Talk:Faithful Word Baptist Church

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... as the IP noted there reliable sources available to address content/sourcing concerns --Insomesia (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP should provide evidence of asserted importance. It hasn't been done yet (as of when I entered the AfD a few minutes ago.) Now, you'll have to provide evidence of actual importance within a week. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there is evidence, now, but it's synthesized. I don't doubt that a connection could be made, now, but it still doesn't meet WP:GNG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

URLs for the 3 "newspaper" articles would be helpful, so editors could see whether any of them supports the connection between the church and the shooting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your concerns are noted. Insomesia (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, there are more "sources". Do any of them connect the church to the shooting, and are any of those actual articles, as opposed to editorials or op-eds. The article is changing too rapidly for me to check whether there are actually any non-synthesized connections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Several do but I suppose you would actually have to look at the sources to know that. Or you could just slap a tag on without checking. Insomesia (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should I look? Enough of the sources cannot be in the article without violating WP:SYNTH, that, if I were not previously involved, I would be justifying in reverting the article, claiming the entire article is a BLP violation, except the initial first paragraph. To begin with, using SPLC as a source of information about FWBC is potentially allowable, but using it as a source of information about Anderson is a clear WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC is known for their fact-checking and accuracy. We can ask at the BLP noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard to verify if you wish. Insomesia (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}. Even if they were generally known for fact-checking, it would be unlikely that they would be known for fact-checking a opponent. In other words, any statement they make about an organization after that organization states that they are a "hate group" is unlikely to be fact-checked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a false assumption that the groups they list are automatically opponents. From my perspective their only opponents are hate and injustice. They report on these groups but there is no evidence they position themselves as adversarial. And I think the opposite of what you state is true, that they continue to monitor hate groups and maintain files on each to see what these groups do next, or if they changes their positions or tactics. Their advising the FBI and police authorities suggests they keep annotated records specifically so their information is seen as reliable, up to date, and accurate. Insomesia (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that, once a "hate group" (such as FRC) attacks them, their further analysis of the group is questionable. And "their advising the FBI" seems unsourced, except for cold cases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC has a long history of being attacked, death threats etc. so I don't see yet another one as doing much. I think it would just go in the file as yet another piece of information on file. I didn't add any content about the FBI as it wasn't mention in reliable sources but there does seem to be a relationship with the FBI that goes beyond just the cold files. The FBI is known to keep their cards close to their chests on matters except where they think it helps to advertise information. It would be nice if we had an official statement detailing all the ways SPLC works with the FBI but that likely would compromise ongoing investigations. Part of researching homegrown hate groups is that you don't want them alerted to who's investigating them and for what, that's the point of an investigation. And neither the FBI or SPLC needs added attention. Insomesia (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed, but on another SPLC hate group page, I posted some links from right-wing sources which alleged that the SPLC works closely with the FBI, to the extent of sending in spies that report to the feds. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP problems

We have a non-trivial sourcing problem here. It seems that big chunks of new content are being added that are only supported by SPLC, which is not a reliable source, particularly where there are potential BLP issues. I'll leave it be for a short time, since it is clear the article is being actively worked on,. But be advised, the current situation cannot be allowed to stand and it will be corrected. Belchfire-TALK 02:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing SPLC reported that isn't verified by other sources. If you do have a specific concern please let me know and I'll have a look to ensure it's covered. I certainly don't see any BLP problems but we should take care to address those. Insomesia (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your best bet... OK, your only option, really... it to re-source anything negative about a living person, if the only source you currently have for that statement is SPLC. If it isn't said in a RS news source, just pull it out now. Belchfire-TALK 04:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC isn't a reliable source? Citation needed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTRELIABLE. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." SPLC has a clear COI and is not a reliable source for negative information about living persons. Such material needs secondary sourcing from reliable sources with editorial oversight. If a reputable news source is willing to repeat SPLC's claims, we can look at that, but SPLC by itself doesn't cut it. Belchfire-TALK 05:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is a gap in your understanding of policy. The SPLC is a reliable source for "negative" comments, such as designating an organization to be a hate group. If you disagree, I recommend WP:BLPN, because you have not made a persuasive case here. I am going to go all the way to 2RR now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, take your opinion to BLP/N and get consensus for your position. Best of luck to you. Belchfire-TALK 05:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR exemption and warning

Agree with Belch. SPLC is not RS for negative info about a BLP. The BLP exemption to 3RR is in full effect. Editors restoring SPLC-sourced negative info about a BLP will be reported forthwith. Editors at this page consider yourselves warned.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who violates 3RR under this basis will be reported so that the administrators can decide whether BLP really is in effect. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You can report Linoelt to 3RR, but it does seem a clear BLP violation he's talking about. As you've misinterpreted 3RR in the past, I suggest you defer to people more familar with BLP and 3RR before making the 4th revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I haven't edited the article at all, ever. Given that the SPLC is a reliable source, BLP doesn't figure into this. So when someone violates WP:3RR and I report them, it'll be up to neutral admins -- not you -- to rule on whether the BLP exception is involved. I wouldn't bet any money on them approving this exception. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}. What gives you the idea that the SPLC is a reliable source? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that it's not? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  This reference states,

“ Articles published in The Nation, Harper's, and even the SPLC's hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser all make the same assertion: the SPLC exaggerates, and manipulates incidents of "hate"... ”

Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  See WP:INTEXT, which links to WP:Neutral point of view#Attributing and specifying biased statements.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC notes

Is "notes" a sufficiently neutral word? It seems to implies accuracy of the statement, which is not something we can legitimately do. Perhaps "reports". (I'd prefer "alleges", but that may imply inaccuracy of the statement.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought notes, noted was neutral, alleged is certainly not. I see notes as synonymous with reports. Insomesia (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

From WP:SAY (with italics in the original)

Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to all seem fine to me. Insomesia (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added another repetition of the word "notes" without being aware of this discussion.  To me, "notes" is something that note-takers do (or take).  Notes is what are entered into Windows Notepad, which is the simplest of the Windows editors.  I think that accurately transcribing what the source said doesn't imply anything about the content being transcribed.  "Said" and "stated" partially imply a speaker, just as "wrote" perhaps unnecessarily personifies an organization.  "According to" is neutral, but not a synonym.  "Described" is wrong in the context.  And perhaps if a person "notes" this is less neutral than saying that an organization "notes"?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

SEO Law Firm

Why is "SEO Law Firm" a reliable source? I admit to being somewhat uncertain as to the possibility of anything with "SEO" in the name being related to the truth, but there's no visible indication of reliability on their site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel it helps show the balancing statements that Anderson's sermon's were bipartisan, not just against Barack Obama but against George W. Bush as well, and likely against any president. But not just anti-this presidency. To me this was valid information and leads to a more neutral reporting. I attributed the statement and i have absolutely no reason to doubt the content. Insomesia (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Completely fails RS, which specifically requires editorial oversight. SEOLawFirm explicitly disclaims this author: "The SEOLawFirm.com Newsroom extends editorial freedom to their staff and guest writers thus the views expressed in this column may not reflect the views of SEOLawFirm.com."– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 01:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the "Creep of the Week" column RS?

Is the "Creep of the Week" column RS?  Here is the URL: http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=36947 .  I removed this and was reverted by Insomesia.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you look for an alternative source to support the passage? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a different issue.  Does this need to go to the WP:RSN?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

AR-15 assault rifle report taken out of context?

The article had the sentence,

KNXV-TV noted the day after the sermon a member of the church "showed up outside of the Phoenix Convention Center toting an AR-15 assault rifle" and a pistol when President Barack Obama spoke.

I removed this sentence with the edit comment, "ref says "Broughton said he was motivated not by his pastor". And the New Mexico Independent says this was part of a Ron Paul rally."  I thought this was the end of the story, one source says what it is and another source says what it is not.  But Insomesia reverted me with the edit comment, "it was clear he went with the guns because of Obama, and did so the day after the "Why I hate Obama" sermon".  Can I get agreement from the talk page that this restoration is without a foundation?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. We should report that he denied being motivated, but the fact that there's an anti-Obama sermon on one day, and he shows up with a gun to an Obama event the next speaks for itself. Remember, we do not take our subject's word for everything. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Speaking for itself" might be WP:OR, especially when a reliable source reports, "Broughton’s appearance at the rally was part of a publicity stunt organized by Ernest Hancock,..."  ref.  It doesn't need to be coincidence that the preacher would have a sermon about Obama the day before Obama was to appear in town.  Where does a reliable source support that the sermon was the cause of the gun-toting, or even that the church was in any way connected with the gun-toting?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:OR has to be our original research. Reliable sources are entirely permitted to perform their own research and synthesis, and then we can quote them. While this speaks for itself, KNXV-TV allows us to speak about, since they did all the heavy lifting. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We are talking in circles, the New Mexico article identifies the gun-toting as part of a Ron Paul publicity stunt.  The KNXV-TV report is not new to the discussion, it allows the association between the church and the event, but by quoting Broughton leads readers to conclude that there was no causality.  Do you have any reliable sources that show that the church was the cause of the publicity stunt?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess the solution is to either remove the incident in it's entirety, or include all of it, so that it appears in full context. Something like the following? AzureCitizen (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

KNXV-TV reported that the day after the sermon, a member of the church, Chris Broughton, was carrying an AR-15 assault rifle and a pistol at the Phoenix Convention Center when President Barack Obama spoke. The New Mexico Independent reported that Broughton’s appearance at the rally was part of a publicity stunt organized by conservative radio talk show host Ernest Hancock, who also came to the rally armed and engaged in a staged interview with Broughton which was later broadcast on YouTube.

I'd be fine with that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Still one piece missing:

KNXV-TV reported that the day after the sermon, a member of the church, Chris Broughton, was carrying an AR-15 assault rifle and a pistol at the Phoenix Convention Center when President Barack Obama spoke. Broughton explained that he was not motivated by the sermon although he agreed with it. The New Mexico Independent reported that Broughton’s appearance at the rally was part of a publicity stunt organized by conservative radio talk show host Ernest Hancock, who also came to the rally armed, and engaged in a staged interview with Broughton which was later broadcast on YouTube.

I'm not saying I think this is right, but I think it is better.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems okay by me, if everyone's happy with this solution. Before we implement, can you post the cite for the "explained that he was not motivated" sentence? The ref I was looking at said (in reference to bringing the weapons) said "not to harm the president, Broughton said, but to exercise his constitutional right to have weapons." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the "KNXV-TV" source that states, "Broughton said he was motivated not by his pastor but by a long-standing dislike for the president, but told The Associated Press he "absolutely" agreed with Anderson."  Unscintillating (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the ticket! Okay, fine by me if you want to implement this full-context solution and add in the needed citations... AzureCitizen (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Me, I'm still looking for some support to not use it at all.  We already have an unbalanced article, and this event was a Ron Paul rally to support the right to bear arms.  No threat to the President was ever implied or suggested.  No one has said that Broughton represents the church either officially or as a typical member.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm fairly ambivalent whether the material (all of it, or none of it) is retained in the article or not either way. The sources make it apparent that Broughton didn't attend the rally because of the sermon, he went because of the pre-planned stunt with Hancock. If it's worth being included in the article at all, it might be more because of Broughton being a high-profile member of the Church (next to Anderson), in connection with the fact that the Obama Rally/AR15 stunt made national news, rather than the sermon thing per se. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest including all of it as it shows how the media, good or bad, portrays the church. Insomesia (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If such media includes a blog that starts "Feathered Bastard", yes, this is indeed how a POV part of the media represent this incident.  The evidence is guilt by association.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Coatrack tag on article?

Could the editor who put the coatrack tag on the article please explain what content is being kept out of the article as suggested by reliable sources? Otherwise I think the tag misleads readers that we are omitting content against policy. It seems the only notable things about the church is the hate designation, the sermons in which the pastor made some outrageous comments and the the assault riffle at the rally incident. Anyone find something else that should be included? Otherwise the tag should be removed promptly. Insomesia (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You just said that the only WP:DUE prominent things about the church are (1) the SPLC hate designation, (2) the outspoken pastor, and (3) the erroneous association between two Ron Paul supporters who brought loaded guns to a publicity stunt and the church.  (1) = unambiguous coatrack, (2) = arguably a coatrack, (3) = bad writing.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You (Insomesia) have misinterpreted WP:COATRACK. I'm saying that everything you've added is against policy, as not being about the organization. If Unscintillating is correct as to what you think is WP:DUE, then:

1. is about the SPLC, not the church
2. is about the pastor, not the church
3. is about those particular Ron Paul supporters, not the church

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hate group designation is about the church. The church's founder and leader in a sermon stated the comments about President Obama, that makes it also about the church. Reliable sources attributed the gun incident as being tied to the church. Your issue is with them. So do you have concerns about missing material covered in reliable sources? Otherwise we have pretty much covered what reliable sources have stated about the church. As for WP:Due? Let's see what that says ...

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

So, what has been published about this church in reliable sources that is still missing? I don't think I missed anything and I purposely left out the information about the pastor that didn't seem to be about the church. Specifically the arrest and trial which he blogged and preached about. Should we get more eyes on this to see if we are misinterpreting something? Insomesia (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt you've reversed WP:COATRACK; the tag is applied when inappropriate statements are in the article, not when appropriate statements are omitted.

Ignoring that, do have any arguments for the inclusion of anything about the organization? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you do have a point. Some reliable sources have reported the gun incident as being tied to the church. Those sources have be criticized for not doing adequate research. That one is a toss-up. The other two are clearly not relevant to the church. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources talking about the church they probably should be used. Coatrack is summed up as

Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing.

Well we are only talking about what reliable sources state about the church, the subject of this article; (1) that the SPLC designates the church as a hate group; (2) that the the church's leader, in his sermons at the church preached why he hated President Obama earning him a visit from the United States Secret Service, and ; (3) that the the other most famous church-goer was stopped because he was carrying an assault rifle at a rally for Obama the day after the hate sermon was delivered at the church. Insomesia (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Like Mangoe noted at BLP/N, we don't know the first thing about this church's polity.  We don't know that the pastor is or is not a member of the church.  Nor do we know the legal nature of the church.  Are they incorporated?  Is the pastor paid?  Do they have elders, deacons, bishops, missions, outreach?  How do they explain that their doctrine says that the King James version of the Bible is infallible, but English did not exist at the time of the patriarchs and Jesus?  We know that they only have one weekend service, so we can assume that they are not a megachurch.  And a church that meets in a mall is probably neither well-to-do nor large.  What is the church's view about the pastor?  Is he well-liked, or do they have an active pastoral search committee?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds like original research which we should avoid. By all means if you find reliable sources covering these areas, I will support the additions. Insomesia (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OR is a content policy.  Content policy applies to the content of articles.  This is a talk page.  What we should avoid is a coatrack.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Correct, we should avoid original research and a coatrack, I'm not seeing evidence of either in the article but there may be reliable sources that I'm not aware of presently. I've asked for uninvolved opinions so we may be able to see a path forward. Insomesia (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nice try, but I am an uninvolved editor.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• You are most certainly involved as both already taking part on this discussion as well as one of the leading contributors to the article itself. You are involved already. Insomesia (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nice try again, I have edited on this article for one day.  It now appears that you were edit warring to prevent me from improving the article on that day, as per mention of edit warring posted at BLPN and mention of edit warring posted on your talk page.  One of those reverts was to restore a "Creep of the Week" article, which shows what you consider to be reliable for BLP.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Your concerns are noted. Insomesia (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Death threats

Do we have anyone's word on this besides the pastor? If not we shouldn't state it as fact but instead as "according to Anderson." Also he founded the church and I think that needs to remain in the lead. Insomesia (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the fact that he founded the church to the lede. On the death threats, do you actually doubt that he received them? Why does that seem implausible? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wording of SPLC Hate Listing

Hi, Unscintillating. I noticed your edit to the lede changing it to listed "as an "Arizona Chapter" on a list of "Active Anti-Gay Groups" on a webpage whose URL is termed "active_hate_groups"" (scare quotes included). I don't think WP:INTEXT nor WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV justify such a stretched out way of trying to re-word the SPLC's listing of the group. I also noticed you removed both of the original source citations which include the fact that Faithful Word Baptist Church was listed as a hate group. I suggest that we restore the original sources, add in the replacement source cite you'd like to add as well, and use text that looks like this. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has listed Faithful Word Baptist Church as an anti-gay hate group.

Why are you calling accurate workmanship "scare quotes"?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's the way the quotes comes across. I certainly didn't mean to be insulting your workmanship... I'll leave it to other editors to comment if they think the quotes were appropriate or inappropriate in this usage. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to the suggestion that we "restore the original sources", I have started two discussion sections below, one for each of the two sources.  I expect that we will be able to reach a consensus that neither will be used.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me ask a counter-question, why would we ever consider using the term "hate group" in Wikipedia's voice?  Is this a neutral word?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I see that we will have to deal with edit warring to restore a BLP violation first, and the reverting editor in question states "LOL" in the edit comment.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I think he or she was "LOLing" at the use of "whose URL is termed active_hate_groups" since it seems kinda WP:POINTY with regard to WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. However, I do not doubt the sincerity with which you believe in your argument that this is a necessary and appropriate application of policy, and would respectfully ask other editors not to introduce LOL comments, etc. Turning that aside for a moment, it concerns me more that you're saying that another editor was "edit warring" to "restore a BLP violation". Please explain how he or she edit warred, and why we should consider the SPLC listing as a BLP violation. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dallas Voice, The Premier Media Source for LGBT North Texas

I thought this wouldn't need to be discussed, given the obviousness of the bias and the fact that this source is not needed to make the point, but since the removal of this source has been questioned, we now must go through the exercise.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's have the discussion then. Why do you think the source citation fails RS for the fact that the "SPLC lists Faithful Word Baptist Church as a hate group"? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I've already cited "obviousness of the bias", and you are still asking questions, do you acknowledge that there is a connection between "LGBT" and "gay", and there is a connection between "gay" and "anti-gay"?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're making the assertion that because the Dallas Voice is an LGBT newspaper, they can't be trusted to assert the simple fact that the SPLC listed the church as an anti-gay hate group. If that's what you're saying, I think I'd rather not bother going down that road, and dealing with what you're implying. Instead, I'll just find some other sources that say the same thing, in which the organization making such a straightforward statement isn't "tainted" (apparently) by being "gay". Sound good to you? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it neither constructive nor neutral to be told by another editor what I think and why I think it.  "taint" and "being 'gay' " are both charged terminology in the context, so please going forward be more neutral.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that only took a few minutes, no big deal. Here you go:

• ABC News (15 Arizona): "The SPLC is now listing the church as a hate group targeting homosexuals in a list of hate groups operating in Arizona. [The Church Pastor said] I do hate homosexuals and if hating homosexuals makes our church a hate group then that's what we are."

• The Washington Times "Others on SPLC’s anti-gay “hate group” list include: Abiding Truth Ministries of Springfield, Mass.; the Chalcedon Foundation of Vallecito, Calif.; Faithful Word Baptist Church of Tempe, Ariz.; and the Traditional Values Coalition of Anaheim, Calif."

• Phoenix New Times: "​A Tempe church has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center... ...Anderson says any "hate" he preaches comes from the bible, not him."

Now we can get back to what's important. If you'd be so kind, when you respond to my comment above about WP:INTEXT, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and the way the SLPC listing is phrased, please quote from those policies and spell out why you think they would require us to phrase it the way you changed it when there are reliable source says that say the "SPLC has listed the church as an anti-gay hate group". Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is still the discussion about Dallas Voice. ; I started this new section so that the editors on this talk page could discuss one of the sources to which you objected to its removal.  It appears that it will not be necessary to take this to RSN.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC Schlatter reference

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners is the Schlatter reference and states,

Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those are each marked with an asterisk.

The point is that this source says neither that Faithful Word Baptist Church is or is not listed as a hate group.  What it says is that the church "will be" listed as such.  Using this to source a statement that the church is listed as a "hate group" is WP:CRYSTAL.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

They are listed on the current hate map for Arizona which confirms the accuracy of what Schlatter was saying. As an insider, he was in a position to know. Since the Schlatter article contains valuable info on why the determination was made, it should be retained. Add the map reference if it makes you feel it's necessary. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, as far as sourcing goes, Schlatter's prediction remains WP:CRYSTAL even if/though the prediction came true.  And, this is not a discussion to remove the source from the Article, only as to whether it is to be used for the specific case.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

PS Apparently the link is already footnoted. Where exactly is the problem? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In the simpliest form, this diff depends solely on the Schlatter reference for sourcing.  We are now discussing other sources on this page.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That map you listed only works correctly if you have Javascript enabled.  Secondly, if you look at [1], you will see that this is a list for 2011, "Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2011 are included."  So it doesn't tell us that FWBC is currently listed as a "hate group".  Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the distinct impression that you are raising the bar for reliability far, far higher than policy requires. That's the only way I can explain your refusal to accept these sources. I'm going to politely suggest that you have the option of visiting WP:RSN if you truly doubt their reliability. Short of your doing so, I consider this issue closed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

removal of unsourced BLP problem

For the second time in as many days, I've removed a statement that uses Wikipedia's voice to say the FWBC is a "hate group", a statement that was using a source that does not support the statement.  Intext attribution avoids WP:SYNTH about the opinion of SPLC.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Stating that the SPLC lists FWBC as a hate group is exactly the opposite of saying in Wikipedia's voice that it's a hate group. Competence is required. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, it's an explicitly attributed statement. It does not appear that Unscintillating understands relevant policy. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As shown at Wikiquette Assistance, you have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the viewpoint of other editors, or at least my viewpoint.  Therefore your opinion about the viewpoint of other editors, or at least my viewpoint, is without foundation.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss to understand why it isn't clear that the statement "The SPLC lists FWBC as a hate group" is attributed to the SPLC, as opposed to speaking in Wikipedia's voice, which would simply say "The FWBC is a hate group". With regard to the source somehow not supporting the statement, I provided several other reliable secondary sources earlier today, which directly use words to the effect of "The SPLC lists FWBC as a hate group". If it clears up the unspecified BLP concerns, we'll add them as well to make sure it's unambiguously clear that this isn't a synth or BLP issue. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We might already have been discussing those sources without the edit on the Article page.  There is not a single one of the four sources that if you quoted it would have the phrase "anti-gay hate group".  Unscintillating (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? What of:

• ABC News (15 Arizona): "The SPLC is now listing the church as a hate group targeting homosexuals in a list of hate groups operating in Arizona.
• The Washington Times "Others on SPLC’s anti-gay “hate group” list include: Abiding Truth Ministries of Springfield, Mass.; the Chalcedon Foundation of Vallecito, Calif.; Faithful Word Baptist Church of Tempe, Ariz.; and the Traditional Values Coalition of Anaheim, Calif."
• Phoenix New Times: "​A Tempe church has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center..."

Given the bolded portions of those quotes, how do you maintain that those reliable secondary sources don't convey the obvious point that the SPLC has listed the FWBC as a hate group? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't see any concerns here. We should use the phrasing we do for articles about similarly-listed groups, such as the Family Research Council, as that's survived all challenges. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That you see no concerns does not mean that no concerns exist, it simply means that you are not aware of them.  The fact is that you are back on the WP:BATTLEGROUND even while the WP:ANI discussion to topic block you continues, editors on your talk page debate taking you to RFC/U, and our Wikiquette Assistance discussion remains open.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree that StillStanding is disruptive and doesn't respond to simple English requests in a comprehensible manner, including in this thread. However, I don't see what Unscintillating's problem is on this article. SPLC uses "anti-gay hate group", and others use things along the line of "SPLC declares ... to be a hate group targeting homosexuals". Even a clearly biased paper can be reliable for statements of fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)