch the news. --Mollskman (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call it her legacy, but I've no objection to the link. It is her district and the sources mention this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Right. I forgot, she's also notable for her...urmm...eyes. – MrX 03:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, this isn't even a blip. For even astute political observers would be hard pressed to know about the PAL / suicide issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you know that that was not directed at you or your previous statement, LGR. I was just trying to inject a little levity. – MrX 04:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had no idea that her eyes was the subject of a meme. I'm always the last to be told.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason for this, LGR? Our sources bring her up. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, so far you've cut this section twice and talked about it zero times. See any problem, LGR? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Undue, POV & coatrack in th background section.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that applies, but don't explain here: MrX made a section below. Use that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a nice example of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" kind of opinion. LGR explains it quite well as a coatrack under which to attack Bachmann because she has not commented on the issue sufficiently, kind of like those that criticize Obama for not doing anything about the violence in Chicago. SS, you removed Mr. X's previous comment. Arzel (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a nice example of LGR tossing out some policy names without linking any of them to the content. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Red herring. And there is no policy or en guideline that requires everything to be linked. But here is one I will link. You are clearly not WP:COMPETENT to edit here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. So you spit out some TLA's but can't connect them to the content, and when asked to, respond with personal attacks. Why am I unpersuaded by all this? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you are fond of links, here is another one. WP:LASTWORD  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Civil rights organization

Yes, I know the SPLC is a civil rights organization. I know that's how it is described in the lead of its article. But adding the recently added descriptor here does seem a bit POV, and it isn't at all necessary. I have removed the addition for consistency with related articles, among other things. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am in the process of updating several articles with this neutral descriptive information, which will make them all consistent. I think it's important to provide this context for readers who may not be familiar with the SPLC, so they don't have to go searching for it other articles. Notably, many of our sources include this information.

To omit this information would be like saying that Christian Brothers College, Fremantle is a 'school', instead of 'a private, Catholic, day school for boys'. – MrX 22:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

But if you were linking to Christian Brothers College, Fremantle, you wouldn't normally include a descriptive phrase, would you? You say, "searching for it in other article" - they would just have to click on the SPLC link. Sources include descriptors because they don't have the advantage of hyperlinks. Anyway, I'm glad we can have this discussion before you keep on going. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm not entirely following your argument over three words that actually clarify the text. I believe your real argument is about a concern about POV and I would like to better understand that.

WP:BUILD states

Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on).

I also think (as I experienced when I first heard of this organization) that a reader coming upon Southern Poverty Law Center would normally assume it is merely a law firm. Perhaps we can get some other editors thoughts as well. – MrX 22:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree; it sounds like a law firm. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But I suppose the same tactics will ensue to delay the obvious. Insomesia (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a technical term. I suggest asking a question at helpdesk concerning what does the MOS suggest.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not feeling the need for help on this one, but thanks. Please read the second sentence in the above box.

I'm still waiting to hear a plausible reason to omit a simple, valid description for the SPLC. It is a civil rights organization. I didn't say it was righteous civil rights organization. Where is the POV, please? A reasonable argument is required, otherwise I plan to restore the edit. – MrX 02:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not claiming POV. But even the 2nd sentance in WP:BUILD doesn't suggest we need a descriptor for the SPLC. But how do we treat other RS? Do we say preface Rolling Stone with "a music magazine with a dash of investigative reporting"?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've laid out my reasons above (22:53) as to why I think the descriptor is needed. The question is: is the article better with it or without it? Try to consider that question from a neutral point of view, as someone unfamiliar with the SPLC. – MrX 02:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And I'm on the fence about this. While I can see STA's concern about POV (not that I necesarily agree with it) I can also see the desire to explain the SPLC without a link. I would once again suggest seeing what the MOS says. Of course you can be bold and put it in anyways, and if STA were insistent on this a trip the helpdesk might be fruitful. Or you can ask for a 3O.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to work toward a solution. I plan to put this descriptive text in several articles that I'm actively editing, so I want to be on reasonably solid footing. I'm not trying to get my way; I just want to see a decision that makes sense for the encyclopedia. – MrX

And I'm claiming POV for that very reason. I have no problem with descriptors in themselves, but to use one for SPLC but not for Rolling Stone makes it sound like we are singling out SPLC for special treatment. The designation does bolster the SPLC's case. Now, we may think that this reinforcement is a good thing, but that merely serves to highlight that it isn't completely neutral. StAnselm (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how Rolling Stone factors into this at all. As far as 'civil rights organization' bolstering SPLC's credibility, perhaps. I really think we need to just short cut this and go directly to one of the community comment/dispute processes to address this across a spectrum of articles. I'm really not very familiar with starting these processes though. I would like to see more of the community involved so we obtain broader consensus. I'm not personaly invested in the outcome, but I know if it's not addressed, it's going to continue to come up. – MrX 03:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a description of SPLC as necessary, but controversial civil rights organization would be needed as an NPOV descriptor. (I can think of other adjectives, but they would probably be disputed.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial" is one of the least neutral words in the dictionary, so no. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked this question at help-desk, and not surprisingly their answer wasn't definitive [3]. Considering this and most other articles don't use descriptors, eg Minnesota Family Council I am leaning slightly towards not using the description and letting the reader click through as they do for the majority of blue-linked terms.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added this back in with the additional word 'nonprofit'. Three major newspapers that use this language are cited, and many more it, which in my mind, more than meets the requirements for inclusion on WP. As further validation, a Google search for "southern poverty law center" "civil rights organization" reveals 61,600 matches, while a search for "southern poverty law center" "controversial civil rights organization" reveals 13 matching pages. – MrX 16:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That google search is absurd. A fair search would be "southern peverty law center" controversial. As google search is now personalized, and I don't know how to create an unpersonalized search, I can match your comparison. But I get 61,700 for the first, and 256,000 for the second.

I don't see a consensus for inclusion, and being controversial is one of the least controversial things about SPLC. I'm not going to revert your additions, yet, but I will if I don't see signs of consensus for inclusion here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a Google search is an excellent way to determine the published prevalence of a phrase. Proximity of terms matter when using a search engine. Did I mention that many reliable sources also us the phrase civil right organization? NewsBank return 660 news articles that support my edit, with the search phases I mentioned. 30 (less than 5%) of these articles even contain the word controversial anywhere in the article. In terms of due weight, that's greater than 20:1.

There is no consensus to omit this descriptive qualifier, but if consensus does develop, I will be the first to support the removal of this important, and reliably sourced information. – MrX 18:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tsk Tsk Mr Veteran II (congrats btw). You know that the burden for consensus is on that of newly changed information. With respect to google searches, try logging out and using in private browsing. That should give you the most neutral list possible for your ip location.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Help me out; where's the part where you explain why MrX's arguments are wrong and the descriptor doesn't belong? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I belive I've pointed you to WP:BRD before, and you've told me its just a guideline, which you only want to use when it is conveince suits your needs. So why would I want to explain myself again?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where I said a word about BRD here.

I'll ask again: where's the part where you explain why MrX's arguments are wrong and the descriptor doesn't belong?

You don't have to repeat yourself, just give me a diff or cut and paste enough to identify it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said Mr. X was wrong, nor did I say he was right. I do say that he hasn't achieved consensus for inclusion yet, which is apparent because there are only 2 editors actually disucssing the issue. I'm just commenting on the state of consensus and making a suggestion for refining the google search. Unfortunately I can only assume the you are trolling.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I still consider myself a noob, but I do know that we are not a bureaucracy and that "disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion." I followed LGR's advice and came up with 61,600 vs 514 matches, after logging out, using private browsing with Ghostery running. As Still indicated, and I will add upon, there is a seems to be a mountain of evidence to support my edit, and little in the way of evidence to support removing it. For those wanting to remove this information, I would ask for one of the following:

• Establish through reliable sources that the SPLC is not a civil rights organization,
• Establish that there is a WP a policy that has been breached, or
• Establish consensus for removal of the legitimate description for this organization through an RfC or otherwise.

– MrX 19:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but since you don't have consensus as of yet, (assuming your bold edit is reversed) then those actions would be available to you for inclusion.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

MrX has presented good reasons, nobody has tried to refute them. There's nothing further to discuss unless you have some concrete, policy- or evidence-based objection. Do you ? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@LGR - I respectfully see it a different way: Consensus is assumed in WP:BEBOLD. – MrX 20:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess we do disagree :p   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's OK; that's how the tent gets raised.

What does everyone think about creating an RfC on the SPLC talk page to address this specific phrasing that could be applied to all related articles? I'm concerned that there may not be enough eyes on this article to establish any kind of lasting or meaningful concensus. – MrX 20:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Could you remove the descriptors until it's established. WP:BRD is a more established essay than WP:BEBOLD.

And I've explained why your google search is invalid. Perhaps comparing "controversial civil rights organization" to "non(-)profit civil rights organization". But even then, the "civil rights organizations" could be referring to one of their targets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Great.How about we place a {{POV-statement}} tag next to the descriptor. That way, those commenting on the RfC can see the the descriptor in proper context. Would that be a fair compromise?

I know a Google search is far from definitive, but I do believe that it's indicative. The fact that it is imperfect, incomplete or inadequate does not make it totally invalid. There are shades of gray. Since only a small portion of my argument is based on the Google search, I think we can mostly disregard it though. – MrX 22:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Non profit civil rights descriptor

Im very dissapointed this information was added with a "copyedit" summary. I plan on visiting each of these articles to correct this (unsettled) issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Never attribute to malice, what can easily be explained by shear laziness.

In any case, this needs to be addressed by a larger segment of the community. Please see the message I left on you talk page.– MrX 18:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)