Skip to main content

Talk:Family Research Council

Talk:Family Research Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Restoring NPOV to the article[edit]

After some reflection, I have decided to propose changes that I believe would strengthen the article and restore NPOV to it. They are:

  • Mention in the lede that FRC and prominent elected officials strongly opposed the SPLC's "hate" designation.
  • Create a new subsection under "Controversies and criticism" for criticism of the organization's views on homosexuality. Move the criticisms there.
  • Rephrase the sentence that reads "These positions are in opposition to the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior" to read "The FRC's view that homosexuality is unnatural conflicts with the consensus view of mainstream mental health and medical organizations that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior." This language is more specific. It also makes it clear that whether or not homosexuality (or anything else) is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior is not a matter of science, but of opinion.
  • Rather than using terms like "widely criticized" and "widely-rejected"--which seem to me to be POV, vague, and perhaps even original research--set forth who it is that the cited source says has criticized and rejected the FRC's claims.
  • Work on expanding the "History" section.

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A criticism ghetto? No. Criticism is best worked into the article chronologically or where it fits in with themes and actions.
Regarding FRC "strongly opposing" the hate designation, it doesn't have the force of the media's reaction. Because of course they opposed it.
"Conflicts with" is weak sauce compared to "opposition to" which is accurate and more in line with the FRC position.
WP:FRINGE positions such as the FRC's are always happy to reduce the footprint of the opposition by removing "widely", "many", etc. If we name those who have stated the obvious then we make it seem that only these people believe that homosexual activity is a normal variation. You propose to weaken the impact of the mainstream scientific consensus. Not good.
The only part of the proposal I agree with is to expand the history section. But such an expansion will include criticism and political opposition endeavors, too. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Binksternet, with a couple of additional comments:
  • I don't think we should mention in the lede that prominent elected officials strongly opposed the SPLC hate listing, unless sources establish that the politicians have subject matter expertise in the area of hate groups.
  • The history section can be expanded, but should only use (reliable) third-party sources and should only include material that meets WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 🖋 12:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
It also makes it clear that whether or not homosexuality (or anything else) is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior is not a matter of science, but of opinion. No. It's a matter of psychological science. The FRC can, of course, present an opinion that is in conflict with the consensus of psychological science; we just have to make clear that it is. I'm unsure why you believe that we can ignore WP:MEDRS in an article about a group which purports to present research that it believes demonstrates that homosexuality is not a normal, healthy variation of human behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
SunCrow, let me start by saying that I appreciate your posting a proposal here on the talk page and seeking input, rather than making bold changes. I was particularly concerned, however, by the same statement of yours that NorthBySouthBaranof has quoted. You are entitled to your views / beliefs / opinions on homosexuality, as are the FRC – but we are all bound by WP policy to present what is in reliable sources accurately. The conclusion that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behaviour is the result of extensive medical and scientific investigation and is not an opinion. The FRC's statement that homosexuality is "by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects" is an assertion about medical facts. It is based on religious belief and pseudoscience and is demonstrably incorrect. Negative psychological health effects associated with homosexuality are not based on its alleged unnaturalness, but rather the result of a confluence of factors including marginalisation and mistreatment by society, the stresses associated with coming to understand and reconcile being a minority in an environment with an unspoken assumption of heterosexuality, discrimination based in religion and ideology, internalised homophobia, etc. WP policy mandates that WP:MEDRS-level sourcing be included to support a clear and definitive statement of the medical consensus about homosexuality, and those sources are not equivocal. Some relevant examples (there are many more):
  • From section F66 of the ICD-10, which deals with classifications of psychological and behavioural disorders that are associated with sexual development and orientation and which was added when sexual orientation was removed as a mental illness: "sexual orientation by itself is not to be considered a disorder"
  • From the Working Group preparing the ICD-11: there is "no evidence that [the classifications in F66] are clinically useful" and the "Working Group recommends that these categories be deleted entirely from ICD-11" as "it is not justifiable from a clinical, public health or research perspective for a diagnosis classification to be based on sexual orientation." This comes from the journal article titled "Proposed declassification of disease categories related to sexual orientation in ICD-11: Rationale and evidence from the Working Group on Sexual Disorders and Sexual Health." in the Bull. World Health Organ. PMC 4208576
  • From Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities (2011). The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. United States Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), which was a report prepared by the US IoM (now the National Academy of Medicine) at the request of US National Institutes of Health.
    • Chapter 1: "Historically, lesbians, gay men, bisexual individuals, and transgender people have not been understood and accepted as part of the normal spectrum of the human condition. Instead, they have been stereotyped as deviants. Although LGBT people share with the rest of society the full range of health risks, they also face a profound and poorly understood set of additional health risks due largely to social stigma. ... It is important to note that, despite the common experience of stigma among members of sexual- and gender-minority groups, LGBT people have not been passive victims of discrimination and prejudice. The achievements of LGBT people over the past few decades in building a community infrastructure that addresses their health needs, as well as obtaining acknowledgment of their health concerns from scientific bodies and government entities, attest to their commitment to resisting stigma and working actively for equal treatment in all aspects of their lives, including having access to appropriate health care services and reducing health care disparities. Indeed, some of the research cited in this report demonstrates the impressive psychological resiliency displayed by members of these populations, often in the face of considerable stress."
    • The report does not "address research and theory on the origins of sexual orientation [as the] committee's task was to review the state of science on the health status of LGBT populations, to identify gaps in knowledge, and to outline a research agenda in the area of LGBT health. The committee recognized that a thorough review of research and theory relevant to the factors that shape sexual orientation (including sexual orientation identity, sexual behavior, and sexual desire or attraction) would be a substantial task, one that would be largely distinct from the committee's main focus on LGBT health, and therefore beyond the scope of the committee's charge."
    • Chapter 2: "In a landmark study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, psychologist Evelyn Hooker directly tested the assumption underlying homosexuality's inclusion in the DSM, namely, that homosexuality was inherently linked with psychopathology [and] (1957) concluded that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology and is not a clinical entity, a conclusion that received extensive support in subsequent empirical research (e.g., Gonsiorek, 1991) and eventually became the consensus view of mainstream mental health professionals in the United States."
  • The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists March 2016 Position Statement 83 titled Recognising and addressing the mental health needs of the LGBTI population: LGBTI identity has historically been criminalised, pathologised or invisibilised by the legal and medical institutions of Australia and New Zealand. Many gay or bisexual Australian and New Zealander men have a lived experience of sodomy laws, which were repealed in 1986 in New Zealand and between 1975 and 1994 in the various jurisdictions of Australia ... Many LGBTI people also have a lived experience of their sexual identity being defined as a mental disorder or abnormality. ... Legal and medical institutions are becoming increasingly inclusive. Same-sex marriage was legalised in New Zealand in 2013 but is not currently legal in Australia. The RANZCP supports marriage equality based on the evidence that legislative inequality has a significant and deleterious impact on mental health and conversely, that there is a strong link between improved health outcomes and legislation change of this sort. Further, sexual orientation change efforts, or often non-consensual therapies intended to change the sexual orientation of a person, are now broadly understood to be harmful and unethical" (references removed). Note that same-sex marriage was legalised in Australia in December 2017.
  • The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists June 2015 Position Statement 60 titled Sexual orientation change efforts: In 2009, the "American Psychological Association published a report [that] found that recent research demonstrates that there is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates. The harm such therapies can cause to individuals, the contribution they make to the misrepresentation of homosexuality as a mental disorder, and the prejudice and discrimination that can flourish through the use of such therapies has led all major medical organisations to oppose the use of sexual orientation change efforts."
  • The April 2014 Position Statement PS02/2014 titled Royal College of Psychiatrists' statement on sexual orientation: "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation. The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. ... Leading therapy organisations across the world have published statements warning of the ineffectiveness of treatments to change sexual orientation, their potential for harm and their influence in stigmatising lesbian, gay and bisexual people. There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, it is eminently reasonable that the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others (such as employers), means that some lesbian, gay and bisexual people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems. ... It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person's life. Nevertheless, sexual orientation for most people seems to be set around a point that is largely heterosexual or homosexual. Bisexual people may have a degree of choice in terms of sexual expression in which they can focus on their heterosexual or homosexual side. ... The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Systematic reviews [have suggested] that studies which have shown conversion therapies to be successful are seriously methodologically flawed. Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality can create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish, and there is evidence that they are potentially harmful. The College considers that the provision of any intervention purporting to 'treat" something which is not a disorder is wholly unethical. The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality" (references removed).
Doc James is a medical practitioner, has extensive experience with MEDRS and WP, and is uninvolved in this discussion. Would you please make any comments that you see as appropriate here? EdChem (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Re-pinging Doc James.- MrX 🖋 20:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for re-pinging, MrX, and correcting my typo in Doc James' name. EdChem (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Received a ping. Tend not to get involved with US politics. But with respect to whether or not being gay / homosexual is "normal", yes that is a biological / psychological question. And the answer to the question is yes it is biologically and psychologically "normal" per the sources provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc James, it was your medical / MEDRS experience I was seeking, I completely understand avoiding US politics.  :) EdChem (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
EdChem, thank you for your response.
I did not think that there would be consensus on the sentence regarding homosexuality as a normal, healthy variation of human behavior. Respectfully (and in spite of the well-researched information you provided to the contrary), I maintain that this question is not a scientific one. We will have to agree to disagree there.
I would like to try to reach consensus on the other issues I raised, which were:
* Mention in the lede that FRC and prominent elected officials strongly opposed the SPLC's "hate" designation. If the SPLC's designation is noteworthy enough to be in the lede, the response from twenty members of the House of Representatives, three U.S. Senators, four state Governors, and one state Attorney General should be noteworthy enough to mention there as well, shouldn't it? If not, why not?
* Create a new subsection under "Controversies and criticism" for criticism of the organization's views on homosexuality. Move the criticisms there. There is already a "Controversies and criticism" section in the article. Why shouldn't controversies and criticism be located in that section? If that is such a bad idea, why not get rid of the existing section altogether and move the information to other parts of the article?
* Rather than using terms like "widely criticized" and "widely-rejected"--which seem to me to be POV, vague, and perhaps even original research--set forth who it is that the cited source says has criticized and rejected the FRC's claims.
* Work on expanding the "History" section.
Some editors are stating or strongly implying that I am pushing POV here. Not so. I am not proposing to remove any of the criticisms of FRC, or to sanitize its statements. My motive is to restore NPOV to the article. Currently, it is unbalanced because of the intense focus on one issue. As much as some editors may dislike FRC or its positions (I don't always agree with them myself), the organization is notable for many things other than the position on sexuality and the SPLC designation. The article doesn't reflect that reality. Instead, in my opinion, it reflects the biases of some of its editors. SunCrow (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
NO SEPARATE CRITICISM SECTION. Did you even look at the guideline in my link? Everything you are proposing here is the opposite of what you describe. Rather than restore NPOV, you are seeking to remove it. No way. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
SunCrow, you are perfectly entitled to view questions on the nature of homosexuality as non-scientific and to believe only in conclusions based on faith. What you are not entitled to do is put that into the article as it is inconsistent with policy. Regarding your other comments:
  • Mention in the lede that FRC and prominent elected officials strongly opposed the SPLC's "hate" designation. The purpose of the lede is to summarise the article and to provide readers who only look at it with the most important information about the FRC. On the latter basis, I can't see why it would be included – that a group designated as a hate group opposed the designation is obvious, and that a religious group would have defenders from the Christian Right of US politics is equally unsurprising. However, references like the present 91 to 94 probably should be added to the lede after "which generated some controversy." On the former basis, as something that is part of a section of the article, it's inclusion in a summary is debatable. If the lede were expanded to the four paragraph length of a typical GA / FA, there would be much more space for its inclusion and less basis for an editorial choice to exclude it. Having said that, your comments suggest the existence of uncovered positive contributions from the FRC, and adding them to the article would logically lead to likely needing to summarise them in the lede.
  • Create a new subsection under "Controversies and criticism" for criticism of the organization's views on homosexuality. Move the criticisms there. No. Definitely Not. Absolutely Not. Just No. Policy and Practice discourages criticism sections, and separating the FRC's views on homosexuality from the criticism of it would be incredibly inappropriate. When an organisation spouts prejudice and makes medical claims that are blatantly untrue, those facts should be immediately noted and a refutation provided. As for why not get rid of the existing section altogether and move the information to other parts of the article? – that's a reasonable question and I would favour investigating this option. Criticism belongs integrated with the body of the text, and ending up with controversy like Duggar separated but the rest integrated would be an improvement, in my view.
  • Rather than using terms like "widely criticized" and "widely-rejected"--which seem to me to be POV, vague, and perhaps even original research--set forth who it is that the cited source says has criticized and rejected the FRC's claims. Remember that if reliable sources use those terms, it is neither POV nor OR. Further, listing every person and organisation that has criticised the FRC might be over-weighting the criticisms. Saying a group has been widely criticised when there is one tweet posted by a non-notable person would be POV (and false), but widely criticised can be appropriate when it is accurate.
  • Work on expanding the "History" section. Sounds perfectly reasonable so long as it is based on reliable sources, is not UNDUE, and written in an NPOV manner.
EdChem (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Initially, I decided I wouldn't be bothered trying to reach consensus here because too many editors would be too committed to pushing their POV in the article. Then, I changed my mind. I was right the first time. SunCrow (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Your position is that science is wrong and you are right. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
There IS consensus. "Agreeing with me" is NOT consensus. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag[edit]

SunCrow has marked the following sentence as neutrality disputed. 

It opposes and lobbies against equal rights for LGBT people[neutrality is disputed] (such as same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography.

In what way is this sentence not a neutral representation of the sources?- MrX 🖋 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That's an "I don't like it" tag, rather than an actionable or reasonable call for better neutrality. The statement is perfectly accurate, and widely understood to be true about FRC. I removed the tag. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
No, Binksternet, it's a neutrality tag. Contrary to your assertion, the statement that FRC "opposes and lobbies against equal rights for LGBT people" is not perfectly accurate or widely understood to be true. It is a statement of opinion, which is why it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. In fairness to FRC, they--and many others--would likely argue that they don't seek to limit equal rights for anyone, but to defend the construct of traditional marriage. They would likely argue that persons identifying as gay or lesbian were, pre-Obergefell, completely free to marry members of the opposite sex, and that the defense of traditional marriage did not deny anyone any rights or deprive anyone of equal treatment under the law. LGBT advocates and others would strongly disagree, and would likely assert that traditional marriage laws discriminated against them based upon an identity that they did not choose. But Wikipedia doesn't need to take sides on this matter just because the Supreme Court has done so. That's not the job of an encyclopedia.
MrX, I would note that there is no footnote after this sentence, so there is no issue about whether the sentence is faithful to sources. There aren't any. So we could solve the POV problem by removing this unsourced sentence altogether.
Another way to solve the POV problem is to take out the "equal rights" language. The sentence could be edited to state the issues that FRC lobbies against, as follows: "It opposes and lobbies against same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, LGBT adoption, abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research, and pornography." I have previously attempted to edit this sentence to remove the POV, but have been thwarted in that effort by other editors who are very committed to keeping their POV in this article. You know who you are. SunCrow (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Marriage and adoption are rights that straight people have, so if an organization opposes those rights for gay people, then they are opposing equal rights. It's very simple. Here's what some sources say:

"The SPLC's decision to categorize the Family Research Council as a hate group, while subjective, nevertheless relies on FRC's record of purveying stereotypes, prejudice, and junk science as a justification for public policy that would deny gays and lesbians equal rights and criminalize their conduct."
— Jones

"Kenneth Connors, a Florida attorney and leader in the pro-life movement, served as president from 2000 to 2003. During his tenure, the FRC's agenda focused on abortion, traditional marriage (i.e. one man, one woman), religious liberty, parental choice in education and tax relief for families, though a central part of its mission is still working against equal rights legislation for LGBT Americans."
— SPLC

"The Family Research Council opposes and actively lobbies against equal rights for LGBT persons"
— The Independent

- MrX 🖋 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
As the majority opinion in Obergefell cogently argued, claiming that LGBT people aren't denied marriage rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying that black people aren't denied marriage rights by miscegenation laws because they can marry other black people. "The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." Wikipedia is not taking a side in this debate, it is merely reflecting the consensus of reliable sources. That the consensus of reliable sources describes something in a way that you disagree with is irrelevant. Again, this article is not a reflection of the FRC's point of view, it is a description of the FRC from a mainstream point of view. The mainstream point of view is that these rights are, indeed, equal rights. That at some point in the past this would not have been so is irrelevant - at some point at in the past our article on Pluto described it as a planet, whereas we now call it a dwarf planet - because that is now how reliable sources have described it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Your version of "mainstream" only reflects recently changed laws (changes that many disagree with) in a minority of countries containing a minority of the world population. Keep things neutral please. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Since this is concerning assertions regarding mainstream SCIENCE -- not mention how a U.S. organization intersects with in U.S. laws and interpretation -- your "advice" is both misplaced and irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

2012 shooting clearly belongs in the lede[edit]

The organization is the victim of a high-profile domestic terror attack, the incident is featured heavily in the body, yet it's nowhere to be found in the lede? That's nonsensical, and perhaps guilty of whitewashing. This is certainly WP:DUE.ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"The SPLC denied responsibility" implies that the SPLC could ever possibly have been responsible for the act of a crazed gunman; I've reworded to make clear that the SPLC condemned the act. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Your wording is fine, I'm in agreement. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead section edits[edit]

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"[edit]

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? Face-smile.svg) 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.[1][2] 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[edit]

78.99.168.220 added SPLC designation to first paragraph with refs
  • (my comment) The lead provides information on the hate group designation by SPLC already. It should not be mentioned in both the first and third lead paragraph. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes to SPLC text (3rd paragraph)[edit]

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"[edit]

78.99.168.220 suggests adding "of children" after "LGBT adoption"
  • (my comment) Makes sense to me, adds to reader understanding without making them click through on LGBT adoption. Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Response[edit]

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.[1][2]
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.[3] Bond served as president of the board between 1971 and 1979.[4]
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.[5][6]
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")[7] and extremists[8] have often been described as authoritative and are widely accepted and cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues.[9][10][11] 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.[12][13][14][15] 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".[16]
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.[17]"

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. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  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. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  4. ^ Dees & Fiffer (1991), pp. 132–33.
  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.... CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)[failed verification]
  7. ^ "Hate Map". SPLC. Archived from the original on March 17, 2015. Retrieved July 15, 2018. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Research_Council&oldid=975318624"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Molecular assembler

Image
Molecular assembler From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from Nanofactory ) Jump to navigation Jump to search Proposed nanotechnological device This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article . Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article. Please read the layout guide and lead section guidelines to ensure the section will still be inclusive of all essential details. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page . ( December 2020 ) Part of a series of articles on Molecular nanotechnology Mechanosynthesis Molecular assembler Molecular machine Brownian motor Productive nanosystems Nanorobotics Engines of Creation   Science portal   Technology portal v t e A molecular assembler , as defined by K. Eric Drexler , is a "proposed device able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive ...
Read more

Stylistics

Image
Stylistics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search For the band, see The Stylistics . Part of a series on Linguistics Outline History Index Subfields Acquisition Anthropological Applied Computational Discourse analysis Forensic Historical Lexicography Morphology Morphophonology Neurolinguistics Philosophy of language Phonetics Phonology Pragmatics Psycholinguistics Semantics Sociolinguistics Syntax Grammatical theories Cognitive Model-theoretic Dependency Functional Generative Stochastic Topics Conservative / innovative forms Descriptivism Etymology Internet linguistics LGBT linguistics Linguistic anthropology Linguistic philosophy Origin of language Origin of speech Orthography Prescriptivism Second-language acquisition Structuralism Portal v t e Stylistics , a branch of applied li...
Read more

Tira, Israel

Image
Tira, Israel From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search For other uses, see Tira (disambiguation) . City in Central, Israel Tira טִירָה ‎ الطـّيرة City Hebrew transcription(s)  •  ISO 259 Ṭira  • Also spelled Tire (official) Tira Show map of Central Israel Tira Show map of Israel Coordinates: 32°13′56″N 34°56′54″E  /  32.23222°N 34.94833°E  / 32.23222; 34.94833 Coordinates : 32°13′56″N 34°56′54″E  /  32.23222°N 34.94833°E  / 32.23222; 34.94833 Grid position 145/182 PAL Country Israel District Central Government  • Mayor Mamoun Abd al-Hay Area  • Total 11,894  dunams (11.894 km 2  or 4.592 sq mi) Population   (2019) [1]  • Total 26,552  • Density 2,200/km 2 (5,800/sq mi) Name meaning The High Land Tira'...
Read more