Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Explaining the NPOV tag

I'm re-tagging the article because there is no serious question that it has a POV problem. Editors who have demonstrated long-term ownership issues have tendentiously thwarted all efforts to add information not sympathetic to SPLC talking points. There are numerous reliable sources expressing a great deal of valid criticism, and it needs to be presented. Failing that, the article should be tagged simply to warn the casual reader that it is incomplete. Belchfire-TALK 18:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully Belchfire, there is serious question that it has a POV problem, which is why the tag was removed. Wouldn't it be more productive to actually edit the article so that any perceived POV issues are addressed, rather than tagging it for eternity? The tag actually adds a bitter note of POV in and of itself. – MrX 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the keeping the tag for the moment. There appears to be reliable sourcing demonstrating some critiscm of the SPLC of which is not mentioned in the article. I would welcome a discussion, but previous attempts seem to be dominated and obfuscated by a select few. A faciltated DR might be of some use.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A DRN might not be a bad idea, but I think we should let interested editors weigh-in here first. Belchfire-TALK 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MrX in that it would be much more constructive to edit the article and propose ideas rather than tag the article in the lead. Teammm ^TM 19:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• If you add an NPOV tag to a page, that indicates there is an ongoing discussion on the talkpage and it is incumbent on the person placing the tag to clearly state his or her views regarding why the article is not NPOV. Belchfire, you cannot simply say "it is POV" and be done. You must either begin a serious, clear discussion of proposed changes, or your tag is simply drive-by tagging. See Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#Adding_a_tag_to_a_page for a clear explanation of this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

From the POV Template usage notes:

Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view.

• The editor placing this template in an article should promptly provide a reason on the article's talk page. In the absence of a reason and it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, this tag may be removed by any editor.
• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Also, Little Green Rosetta..in the time you took to write your comment on perceived obfuscation, you could've at least submitted the issues of which you speak. There's nothing to weigh-in on as you've written not a thing. Teammm ^TM 19:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been ample discussion related my reasons for tagging the article - none of it has lead to a resolution. Perhaps we should work towards fixing the problems instead of edit-warring over tags. Belchfire-TALK 19:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't know who you're referring to but I haven't edit warred over a tag. Where is the ample discussion? And what's not neutral? Be specific please because I don't see it. Teammm ^TM 19:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems as though all discussions didn't result in your favor. I'll remove the tag soon if there's nothing further. Teammm ^TM 19:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Teammm that resolution was reached but the consensus did not favor Belchfire's preference. The tag was clearly placed by Belchfire as a "badge of shame" which is not its purpose. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. The NPOV issues have been discussed and largely addressed, although perhaps not to Belchfire's preferred POV. As it stands now, the tag casts doubt on the validity of every word in the article, which is a disservice to readers, and in my opinion, an unfair representation of the good editing work that occurred here over the past 6-8 weeks. – MrX 20:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I must have joined the party late. I'll comapre the article from June 1st to catch up.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem a whole lot different from when the tag was first added on 16th August. StAnselm (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all the tag should definitely stay until the neutrality issues have been resolved. In fact, there seems to be a general consensus on this talk page that the article is lacking a mention of how the SPLC's hate group listings have been criticised. That is definitely an NPOV issue. It's all very well saying that an editor should just insert something - when I did that, my edit was reverted. StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a specific concern. Belchfire offered no specific concerns, which is a gross misuse of the template. However, you really need to make a specific suggestion here. You say the article is lacking criticism; what specific criticism do you think should be included? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How about, "The addition of the Family Research Council to the list of hate groups was criticized in the light wake of the 2012 shooting of a security guard at the FRC's headquarters," etc. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be OK with that, in principle, provided that it's reliably sourced and attributed to who did the criticizing. I also think that 'in light of' should be replaced with 'after'. – MrX 22:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why I said "light". I meant "wake". StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please describe what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution. In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time. (from WP:NPOV)

I will accept absence of specific, articulated NPOV concerns as tacit agreement that the article is sufficiently neutral to remove the tag. – MrX 22:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to pretend that no concerns have been articulated is nakedly tendentious. There are discussions up and down the full length of this Talk page wherein the concerns of numerous editors have been articulated. There is also an open RfC. Trying to claim that no NPOV concerns have been stated is positively risible. Belchfire-TALK 23:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't articulated any specific issues in this section. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: since the POV tag was added on 16th August, the size of article has been increased by 48 bytes. The talk page has increased by 254,730 bytes. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been explained and, again, it is tendentious to claim otherwise. Belchfire-TALK 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, you added the tag so surely there is a sentence in the article that you believe is problematic or, alternatively, a sentence that you believe must be added to fairly portray the subject. Please, just give us one to work with. – MrX 00:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're being fair MrX, and to be honest, I doubt you have read through everything on this talk page. Belchfire is clearly referring to your latter option - a sentence (or paragraph) that "must be added to fairly portray the subject." But there have been lots of suggestions, and there is more than enough material for you to work with. StAnselm (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Pure tendentious nonsense. I did not add the tag; I restored it after it was removed without consensus. The tag was actually placed on August 15 [1], and there was, in fact, a reason given [2], which remains unresolved. The tag was removed today with the edit summary "rmv unexplained tag", which is completely bogus. Belchfire-TALK 00:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see: User:Viriditas/Maintenance tag terrorism. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're accusing other editors of terrorism??? But we have the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude? Good grief. Fine, see this essay, which contains some relevant rebuttal. Belchfire-TALK 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you see yourself reflected in the WP:HOSTAGE essay as the POV pusher who holds an article hostage to their POV by misusing maintenance tags? Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, actually I'm saying that I think you are engaging in projection. (Just one man's opinion, mind you.) Are you here to discuss content? Belchfire-TALK 01:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if it appears that I am ignoring the mountain of text that looms above out heads. The problem is that the few attempts at addressing specific content issues, either get derailed by overly eager editors, or develop toward a compromise, only to die on the vine for lack of interest. I'm not ignoring any of this; I simply don't see it being at all focused nor moving toward a resolution. I apologize if I personally have been uncooperative, non-collaborative or uncivil. Now if we could get back to discussing content, that would be be fabulous. – MrX 00:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for rejoining productive discussion.

As I see it, previous efforts haven't died from lack of interest; they've died because the persistence of the stonewallers exceeds the patience of those seeking changes to the article.

I think it would be pretty difficult for a reasonable person to deny that most people seeking to introduce non-hagiographic material have been more than willing to compromise and/or address legitimate concerns about sourcing and verbiage, but unfortunately those efforts have been met with a brick wall of resistance thrown up by those who are intent on keeping any unflattering content out. And I don't see it as unreasonable or improper to keep a maintenance tag in place while such a situation is being resolved, even if it takes an extended period of time. Belchfire-TALK 00:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Except, that's not how maintenance tags are used by Wikipedia. They are, however, used that way by WP:HOSTAGE takers. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This is off topic, I know, but I do feel it is rather bad form to appeal to your own essay like that. It does rather seem to lend a weight to your opinion that it doesn't necessarily deserve. In any case, I would suggest that the consensus on this talk page is that some relevant material does need to be added. StAnselm (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

On the last point, please read my upcoming essay, User:StAnselm/Don't cite your own essay. StAnselm (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's "bad form" to appeal to an essay written more than a year ago that perfectly describes the misuse of maintenance tags going on here? You must be using a different definition of "bad form" than I am. The shoe fits. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, we've been trying to get you to offer specific complaints. If you have any, now is the time to share them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read this talk page. StAnselm (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not an acceptable answer, and when someone answers like that, the tag should be removed immediately. You either explain exactly what needs to happen for the tag to be removed, or you stop adding it. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll just point out that your own essay is simply your own opinion, and should be weighted appropriately by those who read it. Now, since we've established that the tag was placed appropriately and was removed inappropriately, can we please move on to discussing content? Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 01:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you believe it is OK to hold an article hostage to a POV and to misuse maintenance tags to this end. Is there any other way to read your reply? Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that the scorched-earth approach of hysteria and antagonism is the default approach with a select few of the editors here, one in particular. I'm surprised to see any cooperation and respect at all but look forward to that day. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the original reason for the POV tag

According to Belchfire, the tag originally placed by St.Anselm on August 15 was because

“ I have added a neutrality tag. It seems very strange that there is no criticism section. We have a few statements of criticism under finances, but nothing for other activities. Over at Talk:Family Research Council there has been a discussion over SPLC's action in adding groups to its list of hate groups - that particular incident may not belong on this page, but for the article to be neutral, it needs to cover criticism and/or perceptions of the SPLC. ”

So, to address that, let's create a criticism section addressing the major points of criticism. We can start by moving the criticisms that are already mentioned in the article. – MrX 01:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against criticism, but I strongly oppose a criticism section. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections were deprecated many years ago in favor of integrated content found throughout the article. StAnselm's TARDIS appears to be stuck in 2005. Based on that single objection, the tag should never have been added. Your suggestion that we "move" the criticisms from the body into a specific section goes against current best practice. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Guess there's an advantage to being a noob: no bad habits to unlearn. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's called beginner's mind, and is paradoxically, the goal of every expert. Viriditas (talk)

Interesting article. Thanks for reminding me that Wikipedia can be educational as opposed to confrontational. :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have backed away from the idea of a criticism section myself, in the wake of significant objections to the idea. For myself (I can't speak for other editors), I would be happy for the tag to be removed upon the inclusion and acceptance of a suitable paragraph outlining the criticisms of the SPLC regarding their hate group listings. StAnselm (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're forgetting that my edit was reverted. StAnselm (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added it back. – MrX 02:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think you've missed the fact that there is an open RfC on its inclusion. StAnselm (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot about that RfC, which I would think would be closed already, since the last comment was made 12 days ago. Oh well, I tried. – MrX 02:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See how hard it is? StAnselm (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And the important thing about the Rfc is that it has pretty much rejected the type of unbalanced addition that StAnselm is pushing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a particular objection to my latest suggestion, Tom, or is it just that it doesn't have consensus yet? StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have all the objections that I've expressed before. The main one is that you mention the FRC without explaining why the SPLC classified it as a hate group and you don't include a rebuttal of the charges made against it. The shooting incident itself and the limited reaction to it has died down after a few days and does not warrant mention in this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Right you are. Here is the relevant essay WP:NOCRIT.

St.Anselm and Belchfire, what other criticisms do you think need to be added, and where do think it should be added? (Acknowledging that St. Anselm has a draft of one, above.) – MrX 01:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've set my AGF knob to 11, but I still can't account for how the tags have been restored while no attempt has been made to explain what specific criticism they'd like inserted. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please try setting it to 12, because I believe me may be on the verge of a breakthrough? I think we can stand the tag for a few more minutes. – MrX 01:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think StillStanding is being ridiculous, considering he participated in the discussion at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#Some concrete proposals above. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on content and avoid commenting on contributors. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

...says the editor who just above says "StAnselm's TARDIS appears to be stuck in 2005". StAnselm (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion is ridiculous. Unless you have a new concern to raise—in which case that should have been done when the POV tag was added—this is just re-arguing material that was already hashed out. That is an abuse of process. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "verge of a breakthrough". Ever since StAnselm came on the scene there has been overwhelming rejection of his proposal -- do a count on his Rfc. Don't try to sneak some phony consensus through after a few hours of discussion on a Friday night. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much support for the proposition there has been "overwhelming objection". But I do see a lot of categorical rejection of sound reasoning based on flimsy arguments, unwillingness to compromise, and hard-core ownership issues. Belchfire-TALK 03:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom, there is nothing, despite your protests, that precludes legitimate criticism of the SPLC being added to this article, morning, noon or night. If you have something constructive to add to the content discussion, I'm sure we would like to hear it. – MrX 03:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, with an existing Rfc and an ongoing discussion about adding criticism, adding material "morning, noon or night" at this point that lacks a consensus pretty much sounds like edit warring to me. As far as adding "something constructive", I have made two specific proposals (have you bothered to comment on them?) and raised many problems with the unbalanced approach you are advocating. Perhaps you can explain why you only want to include one part of the CSM article and leave out the SPLC response which is also included in the article. And I don't believe it is "constructive" on your part to resurrect in a different section of the discussion page an argument that is subject to an Rfc that is trending heavily against your position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is for specific wording, not for all criticism. Continuing to edit the article is not edit warring. I have read everything on this page, multiple times. As far as I can tell, your specific proposals negate any criticism by attributing it to hate groups or spokespeople for those hate groups. The reality is that there are politicians and pundits who have offered criticism. Interestingly, when the arguments cast light on those sourced criticisms, the WP:UNDUE card is promptly pulled out. What we actually need here is more reason, discussion and compromise and less P, G & E quoting.

To be clear on what my position actually is and what this discussion is intended to address: I am not advocating the specific wording in the RFC. I am advocating acknowledging that there is sufficient media coverage of criticism of the SPLC for its hate group designations and that this criticism must have some level of inclusion in the article. To ignore this criticism altogether, or to wrap the criticism in ad hominems, conveys an unacceptable level of bias, and cast doubt on the credibility of the entire article.

Perhaps the most recent edit addresses these concerns (I have not fully read it). My guess is that it goes a little overboard in extent. – MrX 13:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You said, "The reality is that there are politicians and pundits who have offered criticism." The politicians you refer to go back to the sourcing for the Rfc language -- in fact, as has been stated many times, the politicians did not sign off on any criticism of the SPLC but instead offered general support for the FRC. As far as the "pundits", it is totally appropriate to play the "WP:UNDUE card". In fact, almost all of them are writing from a political perspective that supports the political agenda of the FRC and ignore the more extreme FRC positions that earned them the hate listing. Mentioning the pundits, who misstate the SPLC's ACTUAL position requires that this ACTUAL position be explained.

If you are sincere about including criticism w/o ad hominem attacks, the language I proposed hits the mark. To repeat it (with a small change):

Some critics, even those that oppose the policies of listed groups, believe that the SPLC should not list non-violent groups along with organizations such as the KKK on its hate list. The SPLC and its supporters argue that extreme language can and has led to violence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've actually read through this crap, and I don't understand that conclusion. The criticism that was proposed to be added in the RfC (but not when the POV tag was added, in contradiction to long-standing policy), and which does not appear to have reached consensus, was from a group that the SPLC had included in their list of hate groups. There is has been no evidence of any non-partisan source claiming issues with SPLC. There is strong WP:UNDUE here. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the Christian Science Monitor article. The first two paragraphs look like criticism to me. The fact that the criticism came from conservatives/right/republicans is notable, but not a reason for exclusion from the article. Any attempt to analyze what the article states ventures into original research territory. – MrX 03:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it walks toward original research and makes a quick detour through WP:IRS. “Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.” We shouldn't change the meaning of what they say if we quote them, but it's entirely appropriate to interpret the sketchy context and weigh it relative to WP:UNDUE. And it fails, miserably. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, it needs to be decided by consensus. – MrX 04:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and you'll note there was an RfC with a clear consensus to oppose the inclusion. Continuing the argument past that point is an abuse of process, plain and simple. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! Particularly in the wake of the FRC shooting there have been quite a few notable criticisms of the SPLC's hate group list, though there were several prior to it: [3] [4] [5] [6] [[7] [8] [9]. Just to show some. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's all beside the point. We already did a RfC on this exact issue, and the result is clear. Yes, WP:CCC, but these are pretty much all the same actors, so that argument is moot. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some notable criticisms, and I think we can find better ones than these. The only one that I would think merits inclusion so far is the CSM one mentioned above. a13ean (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the reaction to the Milbank column. That recieved notable coverage.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I see St.Anselm has backed away from a criticism section. If we want to say that conservative/rightwing/whatever groups/media have criticised the hate group list, I guess that's ok but pretty trivial, what else would you expect? But adding such criticisms without noting the nature of their sources isn't acceptable and is pov.

This article is always going to be POV from certain perspectives (which doesn't mean it violates WP:NPOV, just that some perspectives won't accept that it meets NPOV no matter what anyone says). Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it trivial? It has certainly provoked some intense discussion here. I guess the salient points are (1) the FRC's response was well documented, (2) it seems that the FRC's objections were supported by conservative politicians, (3) a few non-conservatives joined the criticism of the hate group listing after the shooting incident. StAnselm (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The hurdle for including criticism is that it must be noteworthy. You need to show that this criticism has attracted attention in news articles and academic papers etc. If the world ignores it, there is no reason for us to include it. TFD (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But it has attracted attention. CSM and the reaction to Milbanks column shows this, so clearly the world doesn't ignore it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(out) As has been pointed out, the CSM article was incorrect - John Boehner et al. did not sign a petition against the SPLC, but rather a petition in favor of the FRC. And yes there are editorials by people who oppose the FRC but do not appreciate how the SPLC categorizes them. You need to show that these views have attracted attention which you could do by finding an article about reaction to the label. BTW I have made the same point in discussions about criticism in articles about US conservative topics as well, including Paul Ryan and the Tea Party movement. While it is very easy to find editorials criticizing them, we need reliable sources that report those criticisms. TFD (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And there are several RS covering the Milbank editorial. I think I added something to the body about this, not sure if its still there.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  07:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find anything. TFD (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

e.g. Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writer, Slams LGBT Activists, SPLC For FRC's 'Hate Group' Label. StAnselm (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressing TFD's comment, Where is the Wikipedia policy saying that criticism of a Wikipedia subject appearing in a reliable sources must itself be appraised in reliable sources?? Badmintonhist (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The onus is on you to establish the significance of these opinions. How much signicance can we assign to an opinion that has been ignored by reliable sources? Op-eds are reliable sources only for the opinions of their authors. (WP:NEWSORG.) WP:WEIGHT 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." See also WP:PRIMARY, "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". TFD (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NO. This creates an extra tier of notability which is unsupported by Wikipedia policies or guidlines. Opinions found in reliable secondary sources such as Milbank's in the unquestionably reliable Washington Post or Ken Silverstein's in Harper's are reliable as to the opinion of the authors, and would of course, be presented as opinion in our article (proportionate to opposing opinions from reliable sources). What we do not need, however, is a gratuitous extra tier of notability suggested, perhaps, because a possible difficulty in finding opinions counter to, say Milbank's, other than in blogs or other sources of somewhat questionable notability. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it your position that all editorials published in newspapers and magazines are ipso facto significant? How do you determine the relative significance on SPLC's reasons for calling the FRC a hate group and opposition to calling it that if there are no reliable sources reporting the dispute? It would seem that if any of these editorials were significant that the news media would report them. Why are we supposed to report opinions that the news media ignores? TFD (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But, as you should know, reliable sources have reported on the dispute: [10] [11] [12]; and I'm still waiting to hear about the Wikipedia policy that says there must be notable secondary sources on what are already notable secondary sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@ TFD, see [13], and in particular checkout the refs in the last graph.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

More of the same. All of these sources have been discussed and all have been found wanting. There is little point in arguing for adding the same type of language with the same type of sources. The vast majority of the sources can be lumped into the category "supporters of the FRC" and the major complaint, other than ad hominem attacks against the SPLC, is that the group is not as bad as the KKK. The anti-SPLC folks gave it their best shot and were unpersuasive. For the same four or five editors to make the same arguments over and over again does not mean that "vigorous discussion is ongoing." Without anything new being added, all we have is Tendentious editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And opinion sources that support the FRC should be kept out of the article because of what particular Wikipedia policy?? Moreover, of course, several critics of the SPLC's hate list are not at all sympathetic with the FRC: Alexander Cockburn, Ken Silverstein, Laird Wilcox, Kenneth Jost, Dana Milbank. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You make my point -- all of these have been discussed and you haven't persuaded a majority, let alone a consensus of editors. To bring it up in yet another section without any new information or arguments is Tendentious editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there campaign against the SPLC here and across wikipedia will be short lived when the article falls under General sanctions. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK there has been no discussion of these sources here, much less them having been dismissed. What is "new" is the recent questioning of the SPLC hate tag brought on by the recent FRC shooting.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not true. This long line of discussions began the day after the shooting when StAnselm added the POV tag. There has not been a consensus to use any of the proposed sources -- you should know this since you started your own section to discuss sources and nobody participated since they had already made their feelings known. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya got any policy here except me and my friends don't like it? Badmintonhist (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom, in that section I created I added the sources previously discussed as a courtesy. I also added new sources which were not addressed. Nor were they addressed in the RfC. Part of the problem is at least of these sources was created after the RfC started.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not true -- you listed five sources and at least three had been discussed before -- one was the source used in the RFC. The bottom line, however, is the sources were listed, discussed to the extent editors wished to discuss them, and no consensus to include was reached. By bringing up the same issues in yet another discussion section without adding any new arguments is Tendentious editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So by your own statement then possibly two sources weren't discussed. Let's look at them then. I'm not the only one asking about them. Is it everyone but you that is being tendentious? If you cool down and stop accusing others of bad faith then perhaps this could be put to bed sooner rather than later.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that if editors were interested in these sources, they would have continued to discuss them. They didn't -- the last response in the section was on August 30. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

FRC hate group tag

Since it appears that not all of the sources have been addressed with respect to some critiscm of the SPLC, I'm creating this new section with only these new sources.

Here are three references with respect to some critiscm to SPLC's labeling of the FRC as a hate group.

First we have the 8/16/2012 Milbank opinion piece (yes, we usually don't use op-ed pieces, but please this opinion itself received coverage) Washington Post which states

it's absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church.

which generated considerable reaction, including this from The Advocate (note, this is NOT an opinion piece but by staff writers)

Human Rights Campaign isn’t responsible for the shooting," wrote Dana Milbank. "Neither should the organization that deemed the FRC a 'hate group,' the Southern Poverty Law Center, be blamed for a madman’s act. But both are reckless in labeling as a 'hate group' a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions, on issues from stem cells to euthanasia.¶ Milbank continues, "it's absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church."

And from CNN which is acceptable per [WP:NEWSBLOG]

Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry said the council is a mainstream, if very conservative, public policy shop - one of a multitude in Washington.

"I'm not comfortable calling them a hate group," he said. "There's probably some things that have been said by one or two individuals that qualify as hate speech. But overall, it's not seen as a hate group," said Berry, who has written extensively about the influence of ideological and public policy groups in Washington.

Question Do these sources pass as RS? Do these sources merit a small section on the FRC within this article with respect to the labeling? What about sources that defend the SPLC's hate group tag of the FRC? What about the reasons the SPLC gave the FRC the tag in the first place?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a big issue of WP:UNDUE here, especially since you're cherry-picking these lukewarm quotes. "I'm not comfortable calling them" falls rather far short of "It would be wrong to call them". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't undue here. We have multiple RS covering this issue. Reread the policy again. One of the articles quotes a LGBT blogger defending the moniker for balance I suppose. I'm not sure if this outweighs the thoughts of a credentialed scholar however.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

OF COURSE some information about the controversy should be included in our article. What else has the SPLC done in the past few decades that has drawn more coverage from major national news sources? That being said, I don't think the controversy should be overemphasized in our article. I still think that my "Proposed template for 'Hate group listing' addition" was about right in terms of weight. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Diff please. I'd like to review this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading the above, I don't see the case for objecting to the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) article [14] as a source of criticism. It's written by a staff writer of a mainstream newspaper. Obviously criticism of the SPLC is by conservatives but this criticism has been found noteworthy by a mainstream journal. I'm not arguing that said criticisms are valid--that would be a POV. But that they exist and have been written about makes the noteworthy of mention. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed template for "Hate group listing" addition

I suggested a wording something like this to be added to the introductory paragraph in the Hate group listing subsection:

The hate group listing has been a source of some controversy, particularly after an August 2012 shooting at the Family Research Council [source(s)], an organization named as a hate group by the SPLC in November 2010 [source(s)]. Critics including [two or three names]] have accused the SPLC of an incautious approach to assigning the label [source(s)]. Many, including [two or three names] have defended the SPLC's policy [source(s)], and the SPLC has stated that [quotation of a SPLC statement which should not be too difficult to find]] [source].

Ah, the "template" word was throwing me off, as I was thinking about wiki-templates. No, that looks pretty darned reasonable to me, and the sources I listed above as well as the previous sources can be used. I suggest being bold and insert it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole approach taken here has been wrong. Beginning with a desire to provide criticism of the SPLC, then find sources, has lead to lengthy discussion that cannot be easily followed. Also if we do choose to include a reliable source, we must report all of what it says, not just the FRC's complaint. TFD (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

While some may be desirous of casting aspersion on the SPLC, the same could be true for SPLC puffery. Your criituqe of the process is flawed and completely irrelevant. I certainly didn't search for the Milbank piece. I found it reading a good old fashioned foldable newspaper over my morning coffee. And as for including what a source says, we include what is relevant and due.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an urgent need to add criticism against SPLC in the article. As it stands now, it gives the impression that SPLC is an objective and uncontroversial organization, when in fact it's partisan and uses dubious methods. This is POV manipulation. Arguments based on circular reasoning and non-existent policies can be dismissed. The shooting incident is significant, as SPLC was criticized according to the same standards as they use for criticizing others. --Jonund (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, how is it urgent? Do the sources state this?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I submit that the “urgent need” is just political hackery in response to an incident where POV-pushing people have incorrectly tried to tar SPLC for what some nutball did. Welcome to politics. Please leave it at home. —Kerfuffler 20:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Images of "urgent need" draws a parallel image of one too many helpings from Taco Cabana.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article gives an untrue picture of the SPLC. It's indeed an urgent need to make it NPOV by adding the criticism that belongs in the article. We have to start treating SPLC like other organizations and stop whitewashing it. --Jonund (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:UNDUE? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What do any reliable sources say?Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read WP:UNDUE. It says, among other things, that "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." In other words, by omitting criticism, the article becomes POV.

Some sources have been given above.[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] A few more are found here. --Jonund (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is with the quality of the criticism. The Jost blog, for example, complains that FRC lacked a history of "violence or criminal activity", which amounts to a straw man because the SPLC didn't make any such claim. Essentially, all he's saying is that he'd only call an organization a hate group if it met these criteria, but makes no attempt to argue why the SPLC should do as he does.

I picked that one because it was better than most -- academic, non-political -- but it's terribly weak. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if these criticisms are, in your opinion, weak. The standard for including criticisms is NOT they they are cogent enough to convince all the editors of a particular article that they are correct, it is that they have been made by a substantial number of folks whose work appears in reliable sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It does matter quite a bit that the sources cited above are mostly web-only editorials, and at least three of them are in highly partisan (therefore not reliable) sources. What you're saying here is completely inconsistent with the policy being used on other politically sensitive articles. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  22:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The list you are referring to is only a sample. Two columns that appeared in the Washington Post criticizing the SPLC's list aren't even mentioned, several news articles on the controversy aren't mentioned. The point is that there are more than enough opinion pieces and hard news items from reliable sources about the controversy, for the controversy to be mentioned in our article. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll call your bluff. Pick a hard news item from a reliable source and we'll see how we can integrate it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Advocating a certain position doesn't make a source unreliable. The sources above are all written by professionals. And when it comes to documenting criticism, their validity should least of all be doubted. If any one has objections to the sources, other than the will to keep out uncomfortable information, he has to explain the problem. And let me politely ask I'm still standing (24/7) to reread Jost's article. He does argue why the SPLC should use the term hate group more responsibly. --Jonund (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And I most sertenly agree. 110.32.145.14 (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Listings section out of date

While I'm not sure if we have a more up-to-date list of statistics, the classification is certainly out of date; SPLC no longer categorizes anti-gay groups, Holocaust denial groups, anti-immigrant groups, radical traditional Catholic groups, and racist music under "general hate", they have their own sections. Additionally, SPLC now lists anti-Muslim hate groups. The "general hate" section consists of groups that can't easily be subcategorized under another heading. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, checking the sources, I see that they're from 2009. Not only have the numbers and groups changed since then, SPLC's classification system has changed in several ways. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to update it, Roscelese? It would make sense to update the hate group categories before we add material regarding the fairly recent controversies over these listings and the FRC shooting. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope to but I'm not sure if there's a more recent breakdown of the numbers available, short of actually counting them by hand. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Church of the Creator edits

I removed this:

"According to a former member of the Alliance, when SPLC sued Pierce, the Alliance worried it would end the hate group."

because it was tagged as needing a better source. The (reliable) source actually says

Interviewer: "What was the reaction when the Southern Poverty Law Center sued Pierce?"

Employee:"He was terrified of Morris Dees. Kevin just hated him. He said, "Once Morris Dees has set his sights on you, that's it, it's over." They were really upset."

I could not reconcile these two statement, but if others can, fine. I could not find other sources that analyzed this interview further, so if we do keep that sentence, can we at least discard the better source tag?

– MrX 18:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You were correct to remove the sentance. I would hesitate to speculate the intent of the subjects. After all, they thought about building a nuclear weapon.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The main reason to knockout the sentence is perhaps less its source and the hearsay nature of it (a former white supremicist talking about someone else's thoughts ), though that is dubious enough, than the fact that it amounts to gratuitous puffery of Dees and the SPLC. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think Dougweller misunderstood why I removed it. The interpretation of the interview is original research, not by the SPLC, but by the WikiEditor who wrote that section. I'm not going to remove it again though as I don't want to appear to be edit warring.

– MrX 21:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to rush. Haste makes waste -- especially in Wikipedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I made the change.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, if anyone had contacted me and explained this I would have agreed. I was just going by the edit summary (an explanation of the reversion in your edit summary would have been useful though). Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I need to work on my edit summaries, I agree.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

FBI at the end of the First Paragraph of entire Article causing Undue Weight

I have read, as best I can, the entire discussion from beginning to the end of Tail Wagging Dog (conversation continued after September 1st when User:Badmintonhist made initial changes), and do not see a reason nor consensus for inclusion of the sentence "Along with certain other civil rights organizations it provides information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation" to be in the lead. It takes up a very small part of the article itself and compared to the totality of the article, should not be in the lead. The SPLC has done a tremendous amount of work in dismantling hate groups all by itself in addition to all of its other claims to fame. The FBI work, by this group of attorneys focused on civil lawsuits, is tiny indeed. From the FBI side, they do not even have jurisdiction over hate crimes except where the matter is a Civil (not criminal) Rights matter. Furthermore, the FBI does not even use the term Hate Group, they are focused on Hate Crimes, not Groups. The SPLC will focus on groups or individuals as the case warrants. Speaking solely of the lead, the sentence just hangs at the end of the paragraph and is not contextually even part of the first paragraph which by itself is a grammar violation. Yendor (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly why the FBI work matters. The FBI isn't allowed to track groups, which hinders their ability to find perpetrators when crimes are committed. Nor is it “tiny”; it's SPLC's mission to stop hate crimes, and allying with the FBI helps that mission. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the FBI work matters. That work is mentioned in the first paragraph of Section 5.1. But that's 1 paragraph out of 47 paragraphs. So yes, the FBI work matters, but just not in the lead lest a reader come away with the impression that the SPLC's main focus is working with the FBI. Compared to everything that the SPLC has done there is a lot more work that deserves to go in the Lead than the FBI work. And grammatically speaking if it were to be added back it would have to be in it's own paragraph and not just strung along at the end of the first one where the topic is different. A stand-alone sentence, or 1 sentence paragraph, though undesirable, would be better, if it positively had to go back Yendor (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kerfuffler for the reasons stated. The FBI's use of the SPLC to monitor extremist hate groups, especially those prone toward violence, is significant. There is also the cold case file 'partnership'. I think the inclusion in the lede is not about the amount of text in the article, but about the significance of the largest law enforcement agency in the US, part of the DOJ, working with one of the largest civil rights organizations in the US to (theoretically) solve hate crimes and to monitor extremist groups/potential domestic terrorists.The relationship is controversial, and was largely establish during the Clinton administration, under Janet Reno. – MrX 13:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Alas - no reliable source says anything of the sort. And claims which are not supported directly by reliable sources are not used in Wikipedia. What was proffered was that two people assiciated with SPLC were listed in a PowerPoint presentation. And nothing in that presentation stated that the SPLC was used to "monitor" anyone at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect, what is it that you are refuting? I've made the following claims

1. "The FBI's use of the SPLC to monitor extremist hate groups" ( source#84-Boston Globe; also supported by "States news service article: Reid: Extreme GOP Spending Plan Undermines FBI and other articles)
2. "There is also the cold case file 'partnership'" (source#85-FBI press release; + numerous other articles)

I'm curious how you could could conclude that there are no reliable source says anything of the sort.– MrX 14:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is so important, then why are there only two sentences in the body about it? Importance and weight are established by the Article, and in this case the FBI garnered a mere 2 sentences after more than a month of discussion above. The FBI work does not define what the SPLC's main purpose is. It clearly does not belong in the lead. And it does not just get tagged onto an unrelated paragraph which again makes it grammatically incorrect for Encyclopedic work. The SPLC started in 1971 and did not begin a partnership on hate crimes until 2007. There is a lot more important work that should go in the lead than a mere 2 sentences from the body. And the FBI has absolutely no problem tracking domestic terrorists since the Patriot Act. Therefore I will remove the sentence that was added on September 1st halfway through the Tail Wagging the Dog, Again, the FBI work is important, but in the lead in the first paragraph it makes it seem that the work is SPLC's crowning achievement which can be no further from verifiable fact. And the SPLC is nowhere close to one of the largest civil rights organizations Yendor (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably because both the FBI and the SPLC are being tight-lipped about it. I doubt that they would want to publicize details about how they investigate crimes. Also, this relationships seems to have been somewhat controversial pre-9/11, with respect to first amendment rights, etc. I agree that the FBI has absolutely no problem tracking domestic terrorists since the Patriot Act, but that may actually boost the SPLC's role as a resource. – MrX 14:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

To give my two cents: I've frequented this page many times as someone who has an interest in law enforcement, criminal law, etc. Let me say that I've often heard about the SPLC in connection to law enforcement, and of course, in connection to the FBI (most importantly related to the SPLC helping the FBI solve long unsolved hate crimes cases). As such, I find the mention of the FBI-SPLC partnership very fitting at the top of the article. Also @Yendor - as I understand, when Wikipedia:BRD is invoked, one should not undo that. The information should stay unless a large amount of those participating in the discussion here want to remove it. Thanks. -An interested reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.215.39 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree that the FBI work is important. The FBI began the Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative in 2006 and in 2007 invited three organizations to provide assistance, one of them being the SPLC. By 2010 when the initiative was winding down, it had identified 108 cold cases related to Civil Rights. Out of the 108 the FBI forwarded 3 cold cases to state prosecutors to follow up on.. To be fair of the 108 30 cases had already been prosecuted, and 20 turned out not to be Civil Rights/Hate Crime based.

From the SPLC website I have read their entire advertised history and there is not one mention of the FBI? In their 2011 Annual Report there is not one mention of the FBI? If anything I find that in 2009, "The Pentagon tightens its policy banning extremist activity in the military following a series of investigative reports by the SPLC since 2006 that uncovered extremist activity among active-duty personnel" is of more importance than cold case files. The SPLC helped save the Pentagon from it's own military! That should be in the lead, except that it is not supported in the body, and it leads to Undue Weight being tagged onto the first paragraph, and again it is grammatically incorrect. Yendor (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A few thoughts Since I'm waking late to this party.

1. The ip editor is "corrrect" with respect to this information should stay in place while this issue is dicussed, as the inclusion was the result of a previous consensus.
2. There is sourcing describing the SPLC/FBI relationship as Mr. X. points out. Though the consistency of this gruel is very thin.
3. The placement in the lead may be undue because the porridge is so thin.
4. Though the SPLC/FBI may wish to keep their relationship "hush hush", this should not be a factor in this article. We shouldn't make an exception for the insistence of sourcing because of such speculation.
5. Other sourcing may exist. I have made a good faith attempt to find some, but others with more robust research tools might find sources where I have failed.

  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If Yendor33 had looked higher up the page, the following reference would have been seen:

• George Michael, Associate Professor of Nuclear Counterproliferation and Deterrence at the USAF Air War College, writes that SPLC's and ADL's programs of sharing information with the FBI are "by far the most effective mechanism for countering the extreme right". He is saying that the sharing of data with the FBI by SPLC and to a greater extent ADL is more important than the "feared" but controversial lawsuits that SPLC has taken against right-wing groups to punish them for the actions of their (usually) young male members. Michael writes that the "cumulative effort of these NGOs" (ADL, SPLC, mostly) "have done much to neutralize the extreme Right in the United States." This puts SPLC's connection to the FBI at or near the top of all of its other efforts. Michael writes: "...the ADL has made considerable efforts to cultivate a close working relationship with the FBI. The SPLC has moved into this area as well and, as Morris Dees has said, the organization 'has long shared intelligence with law enforcement agencies.' In 2010 the Department of Homeland Security announced the creation of a 'countering Violent Extremism Working Group' whose members included Richard Cohen, the president and CEO of the SPLC."
• Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance, by George Michael. Vanderbilt University Press, 2012. ISBN 0826518559

I think that the FBI should be mentioned in the lead section even though the description of FBI/SPLC cooperation is minimal in the article body. The minimal description is representative of how private the interaction is, not how unimportant. It is, in fact, a very important interaction. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That does kind of nail it. I'm going to look for even more sources so we can put this to bed once and for all. There are 866 sources on Highbeam and 4,174 on NewsBank that match "southern poverty law center"& fbi. – MrX 16:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Please share what you find here, or even a section on your TP if you don't want to clutter this discussion up.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The interaction may be important, but AFAIK here at wikipedia-en we require adequate sourcing to include information. Especially information that comes mostly from primary sources or information that paints a subject in a positive/negative light. Making even the logical assumption these NGO's and the FBI want to keep their relationship on the DL doesn't releive us of the burden to require the use of RS.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I read the entire discussion, up to the point where conversation swerved to NPOV tags and the like. My first sentence clearly states that I read, to the best of my ability, from the beginning until the end of Tail Wagging Dog. Wikipedia should give no credence to a "private ... interaction". I believe it was discussed that just because Richard Cohen was on the board did not necessarily mean the SPLC was involved thus negating the George Michael quote. Otherwise why isn't the matter in the body of the Article. The SPLC has been in existence for 40 years yet people are stating that their private, secret, not publicized relation with the FBI is their most prominent role? For that is what being in the Lead means to the casual reader who we are writing these articles for. Again, the SPLC has accomplished far more important things than assisting the FBI and prominence is closely related to weight and putting the FBI in the Lead is granting it Undue Weight considering the 2 sentences (oops, forgot the secret alliance work which we're not supposed to mention) in the body. And yet still we are also consistently ignoring the grammatical aspect: that FBI sentence just does not belong in that paragraph, if it is put back it either must be relevant to the paragraph or stand alone as its own paragraph. Yendor (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps on another matter we should consider Reciprocity? That is, if the SPLC and FBI relationship is so large that it cannot even be quantified in this article, then shouldn't the Article on the Federal Bureau of Investigation list that in the lead? Obviously not since I'm being facetious. But it definitely should be listed in the FBI Article, right? Well nope. At the very end, under the See Also, is one line regarding the "List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups." Now before we make use of that line we should look at who put it there. It was added on April 20th, 2011 by JNAST1 [22] with no discussion, no reference, and no reason. I would ask JNAST1 why he put it there but he was banned as a sock-puppet and his master was banned for bad behavior. So even the FBI Article does not significantly reference the SPLC or it's far reaching importance. Yendor (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been raised before, and I do agree the FBI article needs to be addressed.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet thinks that the SPLC's connection to the FBI is at the top of all of its other efforts (his words) which would wipe away 40 years of Civil Rights movements and lawsuits all for this group to accomplish, nay its primary goal for its entire life, to be a data provider to the FBI. Yet again, no mention of the FBI in the SPLC's own History of itself but that is irrelevant. And the true fallacy is that Binksternet bases all of this on a quote from a single person - George Michael Yendor (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The pattern I'm seeing here is that strong evidence (such as Binksternet's) is presented but the response is to disregard it by shifting the goalposts. It's been made quite clear that working with LEO's is a major part of SPLC's success. This belongs in the lead. Stop dragging your feet and raising the bar; just accept it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

While I think the OP has some valid concerns, this seems to be the type thing that will be repeatedly challenged, no matter how solid the sourcing. I wonder if we should create a FAQ for this talk page to address some of these recurring topics. – MrX 19:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea. Frankly, my patience with this sort of nonsense is at a low point. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The dispute I bring up is that the Body of the Article does not support the mention of the FBI in the Lead. Patience aside, I have learned in this discussion that there is enough material in the Talk Pages to support the FBI in the LEAD. After examination (when I'm not focused on just removing) the solution is apparent, using the sources of Binksternet and Mr. X, expand Section 5.1 from a mere 2 sentences to a couple of paragraphs such that mention of the FBI in the Lead is supported by the Body. I would do it with the exception that I don't necessarily accept some of these sources, at least not to the point where I could defend them. I know, a likely excuse. But if Binksternet (and having read as much of the book he referenced as I could I apologize and withdraw my earlier comments) can list here, then please list in Section 5.1 of the article. The author does state clearly that the sharing of the information with the FBI was more effective at eliminating Right Groups than mere civil lawsuits alone. And Mr. X has developed two sources below so please have him expand Section 5.1 as well. And Still, as others call you I have noticed, perhaps you can provide oversight and final editing to ensure the other two editors make cohesive and expansive remarks. I came here focused on the problem and not the solution with a chip already on my shoulder. Well it is gone now and if you truly want to end any further arguments about the FBI in the Lead, then please ensure the body supports it. Also I'd like to recognize that Binksternet solved the grammatical problem. Yendor (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we'll let Binkersnet expand the section in the body and use that to support the inclusion in the lead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't think the sources support it (and the DHS source doesn't support anything), but Yendor is wrong as to policy. The lead is supposed to summarize what should be in the article. Something can be added to the lead before the material it would summarize is added to the body. (In that case, though, it would have to be well sourced in the lead.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yendor33, please don't misquote me.
Just in case you were wondering about the relative ranking of reliable sources, Wikipedia gives the highest credence to scholarly sources. Dr. George Michael got his Ph.D. from George Mason University's School of Public Policy. At the US Air War College, Michael is considered an expert in "terrorism & counterterrorism" along with counterproliferation, nuclear policy, and homeland defense. When he was teaching political science at University of Virginia's College at Wise, he received an Outstanding Research Faculty Award. He's been on C-SPAN's Book TV program three times and he's written numerous articles for scholarly journals. You wrote that "the true fallacy is that Binksternet bases all of this on a quote from a single person", but here at Wikipedia we greatly respect the opinion of even one scholar, especially if there are no scholars in disagreement. I see no statements to the contrary, so I take Michael at his word. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a FAQ is a good option, I see the same circular arguments from many of the same editors. The only conclusion I get from this is that they like to argue. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A report in infowars.com makes it slightly less likely to be accurate than one not mentioned in infowars.com. Please do not attempt to use infowars.com as a source for anything but Alex's statements, and possibly the content of interviews conducted by Alex. However, if it points to an identifiable McCurtain Daily Gazette article, that could be used without the URL. (I still think these support the fact that SPLC conducts investgations and turns over results to the FBI, but not that they're doing it at the FBI's request, or that it's significant, or a significant part of what SPLC does.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Additional SPLC-FBI sources

*Please comment above ^

"The FBI does work in tandem with non-profit agencies such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. ``Law enforcement agencies come to us every day with questions about particular groups, said Mark Potok, a spokesman for the center. ``I think the current division of labor is a good one, in which the government has police powers but is precluded from investigating groups merely because they have unpleasant views.

"McCurtain Daily Gazette in October of 2005. In some detail the FBI acknowledged the SPLC was engaged in an undercover role where it monitored subjects for the FBI believed to be linked to executed bomber Timothy McVeigh, the white supremacist compound at Elohim City and the mysterious German national Andreas Carl Strassmeir."

FBI surrenders documents that judge ordered

– MrX 17:27, 17:51, 21:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Public-interest law firm.

Belchfire just tried to cut this out, but let's look at the sources. Here's http://cnsnews.com/news/article/meese-southern-poverty-law-center-despicable-naming-conservative-organizations-hate, an article from a conservative source. I chose it just to make sure nobody could claim it has a liberal bias. And yet it says:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which was founded in 1971 by civil rights attorney Morris Dees, is a well-funded left-wing public interest law firm in Birmingham, Ala., which was formed to oppose racism and white supremacist groups.

This really isn't controversial; even the right wing agrees on this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The removal was not constructive. – MrX 04:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that Belchfire's edit is a follow-up to YvelinesFrance's, after which I suggested a discussion. In other words, Belchfire walked into a BRD situation that was up to the BR stage and added another R without even trying for a D. This is bad behavior. Oh, and his previous edit was much the same; reverting to a deletion that was rejected. Belchfire is on a roll. Too bad he's rolling in the downhill into the muck. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Law firm: "A law firm is a business entity formed by one or more lawyers to engage in the practice of law." Please explain how SPLC matches this description. If you can't, then I propose that simple honest requires you to self-revert. Belchfire-TALK 04:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given you a citation. If you can't refute it, I see no reason to entertain your subjective reasoning. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Southern Poverty Law Center#Litigation. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  05:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are a law firm, established by a lawyer, engaged in the practice of suing extremists in order to stifle them. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'd use wikipedia as a source, but Public_interest#Public_interest_law is worth a look which, of course has sources. And a simple search on the phrase indicates it is used quite often. I support inclusion, without even bothering to use an inline citation.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• The SPLC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Like many such organizations in the United States, it employs lawyers and pursues legal avenues in aid of its mission. That does not make it a law firm. A parallel case would be Lambda Legal—also not a law firm but best known for litigation and so on. See this, which explains the difference very clearly (and reliably). Then see this and this if you're still in doubt. Rivertorch (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm, WP:SYNTH versus WP:RS… which one do I choose? Oh, wait. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  10:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No synth involved—just a reasonably careful reading of what's there. The Yale pdf explains the precise difference between a public interest law firm and a 501(c)(3) charity, and why the latter cannot be the former. If you want a bit of WP:OR thrown in for good measure, I'll add that it is illegal for any law firm to pose as a 501(c)(3) charity; they would quickly find themselves under investigation by the IRS, lose their tax-exempt status, and be subject to fines. Are you quite willing to suggest that that's what the SPLC is up to, based on a single article at an ideologically-driven "news" site? Rivertorch (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are completely out of your depth here. In fact, the IRS specifically talks about 501(c)3 and PILF (er, that sounds wrong) on their web site; the two are totally compatible. And here's just one example of another 501(c)3 PILF. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  11:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hell, a couple more just for fun: [23] [24]. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  11:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I need to say one more thing about this before I go sleep. You need to understand that what you just did is a clear case of WP:SYNTH, and a perfect illustration of why you shouldn't do it. Based on your incorrect analysis of poorly chosen source material, you synthesized a conclusion that is unequivocally wrong, and then purported it as fact. Please take this as an important lesson; next time you'll get a trout. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  11:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(e.c.) Glad you're having fun, anyway. As for me, I'm not so much out of my depth as not paying close attention. Strangely enough, I actually did know better. I've dealt with a related issue in a former professional life, and after staring at the monitor and being seriously preoccupied for the past seven hours I somehow conflated two similar but separate points of regulation in my mind. I've stricken my self-identified original research above, and I thank you for the gentle correction (ahem) ;) Fwiw, I still do not believe that a garbage source like the one listed at the top of the thread is sufficient to label the SPLC a "law firm" for the purposes of this article. We usually allow primary-sourced self-identification for basic things like this, and what they call themselves is a "nonprofit civil rights organization" or "nonprofit organization" or "charitable organization" (depending on which splcenter.org page you refer to). That they started as a law firm isn't in question—quite a few nonprofits, charitable and otherwise, began that way—but I'd say that that's only a part of what they do now. Rivertorch (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict P.S.) Sorry, I can't agree that it was "a clear case of WP:SYNTH", but I'll tell you what: I love trout—it's delicious—and you can slap me with some if it's wild-caught and certified free of mercury-free, PCBs, and officiousness. Rivertorch (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?

Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?

Proposed descriptors:

1. activist organization Southern Poverty Law Center
2. civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center
3. controversial civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center

– MrX 13:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

---

When answering the question, consider whether an additional descriptor would be helpful the reader and still maintain a neutral point of view. The descriptor may also be used in the lead.

Examples of articles where this descriptor may be used are Parents Action League, Roy Moore, Ku Klux Klan and Morris Dees.

This RfC does not apply to this article, Southern Poverty Law Center. – MrX 13:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC) co-signer  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional Clarification

• There is no requirement to use any of these descriptors, thus the words can and may
• A descriptor would only be used once in an article, to describe what the SPLC does.
• The idea is to choose one of the choices above (proposed descriptors) or simply no descriptor (or nominate a new one).
• The RfC allows a descriptor to be used; it does not force it to be used – MrX 02:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

---

• Default to how the organization self-identifies I expect that the organization typically does not use a descriptor when describing itself, so typically I would just expect a wikilink when this name is used in other articles. When context is necessary, use the descriptor the organization itself uses - "activist organization" or "civil rights organization" would probably be fine. If there is a need to use a descriptor which someone else has assigned to the organization then there should be an context to give background of why qualification by external parties is used in the text. Generally, people and organizations should be incorporated into other articles as they self-identify. Qualifiers like "controversial" add no useful data to the article and can only provoke widely varying emotional responses in the reader without conveying information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights - "controversial" gives grossly undue weight to what we haven't even been able to reach consensus to put in the main article, and "activist" is true only in the most technical sense possible, a sense in which we don't use it here. (Does anyone seriously think that we'd be trying to attach the label "activist" if they'd stuck to calling out white nationalist hate groups and avoided calling out anti-gay and anti-Muslim hate groups?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Advocacy group seems to be a more accurate and less charged term (IMO) than "activist group". siafu (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor -- in the style of how most mainstream news organizations reference it in articles. If anything, it's a "nonprofit organization" or a "civil rights organization", but these are less preferred. a13ean (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question. If this RfC doesn't apply to this article, why is it being held? Any 'decision' arrived at here will have no weight whatsoever elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Because this article is at the hub of many other articles that mention the SPLC and because we are trying to establish some overall consensus. Why wouldn't it have weight elsewhere? These articles don't exist in isolation from each other. – MrX 18:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The articles don't exist in isolation, no. But that wasn't my point. You can't reach an 'overall consensus' here for what we do in other articles - that isn't what article talk-page RfCs are for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • This RfC is useful to decide how to describe the SPLC in the first sentence of its own article. It can also give guidance to people in disputes about how to describe it in other articles, so that they don't have to repeat general arguments about the characterization of SPLC (if we treat this as a discussion rather than a vote). Shrigley (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights or public interest law firm. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description. Just "according to the Southern Poverty Law Center". Be very careful never to disparage a source when attributing it; it gives a very unencyclopedic result. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ItsmeJudith has a good point, if we disparage a source, the reader is left thinking why was the source used to begin with. The NYT says "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups", which could work in articles where the SPLC is mentioned. BBC calls it simply a "civil rights group", which would be OK as well. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization. Obviously those who are opposed to their groups being known as hate groups would oppose this but it's what the group is and does. Insomesia (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights advocacy organization though its "hate groups" list seems to run a bit afield from the core civil rights part. Collect (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization. Its concise and accurate.Pass a Method talk 20:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description. The group's name is Wikilinked to help readers who want to know more about the organization. In my experience, SPLC is often paired with the Anti-Defamation League, and the perceived need to describe either group makes any sentence unwieldy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description. The Souther Poverty Law Center is an organization devoted to the study and fighting of hate groups. They are one of the only authroitive organizations one what is and isn't a hate group. The fact that people don't like their group being labeled as such is 100% irrelevent. We don't change it so that creationism is taught in school merely because some people want it. Because that the sciences are authoritive on the subject.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor needed. If a reader hasn't heard of the SPLC, they just click on the link. And a descriptor would be WP:UNDUE where the SPLC is simply being mentioned in another article. -- 202.124.74.178 (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization. Yes, it's wonderful that we're able to link to articles with no description, but it can be bad writing not to include a brief description of an unfamiliar organization. Readers of our articles should not be forced to follow dozens of links to understand the prose. Shrigley (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Public-service law firm, civil rights organization, civil rights advocacy organization and even which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups are all better than remaining silent. However, "controversial" is way out of line. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, I note that the SPLC is in Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States, which suggests that "civil liberties advocacy group" would be more appropriate as a neutral designation. StAnselm (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor. As has already been noted, it is both unnecessary and unencyclopaedic to apply labels to organisations in this way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• None: It's unnecessary, does not enhance the readability of other articles, and furthermore attempts to push a policy decision from one article to many others, which may be inappropriate in any given context. Where does this end? E.g., do we next need to argue about whether we should write “the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council”? —Kerfuffler  howl
  prowl  03:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: As a UK reader, I wasn't aware of the Southern Poverty Law Center until I came across it in Wikipedia - not as well-known as the Anti-Defamation League; I'm all for a brief descriptor in articles, so long as it's neutral in wording. Alfietucker (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure agree-upon neutral wording is achievable. One editor will want "defender of civil liberties," another will want "wealthy and controversial." In any case, as Kerfuffler points out, this is not the place to discuss wording in other articles. -- 202.124.75.148 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

IP 202.124.75.148 - since on one hand, as has been pointed out, these articles are not in isolation but part of a wider reference work; and on the other, a good encyclopedia minimises the number of times a reader has to weave back and forth between articles to make sense of the one they are reading in the first place - then it makes sense to discuss the wording of a brief descriptor which *can*, if necessary, be used and which, if used, ideally should have some consistency between articles. I have already seen potentially more neutral descriptors being suggested earlier in the thread than the ones you've suggested, including "Civil rights organization" or even, at a pinch, "civil liberties advocacy group". Alfietucker (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your pessimism seems entirely unwarranted; no one has advocated either of those designators in this discussion. siafu (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• None. In general introductory phrases are most useful when we don't have an article about the topic. But in this case we do. (Are we going to have a similar RfC for Amnesty International next? I hope not.) Tijfo098 (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization is perfect brief descriptor of the SPLC, to be used where needed. --Scientiom (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment on location. This is an appropriate "central" location for the RfC, if all the articles point to this RfC. I think the proposer was working on it, although I don't know if he completed his task. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• None. Context may be necessary, but none of the proposed wordings both supply relevant context and are not disputed by mainstream sources. "civil rights organization" does not supply helpful context; "nonprofit" (placed on some articles, but not proposed here) supplies absolutely no context; "controversial" does supply context, is not, itself, controversial, but doesn't explain why the organization is mentioned in the lead of other articles; "activist" does explain why the organization would make such statements, but doesn't explain why the organization is mentioned in the lead of other articles. "Public-interest law firm" is actually marginally appropriate; it both expalins why the organization might make such comments, and explain the significance (to SPLC) of such comments, but it doesn't explain why it's in the lead. I don't think it helps significantly, but it does provide some context, and is not controversial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't consider "public-interest law firm" controversial, but it appears that others do. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• No descriptor -- in much the same way mainstream news organizations reference it in their articles. It is controversial only to the whack jobs on which it keeps an eye. Heiro 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

comment and POV rears its head in re: "whack jobs".— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talk • contribs) [25]

• No description in general, although, as Andy points out above, there may be context in which adding a description such as "civil rights organization" (source, meant only as an example [26]) makes sense on other articles.VolunteerMarek 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor - that's why we have wikilinks! This seems to be a pointy way of getting permission to undermine the SPLC's descriptions of hate groups as, well... hate groups! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor if wikilinked from that article to this one; if not then "civil rights organization". Tabercil (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor necessary; a wikilink is sufficient, for anyone who doesn't know what the SPLC is. It would be preferable to refer readers to this article, rather than to try to sum up the organisation with a short and snappy tag. RolandR (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor, just a wikilink. I question the need for this RfC, which makes me wonder if it is an underhanded way to breach WP:NPOV. Cresix (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• no descriptor in most cases if necessary Civil rights organization.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'll go with No descriptor. In my opinion words such as "controversial" must definitely be avoided, because, what, these days, is not controversial. We'll have to start calling ourselves the "controversial free encyclopedia" if we start that. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• no descriptor, calling them a civil rights organization is just as POV as controversial. One person's civil rights organization is another person's agenda based activist group. SPLC is by no means an unknown organization and when people see SPLC they already have their own conclusion as to what SPLC is (and does). To add a descriptor makes any article containing that descriptor no longer capable of being NPOV.PeterWesco (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question Why is this RFC being posted across multiple talk pages? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

how many, I have seen ti on three, looksa like a (very odd) SPA (and I am suspecting a sock)Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

since the RFC aims to tell any article linking to this one what to say, it only seems appropriate to warn those watching said article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong about the SPA and Sock accusation, it's just that after 500 seperate entires I did not go any further with edits Mr X made.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• No description, and I I wish were the case elsewhere, any descriptor carries connotations and political inferences.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor needed in most cases, for when it is deemed necessary no rule is needed per WP:CREEP. I am unclear as to what prompted this but I'm guessing there is a behavioral problem lying at the bottom of it. Deal with that and don't try to dictate how every single article that mentions this organization is written. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• civil rights organization or "The Southern Policy Law Center, an organization that monitors extremist groups, ..." The name Southern Policy Law Center doesn't immediately convey the organizations purpose and mission, so a few words explaining this is helpful (and is used by news organizations). The word "controversial" should not be used per WP:LABEL. GabrielF (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Recommend no descriptor in most cases, but per Beeblebrox it's a matter for editorial judgement on each page. There should not be a rule to be enforced everywhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor: Let the group stand on its own. Toddst1 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Depends on context - If the sources choose to contextualise the views of the SPLC, in an area in which they hold a partial interest, by describing the nature of the organisation, so should we and employ a neutral terminology. Otherwise, no description. Ankh.Morpork 20:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why not refer to what their actual main externally-visible activity is, and the reason why they're most often invoked on other articles -- namely "extremism monitoring group"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description, alternatively civil rights organization. Any other description is vulnerable to bias in some sort. The Banner _talk 19:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor. Just wikilink it instead. If deemed absolutely necessary, prefer civil rights organization, as it is (1) free of bias, (2) how the organization self-identifies and (3) how the majority of external sources refer to the SPLC. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nonprofit organization or, if preferred, NGO. (The latter jargon makes me shudder, but I know it's common now) Wnt (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor The SPLC does not use one; therefore, the Wikipedia has no business adding one. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil Rights or No descriptor: The use of "controversial" would be extremely POV and FRINGE. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, no descriptor per the go-argue-about-that-shit-somewhere-else principle. Consensus as to the best layman’s description is subject to change over time. These potentially drastic changes (and any content disputes and consistency issues stemming therefrom) are best kept confined—bottlenecked, even—to a well-defined playing field, namely the text of one primary article and a short list of intimately related subjects. Neutral and undisputed descriptions may be appropriate in certain other contexts, such as—I don’t know—discussion of tax status perhaps. ―cobaltcigs 22:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor needed. Talk about over-reaching. No article can pretend to dictate how other articles refer to an organization. This was a bizarre and wasteful exercise. Veriss (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor needed - Obviously. The SPLC is a very reliable source and needs no descriptor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor, though I'd not be opposed to civil rights organization. The term "activist organization" is confusing in the least, and doesn't accurately describe the operations of the SPLC. As for "controversial civil rights organization", I imagine the qualifier "controversial" could be used to describe every single civil rights organization in the U.S., and it's totally unnecessary: anyone who clicks the link will be taken to the SPLC page, wherein they can find criticisms of the organization (if someone, for example those who want the "controversial" qualifier added to the descriptor, takes the time to write such a criticisms section on the SPLC article). BostonFenian (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor needed, follow the wikilink. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization or No descriptor needed (emphasis on the latter). All others are fringe biases and don't accurately portray SPLC's work. Teammm ^TM 01:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question - I often see in front of groups like Amnesty International the words "human rights organization." What is the reasoning here not to include "civil rights organization" for SPLC? --Activism1234 01:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is not trying to do often. This is trying to make it so we always have to put a qualifier which I don't think is necessary.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Using "civil rights organization" is not mandatory but there shouldn't be an objection to using it if desired in some instances. Teammm ^TM 01:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Rainbowofpeace, would you oppose this for Amnesty International as well? I'm trying to understand whether there's a reason specific to SPLC. --Activism1234 01:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Teammm is correct. A descriptor is not mandatory. The reason for the RfC is to determine if any of the above choices can (optionally) be used at the discretion of editors. – MrX 02:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this has been made clear, and certainly many contributors are interpreting this as a general designation used in all articles. StAnselm (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• • • • I don't think that anyone on here is arguing that it can't be used occasionally to describe exactly what SPLC is but I definately think this has not been made clear in the RFC. I do not believe it should be forced to be in other articles and if other editors see it as unnecessary should also be allowed to be removed. As for the question on Amnesty International I really don't have an opinion. It would depend upon the context in which Amnesty International is used. However in general for SPLC, Amnesty International, ADL, ACLU etc. a qualifier is not neccessary if there is a hyperlink bringing the people to the article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• NOT activist organization or controversial civil rights organization - I've skimmed the article; if pushed I would go with civil rights organization, since it seems accurate an neutral. ColaXtra (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description The SPLC is in a category of its own. Also, this is not the place to discuss this issue, because it does not relate to this article specifically. TFD (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• civil rights organization (if it must be described). I would think that any opinion in this RfC that it should have no description is not binding on editors of a particular article who feel there is some need in context to identify the organization. But if a description must be added, it civil rights organization is descriptive and identifying, whereas activist and controversial are matters of opinion and judgment. Further, they are implied anyway, as any civil rights organization will be controversial, and most of them by nature are activist. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No "default" descriptor, users can follow Wikilink if interested; certain context-specific cases may require some sort of descriptor and that will need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, but those cases should be a small minority. Zad68 02:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description - not necessary. Most people will know what it is already; those who don't can click the wikilink. It's also the simplest solution, as the third option seems to indicate there is some controversy regarding their work, so I guess in contentious topics it would just be one less thing to worry about. --Activism1234 03:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description is necessary by default. The name is linked to a full description of the organisation. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description No reason has been given for the need to have an inline descriptor, so there's no point in considering one. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description If a reader wants to know what this group is, then they can click on the Wikilink in whatever article they're reading. And besides, at least two out of the three proposals are loaded descriptions; the third, possibly. MsFionnuala _T^L_C 11:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• No description or civil rights organization 1.,3. are POV. The description isn't necessary, but CRO is accurate and NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk)
• No descriptor is best - that's why we have links. If a descriptor is really necessary in a given context, civil rights organization is the best of the three alternatives offered. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description or civil rights organization. I agree with IRWolfie- that 1. and 3. are POV. PerDaniel (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No default description. In many cases I don't think there should be one at all, but it's not a good idea to set an iron rule here regardless of what relevant sources might say on other articles; best to deal with exceptions on a case-by-case basis. bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• This is silly. Any descriptor needs to be correctly situated in the article's context. Besides, this sounds like an RfC for a new policy or guideline (in that it appears to attempt to bind multiple articles), which would need to be discussed elsewhere. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In other words, I support allowing the editors of other articles to determine the particular phraseology employed in those articles by consensus-seeking discussion on those articles' talk pages. It follows that I oppose any effort to develop a private consensus here for the purpose of later influencing them there.24.177.121.137 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually it's the opposite, the RfC is to confirm that a descriptor can be added, such as civil rights organization, in context, when it seems to fit the article. There has been edit-warring, as has been a pattern for the past few months, with anything involving the mention of the SPLC. Especially in context of their list of anti-gay hate group who apparently don't like the designation. Insomesia (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it's really not. This talk page is for discussing issues related to this article. This RfC proposes changes/restrictions to any article that mentions the SPLC, except this one. It should really be discussed by editors at those articles. You don't just get to walk into some other article and say "Consensus at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center is that this descriptor is required/prohibited." 24.177.121.137 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It's to centralize discussion and come to a consensus to stop the edit warring so we don't have to have the same RfC on a dozen or more articles. There are 27 anti-gay hate groups, most have articles here. We have been going in circles on every aspect of the hate group designation, this is just the latest attempt to end the edit-warring. This would not establish new policy but would, in theory, end the edit warring when a descriptor is added on those articles in context. As the descriptor is about the subject of this article it does make sense to have the discussion here to get wider input. I think this discussion would be better if it was understood we are not looking to add a descriptor everywhere, but only when editors feel the need to add one ... what should that be? I agree that what is decided here is not binding but it will hopefully add weight to future editing decisions, at least until the edit-warring starts over again. "The RfC allows a descriptor to be used; it does not force it to be used." Insomesia (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
        • This RfC doesn't serve a purpose except to attempt to bind other articles to its results. Look at the wording, which is very explicit in that regard. This RfC is emphatically not related to the article that this talk page is supposed to discuss; ergo, it does not belong on this talk page. This is an abuse of process. 24.177.121.137 (talk)
        • Put differently, the "same" RfC cannot possibly occur on a dozen different articles, since each would be a request for comment about a different article. You outright admit that the purpose of this RfC is to bolster an argument you intend to have in the future, elsewhere. You further admit that the edit warring will not be stopped by this RfC. I think someone should close this RfC right now for inappropriate scope. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Perhaps I'm not expressing my points very clearly or otherwise misrepresenting what i see this RfC is about. I think it's to end edit-warring that has already occurred over this same issue on many articles. It's to establish if any descriptor can be used, which is the most NPOV? Presently there is a misunderstanding that a precedent is being set to add this descriptor everywhere, that clearly is not the case. If you feel this has to be shut down that is your right but I don't think you'll find agreement with shutting down a discussion that thus far has attracted attention and collegial input. Insomesia (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
            • I've clarified my !vote, above. Your third sentence isn't properly constructed, but it's answered by policy: a descriptor may be used in an article, and the most NPOV descriptor depends on the context. Both are decisions that should be made by a consensus of involved editors aware of the context. You're trying to create a consensus here and now so as to impose it on other articles in the future, but that's not how consensus works. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, I was informed of the RfC through a posting at the Talk:Sikhism in the United States page. What that article has to do with this RfC, I do not know, and have asked. That being said, if any descriptor is used it should be attributed to who has described the organization in the manor that they did; additionally all descriptions (with reliable source verification) should be included, with non being given undue weight or stated in a POV manor. State facts of what the organization is described as, do not interject opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Just saw it on a bunch of articles I watch. This does seem best solution, in general. Especially when SPLC does a "hit piece" for fundraising or propaganda purposes. CarolMooreDC 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not "civil rights organization", because that seems needlessly biased for an organization that has had to have an RfC about it (which is a glib way of describing the broader advocacy position the organization has assumed). The other descriptors need to be supported by WP:RS in the specific instance. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Liberal organization. If it had a conservative agenda it would doubtless be described as a conservative organization. --Jonund (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description It will be linked and people can learn more about it there. Having had an RfC about it is really irrelevant as it only reflects the opinion of a few people. And certainly not 'liberal' (a word whose meaning varies by country) or any other political term. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. If so, we may have to review a lot of articles and change their descriptions of various organizations. Especially conservative ones are often described by political label. --Jonund (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description (strong first choice), Public-interest law firm (second choice), Civil rights law firm or organization (third choice.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• The. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is clearly the winner. ocrasaroon (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"RFC on conservative criticism" closed

RFC on conservative criticism has been closed as oppose to inserting the requested content. Regards, — Moe ε 03:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)