Talk:Family Research Council

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ongoing removal of cited material without stating a policy-based objection is not appropriate editing behavior. Absent any proposed wording, I'm going to continue to try and guess what the objections might be and remedy them. I welcome collaboration in this effort. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Clemens’ i don’t get it. You seem to be a very experienced editor. Instead of edit warring and threatening to edit war, why not engage in the discussion below about the material? I listed my reasons, just follow normal talk page procedures… and if you think it’s going nowhere open an RFC. I’m sure you know that Mvbaron (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit warring? Per WP:EW "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." and we've nothing of the sort here--I continue to try new phrasings and approaches, based on what RS'es actually say.  Could you comment on how your opinion interacted with my most recent edit? I've agreed for some time that Perkins' et. al's comments don't belong in the lead; this would moot their inclusion by citing the gunman's own words. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Replying here since I don't know where better to glom on this reply. I think it makes sense to mention the shooting in the lead. I do not think the lead needs any sort of synopsis of the minority viewpoint that SPLC is to blame for the shooting. Such characterizations are undue and do not satisfy the guidelines set forth in WP:BALASP and MOS:LEADREL. Verifiability is not a concern here. Neutral point of view is the concern. AlexEng(TALK) 09:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to separate out issues of blame vs. inspiration below: Just because Corkins was inspired by the SPLC list doesn't mean that the SPLC is automatically to blame for his deranged actions, and I hope we can agree on a way to discuss his motivations in a concrete and specific manner. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next Steps 

message: I've seen multiple IP addresses slo-mo edit warring over whether this organization is properly characterized as "far right" or not. What I haven't seen is:
#Anything in the body substantiating "far right"
#Any attempt to say who says FRC is "far right" rather than simply stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice.
I would encourage those who want to include "far right" to at least make an effort to source the statement; I suspect it can be sourced, but also suspect that it's going to be someone's opinion, and so would likely be better stated along the lines of "characterized as 'far right' by the SPLC" (or whomever). Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely avoid any SKYISBLUE approach to a phrase like this, since it used in so many different ways. It used to refer to anti-immigration white supremacy, but now it is used in relation to anti-LGBT positions. So not all that helpful a phrase, really. We can definitely include an attributed description of the organization (which we have above), but not, I think, in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The FRC should be characterized as "socially conservative" rather than "far right". The words "far right" are usually associated with neo-Nazism and the FRC is more associated with the Christian right (social conservatism). desmay (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right to me... but what do RS say? Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

text: It would be more useful to show how the FRC is depicted in sources. Certainly the FRC is into homophobia, xenophobia, nationalism and authoritarianism, all of which are part of the far-right spectrum. This piece positions the FRC as nationalistic. The FRC's form of "conservative" politics is reactionary—another indication of the far right. This piece says the FRC strives to remove hard-won rights from the downtrodden: a reactionary stance. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "xenophobia, nationalism" Out of curiosity, is the organization part of ultranationalism's recent rise in popularity ; or do they merely advocate religious nationalism ? Dimadick (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

text: The first piece is an opinion piece, which is suitable for "X says" but not Wikipedia's voice.  The second piece talks a lot about the FRC, but seems to avoid labeling it as anything other than "New Christian Right" which seems a fair label. Puzzlingly, the second 2019 piece refers to Chuck Colson as if he were alive; he died in 2012. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far right or not? 

message: It appears we need one to get consensus. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What prompted this thought? I don't see a lot of edit warring on this page.  The reference in the lead is pretty oblique ("in connection with") when the shooter stated the designation was his motivation for the attack. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC for Corkins attack? 

message: Is it just me or is this actually a very biased piece overall? This article seems clearly written from the perspective of someone who does not agree with FRC. It has no neutrality, as it only paints a picture of pessimism? Where is the reference to its biblical worldview? Where are the accomplishments? Why is there so much emphasis on it opposing LGBT, and not even portraying their stance correctly? This is a very biased article. 63.138.59.176 (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: the whole thing should be re-written 63.138.59.176 (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia doesn't balance all aspects of a subject but considers how they are covered in reliable sources, and bases our tone on the collective tone of those sources. When nearly all of the sources that we consider independent and reliable describe an organization as an LGBT hate group, then our article will reflect that. It seems to me that the organization's "biblical worldview" (opposing homosexuality and same-sex marriage, donating in support of homosexual execution laws in Uganda, opposing access to abortion, spreading disinformation about pedophilia, etc.) is fairly well documented here. If you think the tone of the article should change, please provide reliable sources which back up your position. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall tone