Misplaced Pages

Talk:Family Research Council

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 14 December 2021 (→Opinion about the shooting: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:16, 14 December 2021 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) (→Opinion about the shooting: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Family Research Council article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 40 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChristianity: Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Baptist / Charismatic Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Baptist work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCatholicism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconFamily Research Council is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Catholicism task list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconOrganizations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead section edits

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)

Thanks for coming to the Talk page, 78.99.168.120. Your edits to a protected page show up on Special:PendingChanges and I'm a pending changes reviewer so that's how I came across them. I'm not familiar with all of the discussions that went into developing this article, so I'm going to organize your suggested changes into subsections for discussions by editors more familiar with the article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Using "The" with "Family Research Council"

78.99.168.120 suggests using "The" before "Family Research Council" throughout article.
  • (my comment) Although Naming conventions say not to use "The" in the title, I haven't been able to find Manual of Style guidance on using it in the body. (Have you tried searching "the" or "article" on wikipedia? ) Does anyone know of a style guideline that recommends against using it in the body? Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
FRC does not use the definite article in their own writing the describe themselves. In the absence of a clear policy, it is probably best that their style be followed. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Good point, although Washington Post, CNN, and CBS News use "the Family Research Council". Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SPLC designation as hate group

78.99.168.220 added SPLC designation to first paragraph with refs

Changes to SPLC text (3rd paragraph)

78.99.168.220 changed 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
  • (my comment) By removing "due to what it says are", the attribution of the reasoning to the SPLC isn't as clear. I think we should keep that attribution. Changing the quoted ""false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science"" to unattributed "persistent promotion of pseudoscientific beliefs and canards with the intention of denigrating the LGBT community, along with the FRC's consistent opposition towards the expansion of civil rights for LGBT Americans" with refs that are not addressing SPLC's specific designation but are, instead, supporting the revamped wording, is inappropriate for the lead which should only summarize the body. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding "of children" to "adoption"

78.99.168.220 suggests adding "of children" after "LGBT adoption"

Response

The SPLC article's lead section for example does put the word "The" before the "Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)" segment which is in bold text, so it is indeed standard procedure to add it to this article, as seen below:
"The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is known for its legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations, and for promoting tolerance education programs.
The SPLC was founded by Morris Dees, Joseph J. Levin Jr., and Julian Bond in 1971 as a civil rights law firm in Montgomery, Alabama. Bond served as president of the board between 1971 and 1979.
In 1979, the SPLC began a litigation strategy of filing civil suits for monetary damages on behalf of the victims of violence from the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, with all damages recovered given to the victims or donated to other organizations. The SPLC also became involved in other civil rights causes, including cases to challenge what it sees as institutional racial segregation and discrimination, inhumane and unconstitutional conditions in prisons and detention centers, discrimination based on sexual orientation, mistreatment of illegal immigrants, and the unconstitutional mixing of church and state. The SPLC has provided information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies.
Since the 2000s, the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups (organizations it has assessed either "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics") and extremists have often been described as authoritative and are widely accepted and cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues. The SPLC's listings have also been the subject of criticism from others, who argue that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad, politically motivated, or unwarranted. There have also been accusations of misuse or unnecessarily extravagant use of funds by the organization, leading some employees to call the headquarters "Poverty Palace".
In 2019, founder Morris Dees was fired, which was followed by the resignation of president Richard Cohen. An outside consultant, Tina Tchen, was brought in to review workplace practices, particularly relating to accusations of racial and sexual harassment."

78.99.168.120 (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you're responding to, please address each set of edits in the appropriate section. The article already uses the with SPLC. Why are you pasting a wall of text about SPLC? Schazjmd (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. "With Justice For All". The Times-Picayune. November 5, 2006. Archived from the original on April 17, 2008.
  2. Finkelman, Paul, ed. (2006). "Southern Poverty Law Center". Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. New York: Routledge. p. 1500. ISBN 978-0415943420.
  3. Chebium, Raju (September 8, 2000). "Attorney Morris Dees pioneer in using 'damage litigation' to fight hate groups". CNN. Archived from the original on June 18, 2006. Retrieved May 15, 2017.
  4. Dees & Fiffer (1991), pp. 132–33. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFDeesFiffer1991 (help)
  5. Michael (2012), p. 32.
  6. "What We Investigate: Hate Crimes: The FBI's Role: Public Outreach". www.fbi.gov. Retrieved May 20, 2017. 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....
  7. "Hate Map". SPLC. Archived from the original on March 17, 2015. Retrieved July 15, 2018.
  8. "What We Do". SPLC.
  9. Does the Southern Poverty Law Center target conservatives?. The Christian Science Monitor, February 18, 2016
  10. Chen, Hsinchun (2006). Intelligence and Security Informatics for International Security: Information Sharing and Data Mining. New York: Springer. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-387-24379-5. ... the web sites of the "Southern Poverty Law Center" and the Anti-Defamation League are authoritative sources for identifying domestic extremists and hate groups.
  11. Swain, Carol (2002). The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-521-80886-6.
  12. Chokshi, Niraj (February 17, 2016). "The Year of 'Enormous Rage': Number of Hate Groups Rose by 14 Percent in 2015". The Washington Post.
  13. Cite error: The named reference politico was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. Jonsson, Patrik (February 23, 2011). "Annual report cites rise in hate groups, but some ask: What is hate?". The Christian Science Monitor
  15. Graham, David A. (June 18, 2018). "The Unlabelling of an 'Anti-Muslim Extremist'". The Atlantic. Retrieved July 5, 2018. 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.
  16. Moser, Bob (March 21, 2019). "The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center". The New Yorker.
  17. Burch, Audra D. S.; Blinder, Alan; Eligon, John (March 25, 2019). "Roiled by Staff Uproar, Civil Rights Group Looks at Intolerance Within". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved March 28, 2019.

Corkins attack in lede

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: , , , , , . 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)

Jclemens, a lone nutjob showed up one day. When you compare that to their legacy of homophobic and transphobic influence, it's not a big deal. Certainly it's hard to justify putting that in the lede and omitting Duggar and Rekers, whose stories are emblematic of the reality behind performative Christian fundamentalist bigotry. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
So maybe they should be in the lede too. I think the international activism is pretty forgettable, if we need to remove something in the lede to make room for a broad coverage of the organization, I'd recommend that instead. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinion about the shooting

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)

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)
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)
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)
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: 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
Support. That incident on a whole does not belong in the lead. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, and it's irrelevant who blames who here. Mvbaron (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
No, actually, what RS say about who blames who is a necessary component of encyclopedic coverage. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
agreed, just not in the lead. Mvbaron (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
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)

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

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

Next Steps

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Categories: