Talk:Public Advocate of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hate group[edit]

This change seems entirely reasonable. Unless someone comes up with a specific reason why we shouldn't keep it, I expect to restore it. Note that WP:BRD is not in itself a reason. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Arthur has a reason![1] It's just not very good.
He says, "unless the "hate group" designation is more important than what the organization stands for, it shouldn't be in the lede".
Actually, the fact that it's a hate group is more important than the fact that it "advocates conservatism". A good model for this is Ku Klux Klan, in which the hate group status is prominently mentioned in the lead.
So, on the whole, while I'm glad you offered a reason, I have two concerns:
  1. The reason is lacking in merit.
  2. You offered it as part of a revert, violating BRD.
Anything else? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have an argument, although I don't agree with it. However, your restoration of the edit would be a violation of WP:BRD, if you believed in following it. I agree that a "hate group" designation of the KKK should be in the lede, but there's little evidence that this designation is not part of the SPLC's anti-anti-gay program. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Lionelt's revert was not legitimate. In contrast, when you reverted me, that was clearly violating BRD. In any case, your reason still lacks merit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will add my support for Lionel's edit, to clarify the consensus that much more. This is just another political SPLC designation that doesn't hold much water. I see no reason to mention it anywhere at all besides List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Belchfire-TALK 08:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like clarification as to why StillStanding thinks that "Lionelt's revert was not legitimate", in such a way that it doesn't make StillStanding's edit "illegitimate"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionelt's original revert was based on a stated reason that is illegitimate. In specific, he said "aking a major change to the lede is not "cleanup"--revert per WP:BRD".

  1. It's not a "major change", it's a single sentence, unquestionably true and with citation. We can discuss whether it needs to be in the lead, but it's already in the article body, so this is one of those subtle issues where reasonable people might disagree.
  2. Insomesia was bringing this article in line with other SPLC hate group articles by mentioning its status in the lead. That's why they called it a cleanup. You can -- and probably do -- disagree, but you can't pretend Insomesia was deceptive.
  3. At this point, he hasn't given a clear reason, so he adds that he's doing this per BRD. The problem here is that BRD isn't a policy, and even if it were, it explicitly identifies itself as not being a reason for a revert.

So, in summary, I'd call that illegitimate. And this illegitimacy is precisely why I reverted it. Fixing illegitimacy is itself a legitimate act.

I'm doing my best to be clear. Was this clear enough? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear, but wrong. It was a major change to the lede, even if it was not a major change to the article as a whole. Adding one sentence longer than the previously existing lede is a major change.
As for whether it should be in the lede, I claim Insomesia was misguided. As I said, unless SPLC's designation of the group as a "hate group" is more important than what the group actually stands for (which I doubt), a summary of what the group stands for should be in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, Belchfire just edit-warred[2] with the comment, "(SPLC listing isn't part of the "platform". Rv per consensus on Talk)". This is less than accurate.
First, the SPLC listing is as a direct result of the platform. There's no reason to break it out into a criticism ghetto.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, this is a novel change so there is no consensus for or against it. If he had brought up the issue here and gained a consensus, then he could make such a claim. As yet, he has said nothing about it. Ironically, just recently, I was falsely accused of abusing claims of consensus in my edit comments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's no consensus as to whether the "hate group" comment should be under criticism or platform. I lean toward "criticism", as putting under "platform" would imply that SLPC's comments are based on the platform, when (even granting good faith toward SLPC), they might be based on actions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I said "this is a novel change so there is no consensus for or against it". That seems pretty clear, yet you are responding as if I had claimed there was some consensus.
Creating a "Criticism" ghetto for a single sentence seems like a pretty bad idea to me, particularly as it goes against policy. As for the SPLC's designation, it is based on the platform; read the citation. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for implying you had made a mistake in regard consensus on this issue.
And the article does say it SPLC's designation was because of PAUS's policies. It didn't say "platform", but I suspect that is sufficiently noncontraversial so the SPLC's listing could be in the "platform" section. I could be convinced otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it; we all make mistakes.

The reason I keep moving criticism out of a section on the bottom and closer to what it relates to is that I'm trying to minimize the amount of tension in the article. A typical example of tension would be a long German sentence ending with the verb, in which the listener has to accumulate all of the preceding words without yet being able to comprehend them until the action is revealed.

As it stands, the article casually mentions that PAUS is a conservative advocate, goes into some detail, and only then mentions that PAUS' views are so extreme that it's considered a hate group. I don't see why we should bury the lead that way. In fact, I think it should just plain go in the lead. The fact that it's a hate group is more important than its self-labeled "conservative advocacy" status. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?[edit]

Consensus: include in the lead SPLC mention as hate group for anti-gay activities. No consensus on including proposed reason; one editor considers generalizing from SPLC's overall definition to this specific case as editorializing; the objection has not been answered. Churn and change (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Public Advocate of the United States has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." Should this be included in the WP:Lead as a notable criticism? Insomesia (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
  • COMMENT: I think the lead should contain more than
Public Advocate of the United States is an organization founded in 1981 by Eugene Delgaudio. It advocates conservative policies in American politics.[1],
but should not give WP:RSUW undue weight to SPLC,
and shouldn't include the whole
"their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities" statement.--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The SPLC is an authority on hate groups in America, the leading authority, they aren't a political group at all, they just report on hate groups of all kinds starting with the KKK decades ago. The FBI uses them as well. Thus they are the leading authority in the nation on hate groups and this is the most notable criticism of this group. According to NPOV and WP:Lead this must be there. WP:Undue might be at play if we had numerous reliable experts on hate groups that disputed SPLC's findings. But there are none. Even if we did we likely would report both sides. As the hate group designation is not disputed by any reputable hate groups authority it stands alone. Insomesia (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in lead With the context of why they are considered a hate group. Spreading lies against minorities is a pretty notable criticism by itself, that the nation's leading authority identifies your work as that of a hate group is pretty clear and notable. Insomesia (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in lead The lead of WP:LEAD explicitly encourages this:

    The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.

    (emphasis added). RossPatterson (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in lead Being designated as a hate group by the SPLC is a defining characteristic of any organization. It should be in the lead of this article and any article about a designated hate group, with explanation but not weasely excuses. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Even the mention that SPLC declares it to be a hate group is WP:UNDUE weight, unless we place a description of what they (claim to) do in the lead. Inclusion of the stated reason would clearly be undue, even if we did include more about the organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:UNDUE is a good point that in the article itself we probably should explain that the SPLC in the nation's leading authority on hate groups, that doesn't prevent us from still summarizing that Public Advocate of the United States is considered a hate group. Perhaps you meant a different guideline that would override WP:Lead and NPOV? Insomesia (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • UNDUE is part of NPOV; SPLC is the only organization defining "hate groups" (which would necessarily make it a "leading authority", but would not necessarily make the statement, or the concept of "hate groups" important or notable), and WP:LEAD suggests inclusion of the controversy, but only if PAUS's stated goals were expressed in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, a preference not rooted in facts is irrelevant. I pointed you at Ku Klux Klan as the model, but you apparently didn't read it. If you had, you would surely have noticed that it's also declared a hate group by the ADL. So, no, the SPLC is not the only authority on this matter. Please get your facts straight. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - That they are called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center should definitely be in the lead. It's a very important piece of factual content per reliable sources. The reasons why should be in the body only. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per WP:LEAD & WP:WEIGHT. --Scientiom (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - Alongside their stated aims. If no other source for their aims can be found than their own website, then it should also be made clear in the text that these are the aims stated by the organization itself. William Avery (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include For now, at least. It's either going to be a standalone sentence in the lede or a standalone criticism section; I think the latter would be more of an WP:UNDUE issue. --BDD (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per Scientom's response above. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in the lead as it currently appears in the article, exclude the proposed rationale. I don't think the general rationale is acceptable. It would be editorializing on our part to say that MR is one of those organizations listed for that reason. StAnselm (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric[edit]

There appears to be an edit war over this category.[3] I find this strange, given that an SPLC-designated anti-gay hate group is an automatic fit for it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which Wikipedia policy states that opinions of the the SPLC carry unchallenged authority? They belong in a category for SPLC-designated groups. That's all the SPLC designation supports as far as categories in an article with BLP implications. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a highly reliable source and there has been nothing offered to challenge its authority. In fact, you're edit-warring all the way up to 3RR with absolutely no basis. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC is a reliable source, yes. But their "hate group" label is opinion and must be attributed. We can't use opinion to cat a page. A preponderance of sources should be used.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They only assign the anti-gay hate group designation to... organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric. In fact, they assign it to a particularly nasty subset. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. The label is still opinion, like an editorial.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The label is an indication that this reliable source has determined that PAotUS has engaged in anti-LGBT rhetoric. This is an organization on record as opposing "so-called 'Gay Rights'", so I don't see what your objection is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you clearly have a case of WP:IDHT, I'm going to disengage this converstation with you. I suggest you let Mr. X handle this, since he supports the same position as you, and is able to address the rational for inclusion, unlike yourself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's very funny. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category is Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric
A great source to start with is here [4] or here [5]
Please report back if you don't see any anti-LGBT rhetoric in those two non-SPLC sources. By the way, the SPLC has been upheld by the community as WP:RS before.
– MrX 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Mr. X. read my mind.  :)   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What appears on their web page is irrelevant to this discussion. To appear in a category, the defining characteristics must appear as facts – not opinion (unless the categorization is clearly reflective of opinion) – on our article page. And just reading their page, an obvious primary source, is merely a source of subjective interpretation. Which, BTW, highlights a weakness in this category, and possibly other related ones: the categorization is purely subjective. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can be used, as long as they are not self serving. WP:UCS applies. However, if that's not sufficient, there are other secondary sources, including the SPLC, as has been previously pointed out. – MrX 01:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source I will be adding to the article:
Giant Homosexual Assault on Public Advocate Launches -- David Vs. Goliath!
Targeted News Service (USA) - Saturday, January 7, 2012
If it's not obvious that "radical homosexuals" is hate-baiting invective anti-LGBT rhetoric, then I really can't help you. – MrX 01:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public Advocate of the United States hate group designation[edit]

Portions of this article (opening paragraph, Anti-gay activism section, and See also section) are controversially one-sided. SPLC is not an official authority on the subject. They are just another non-profit organization advocating their beliefs, so it is one non-profit disagreeing with another. Their views are not legally binding. While it is acceptable to state that SPLC has designated Public Advocate of the United States as a hate group (the facts show that they have done this), it is one-sided to leave it at that and not inform readers that SPLC is not an authority. It gives readers the false impression that judgment has been passed on Public Advocate of the United States when it is really just one group's opinion. I ask that you clarify this in the article and make this article truly neutral or simply remove any mention of SPLC and anti-gay hate groups.

By the way, I do not financially support Public Advocate of the United States, so I am not bias. I was researching them and found this article. I am making the above request in the interest of keeping Wikipedia articles factual, neutral, and reliable. We all must refrain from including controversial or political opinions.

Coinchapel (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources that would support another viewpoint, please cite them and propose some wording. Be careful to follow WP:NOR in doing so.- MrX 🖋 03:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SLPC lawsuit[edit]

The article may seem to have too much information, relatively, about the lawsuit. But I found, when searching this topic to add content, that news articles about this lawsuit make up the majority of news coverage about the organization. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_Advocate_of_the_United_States&oldid=1203148570"