Talk:Center for Immigration Studies

John Tanton as Founder

Is there any notable source that actually credits John Tanton as the founder of CIS? Tanton himself denies this, and the frequently cited New York Times article never says that Tanton founded CIS. Does anyone have any credible, non-biased source that CIS was founded by Tanton? Otherwise this should be removed from the article. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Hill says he founded CIS. NYT says he helped start it. I didnt even bother to check the other sources. Those two seem sufficient.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

NYT says he helped start it, Politfact says he helped start it, so we probably shouldn't call him the founder if they don't. Pretty straightforward right? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If other RS dispute that he founded CIS, add that to the article. Stop deleting what other high-quality RS are saying and stop lying in the edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the correct approach is to say what the better sources say, rather than present a poorly sourced claim as "fact" and then "rebut" it with the better sources. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hate immigrants on racial grounds is from the NY Times. No, it's not SYNTH to call a duck a duck. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't from NY Times. Post source text or stop making this obviously false claim. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"While Dr. Tanton’s influence has been extraordinary, so has his evolution — from apostle of centrist restraint to ally of angry populists and a man who increasingly saw immigration through a racial lens... Dr. Tanton grew more emboldened to challenge taboos. He increasingly made his case against immigration in racial terms." Tanton said, "One of my prime concerns is about the decline of folks who look like you and me... for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that."[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't call him a white nationalist or say he hates immigrants. I don't understand why you are having trouble reading this? It says he "increasingly saw immigration through a racial lens", it says he "increasingly made his case against immigration in racial terms". Then a quote demonstrating exactly what NYT described.

Why are you not satisfied sticking with what the source says? Factchecker_atyourservice 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

White nationalist is a concise way to give this information. Please explain why you scrubbed all sources and content (even sources that explicitly refer to him as WN) if you just want to tweak the language a little. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"White nationalist" is source misrepresentation that quite possibly amounts to WP:LIBEL. If you think the language has equivalent meaning (it doesn't) then you should have no problem using the precise language the NY Times uses. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Since you've stopped talking and resumed editing can I assume you're dropping this stick? Factchecker_atyourservice 20:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The real editing questions are WP:UNDUE & WP:SYN. The article John Tanton is balanced, with the controversy relegated to subsections. This article violates SYN because it is taking controversial (ad hominem) material about Tanton himself, putting it into the lede, thereby serving to "show" CIS itself is "bad". For some balanced non-Wiki discussions, see Politifact and Snooes. (As of now, Factchecker atyourservice's version is acceptable.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Where are we on this? We agree that "helped found" is the appropriate descriptor for his role. Does that mean eugenics comments are relevant? Surely they would be if he is the sole founder, but if he played a role? Would appreciate contribution here so we can stop rvt's SoccerSalvatore (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

An anti-immigration think tank that a eugenicist had any hand in founding? Yes, his views on eugenics are relevant.Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: calling Tanton the "founder"

Courtesy ping to @Oshwah: as protecting admin. I'm not submitting this as an edit request because it may require discussion, but I wanted to point out that the discussion has implications for which version of the page to protect in the first place so it's sort of... prior-ish to that in a way? I guess? Anyway, this is not merely a matter of WP:WRONG because Wikipedia's police on administrator application of page protection makes specific reference to BLP concerns, stating:

"When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as . . . poor-quality coverage of living people."

I realize that CIS is a group, but the effect of the prose is to associate its members more strongly with a controversial figure. Under WP:BLPGROUP this is problematic if the group is small and thus the association imparts more directly to the individual members. CIS has only a couple dozen contributors and staff so that seems significant.

Anyway the problem, and one part of an ongoing dispute, is the apparent misstatement of Tanton's relationship to CIS.

Tanton is generally described in newspapers as a donor to CIS, or as a person involved in founding the group. The New York Times, in multiple articles, says that Tanton helped to start CIS. It never says he started CIS by himself, and never describes him as the founder. PolitFact, a well-established fact-checking desk, similarly says he "helped" found the group, as does a major social justice organization, the Anti-Defamation League. The more dramatic, contrary formulation comes from self-published matter by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a different activist organization, and from some weaker sourcing that repeats that description.

Of the sources repeating the SPLC formulation instead of the NYT/ADL formulation, only one is a serious journalist, and, respectfully, he's less reputable than the author of the NYT piece and The Hill is less reputable than The Times. Meanwhile, PolitFact is no more reputable than The Hill, but is specifically geared toward factual correctness.

The other source presented to contradict NYT and PolitFact is a Wired blogger who, a quick Google search reveals, is currently writing stories about the Condom Snorting Challenge and video game controllers, so her online posts have nothing to say in contradiction of an NYT reporter who's a multiple time Pulitzer also-ran or a respected fact-checking desk. (Note, she was also insisted upon repeatedly by Snoogans as a source for calling Tanton a white nationalist, the subject of the recent revert warring.)

The WP practice of mentioning multiple opposing viewpoints is for opinions and theories, not dueling sets of facts. When a less-established writer in a lesser-quality source is contradicted by pedigreed fact reporting in the New York Times, and confirmed by PolitFact and even other activist organizations such as ADL, we leave the lesser sourcing out. This is crystallized in the WP:V sub-policy WP:REDFLAG, otherwise known as "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", which requires "multiple high-quality reliable sources" for any fact that is "apparently important". This implicitly requires that we prefer higher-quality publications over lower-quality publications when sourcing particularly sensitive facts. Words matter, and when the reporting is in conflict, we defer to the better reporting. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, why is the page fully protected? I was going to restore an edit that was reverted because it didn't cite a source, and simply add the source. We customarily add when a source is needed - we don't automatically revert it, the latter of which indicates a problem in itself. The information belongs in the article, and can be cited to this NYTimes article. There are several others that substantiate Mark Krikorian as a nationally recognized expert on immigration issues. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing in that source that substantiates that Krikorian is a "nationally recognized expert on immigration issues". It's not only unsourced, but patently false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? The source states...One of them, Mr. Krikorian said, is the lack of a national system for employers to verify that new hires are legally authorized to work. He also noted that the United States still has no system to confirm that foreigners leave the country when their visas expire. And in the very next paragraph it states: Other experts said the report was an... Why do you think the Times used "Other experts" if not referring to the preceding expert in the paragraph above? But experts disagree, expert, listed under experts, the url title "Why policy expert supports Trump's immigration ban, and so forth. I now see that there is opposition to his expert opinion which is fine as long as all relevant views are included per NPOV. Mark Krikorian may not support your POV, but he is considered an expert, and that information belongs in the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The NY Times piece refers to Krikorian as a critic, but it does say "other experts" in a way which could also refer to Krikorian. PBS refers to "experts" in a vague sense about the people consulted in the story. Hudson is not RS. I have no idea what procon.org is. A "url title" is insufficient. None of the sources directly describe Krikorian as an expert or do so in an indirect way (e.g. tout his knowledge, describe is prolific research output). And it's for good reason. He runs a crackpot outfit that produces shoddy research, as extensively documented in this Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that probably explains why the NYTimes uses him. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the reasoning goes something like this:

(1) Wiki editor Snoogans has unique insight about the nasties at CIS

(2) Thus we need to ignore what New York Times and other high quality sources say about CIS, and instead look for lower-quality sources that say things that align more closely with personal views of Wiki editor Snoogans, even though that is the opposite of what WP policy says to do

(3) ??? (a lot of people forget this step)

(4) PROFIT

Factchecker_atyourservice 16:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, none of the sources, including the NY Times directly describes Krikorian as an expert, touts his knowledge or describes his prolific research output. He's usually cited along with other CIS figures (Jessica Vaughan) as go-to figures for the anti-immigration take. When RS have fact-checked the reports that Krikorian has authored, they usually find them to be shoddy (source: the millions of sources cited in this Wikipedia article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I am talking about you reaching into low-quality sourcing to contradict higher quality sourcing on the factual matter about whether Tanton was CIS founder. At the present moment I'm not bothering to argue with you about the frankly obvious fact that he is regarded as an expert because I don't care about it very much. If I did care, I'm sure sourcing could be found. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

, , , addressing Snoogans' arguments with the "expert" title. Krikorian has testified before Congress dozens of times, has three published books, is frequently invited to debate other immigration experts such as Cato's Alex Nowrasteh, etc. Regardless of your personal political stance and your disagreement over his policy prescriptions, the man is an expert on immigration.

Again - the topic at hand - are there no high quality sources that can pinpoint Tanton as THE founder of CIS? It is referenced in this article, as being a matter of fact, multiple times, and Fact Checker has made a great series of posts demonstrating that this is clearly misleading and should be removed. Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Krikorian hasn't published any peer-reviewed research. Testifying in front of Congress means absolutely nothing. All kinds of pseudoscientists testify in front of Congress. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans do you agree we should say that Tanton "helped" start CIS since that is what the best sourcing says? Factchecker_atyourservice 21:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No, "helped found" and "founded" are both OK and can both be reliably sourced. According to this study, CIS intentionally obscures Tanton's role in its founding.[2] We can mention that when we discuss whether Tanton "helped found" or "founded" this organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That article has some pretty serious issues. For one, neither of the two cited studies (on page 359) mention Tanton at all. Certainly CIS has tried to distance themselves from his association, as the article points out, but this article hardly supports the claim that he founded CIS. The Sohoni and Jaret articles, for reference Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so we'll just say he "helped found CIS" per the good sourcing and then we can probably ignore that random sociology journal article per WEIGHT. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme - I apologize for the delay responding to your ping here. Did you still have questions about this? Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Lorty, Oshwah - I've forgotten all about it, but thank you for responding. I'm now trying to come up with some humorous quips for an upcoming SignPost article, but think I may need a few more beverages 🍹 to kick-start my funny bone. Don't want to mess that up discussing serious stuff. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)    

Looking at the citation and view stats for the Sociological Focus article, I don't think it has had much impact. So achieving Balance related to Woods's view is problematic. But trying to do so is getting too deep into the weeds for an encyclopedic article. Let's just mention that Tanton had a role (e.g., "helped found" and omit POV characterizations) in the founding. The present text suits me just fine. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

that's certainly the most accurate language Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts I had on this, wanted the opinion of everyone:

The SPLC admits no technical institutional relationship between Tanton and CIS in the passage below:

'But Krikorian, who has been the executive director of CIS since 1995, shrugged off the idea that Tanton had any influence there. “We’ve never had any institutional relationship,” Krikorian told the Intelligence report in an E-mail. “He’s never been on our board or served as an employee, he’s never even been in our offices.” He said Tanton “had some role back in the mid-80s in helping rustle up money for CIS,” but added that he and Tanton had no “personal relationship.” Krikorian sounded a similar note in 2004, when he testified before an immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. “He wrote us a check, I think it was a year ago,” he said of Tanton. “It was the first check I have seen from him in nine or 10 years. … We have no institutional relationship.” That may be technically true.'(https://www.splcenter.org/20090131/nativist-lobby-three-faces-intolerance)

Keep in mind that any reference to Tanton as the founder cites this exact SPLC article. In the first sentence, the SPLC is arguing that Tanton had inflence rather than any founding membership. Secondly, they agree with Krikorian that Tanton and CIS technically have no institutional relationship. (may be, may be not...not very decisive)

So, if it is "technically true" that they have no "institutional relationship" it seems misleading to characterize him as the founder.

If not technical, then it's speculation. This loose connection should be included in the lengthy criticism/controversy section of this page, not in the introductory paragraph. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? user:SPECIFICO user:Factchecker_atyourservice Darryl.jensen (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Personally I thought this debate was resolved long ago. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Likewise. Given there seems to be consensus regarding the "technically true" language should we now move the Tanton references to Criticism section? user:Darryl.jensen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateMike729 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, sounds like this is finally all cleared up, yes user:Darryl.jensen? Gonna go ahead and move Tanton to criticism as per consensus. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds cleared up to me Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

According to Otis Graham, the founding board member of CIS, Tanton played "no part" in founding the organization at all (page 139, "Immigration Reform and America's Chosen Future", his autobiography). We ought to at least mention that the guy who founded the organization disputes that Tanton played any role in the founding...ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

References

"a wide range of think tanks"

Aside from Cato and Center for American Progress, I'm not sure any other think tanks have have come out with discrediting articles re: CIS. Some of the other conservative ones use their research frequently, such as Heritage. That section in the concluding sentence of the opening seems unhelpful and should be edited or removed. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I see at least the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Cato Institute, Urban Institute and Center for American Progress. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

cleaning up controversial reports

A few things I think should collectively be done:

1) These should be re-posted chronologically. I.e. why is there a comment on a report from 2017, then one from 2003, one from 2008, and then back to 2018?

2) Some of the points are redundant or unnecessary. For example, citing Alex Nowrasteh (who debates Krikorian on CSPAN, on Twitter, etc.) doesn't belong in this section. The only real commentary that should belong here is from the fact checkers like PolitiFact or WaPo's Pinocchio ratings. Anything else is just opposing debating opposing viewpoints. Thoughts? Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like this was ever addressed. Sounds reasonable to me. Not sure why anyone would object to chronology, and I agree on Nowrasteh. Haven't looked through all the other commentary yet but certainly his wouldn't fit. Definitely should keep the criticism from fact checkers as that's objective. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nowrasteh should absolutely not be dropped. He's frequently cited by RS, and has frequently debunked the shoddy research that CIS produces. The desire to whitewash CATO from this article is puzzling given that you yourself dispute that a wide range of think-tanks have criticized CIS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is currently 3219 words. The controversial reports section alone is 1840 words. Does anyone seriously think that's not extremely excessive? Drmies added an overly detailed tag, which pretty obviously was reasonable to do. Now let's reach some kind of consensus regarding what details in this massively bloated section don't belong. Not sure why you're so resistant to that. Perhaps Darryl.jensen can weigh in as well so we can decide which criticism belongs and which is excessive. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This whole thing should be seriously pruned, there is no doubt about it. Including every criticism from every organization or person is just overdoing it. Serious pruning and rewriting the text to make more generalized points with strong references is, IMO, mandatory here. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Add in "criticism" and we're up to 2642 words, or 82% of the entire article. I propose we combine controversial reports and criticism into a single section, and then prune it. Seems really redundant to separate them and an easy place to start if we need to cut trim this thing, no? ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies and ModerateMike729, there is no reason to include every minute criticism that has ever been lodged at the organization. A single, concise "Criticism" section is all that is necessary. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the changes accordingly. I'm preserving the parts of controversial report that I pruned below. The ones I pruned were done so on the basis of either 1) Biased author/lack of npov, or 2) Not a controversial report (e.g. there was one paragraph about the Trump admin. that was only tangentially related to CIS and didn't cite any specific reports...). Would be glad to discuss if yall think that there are some I'm missing, or something that should be added back to the sub-section:

In August 2008, the CIS published a report Immigration to the United States and World-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions saying that, although immigrants to the U.S. had, on average, 18% lower carbon dioxide emissions than native-born Americans, they "produce an estimated four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin." Amanda Peterson Beadle in ThinkProgress said that this conclusion was "simply absurd" because it had used the "deeply flawed methodology" of taking income in the U.S. as a surrogate for CO2 emissions. Andrew Light of the Center for American Progress did not take issue with the report's methodology, but argued that there were better and more direct ways of limiting U.S. emissions than reducing immigration.

Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute has repeatedly criticized CIS for "a history of using poor methodology and data in their reports".

A September 2015 report by CIS asserted that "immigrant households receive 41 percent more federal welfare than households headed by native-born citizens." The report was criticized on the basis of poor methodology. Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute said that the reported opted not to examine how much welfare immigrants use, but to examine households led by an immigrant so that the report could count the welfare usage of the immigrant's US-born children, which leads to a misleading estimate of immigrant welfare use.

CIS has claimed that giving birth on U.S. soil gives immigrants access to welfare and other social benefits, and that this gives rise "birth tourism" (the practice of foreigners traveling to the United States to give birth to U.S. citizens). CNN wrote that "Politifact has mostly debunked those claims, concluding that US-born children do little in the long term to help their immigrant parents. Citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until the young person turns 21 and any social benefits would be given to the child and not their undocumented parents, who would not qualify. The Pew Research Center also has found that the number of babies born to unauthorized immigrants in the United States has been declining steadily in recent years."

In 2018, CIS defended the Trump administration's decision to separate undocumented immigrant children from their parents. CIS argued that the policy deterred immigrant families from crossing the US border and said that the policy "actually protects foreign nationals". At a June 2018 event hosted at CIS, outgoing Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, defended the policy.

Elliott Young, Professor of History and Director of Ethnic Studies at Lewis & Clark College, criticized CIS as "a crackpot organization with a website filled with xenophobic racists who twist data to spread lies about immigrants". He criticized the organization for promulgating the false claim that 72 people from Trump’s seven banned countries were involved with terrorist activities. He argued that it was unwise for Lewis & Clark College students to invite Jessica Vaughan of the CIS to speak at the college, saying that "Vaughan’s reports are chock full of data, these data don’t withstand scrutiny and her conclusions are based in her nativism and not in facts."

In September 2017, the Trump administration defended its claim that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs" by citing editorials written by members of the Center for Immigration Studies. However, economists consulted by PolitiFact rejected the claim, noting that the job market is not fixed or zero-sum.' ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine as a start. But frankly we need to remove a lot more, and more strongly source what we do keep. As I've said, the only thing that really belongs here is fact-checkers rather than just opposing viewpoints. I will help work on this soon. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course opposing viewpoints belong here. While I agree with trimming bloat and repetition, there is obviously a place here to discuss people who reject the CIS, and explore why they reject the organization. Just as we discuss the many people who believe the Southern Poverty Law Center has lost its way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think NorthBySouthBaranof is right here. If we're going to talk about controversial reports, it's fine to talk about experts who find them controversial and why. That includes other think tankers and policy analysts, most of whom I kept in the criticism section in my above changes. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely possible to trim text without losing a lot of substance in the 'controversial reports' section. Some of the paragraphs go into too much detail. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't remove anything you added back, but just trimmed some of the longer paragraphs. I left Nowrasteh's stuff in tact as it was pretty concise. Take a look. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Could use some help here. If you disagree with those cuts that's fine, but some other input would be appreciated. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there are two areas that can be reasonably trimmed from "controversial reports" because they are excessively detailed, and as we've agreed we need to start cutting.

1. Remove the following from the February 2017 paragraph: "FactCheck.Org found that most (44 of the 72) had not been convicted on terrorism charges, and that none of the 72 people were responsible for a terrorism-related death in the US.[68] Snopes mirrored the FactCheck.Org assessment while noting that the CIS report also omitted needed context, as the CIS report tried to frame those countries as particularly terrorism-prone when they were not: "The omitted context was that persons from many countries that were not on the entry restriction list were involved in vastly more terrorism-related convictions than some of the countries that were on the list."[72] The Washington Post Fact-Checker said that the report was "pretty thin gruel on which to make sweeping claims about the alleged threat posed to the United States by these seven countries" because of its inaccuracies.[71]" It's quite excessive to go through the specific rationale of every factchecker that debunked CIS here. Makes far more sense to just list the fact-checkers who debunked them, and include the short summary as to why. This is clearly too detailed to add much value.

2. Remove the following from the March 2007 paragraph: "Cornelius noted that CIS "offers a relentlessly negative view of the most recent wave of immigration to the United States. The economic benefits of immigration – even illegal immigration – to the average American are barely acknowledged, while the costs are estimated in such a way as to provoke the maximum degree of public anger and anxiety."[51]" My rationale for this one is that the first half of that paragraph already explains why Cornelius disagrees with the CIS study about welfare use. The extra color commentary isn't needed. I'd appreciate some feedback on these changes, as when I've tried to make cuts in the past, the usual suspects have just reverted my changes without any feedback in the Talk or rationale. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there's no issues or push back here so according to WP:BOLD I'll go ahead and make those changes. Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a few more suggestions to trim this section while retaining most of the substance, and would appreciate feedback. I focused on the 2011-2014 period, where both the criticisms and the subsequent Center responses were far too overly detailed/wordy. I also cleaned up some awkward grammar/tenses/wording issues. My draft here:

In September 2011, CIS published a report Who Benefited from Job Growth In Texas? saying that, in the period 2007-2011, immigrants had taken 81% of newly created jobs in the state. Chuck DeVore, a conservative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation said that the report "relied on flawed methodology".[55] CIS subsequently replied to DeVore's criticism.[56] Politifact weighed in, saying that Devore was correct to claim that "trying to draw conclusions about immigration and employment in Texas in isolation from other factors is problematic at best" but that they agreed with Krikorian that "even if DeVore prefers a net-to-net comparison, immigrants still got a disproportionate share of new jobs."[54][57]

Norman Matloff, a UC Davis professor of computer science, wrote a report for CIS arguing that most H-1B visa workers, rather than being "the best and the brightest", are mostly of average talent.[58][59][60] James Shrek of the Heritage Foundation argued that the existing data shows that H-1B workers are more skilled than the average American and are "in no way average workers." [61] Matloff, in his reply, said that H-1B workers were not supposed to be compared to median workers and that Sherk's argument is "completely at odds with the claims the industry has made concerning the "best and brightest" issue" and that comparison to O-1 visa wage data showed that H-1B visas were being used by employers to undercut wages.[62]

In May 2014, a CIS report said that in 2013 Immigration and Customs Enforcement had "freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings... [and t]he vast majority of these releases from ICE custody were discretionary, not required by law."[63] An ICE spokesman said that many such releases were required by law, such as when a detainee's home country refuses to accept them or required by a judge's order.[64] The Associated Press, however, backed up CIS' claim, and said that "the releases that weren't mandated by law, including [the] 28 percent of the immigrants with homicide convictions, undermines the government's argument that it uses its declining resources for immigration enforcement to find and jail serious criminal immigrants who may pose a threat to public safety or national security."[66] ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there's no objections, so per wp:bold I'll go ahead with this. As always feel free to discuss. ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A complete disaster. This is mass-scrubbing of a large number of expert analyses and critiques of shoddy research by CIS, and gives readers the false impression that only a limited orgs and experts have identified errors in CIS "research". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous characterization and I invite anyone to compare my changes to the text as it currently stands, which I archived above and which you didn't object to until now. The page has an overly detailed tag, and including a laundry list of every expert who has commented on every CIS report is ridiculous to the point of parody. In my edits, I kept the substance of all the complaints--the question of sample size and extrapolation in the 2011 study, the question of H-1B qualification in the Matloff paragraph, and the question of ICE requirements by law in the 2014 paragraph. If you have your own suggestions for trimming this section--which consensus has agreed is massively bloated--I'm all ears. But all you've done is undo any attempts to trim the fat, and characterized every single accusation as crucial to the article. I'm trying to work with you here, but you've signaled that you're totally unwilling to trim any content whatsoever. Let's reach an answer here. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

IMO this has needed to happen for awhile. Its not "mass-scrubbing". Content has needed trimming and this maintains the spirit of credible criticisms while removing every single critique ever lodged at the organization. Darryl.jensen (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's weird how you in one talk page discussion dispute that a "wide ranger of think tanks" have criticized CIS[3] while now in this particular talk page section you are totally in favor of removing criticisms from a wide range of think tanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not "totally in favor of removing criticisms from a wide range of think tanks." I'm in favor of trimming down the section so its not paragraph after paragraph of every criticism that's ever been lodged against the organization. I've never advocated removing the criticisms entirely, that is a bad faith argument and you know it. The way it is written now is in your words a "complete disaster." Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd like to hear some new voices so we don't talk in circles here. Any suggestions from anyone else as to what can be trimmed/thoughts on my proposals to trim above? Drmies added the overly detailed tag, perhaps they have a suggestion? Or K.e.coffman?ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

ModerateMike729I just realized that there's a discussion going on here.. I want to edit the controversial report. Do I have to post my edit here first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdelfoMontanez (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit; primary sources

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "NPOV and excessive self-citations".

Speaking of self-citations, the section Policy stances uncritically replicates the org's own publications. I propose it be removed. Feedback? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

→Thanks for your response. I think you're right on self-sources, with regard to the "praise" for CIS, which came from their site. However, that doesn't explain my other changes, namely that we repeat the same Tanton line twice almost word for word and with the same sources, and that the outside source showed that Tanton himself disputed being a founder. Based on that logic--that Tanton is one of many early financial contributors and not "The founder", doesn't seem like npov to not include multiple lines at the top of the article about his other views (e.g. eugenics). ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This source, Modern American Extremism and Domestic Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Extremists and Extremist Groups, connects Tanton to the group, so I'm not sure I understand the objection. The edit also changed the group's description from "anti-immigration" to "advocating for lower levels of immigration". Please self-revert. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@ModerateMike729: Re this edit [4], sources do not support the material that was added. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

My source was Tanton himself, correcting the record after erroneous reports such as your source called him the "founder." He says he played no role in the development of the center and that his only involvement was being one of multiple people involved in raising a grant. As for anti-immigration, that's npov. Advocating for lower levels of immigration is very specifically what they do, seeking "fewer immigrants, but a warmer welcome" for immigrants here . Npov to use the anti-immigrant label, which comes from splc, a biased source — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateMike729 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"anti-immigration"

"Anti-immigration" is perfectly fine, reflects the body and RS. The organization doesn't just advocate for lower levels of immigration, but spreads shoddy research and falsehoods to paint a bleak picture of immigrants and immigration. Tanton does not deny having played a role in the founding (the text does not say that Tanton was involved in the development and growth of the organization), and multiple secondary RS say he helped found the group. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That sounds quite biased and doesn't just reflect RS. Anti-immigration reflects opposition to all immigration, when they've explicitly said they want some level of immigration (Krikorian threw out 400k) and have written various publications explaining the adverse effects of mass migration on immigrants themselvesProtecting immigrant communities from crime, Here as well, and How lower levels of immigration better helps immigrants assimilate. Clearly, lower levels of immigration is more accurate than the npov "anti" charge. As for the Tanton charge, he was involved to the extent that he was one of multiple people who raised money, but given that he was not on the Board, did not develop the center, and certainly was not "the founder", (secondary RS don't even presume that), I'm still not hearing the rationale for why his own biography--from eugenics to being an ophthalmologist from Michigan--has sufficient relevance to be on the CIS page at all, let alone before even the Center's positions or criticisms have even been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateMike729 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Awaiting your response on this but the edit-warring accusation goes both ways. You have not obtained consensus in the opposite direction, and I outlined clearly above the issues with the "anti" label. Open to discussing other terms but I stand by my point here, and Darryl Jensen has agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateMike729 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything concerning with these recent edits. (1) Tanton does say, in a primary source and repeated in the New York Times piece, that he did not solely found CIS. That's not to say he didn't "have a role" in founding it, which is what the current edition has worded. (2) There has been zero consensus made for User:Snooganssnoogans position. Would love some of the other editors to comment on these developments User:Factchecker_atyourservice Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you got it sort of opposite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

How so? We had reached consensus on Tanton placement, as well as the "have a role" wording which is currently up and seems appropriate. And he is right regarding lack of consensus for User:Snooganssnoogans position...What else is opposite? Would like to resolve this once and for all so we can stop the reversions. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Would like to circle back to this. Specifically regarding the language of "anti-immigration." RS repeatedly describe CIS as "a think tank that advocates lower levels of immigration" or something similar, and "anti" seems blatantly biased since supporting lower levels of something doesn't make you inherently "anti" that thing--particularly given the sources I listed above where CIS takes a decidedly more pro-immigrant stance. For the reasons above I think "low-immigration" is a far more accurate descriptor than "anti-immigration" and is in no way a weasel word, and am again proposing that change. Thoughts? ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

low-immigration is appropriate Darryl.jensen (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no remaining immediate issues, I'll go ahead and make the changes as per WP:BOLD. Feel free to discuss or critique here. ModerateMike729 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

• Comment: preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "undue self-citations". To add, this material belongs on the org's website, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the article is basically just a list of criticism of the org, without any actual discussion of its policies or views. Doesn't seem very balanced. If this section was replaced with one with fewer self citations and more outside sources, what would you think? 2601:140:8B00:1120:84FF:6ED0:CEF4:C064 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey ModerateMike729 suggest building consensus here at talk before you start going back to do big cuts again. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fine but I could use some help and feedback here. We agree that we need to trim, I've made multiple suggestions regarding where else we can trim, but I can't go it alone. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I re-added "anti-immigration" that seems to have been lost along the way: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Response: I was under the impression that by consensus we had removed "anti-immigration" and were going with "advocating for lower levels of immigration" Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Response: It wasn't lost along the way, we agreed to remove it and use lower levels of immigration, as that's NPOV and backed up by RS (see here, here, and here). ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Location of critic accusations

Would like to reach consensus regarding where the the critics' accusations of CIS being connected to "extremist nativist and ties to white supremacy groups" should go. Right now the majority of the lede is criticism which seems hard to reconcile...While I think it's appropriate to keep the range of groups attacking their research, the rest of the criticism would fit better in the criticism section. Right now it's basically being repeated twice almost verbatim. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But then the accusation that the CIS has nativist ties needs to be added to Criticism SoccerSalvatore (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Agree I agree, the information belongs in Criticism as User:SoccerSalvatore said Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's important that the lede include mention that these guys have ties to nativism. Since they do. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• It seems there is enough criticism to warrant that statement, no? and if so, why wouldn't it be leadworthy? Drmies (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Guess we never resolved this. To elaborate, I do think there is valid criticism connecting them to individual nativists, but I don't think that's the case for white supremacists. The closest argument you could make, and the one always cited, is their relation to John Tanton, but even that is in the past (at their founding) not present tense. The Center disputes that relationship, but even to the degree it is there, Tanton isn't a supremacist; that is quite a big stretching of the definition. I'm also in disagreement with use of the word "groups". Tanton is an individual, not a group, and CIS has no relation to any white supremacist groups, though you could say the connection to FAIR could be a "nativist" tie. Finally, this is nitpicky but it's "CIS" not "the CIS"--not sure how the extra "the" has crept into the page. Given all those suggestions, more fitting language would be "Critics have accused the CIS of promoting and having had ties to nativists, which CIS denies." I'm fine keeping that where it is--in the lede. Thoughts User:SoccerSalvatore Drmies Darryl.jensen? ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The white supremacy label is a ridiculous accusation that draws away from any legitimate and needed criticism of the organization. Its inappropriate to include such a label in the lead. Darryl.jensen (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Due to the only response to the proposed compromise above being what seems like agreement from Darryl.jensen, per WP:BOLD I'm going to go ahead and change that line accordingly. Preserving old version here: Critics have accused the CIS of promoting extremist nativist views and of having ties to white supremacy groups, which the CIS denies. Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not getting drawn into an edit war with an obvious sock

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

---

I've launched a sock puppet investigation which includes a diff of the edit summary where our new SPI admits to being a sock of yesterday's blocked editor and hilariously accuses me of being a meat puppet. This probably won't take too long to resolve. I vehemently disagree with their edit, but I'll leave it until the investigation resolves. If somebody else wants to revert, be my guest. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't speak in riddles, Simonm223--this isn't a stand-up act where a nudge-nudge will do. Which edit? Which SPA? (Which is what you meant, I presume.) Drmies (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Somebody long since blocked. It turned out they were a perennial joe-jobber with a tendency to find other recently blocked accounts and then mimic them as if they were sock-puppeteers trying to circumvent a block for the purpose of... stirring up shit for their own amusement? Anyway, long story short, they were an obvious sock but with a different sock master than I'd assumed and it all got sorted out. This whole section can be closed off now. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Otis Graham as RS

Otis Graham, the center's founding chairman, wrote an autobiography in which he describes Tanton's role in the organization, saying Tanton "played no part" at all. We can say that "several sources say" Tanton is involved, but it's ridiculous to exempt what the guy who founded the organization said or claim somehow that's not reliable, especially when the article currently claims that CIS "does not reveal details about its founding." When both the current organization's leader (krikorian) and the guy who founded it (graham) talking about Tanton and their founding--both corroborating what Tanton himself said-- that can't possibly be ignored. Snoogasnoogans admits he "didn't even bother to check other sources."

Do you have a secondary source? Volunteer Marek 17:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)White supremacist organizations are not known for being forthcoming about their membership lists. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Graham's claims are what both Krikorian said in the WaPost and Tanton himself. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I said in that April 2018 discussion. This is the full sentence: "The Hill says he founded CIS. NYT says he helped start it. I didnt even bother to check the other sources. Those two seem sufficient." And the sentence was in response to Darryl.jensen's inaccurate assertion in April 2018 that no source in the Wikipedia article credited Tanton as a founder. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That was actually an a response you had made to something FactCheckerAtYourService had said, but thanks for the shout-out. Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The addition of the book quote (published years before the SPLC ever made an accusation regarding CIS) certainly contributes to the article's discussion as it corroborates Krikorian on what-- as the talk page has made apparent--is the most controversial aspect of this whole page. Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Low- vs anti-immigration

I'm not seeing a consensus for "low-immigration" on this page; could someone point me to it? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I was in agreement with Darryl.jensen in the Recent Edits/Primary Sources section. I proposed the change and after I didn't hear any pushback from Snooganssnoogans or anyone else, so per WP:BOLD I went ahead and made the change. After I did so, I invited anyone to critique/discuss, which Snooganssnoogans declined to do, and instead reverted my edit and did the same to Darryl.jensen. I'm glad to discuss low vs. anti here, as I strongly disagree with the clearly non-npov characterization of "low immigration" as a "weasel" word. Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My comment from the 16th of August: ""Anti-immigration" is perfectly fine, reflects the body and RS. The organization doesn't just advocate for lower levels of immigration, but spreads shoddy research and falsehoods to paint a bleak picture of immigrants and immigration." I even quoted it for you in one of the edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

RS refer to CIS as a think tank that "advocates for lower levels of immigration" (or similar language) far more than anything else, especially in recent months, and "anti immigration" is clearly not npov. As examples, see USA Today, NYTimes, NPR, and Townhall. The phrase "anti-immigration" reflects your personal biases far more than it reflects RS, which to the extent that they do use the phrase are generally just reciting SPLC. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Would love to hear the opinion of some other editors. K.e.coffman Darryl.jensen any thoughts? Right now it's basically been just a back and forth between Snooganssnoogans and myself, so I'd appreciate an outside perspective on the arguments we laid out above. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming amount of recent, RS evidence labeling CIS as a "low-immigrant" or "lower levels" etc. The sources that use the label "anti-immigrant" are generally biased. We should reflect the language of notable sources such as NY Times, NPR, and USA Today and reflect that in the description of the organization. So my vote is for "low-immigrant" rather than "anti-immigrant." Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

First, "anti-immigrant" is not automatically a "non-pov" term. Secondly, I'm not sure what is meant by "biased sources". Anyway, as we agree that the NY Times is a good source, this June article says "together Mr. Miller and Mr. Sessions often drew on the work of anti-immigration groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies — some of which are derided as hate groups by immigration activists and civil rights organizations." Then there's Bloomberg News.[5] "President Donald Trump announced plans to nominate a retired foreign service officer affiliated with an organization that critics call an anti-immigrant hate group to run the State Department bureau overseeing refugee protection and resettlement."Mortensen, whose nomination is likely to spur a confirmation fight in the Senate, backed Trump’s presidential bid and is a vocal opponent of illegal immigration. Attention quickly turned to his current role as a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which the Southern Poverty Law Center classified as a hate group in 2016 for its “repeated circulation of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers.” Note that Bloomberg is quite happy to use the SPLC as a source. The article also says "In several columns for the Center for Immigration Studies, which describes itself as “low-immigration, pro-immigrant,” Mortensen has sought to refute the idea that illegal immigrants are law-abiding, staked out his opposition to the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and criticized religious leaders for assisting illegal immigrants." Clearly anti-immigrant.

This is really interesting. The Boston Review has an article called The Anti-Immigration Bible[6] which it says the Center has embraced. Read the article. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't get the sense from reading this article that CIS "embraced" such a thing as the "Anti-Immigrant Bible". Going to the citation within the Globe's article just took me to a blog post on CIS questioning the use of the Bible for both sides of the immigration argument.Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a blog post, it's an article by the scholar whose translation of the Bible the linked article is discussing, and it ends with "

American cities that use their communities to circumvent the law to help the illegal alien in the name of justice are doing a gross injustice to the letter and spirit of the biblical law." Doug Weller talk 15:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

But it doesn't appear that any of these outlets themselves are labeling the org as "anti-immigrant" or "anti-immigration" but rather are quoting from the SPLC [for better or for worse] or passing it off as "some people say...", "some opponents have accused..." etc. In holding with actual first-hand descriptions of the org, almost every outlet describes them as either "seeking lower level of immigration", "advocating lower levels", something along those lines. That is why I think "anti-immigrant" is inappropriate because it gives undue weight to people inherently critical of the organization, rather than "low-immigration" or "advocating for lower levels" which is less politically charged and much more reflective of how most of the media describe them.Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How often do people need to say that the SPLC is a reliable source for commentary on racist organizations? Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? There is more than enough criticism of the SPLC to cast doubt on their reliability. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm dead serious. And there's plenty of history at WP:RSN to back me up on this if you go through the archives. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Darryl.jensen, I gather you're not a regular viewer of the program we like to call the "SPLC is trash shit show", but this is really not something you want to pursue. If the SPLC wasn't reliable, the NYT and others wouldn't be quoting them so regularly. That they get things wrong sometimes--well, even my dear President Trump makes a mistake every now and then. BTW, "inherently critical" of anti-immigration groups is not something you can say of the SPLC. There are organizations of whom you could say that, but those are not the ones under discussion. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for "Policy Stances" Section

It seems quite ridiculous to have an entire page dedicated to a think tank without mentioning what their actual policy stances/views are. There used to be a section on this, but there were too many self-sources, so at some point it got deleted. Below is a proposal to get us started, would appreciate any comments/critiques:

Mandatory E-Verify: E-Verify is currently a voluntary program run by the United States government to help companies determine whether employees and prospective employees are legally authorized to work in the United States. CIS Director Mark Krikorian has written in support of mandatory E-Verify for both public and private employers to prevent the hiring of undocumented immigrants.

End family-based migration: Family-based migration, commonly known as "chain migration" in the United States is the process by which legal immigrants and green card holders can sponsor family members for immigration to the country. CIS opposes family-based migration, and instead advocates for a "points system" of immigration, based on professional skills, which Krikorian called "completely conventional".

Thoughts? ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with this. This would also probably provide a better outline strategy for the page anyway - a short policy stance that's been notable and reported on can then include whatever quick criticism from outlets/think tanks there has been, instead of posting criticism on studies from the early 2000s. Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Lede

ModerateMike keeps edit-warring the lede to remove any mention of the broad swath of critiques that the CIS' "research" has faced from all kinds of news organizations, fact-checkers, scholars, think tanks and immigration-research groups. There is no justification for this, given that the body delineates these critiques, and the lede should summarize the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Look at the pot calling the kettle black! Regardless, the "broad swath of critiques" that you mention regarding their research is even questionable in the body. Three of the "controversial reports" are more than ten years old. The Norman Matloff paragraph is a giant personal back and forth between Shrek and himself. The 2014 CIS report on ICE is supported by the Associated Press statement, but not by ideological opponents - hardly a shocking development - which would also include statements made by Nowrasteh at Cato. The final paragraph re: the border wall hardly exposes "shoddy" research, as the main criticism is that CIS didn't count the "benefits" of American-born children of aliens who otherwise would have been stopped by a border wall. Additionally, the only "fact checkers" that have any citations in this article are WaPo, Snopes and FactCheck.org. It conveniently leaves out any mention of politifact which cites Camarota (at CIS) multiple times for immigration-related questions. Darryl.jensen (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother digging through your response or responding at length, as time and time again you say things that are in no way whatsoever accurate and wildly misrepresent both sources and what the Wikipedia article says. I wrote the text, so I know that you're characterization of it is inaccurate. On one obviously false point, it's simple: Put "politifact" into ctrl+F and read the instances of where PolitiFact are mentioned in this Wikipedia article. PolitiFact is one of a number of fact-checkers or news outlets to debunk CIS' shoddy research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Classic Snoogs. Everything I said is fair, and the fact that you refuse to engage is telling. Where are they debunking CIS' research if they are citing CIS staff for clarifications on immigration questions in the news? An actual question: do you ever open the articles that you claim are dismissing "shoddy" research from CIS? My guess is probably not. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not "edit warring." I have discussions in the Talk, you don't participate, then you repeatedly undo any changes I make with the same justification that I've responded to ad nauseam. Of course the lede should summarize the body, which is why I'm fine with noting that CIS research has been criticized by these groups. What I'm not fine with is a verbatim, laundry list reptition of which groups criticized them in both the lede and body. To Darryl.jensen's point, you keep inserting the word "shoddy" in when that's really not corroborated by the RS, but rather just reveals your own evident bias. I'm also not sure your beef with politifact, given that even a cursory review of Darryl.jensen's references show it to be true. If fact checkers sometimes debunk what an organization says, and other times use it as a source, that doesn't necessarily make the organization "shoddy". It means they're like any other research org. But again, the broader point is we're perfectly capable of summarizing the body in the lede without keeping your obvious NPOV and overly detailed edits. We're just talking in circles at this point. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

So I take it you and Volunteer Marek (who is totally not coordinating with you in an incredibly suspicious manner have dropped your act on this? ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on description: anti-immigration, low-immigration or both

Should the lead describe the Center as a) favoring low-immigration, b) as being anti-immigration, or c) use both? Doug Weller talk 19:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

a) favors low-immigration

• Support: Darryl.jensen (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I support describing it favoring low-immigration. This is not only what the Center describes itself as but also what a variety of reputable sources describe it as. We need to reflect what reputable sources describe the org as, which is never "anti-immigrant".

LA Times: "... the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which advocates for limits on legal migration"

Politico: "The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates lower levels of immigration..."

Huffington Post: "at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower levels of immigration"

Pew Charitable Trusts: "the Center of Immigration Studies, which favors lower levels of immigration"

CNN: "the Center for Immigration Studies, a research organization that favors lower immigration levels"

NPR: "he did speak last month to the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower levels of immigration."

Time: "at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower immigration rates,"

Univison: "studies at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which favors lower immigration, says she opposes sanctuary policies"

Washington Times: "at the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that favors lower immigration levels,"

• Support:

Support. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose:

• No RS refer to the organization as a "low-immigration" organization. The term "low-immigration" is a WP:WEASEL term that the CIS crafted for itself, so that it would not be called "anti-immigration" which is the term that RS actually use to describe the organization. On the other hand, there would be no problem with describing CIS as an "anti-immigration organization that favors far lower immigration numbers". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Seems pretty nitpicky. Just remove the hyphen and say "favors low immigration", as every RS listed above did. Boom, "weasel" word solved and we reflect RS. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Anti-immigration organization that favors far lower immigration numbers" reflects what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Again, more sources cite lower immigration than "anti-" and I made an argument above as to why the former is more precise and NPOV but at this point we're just arguing in circles so I'll let the RFC period play out. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Where to start? The Pew source and the Huffington Post source are the same article republished on different sites, which is an indicator of the real problem. Not all sources are equal, so instead of playing games trying to count how many sources use one phrase over another, we need to summarize what sources are saying in our own words. "Favoring low-immigration" is not particularly informative, and it's also evasive and promotional when taken out of context. CIS can place their preferred public relations language on their own website, but Wikipedia should rely on reliable, independent sources, and we have to do the work of trying to summarize what those sources are saying, not just what words they use in passing while discussing a tangential issue. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, if (as the discussion above implies) this would mean using this term without mentioning "anti-immigration" - doing so would be, as others have said, evasive and promotional. "Anti-immigration" is well-sourced and is the commonly-accepted neutral term for this position; none of the sources above contradict that. Moreover, the sources above describe the group as "pushing for lower immigration", which is very different than using "low-immigration" as a broad political descriptor the way this is requesting. Caveat: I am not opposed to mentioning that they push for lower immigration provided we lead into this by describing them as an anti-immigration group; both things are true. They are an anti-immigration group that pushes for lower immigration; this accurately summarizes all the sources presented. --Aquillion (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose We're not in the business in providing ideological cover to political advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

b) anti-immigration

• Support:

• Peer-reviewed academic sources that describe CIS verbatim as "anti-immigration": Page 116[7], Page 58[8], Page 285[9]. Reliable news outlets that describe CIS verbatim as "anti-immigration": NY Times[10], ABC News[11], NBC News[12], CNN[13], New Yorker[14], Politico[15], The Hill[16], Daily Beast[17]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• When it is supported by reliable sources, we should use direct language. The alternative smacks of being a WP:EUPHEMISM, or violating WP:SOAP by regurgitating CIS's public relations. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• The issue we're having is that reliable sources (often the same ones, in different pieces, depending on author, etc.) describe the org as both "anti-immigrant" and "advocating for low-immigrant". So I'm not sure what your point here is. "When it is supported by reliable sources, we should use direct language" adds nothing to this discussion when both Snooganssnoogans and I have provided lists of reliable sources describing CIS in both terms. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to sources above, Modern American Extremism and Domestic Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Extremists and Extremist Groups describes the org as part of a "network of anti-immigration groups". Separately, "low-immigration" is a euphemistic descriptor preferred by the group. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. First choice. Well-cited, and no sources contradict it. Note that none of the oppose comments have given any rationale at all. I certainly don't feel that "sources that say they support low immigration exist" is a meaningful argument for excluding the term "anti-immigration" when that is also so well-cited; at best, we can mention both. --Aquillion (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support They can hair-split and quibble all they want about "reduced" vs "anti" but the truth is they want to prevent immigrants from entering the USA. They're anti-immigration by definition. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The sources are sufficient. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose:

• ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• griffy013 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Anti-immigration" is not neutral and the reliable sources most frequently say that CIS supports “lower levels of immigration”, especially recently. "Anti-immigration" implies they are flat-out opposed to immigration, which is less precise than their actual position which is just lower levels of it.

Threaded discussion:

I definitely oppose "anti-immigration" because it's not NPOV. I suspect the argument in favor of using "anti-immigration" would be to say that CIS goes beyond just being low immigration and in fact uses its research to make immigrants look bad in general. That seems quite nitpicky to me and doesn't reflect RS. Krikorian himself has made the frequent argument that lowering levels of immigration would lead to a "warmer welcome" (see here) for the immigrants already here. Their research director put out an op-ed saying that lower levels of immigration would help the immigrants already here to better assimilate and succeed (see here). Further, it's not as if CIS has advocated for no immigration. Rather, they've advocated for a shift to "skills based" immigration instead of family-based migration (see here) In other words, they may want to change immigration as it exists in its current form and quantity in the country, but that certainly doesn't mean they're just "anti" immigration in general, and making that rhetorical leap to "anti immigration" is not encyclopedic; it's editorializing.

"Low-immigration" is more precise, more indicative of what the RS say, and more neutral than "anti". It more accurately describes their policy positions, all of which are ultimately related to advocating for lower levels of immigration than what we have now.ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not fair to say we've provided no rationale at all beyond just RS, when I lay out my logic pretty clearly below in the threaded discussion regarding how anti-immigration is not accurate. Further, this source says CIS was "founded as part of an anti-immigration network", language which has popped up a few times in slight variations. So be it, but the intentions upon founding the group in 1985 are not necessarily indicative of the group currently, 30+ years later. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

c) both

• Support:

Weak support for describing them as an "anti-immigration group that pushes for lower immigration" or something of that nature. Second choice. No valid arguments have been presented (in fact, no arguments at all) for excluding "anti-immigration", which is well-cited and a commonly-enough accepted term that it seems hard to justify avoiding it or treating it as non-neutral. However, there is certainly no harm in also mentioning that they push for lower immigration. Note that I only support the term "lower immigration" in the context of saying that it's something they push for - "low-immigration" as a descriptor isn't backed up by the sources presented above. But we can mention that they do push for lower immigration, which is what many sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose:

General discussion

The organization of this RfC is a complete mess. It's a complete pain in the ass to write a comment and provide sources to defend one's position. It doesn't help that the two editors who have already commented can't format things properly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"It's a complete pain in the ass to write a comment and provide sources to defend one's position." This is an A+ comment. Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

"Disputed and cited" vs "disputed" in lede

The lede previously listed a range of fact-checkers and media sources that have "disputed" CIS research. I amended the lede to say "disputed and cited" because most of those same fact-checkers and media sources have also cited CIS research. It seems to be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE to list off groups that have challenged CIS' research without also acknowledging they've used it, too. If our evidence that CIS is research is "shoddy" is that it's been challenged by fact-checkers, then why do those fact-checkers also find the same research credible enough to cite as an expert source? I used RS to cite this. For example, Politifact has cited CIS research on immigrant household housing program use to debunk an online meme. Same goes for the news organizations such as NBC which have relied on CIS analysts for expert opinions, as I cited. Overall, it would be completely remiss and in no way encyclopedic to include a list of fact-checkers who have disputed CIS claims without also acknowledging that other CIS claims have been treated as fact by those same fact-checkers. Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

CIS is frequently cited for the anti-immigrant perspective on issues related to immigration. It's not an endorsement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the question of whether or not it's an "endorsement" isn't really relevant--they're citing CIS analysts as experts on the topic. Besides, that's not really an accurate description of the sources I provided anyway. For example, Politifact used CIS data to debunk an anti-immigrant meme about welfare use. Another time, they used CIS data to debunk a claim Donald Trump made regarding family separations;see here. It's important to consider what capacity RS is using CIS for. They're not simply citing them for an anti-immigrant perspective, but rather actually treating CIS data and perspective from researchers as a credible source used to weigh claims. That's a key distinction, and why I feel it's crucial we include both "disputed" and "cited" in the lede. thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

CIS is often cited as an advocacy group for its views on policies and actions. Given that this organization is where most anti-immigration advocates get their talking points from, fact-checkers of course also mention that not even CIS agrees with some of the made-up numbers and falsehoods from anti-immigration advocates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather than try to subjectively guess the motivations for fact-checkers citing CIS, let's take RS at face value. They cite CIS as experts. They rely on CIS research. They quote CIS researchers. The same fact-checkers that you allege prove CIS is full of "shoddy research" are apparently willing to use CIS as a source themselves. If CIS were really shoddy, fact-checkers wouldn't dare use them as a source. Do you think fact-checkers would ever use, say, the Daily Stormer as a source, even to debunk other false claims? Of course not, we both agree that's ridiculous. Frankly, this is pretty straightforward. You can't put a laundry list of RS in the lede and use them as "debunking" CIS when they also rely on CIS. If we want to be NPOV, we absolutely must include some variation of both "cited" and "disputed". To leave either out would be entirely inappropriate. ModerateMike729 (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

CIS is nearly always cited as an anti-immigration advocacy group, and always described as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've already given you multiple citations above disputing that, as evidenced by both PolitiFact and NBC. Regardless, I'm not sure how their view of CIS' bias is at all a refutation to the central point here: that they treat CIS as a credible think tank, and thus the word "cite" should be in the lede. The fact that they use CIS to represent a restrictionist view is in no way mutually exclusive from the fact that they consider it credible enough to function as a fact-checker. ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

RS go to CIS for the 'anti-immigration take' because it is the most prominent anti-immigration organization in the United States. Fact-checkers ask and cite all kinds of stake-holders and advocacy groups what their take is on particular issues. That does not mean they are cited favorably or cited as experts. Democrats and Republicans are repeatedly cited in terms of providing data and arguments in support of an argument, and sometimes they provide accurate data and sometimes not. That in and of itself does not mean those two parties are cited favorably or as experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason I say they're cited as "experts" is because of the context in which they're cited, as I've referenced. It would be one thing if these fact-checkers were simply polling both sides for a quote/opinion, as journalists are apt to do. In that case, I'd understand your argument. Rather, they are using CIS research as the objective standard by which to judge the claims of politicians and others. They're not just quoting CIS to show the restrictionist opinion on Trump's quote about family separations, for example. They're actually using CIS research to debunk Trump (among others I've mentioned). That's the very definition of an expert--someone you consult for facts on a topic on which they're well-versed. You seem to be taking fact-checkers at face value when they use sources to debunk CIS, but then you turn around and doubt those very same fact-checkers when they use CIS as a source to debunk others. That's not a tenable position. Either fact-checkers check facts, or they don't. Put simply, they cite CIS. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

In the instances you mention, CIS is described and cited as an anti-immigration group which disagreed with a delusionally high estimate of HUD use by undocumented immigrants and disagreed with Trump's claims about migration flows. It is entirely consistent with what I said. They are asked and cited for the anti-immigration take. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, in neither Politifact article are they called "anti-immigration". Let's stop inserting that phrase. But more importantly: By your logic, any time a fact-checker cites any think tank, if they describe that think tank's views, that means somehow the think tank is not an expert source? If they cite Brookings and say "Brookings, a liberal think tank" does that mean Brookings is somehow not an expert source? Of course not. It means Brookings is an expert source, and that expert source is a liberal think tank. Same logic with CIS.ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Being cited by a fact-checker is not in and of itself an indication of expertise, in particular when the organization being cited publishes a constant stream of intellectually dishonest and misleading garbage which typically stands in contrast to the most of the peer-reviewed academic research on those same topics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You're revealing your own biases by calling CIS research "misleading garbage." Let's stick with deferring to RS and fact-checkers, who credibly reference CIS. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, you still haven't referred to my other citations, namely that immigration experts have cited CIS research, and the very news sites you say "debunk" CIS have also relied on their experts to explain the issues, like NBC. Fact checkers, immigration experts, and news sites--all of the groups that have at times debunked CIS research (no disagreement there) also do cite it in what's clearly an expert context. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hans von Spakovsky is a climate-change denier who is most well-known for lying about voter fraud (incl. nonsense about non-citizens voting). Spakovsky is not an expert on anything, least of all immigration. In the NBC piece, CIS is cited as a "critic" of the H2-B program. In the very next line, CIS's opinion is being juxtaposed to the pro-immigration "business coalition ImmigrationWorks USA". Is ImmigrationWorks USA being cited as an expert source or just as a pro-immigration advocacy group? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Both. Which speaks to my point that bias and expertise are not mutually exclusive. And Von Spakovsky is Heritage's resident immigration analyst. Let's not be silly here. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That says a lot about the Heritage Foundation but nothing about von Spakovsky's credibility. And neither group is being cited as an expert source, they are cited for the pro- and anti-immigration attitudes on H2-B. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: "cited" in this context [18] is misleading. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, K.e.coffman, I'm open to another word that expresses the fact that those organization and people have relied on CIS research and experts if you disagree with "cited". Perhaps say that reports by CIS have been both "disputed and referenced by" or "disputed and quoted by", etc. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

And just for good measure, politifact just posted another fact check citing CIS as experts--not to highlight a certain bias, but clearly in an expert capacity:Here And another from buzzfeed here...I'm not really sure how we're even debating the fact that fact-checkers cite CIS for expertise, and the text ought to reflect RS already. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"disputed and quoted by"

• Comment: "disputed and quoted by" is also misleading in this context. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• I would have no objection to language noting that CIS is prominent for its anti-immigration advocacy or that the group features prominently in public debates about immigration (presuming that RS say something along these lines - I'm sure I've seen some). This should of course not be juxtaposed in any way with the shoddy research that the group does. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• While I certainly disagree with the use of "anti-immigration" for the plethora of reasons currently being debated in the RFC above, I do think that mentioning the group's research and analysts feature prominently in public debates about immigration is a reasonable addition, and I'd drop the issue at that if done correctly. Perhaps we could say: CIS analysis and researchers have been featured prominently in public debates about immigration, with Executive Director Mark Krikorian being called the "leading voice for immigration restrictionists"(source). Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, Washington Post, Snopes, CNN and NBC News, and immigration-research organizations. The organization has been cited by President Donald Trump on Twitter, and used by members of his administration. Can we drop it at that? This is getting silly.ModerateMike729 (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, that lets undue credence to the research and analysis done by this group. This is how it should be written: "Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, Washington Post, Snopes, CNN and NBC News, and immigration-research organizations. The organization, known for its anti-immigration advocacy, is prominent in public debates about immigration. The organization has been cited by President Donald Trump on Twitter, and used by members of his administration." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• We're not going to say "anti-immigration" as I've explained ad nauseam. Change it to "The organization, known for its advocacy for lower levels of immigration" and I'll agree. Every single source we've discussed in this conversation (Politifact, ABC, NBC) have all used that language, and we go based off RS. Could also say "the organization, known for advocating for cuts to immigration". Additionally, this line should go before what's there now, not after, as it introduces the paragraph. Make those two changes and I'm good to go. ModerateMike729 (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Re: ... as I've explained ad nauseam - ?? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• See the request for comment above. I, along with several other editors, have been making the argument that "anti-immigration" is not NPOV, and that using the phrases "lower levels of immigration" is more backed by reliable sources. Darryl jensen made a list above of the various RS that used the phrase, too. ModerateMike729 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The organization is prominent in public debates about immigration and is known for advocating lower levels of immigration." That seems pretty suitable Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• A bit confused, do you mean inserting that line before the list of groups that have debunked CIS? If so, I think that's fine, with the very small caveat that it should be "advocating for lower levels of immigration" as that's the exact phrasing used most often by RS and I think it reads a bit smoother. Other than that, I'd okay this version. ModerateMike729 (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• If that's the case ,then it sounds like we've reached a conclusion to this. I'll go ahead and make the change. ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, there's absolutely not a consensus for this. Stop claiming a consensus whenever Darryl agrees with you on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• I was under the impression this was language that we compromised on. If that's not the case, so be it, glad to keep discussing til we reach a consensus on this. But please take your own advice and don't claim consensus on "anti-immigration" when it doesn't exist. ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• I never claimed there was a consensus on 'anti-immigration'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• So you just inserted it into the lede five minutes ago because...why not? If I mistakenly assumed consensus, that's my fault and I apologize. But you literally just changed it to "anti-immigration" without even attempting consensus. ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Your objection to the line about CIS featuring prominently in public debate was that it shouldn't be contrasted with the next line, which states that many CIS reports have been disputed. It was worded in such a way that it did not contrast the next line, and it's reliably sourced. I really don't understand your objection to the inclusion of something that's sourced and is clearly encyclopedic, given that I already made an effort to address your prior objections. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• On this talk, I clearly expressed what kind of text I was in favor of adding, and I even added my version of the text into the article[19] after you falsely claimed that there was a consensus for your version of the text. Please pay attention, and stop re-adding text that there is obviously no consensus for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am paying attention, namely to your unilateral changes to this section and completely refusal to work toward consensus on this issue. I tried hard to accommodate the suggestions you made which were reasonable, while rejecting those which were patently ridiculous, not neutral, and not encyclopedic. This is getting ridiculous. We ought to reflect what reliable sources say without injecting our personal biases.ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Snoogs' Definition of Non-Partisan

Snooganssnoogans take a look at Nonpartisanism in the United States. Any organization in the U.S. that is non-profit is non-partisan as long as they don't endorse candidates. That doesn't preclude them from taking political stances. Its not really a matter of opinion. In case you weren't aware, plenty of political orgs can be described as "non-partisan" because they don't donate money or endorse candidates. A similar example is the Center for American Progress - they clearly advocate for a certain political viewpoint, but because they do not endorse candidates they are nonpartisan. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The "non-partisan" label needs to be sourced. This is very simple. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Snoogansnoogans is correct. I added it back in, sourcing it from ABC News. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's confusing, as they are certainly partisan as the woman in the street is likely to understand the word. 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's stick with what RS say. They don't take a partisan stance. Doesn't mean they're unbiased. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)