Jump to content

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 19

Update on FBI contributor status

Our lead informs the FBI uses SPLC as a contributor to identify hate groups. This was true until 2014 when it was removed. A user added an update, but with a comment from a minor source. It was removed as WP:UNDUE. I removed the comment and kept the update about the removal, including a source mentioning that it was removed because the FBI wants to use only governmental sources. (@The Quixotic Potato:) insists on reverting without explanation. Shall we discuss it here? Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I deleted some alt-right propaganda. [1] Its a BS story, a desperate attempt to make the SPLC look bad, and completely WP:UNDUE. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

How does informing that the FBI wishes to use only governmental sources and that it has stopped receiving hate group identifications from the SPLC and other groups - which our lead informs in an outdated manner - is an attempt to make the SPLC look bad? It does not discredit the organization in any way whatsoever. The phrase is neutral, why would you bring up NPOV? Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


Do you have evidence for the claim that: "the FBI uses SPLC as a contributor to identify hate groups. This was true until 2014" (emphasis mine). The idea that the fact that some links on a website were removed means that the fact that the SPLC has provided information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has retroactively become false is bizarre. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you have evidence for the claim that "the FBI wishes to use only governmental sources"? Maybe they only want to use governmental sources as links on one specific webpage, that does not retroactively change the fact that the SPLC has provided information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel like I am pointing out things that should be very obvious. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm merely writing what the source says - it says it has contacted a spokeswoman from the FBI who confirmed the information. If your issue is with reliability (you mention "BS story") I can understand. I merely tried to improve an addition by another user, I looked for other sources and this was the best I could find. I won't insist on adding this, but I don't think WP:UNDUE explains the removal. Is the issue (WP:RS?). Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The spokeswoman who spoke about certain links on a certain webpage, not the SPLC or sources in general. And "the SPLC has provided information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation" is past tense, future events cannot invalidate facts about the past except in scifi novels and the like. We all travel in time, but usually only forwards. Please re-read what I wrote above, it seems you do not get it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I agree. The information is not wrong, it is merely incomplete. See also: https://xkcd.com/1028/ Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I recommend the movie Back to the future. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
You have not provided evidence for your claims. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Which claims? Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I asked you to "re-read what I wrote above". I'll repeat myself. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not claiming anything. The information does not come from me. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually you did, but perhaps unintentionally because you are perhaps misrepresenting something (or perhaps parroting a misrepresentation, I asked you to read WP:BURDEN already). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The story was debunked in a Media Matters article.[2] Sources such as the Daily Caller are not reliable so not only can we not use them as sources but weight prevents us from reporting their views except when mainstream sources repeat them. TFD (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the link! Is the link from Media Metters a reliable source? I imagine it would fall under WP:NEWSBLOG? Since I'm a relatively new editor, please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm under the impression that WP:RS is not an exact science. So for instance if a link doesn't fall in a specific category of it (as is the case for Daily Caller(?)) and isn't defined as (un)reliable by the arbcom, then the source's reliability is to be defined per consensus on each article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturnalia0 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:ARBCOM. The community can use WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONSENSE to make decisions about sources. See for example Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail_RfC (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It is a reliable source. However, the point of my linking to the article is that it explains what is wrong with the Daily Caller story. Reliability is not an exact science and depends on what a source is used for. But there is a policy on what is reliable which the Daily Caller clearly does not meet and there is a general consensus among editors on that. Even the Daily Mail was just declared an unreliable source. (I argued against the declaration by the way.) TFD (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Edits like this are not suitable as they attempt to lead the reader to conclude something about the SPLC. However, the text added is about the FBI and "governmental sources"—that belongs at FBI if anywhere because this article does not concern what sources the FBI uses. A second problem with the edit is that per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of what appears in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, it is synthesis to claim this sources says the FBI no longer use them, and it is not really much of an issue if they do not have them on one webpage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

'Liberal-leaning'

MShabazz removed this word from the lead sentence: "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a liberal-leaning American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation." Sources were WashPo: "American hate groups — and particularly anti-Muslim groups — are on the rise, fueled in part by the recent presidential election, according to a new report from a liberal-leaning advocacy group that tracks domestic extremism." and NYTimes: "The liberal-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center, founded in 1971, has faced criticism in the past for applying the designation to mainstream conservative groups, such as the Family Research Council." I would argue that this is not 'poisoning the well'. The SPLC works very closely with the hyper-partisan Media Matters for America https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists They advocate for economic justice issues like the Affordable Care Act and against tax cuts for the rich, etc. 'Liberal-leaning' is simply a well sourced and accurate description. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Liberal-leaning" doesn't seem appropriate for several reasons:
Is being "liberal-leaning" clear? Is it informative, or is it just insinuating a vague position for political motives?Exactly what is and is not 'liberal-leaning' is ambiguous. "Liberal" is overly broad and means different things in different places/contexts. "Leaning" is nebulous, also.
Is it a defining trait? Do a couple of sources use this term in passing to clarify a contextual point, or is this fundamental to the organization? Sources might use language like this occasionally for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that it's so vital to understanding the organization that it must be included in the very first sentence. That's not neutral, that's cherry-picking.
Citing specific examples of how liberal they are is original research, and is totally insufficient for this point. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It is original research. The SPLC co-operated with MMfA, but they also collaborate with police and educational facilities. Their evidence was used by the (Conservative) government to exclude Pamela Geller from the UK. It's a false parity that anyone who opposes what the SPLC describes as hate groups is a liberal. Yet the publication of hate speech is banned in every developed country other than the U.S. So effectively everyone is a liberal unless they support the FRC. TFD (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
You're arguing that the NYTimes and WashPo shouldn't have said 'liberal-leaning' not that we shouldn't; the wording is quite clear. Other (none of them right-wing) sources using similar wording: "by quoting the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center," http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/06/liberal-intolerance-revives-as-charles-murray-is-chased-from-middlebury-college.html "At first the SPLC focused primarily on various progressive issues ...'" https://books.google.com/books?id=5SOAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false "The progressive agenda of the SPLC..." https://books.google.com/books?id=BCKAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA163 "[SPLC] and other liberal causes "https://books.google.com/books?id=0jwWrG4V1XQC&pg=PA105These anti-Muslim hate groups are detailed in a report by the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC), an American liberal leaning advocacy group that monitors extremism. http://www.thenational.ae/world/americas/anti-muslim-hate-groups-on-the-rise-in-the-us 25 years on the SPLC remains a white-led liberal organisation https://books.google.com/books?id=80CEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA178 Listed as progressive here: https://books.google.com/books?id=uV0ylARyGqIC&pg=PA160 Why is a liberal organization like the SPLC now using fascist tactics to blacklist enemies? http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/216494/southern-poverty-law-center-blacklist NPalgan2 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I know what I'm arguing. The National (Abu Dhabi) can use whatever term they like to provide context for a longer story. Wikipedia is not obligated to ignore that context but exactly mirror the wording anyway. Likewise, opinion pieces (Ronald Radosh and Lee Smith are arguably right wing, by the way) are of limited value in establishing the fundamental identity of the organization. Conflating "progressive" with "liberal-leaning", and then using passing mentions in much longer works for that point, is poor practice for many reasons. A lengthy profile in a book about architecture which only tangentially mentions "progressive" is cherry-picking. The book Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA specifically undermines this argument, also. It says that Although is began with a progressive orientation ... it is best known as a civil-litigation watchdog group. This directly supports that "progressive" is accurate but far too simplistic. Inclusion of a monument outside the SPLC's headquarters in a progressive travel guide seems like an extreme stretch. That such a monument would be of interest to some progressives doesn't mean that the real estate becomes fundamentally "liberal-leaning". Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It is obviously informing, it is giving a defining characterization to the institution. A wikilink can be added as such to avoid any ambiguity: liberal-leaning. If "leaning" is "nebulous", then "liberal" can be used, though it seemed good enough for the NYT etc. I don't know where you got original research from, it's the exact term the New York Times and The Washington Post are using to describe the subject of the article. It's not "a passing term", it is clearly being used as a trait from the subject - here are the exact quotes from the NYT and the WPo, respectively:
The liberal-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center, founded in 1971
according to a new report from a liberal-leaning advocacy group
More mainstream sources referring to the subject with the same classification can be added, e.g. Yahoo. Omitting it is what is not neutral. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
You're saying it's defining, but how? Those quotes are taken out of context, that's the problem. The Yahoo story is republished from TheBlaze, which is debatable as a reliable source, but lacks neutrality for this point, to put it mildly. The Washington Examiner story it's originally based on (covering one incident from 2013) says nothing of the sort. It's also, yet again, contextualizing the ideology in connection to a very specific story in which ideology is particularly significant. It's not an overview of the SPLC as a whole, and those sources do not emphasize ideology like that, not even close.
It's very easy to find sources which mention something in a specific light. We don't dog-pile every label into the lead just because Google shows some hits for that particular combination.
Original research is in reference to the MMfA and ACA connections. Those are examples, which are not usable for this point. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Attribution can be added if it's more suited to the aforementioned descriptions. I.e. "has been described as" or similar. You say "those" quotes but only mention the Yahoo one - making a good point about it - which wasn't even included in the article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, what about these RSs?

(edit conflict) The two free-floating sentence-fragments quoted are most definitely taken out of context. The NYT sources first describes the SPLC as "an Alabama-based group that tracks extremism." Only later does it mention "liberal-leaning" in a paragraph specifically about criticism from conservative groups. That's the context I'm talking about. The Washington Post story is more direct, but the first paragraph specifically ties the SPLC's report to the most recent presidential election, which is obviously connected to political ideology. The article already describes them as progressive, which seems more-or-less sufficient to me. "Has been described as" is WP:WEASELish, but if you want to figure out how to include this in the lead, you should figure out how to include it in the body of the article first. Focusing on sources which are general overviews, or at least non-opinion articles specifically about the SPLC (not passing mentions), would be the best starting point. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The SPLC does hate group classifications, a lot of them are conservative groups (according to WPo). Stories on the SPLC will mention said classifications of conservative hate groups while they may also classify the SPLC as liberal-leaning. The latter is not tied to the former. It is not as if it only makes sense or is only valid in a specific context. I see nothing wrong with using it, in terms of policy. In fact this is what is done in most articles with a liberal/conservative/etc classification. E.g. The Daily Caller. See the NYT reference. But fine, it suffices to use the "general overview" articles added by NPalgan2 above. Agreed? Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Context for that Washington Post article is provided by the entire sentence: The law center is left-leaning, a nugget conservatives and even moderates have used to deem some SPLC distinctions illegitimate. Should we include that part? I don't think so, but we sure as hell shouldn't misrepresent that source by leaving half the sentence out. Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Grayfell, I don't get your point. How is it misrepresenting to leave out the 2nd half? The WashPo says they are left leaning as a fact in its own voice. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:LEADSENTENCE "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." So many RSs describe SPLC as liberal/left-leaning when referring to it that it really should be there. Most wikipedia articles about organizations mention their conservative/progressive/libertarian/socialist/ecofeminist orientation in the lead sentence that I can't see why the SPLC should be different. (PS I agree that the article body could do with more on their 'economic justice' advocacy, but there's already discussion of their multi-issue progressive advocacy in 'History' and the rest of the lead section.) NPalgan2 (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"So many RSs"... Where did you find those sources? By searching for "SPLC + left-wing" on Google News? How many sources don't emphasize the political ideology? How many of these sources only mention the political ideology in political contexts, and why is it okay to ignore that context?
Using a handful of sources to support a point you already agree with is inappropriate and non-neutral, as it fails to summarize the consensus of multiple sources and viewpoints spanning decades which you might not agree with. It's highlighting some sources for a political agenda, which is not neutral. It also aligns with the issue identified by the Washington Post. Ignoring half a sentence and focusing on the half you agree with after specifically searching for it is a particularly bad example of this problem. Are you advocating that the SPLC's political ideology be expanded? That sounds good, but this is a bad way to do that. A source which says that it's political leanings have been used by critics to undermine it (without any other reason given) is a poor choice for cramming the ideology into the very first sentence. It's especially loaded when it's not explained anywhere else in the article. MOS:LEAD also says "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." That's what this is. It's overloading the first sentence to prove a political point based on decontextualized sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Neither the NYT nor WaPo said the SPLC was "liberal-leaning" or "left-leaning." They are opinions expressed by their writers in signed articles. The two terms by the way have different meanings: liberalism is unashamedly pro-capitalist while the Left ranges from acceptance to hostility. Liberal can also mean the mainstream of political opinion, from Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to Democratic Socialists as opposed to political extremists such as anti-Semites and Islamophobes. TFD (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
That is not how it works. For every news story that calls a certain organization "left/right leaning" one can find ten others which do not, no matter how blatantly biased they are or how much of a consensus there is about it, simply because news stories don't call X Y-leaning every time. How he found the stories is irrelevant, what matters is what the RSs say. And the classification used by various RSs is precisely the classification that should be reflected in this article. There is no "agenda", unless you're arguing that WPo, NYT and The Guardian have "an agenda" against the SPLC. You keep ignoring the other articles posted by NPalgan2 also.Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC does hate group classifications, a lot of them are conservative groups (according to WPo). Stories on the SPLC will mention said classifications of conservative hate groups while they may also classify the SPLC as liberal-leaning. The latter is not tied to the former. It is not as if it only makes sense or is only valid in a specific context. I see nothing wrong with using it, in terms of policy. In fact this is what is done in most articles with a liberal/conservative/etc classification. E.g. The Daily Caller. See the NYT reference. But fine, it suffices to use the "general overview" articles added by NPalgan2 above. Agreed? Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're saying, but I don't think I agree. Isn't it tied to the former? Please propose an actual change on the talk page, but none of those sources were general overviews. Sticking to brief recent news sources isn't helping, as the group has been around long enough to have meatier sources available. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

How many sources don't emphasize the political ideology? Precisely zero RSs dispute the classification of the SPLC as left of center in any way. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely missing the point. There are lots of things about the SPLC that are true, but not all of them belong in the very first sentence. We're not going to play dumb and ignore political context. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Why doesn't it belong there and where should it be added instead? And what context are you talking about, the same as before, already responded to? Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest an RFC. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

101 Tools for Tolerance - cherry-picking from the primary source

I've reverted this edit here, on the Teaching Tolerance publication. The edit adds this content:

The publication also advises schools to adopt culturally sensitive language (such as the gender-neutral phrasing "Someone Special Day" instead of the traditional Mothers Day and Fathers Day) and to make sure that "cultural diversity (is) reflected in your home's artwork, music and literature."[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Affirming Many Variations of Family | Teaching Tolerance". www.tolerance.org. Retrieved October 13, 2015.
  2. ^ "Tools for Tolerance". lovingjustwise.com. Retrieved October 13, 2015.

This strikes me as (1) wrong/not supported by the cited source in part and (2) in any case cherry-picked:

  • As to (1), here's what the suggestion actually says: "Celebrate "Someone Special Day" instead of Mother's Day or Father's Day. Keep adoptive and foster students in mind when planning family-oriented programs." The source says nothing about "gender-neutral" language or "cultural sensitivity" (as the added text says) — it's a suggestion aimed as inclusiveness for foster kids. The text proposed for the article takes out this context, then adds "traditional" (which is also not in the source and is pretty subtly POV).
  • As to (2): more broadly, this text seems cherry-picked to make the SPLC sound ridiculous. There are literally 101 suggestions advanced in the publication, and yet the added text just happens to pick out one and describe it in a way that makes the publication seem ridiculous. That isn't a fair characterization of the totality of the publication, which includes many other items, such as discouraging road rage, encouraging "community-wide 'I Have a Dream' essay contests," promoting compliance with the McKinney Act, encouraging conflict resolution and anti-bullying initiatives, etc. Neutralitytalk 02:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it sounds ridiculous, because it IS ridiculous. However, it had been in the article for over A DECADE before TheFourDeuces realized how ridiculous it was (after I brought it to his attention). However, I can assure you that whoever first added the Someone Special's Day material to the article didn't do it because he thought it made the organization look silly. Motsebboh (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC) PS: Shouldn't the SPLC also have advised schools to change the name Christmas on the school calendar to "Someone Great Day."? Motsebboh (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
While we are handing out advice to SPLC as to how to make 'Christian' festivals more culturally inclusive .... I wonder why they haven't thought of making Easter more accessible to women, pagans, and other religious minorities, by re-naming it after a symbol of nascent female seasonal fecundity? Just a thought. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
If it is ridiculous, then the article should say that, with appropriate sourcing. Christmas holidays btw have mostly been renamed "Winter Break." TFD (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm perfectly content now to see it buried. Motsebboh (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to point out that (apart from cherry-picking and accuracy of quotes issues), source one is clearly a blog article from a teacher, mainly recording how she deals with 'mothers' day' issues with a class of kids many of whom are from 'non-2-parent families' (she gets them to make cards for their dads, or whoever acts as their mum). It is unclear what source two is, most of the 100+ suggestions are pretty anodyne (why not try to be neighbourly to neighbours from another racial/religious group). In both cases, there is nothing to suggest that ANY of this is official SPLC policy, as opposed to member-generated suggestions/ideas. Are we really going to produce text/reach judgements based on such trivia? Pincrete (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The material in question, which has been in our article since sometime in 2005, comes from SPLC publications and was apparently selected to exemplify the SPLC's Teaching Tolerance project. Since some editors object to what has already been removed then I think we should get rid of the rest of it. Motsebboh (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the section was created in order to introduce criticism on the SPLC from a conspiracy theorist website that claimed it "promote[d] a hidden left wing political agenda."[3] At some point the criticism paragraph was deleted. I see no reason though to keep the section unless it is sourced to reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft of criticisms. Please add more sources and constructive edits.

CharityWatch has given SPLC its lowest possible rating of "F" because it spends too much on fundraising and has accumulated $256 million in assets, far in excess of what it needs to operate. SPLC has also been criticized for fearmongering about a resurgent KKK in its fundraising mailers, despite the reality that the KKK's membership is under 5,000 and declining.[1]

[The following are all from the same breitbart article which aggregated SPLC criticisms that have been published in a variety of RS:]

Head of SPLC, Morris Dees, has been criticized for taking an excessive salary of $365,000 per year.

Nation Magazine's Alexander Cockburn: "Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with his fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden America, in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC."

Renowned anti-death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer, who once worked with Dees: "[Dees is] the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement, though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye."

Harper's magazine: "Today, the SPLC spends most of its time – and money – on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate."

The Fairfax journal: "… give your hard-earned dollars to a real charity, not a bunch of slick, parasitic hucksters who live high on the hog by raising money on behalf of needy people who never see a dime of it."

Stephen Bright, President of the Southern Center for Human Rights: "The positive contributions Dees has made to justice – most undertaken based upon calculations as to their publicity and fundraising potential – are far overshadowed by what Harper’s described as his “flagrantly misleading” solicitations for money. He has raised millions upon millions of dollars with various schemes, never mentioning that he does not need the money because he has $175 million and two “poverty palace” buildings in Montgomery. He has taken advantage of naive, well-meaning people – some of moderate or low incomes – who believe his pitches and give to his $175-million operation. He has spent most of what they have sent him to raise still more millions, pay high salaries, and promote himself."

Blogger Steve Sailor: "The Southern Poverty Law Center has worked tirelessly to eradicate the last vestiges of poverty, Southern or otherwise, in the lifestyle of founder Morris Dees…by smearing people like Dick Lamm, three-times Democratic governor of Colorado. "[2]

SPLC has been criticized for using tactics of guilt-by-association[3] and vilifying scientists whose investigations come to problematic conclusions on issues of race[4] and gender.[5]

Ken Silverstein of Harper's says the SPLC "shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people."[6]

Additional sources I haven't had time to incorporate: https://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/montgomery-advertiser-series/ (Need to check library archives of that newspaper to verify the transcript is accurate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 01:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.weeklystandard.com/king-of-fearmongers/article/714573
  2. ^ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/16/southern-poverty-law-center-manufacturing-hate-for-fun-and-profit/
  3. ^ http://archive.is/uYdx7
  4. ^ http://archive.is/uYdx7
  5. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/
  6. ^ http://archive.is/5bM49
Sorry, but Breitbart isn't a reliable source for facts. Never. Neither is the Weekly Standard or Chronicles Magazine or a WordPress blog. Likewise, Steve Sailer, whose name you misspelled, isn't a reliable source for anything except the views of the racist right. Find reliable sources, please. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 03:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Name one right-wing site that you would consider a reliable source. Your political bias is showing. You have no emprical studies to back up your supposition that Breitbart is less reliable than Huffington Post or whatever other liberal rags we routinely cite here.Jwray (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
For instance, politifact's entire file on breitbart consists of two items: Confusing two different attorneys named Loretta Lynch, and believing a false snopes story about the origin of the California flag. Both entirely understandable and unintentional errors, but both were given the "pants on fire" rating that is usually reserved for malicious lies, just because poltifact is left-wing and doesn't like Breitbart. Those two items are like an average day at the Washington Post.Jwray (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
It is hardly MShabazz's fault that dishonest "journalism" has become the main weapon of far-right crackpots and that the Republican party's sane wing is hardly noticeable anymore. Read the Breitbart article and you will find that they routinely spread batshit crazy conspiracy theories, starting from the Birther one. Those do not fall in Politifact's category of easily testable statements. So, "Name one right-wing site that you would consider a reliable source" is a pretty disingenious defense of Breitbart. Of course, PuffHo is not much better, but tu quoque is a fallacy.
Also, it is not Politifact's fault if one side is burning up more pants than the other does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Instead of arguing with me, Jwray, you could look at the relevant guidelines, such as WP:RSOPINION, or review the archives at WP:RS/N. But if you'd prefer to blame me for the Huffington Post (which I've never cited as a source) and for my political views, please feel free. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Those RS:N archives consist of half of commenters expressing the same politically motivated reflixive disgust towards Breitbart as you, without offering any systematic evidence to back up their claims of its unreliability. At best they provide a couple of cherrypicked examples of dubious stories, but the same and much worse could be done of the New York Times or any other RS that publishes a large number of articles.Jwray (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
"the same and much worse could be done" - More invalid tu quoque. "politically motivated reflixive disgust" is appeal to motive, also invalid. For a reliable source, there will simply be zero instances of its spreading conspiracy theories, dubious rumors, and lies, except maybe ones followed by retractions and apologies. Needless to say, the definition of a reliable source is that you can rely on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Jwray: Nor sure what your point is here?? Yes, lot's of people have criticized the SPLC but where are you going with this? Motsebboh (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Already extensively and excessively discussed in the article. WP:WEIGHT is important: most of these complaints come from people to the right or left of mainstream opinion, and hence represent the views of a tiny minority in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I see now; this is a recommendation for a general criticism section. No, I think we should stick with placing criticism in the relevant sections. The existence of criticism is already noted in the lead and we have specific criticisms in the Hate group listing and Finances sections. Those are the areas where the SPLC is most frequently criticized so I think the basic structure of our article is fine. General criticism sections are supposed to be avoided when possible. Motsebboh (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Southern Poverty Law Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC, Charles Murray, and the Middlebury College Brouhaha

I reverted Student7's recent edit about the above topic because it improperly assumed a direct causal relation between the SPLC's condemnation of Murray and the recent political hate incident at Middlebury College. However, that doesn't mean there should be nothing about it in the "Controversy . . . " subsection. These events were widely covered by reliable news sources and all (or just about all) brought up the SPLC's condemnation of Murray as a "white nationalist" as a factor in the crowd's behavior. Moreover, a number of opinion pieces in well known journals principally blamed the SPLC. Motsebboh (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The source is an opinion piece and therefore not reliable as a source for the connection. The SPLC and other reliable sources accurately reported Murray's views that "social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor." Student7 agrees with that assessment. Murray's detractors object to that assessment, and the fact that the SPLC calls it "white nationalism" ia irrelevant. TFD (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant? Not really. You and the SPLC may not care what exact type of undesireable person Murray is (as I said before, they don't care about truth or consequences), but since "White nationalist" does not appear to be the correct category but still stays in the SPLC's description of Murray in spite of criticism, the SPLC's Trump-like stubbornness regarding factuality of questionable statements adds to already existing doubts about their credibility. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is TFD focusing on the one source which Student7 used? There are many in more prominent journals. I happen to think that the SPLC's categorization of Murray as a "white nationalist" is a wild, rabble-rousing exaggeration; but that's not the point. We don't go by our personal opinions. The fact of the matter is that it has raised reliably-sourced controversy and has been linked to highly controversial events covered by reliable sources. Both the SPLC's description of Murray and the crowd at Murray's Middlebury College appearance have their defenders as well, which can be mentioned in our article. Again, it's controversy related to the SPLC's hate group and extremist listings, exactly the subject of the subtopic. Motsebboh (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The opinion piece says, "Here’s the lede written by the Associated Press on the incident: “A libertarian author who has been called a white nationalist said college students who protested his guest lecture this week were ‘scary.’” If AP finds the description uncontroversial, then so should we. We should not give parity between mainstream views on race and fringe views. TFD (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Utterly irrelevant. AP news stories aren't supposed to give opinions. Prominent un-fringe commentators, people who are actually supposed to give their opinions, have. Many have sharply criticized the SPLC, some have defended it. Again . . . controversy. Motsebboh (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Please! WP:AGF. I don't agree that anyone is "genetically inferior." President Obama was/is clearly one of the smartest people in America, as well as Condoleezza Rice. I went to school with Latinos. It just never occurred to me, or anyone around me, either, to think they were inferior.
I don't think that using physical force to prevent people from speaking at universities or any other public venue, should be encouraged, though often used.
I guess my problem with SPLC is one of credibility. Kind of like the southern sympathizers of the KKK in the 50s. They might say "Sammy has been acting kind of uppity lately." And soon after, there's a cross burning in front of Sammy's house. But the sympathizer never burned the cross! Or the "legitimate" arm of the IRA, the Sein Finn. The latter would cheerfully support the characterization of the actions of the IRA as ghastly, while privately supporting them. Or suggesting the victims "brought it on themselves." The McCarthy-like "hate list" of the SPLC, appears to be used as a laundry list of organizations of people TO hate, rather actively. There is little doubt in the Middlebury case of cause and effect. Police and campus officials are pursuing the perpetrators. Also, the SPLC stuff is well-chronicled in other Wikipedia articles. Why not here? The answer is all the same, anyway. "We didn't intend for it to be a 'hit' list." Student7 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Murray has written that black people and women are less intelligent and productive than white men. Whether or not his opinion is true, it is what makes him unpopular, at least among the students who protested him. They are not protesting him because the SPLC calls him a white nationalist, but because they disagree with his views. Lots of students were protesting in the 1960s, before there was an SPLC. And it is not just the SPLC that rejects his opinions, so do mainstream social scientists. And the AP story did not give an opinion. It merely stated the fact that the SPLC called Murray a white nationalist. There is a distinction in reliable sources between an opinion and a fact about an opinion. Similarly Wikipedia articles do not present opinions but report opinions. TFD (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, Wikipedia doesn't present opinions as its own, but reports them (or at least mentions that the opinions exist). By the way, it seems that many of the obstructionists specifically mentioned the SPLC's branding of Murray as a "white nationalist" as a reason for their actions ([4]). Motsebboh (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The sources says, "They cite the Southern Poverty Law Center, which sums him up this way: "Charles Murray, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has become one of the most influential social scientists in America, using racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women, and the poor."" That's a fair description and no doubt why they dislike Murray, rather than boycotting him because they called him a white nationalist. They could have got the same information by reading newspapers, Wikipedia, or Murray's books. TFD (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"That's a fair description" is your opinion. While the obstructionists might have gotten the same info from other sources, this and other articles about the Middlebury incidents stress the SPLC as a source of their "knowledge" about Murray. More significantly, many opinion pieces attacking the SPLC's attack on Murray have appeared in prominent newspapers and periodicals. There have also been some pieces defending the SPLC and even the obstructionists. Once again, this is controversy involving the SPLC's hate group and extremist listings; exactly the topic of our subsection." Motsebboh (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I also think that the incident warrants a mention in the controversy section. David A (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not my opinion but how he is described in reliable sources. Can you please provide a reliable source that provides a different description. Can you show where he says that African Americans and white Americans have equal intelligence? TFD (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, different nations of the world do seem to differ greatly in intelligence, but as far as I am aware, that is due to nourishment, culture, and opportunities for education, not genetics. Human genes are mostly identical. David A (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
You know that, I know that, and I think TFD knows it. But TFD asked whether Murray knows it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
That is indeed a fair description. For what Motsebboh says, namely the SPLC's "white nationalist" label inspiring the protesters, this is a better source than the link above. Or this. Or this. -Hob Gadling (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
hose statistics come from IQ and Global Inequality, a 2006 book by by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, that has gained no acceptance in mainstream scholarship. And Stange says, "Intelligent members of the Middlebury community...concluded that Charles Murray was an anti-gay white nationalist from what they were hearing from one another, and what they read on the Southern Poverty Law Center website." Which is funny, because the SPLC does not say he is anti-gay.[5] Neither of the two other sources say that the SPLC description influenced the demonstators. Instead they quote the SPLC without qualification, as an authoritative description. TFD (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
"Which is funny, because the SPLC does not say he is anti-gay" I fail to see the fun in that. The article says what they concluded, part of which repeats the SPLC's description, and attributes it to two sources, one of which is the SPLC. So the "anti-gay" part comes from the other source. This says exactly what Motsebboh claimed. The "anti-gay" part is just you muddying the water.
"Neither of the two other sources say that the SPLC description influenced the demonstators" - One source says "But critics said that Murray shouldn't be treated simply a person with whom they had differing political views. Many noted that he is classified as a white nationalist by the Southern Poverty Law Center". See the logic? "SPLC says White Nationalist, therefore not simply differing view", therefore shout him down. It is not explicit, but it is there.
The third source says "Who is the enemy? White supremacy!" Where does that come from if not the SPLC?
As an aside, I think Murray - a libertarian (market fundamentalist) who is associated with the market fundamentalist think tank American Enterprise Institute - is against helping poor people because of market fundamentalism. Market fundamentalists don't care about the reasons they give for being against something; they deny climate change (because that denial results in more freedom for the market) and invent faulty reasoning to justify that, so why shouldn't they deny racial equality and invent faulty reasoning to justify that, if that denial results in more freedom for the market?
OK, that's just my interpretation, but it seems more reasonable to me than the SPLC's White Nationalist idea, which came out of nowhere, with no source and no reasoning to base it on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we are getting away from what should be the basic reason for mentioning the SPLC-Murray-Middlebury brouhaha. It has nothing to do with whether or not the SPLC's description of Murray was "mainstream" or not, or accurate or not. It has to do with it being part of a highly reported, highly commented upon controversy. As TFD seems to think, the SPLC's criticism of Murray may have been the epitome of accuracy and social responsibility, nevertheless, it has become part of of a significant controversy which relates to its "hate group and extremist listings." That is enough. Motsebboh (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone know the date of the SPLC's attack on Murray? The month and year would be useful in an entry. Motsebboh (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The earliest mentions of Murray on the SPLC website I could find in the Winter 1999 issues of their Report.[6][7] They have written a lot about him over the years, since he is one of the leading academic theorists of white superiority. The bio appears to be from Jan 15, 2014.
I think what you believe is that the protesters went out because the SPLC called Murray a "white nationalist." That's the psychology of authoritarianism. The leader says someone is no good, and foot soldiers take him out. But outside the echo chamber, reliable sources are reporting that the protesters were upset with Murrays views, which he has written about and have been widely reported. So there is no controversy involving the SPLC, anymore than there is a controversy involving the mainstream media that has diligently reported Murray's views over the years.
TFD (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
No. When a glut of opinion pieces in major publications criticize the SPLC's "reporting" on Murray then there is controversy. You seem to be alone in thinking there isn't. Motsebboh (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC) PS: Thanks for dating the SPLC piece which called Murray a white nationalist.
No, TFD is not the only one disagreeing with you, others just got tired of trying to discuss it with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Then you got tired before the thread even started since the above is your first comment in it. However, there's nothing substantive in what you've said. What are your substantive reasons for opposing the addition? Motsebboh (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight among other problems. The "controversy" as described has very little to do with the SPLC and very much to do with ongoing debates over free speech issues on campuses. You've now added the material three times and I see no additional support for your position between addition 2 and 3. A significant quote from one of the sources says:
"But an open letter to the college from more than 450 alumni objecting to Mr. Murray’s presence on campus said it was not a matter of free speech. The letter, written before Thursday’s event, said that his views were offensive and based on shoddy scholarship and that they should not be legitimized."
While there is a mention of the SPLC's findings on Murray, there is no indication in the article that anyone claimed that the SPLC was a major influence on the 450 alumni or 400 student protesters.
Another source does contain a claim by Allison Stanger, the organizer of Murray's visit, that everyone got their info from the SPLC -- an unlikely (and isolated) claim by someone with a possible ax to grind whose academic background is unrelated to analysis of U.S.civil rights groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
PS The Washington Post article on the subject starts with this:
"As the co-author of one of the 1990s’ most controversial works of scholarship, Charles Murray is no stranger to angry protesters.
Over the years, at university lectures across the country, the influential conservative scholar and author of “The Bell Curve” says he’s come face-to-face with demonstrators dozens of times."
Murray had problems a long time before 2014. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the larger controversy is more about the debate over free speech on college campuses than it is about the SPLC's extremist and hate group designations, but so what? Every dust-up the SPLC has been involved with has to do with issues larger than itself. The fact remains that most reliable sources reporting on the events have brought up the SPLC's "extremist" and "white nationalist" designations of Murray in connection with the Middlebury saga, and that many have commented upon that designation in leading newspapers and periodicals. Those things give it more than enough weight to be included in a section on controversy over the SPLC's hate group and extremist listings.
Your argument here is basically the same as TFD's. Both of you are saying, "look, you can't really prove that the SPLC's description of Murray is what drove the obstructionists to shut down Murray's presentation." And, yes, that is true; but again, so what? The reliable sources which covered the events made an issue of the SPLC's labeling of Murray, as did some of the the obstructionists who were interviewed by news sources, as did many commentators, whether they had an ax to grind (or a neck to heal) or not. Again, there's more than enough for inclusion.
As for support, I already had three other editors "on board" when I first made the edit, and a fourth editor thanked for my most recent inclusion. What support have you had for your reverts? Motsebboh (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
You listed three sources in your proposed addition. Regarding the SPLC description of Murray, none of these sources support your language that the SPLC description played a "role ... in the incidents."
Further, you language on the SPLC position is totally inadequate to summarize their position. From the SPLC document you used as a source:
"In Murray’s world, wealth and social power naturally accrue towards a “cognitive elite” made up of high-IQ individuals (who are overwhelmingly white, male, and from well-to-do families), while those on the lower end of the eponymous bell curve form an “underclass” whose misfortunes stem from their low intelligence. According to Murray, the relative differences between the white and black populations of the United States, as well as those between men and women, have nothing to do with discrimination or historical and structural disadvantages, but rather stem from genetic differences between the groups. The Bell Curve, which remains Murray’s most controversial work, firmly lays out Murray’s belief, shared with Herrnstein, that the groups that make up the “underclass” are there solely because of their genes."
You want to tell readers that the SPLC is wrong while giving only a very slight hint of what they actually say. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's take it from the top. I said that certain sources were critical the SPLC's description of Murray and "of what they saw as the role of this description in the Middlebury College incidents." So I never claimed that the SPLC description of Murray played a role in the incidents. Rather, I said that certain sources said that it did. I will admit, however, that my second and third sources actually didn't do this directly (although there are plenty of others that did). The Commentary and Weekly Standard were, instead, concerned with the credulity of the press in accepting the SPLC's description of Murray as legitimate. On the other hand, Allison Stanger's piece in the NYTimes most certainly did blame the SPLC's description of Murray, along with other "faulty information," as "the catalyst for shutting off the free exchange of ideas at Middlebury."
As for my "language on the SPLC position being totally inadequate to summarize their position" I proudly plead guilty. It is not my job nor yours. We simply mention the existence of controversies in this relatively small subsection, not going into any great detail on them. If they are that important to you, write a separate article on them, collectively or individually. The subsection now simply mentions the existence of controversy over Ben Carson, Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali being categorized as extremists by the SPLC, with little detail from either side. I have simply followed in that mode.
Finally, NO, I do not "want to tell readers that the SPLC is wrong." I just don't want to cover up the fact that some people think it is wrong. From what I've seen of your editing in this article, you apparently do want to cover it up. Motsebboh (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


Trial wording for inclusion

In a January 2014 profile of controversial political scientist Charles Murray. the SPLC labeled him a "white nationalist." [source] Following the disruption by protesters of an appearance by Murray at Middlebury College in March 2017 [sources] some commentators were sharply critical of the SPLC's description of Murray and of the role this description played in the incidents [sources]. Motsebboh (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Funding criticisms

The article says "In the past, Alexander Cockburn writing in The Nation, Ken Silverstein writing in Harper's Magazine and fringe movements scholar Laird Wilcox have been sharply critical of the SPLC's fundraising appeals and finances". Pretty vague and awkward. And some of this is 20 years ago or slightly less. We either need to be more specific or ditch some of this. And why is Ken Silverstein's 2000 criticism of funding mentioned in two sections? Does this still belong in the lead? I'd argue that unless there's been fairly recent criticism it does not. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think historical criticisms are valid, but yes anything should only be said once.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty undue, especially to be mentioned in the lede. It was some tiff some people had among themselves long time ago. Are there any newer pieces on the subject from these folks? This is pretty obviously someone trawling the internet for something negative to include and the best they could come up with is a couple opinion pieces from 20 years ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Happy to see it taken out of the lead as old material, but it should still be in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything about big changes in their fundraising methods. The last figure I saw for their endowment was $319,000,000 (bigger than most colleges) and they are still asking for donations on the first page of their website. No, I don't think we'd have much trouble finding more recent criticisms of their finances and fundraising, though perhaps not in Harper's or The Nation. Motsebboh (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The critical sources are not that old, anyway. The book which is cited was published in 2012, and The Weekly Standard article which Volunteer Marek just deleted (for what reason??) was published in 2013. The SPLC has existed since 1971. Motsebboh (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The book discusses the 1994 Montgomery Advertiser article. Where does it suggest it's a 21st Century problem? Doug Weller talk 19:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I dunno; but did it suggest a 21st century reform? Has the SPLC's business model changed? Here's another article, a very recent one, which criticizes the SPLC for fleecing naive liberals: [8]. Motsebboh (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing new and no indication that the author did any research on her own regarding the SPLC business model (other than the minute or so spent updating the amount of the SPLC reserves). The Advertiser article, I assume, had some factual analysis -- the source you cite is purely opinion. The bottom line is that the anti-SPLC crowd has been recirculating the Advertiser article for decades. The question for including the info in the lead is not whether there are sources saying the model has changed but whether there are sources documenting that it has stayed the same. Is any successful business or public interest group still communicating/soliciting in 2017 the same way they did in 1994? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that all sorts of commentators both left and right and in prominent journals (examples: The Montgomery Advertiser, The Nation, Harper's, CounterPunch, The Weekly Standard, RealClearPolitics) have attacked the SPLC's fundraising tactics and accumulation of wealth. Are you suggesting that nothing relating to this should be mentioned in the article? Motsebboh (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
They are just isolated criticisms that have not been picked up in mainstream media and therefore have no weight. I'm sure that Motsebboh would not argue for the inclusion of opinions expressed by CounterPunch editors 20 years ago in an article about a group he supports. In order to include it, we need to show that it has attracted attention in an actual news article. TFD (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you change the first sentence of the Talk page to: The subject of this article is NOT controversial . . . For a charity with no more than 300 employees I would say that it has achieved a fair amount of controversy and that attacks from the kinds of publications I've mentioned (which includes the very mainstream Montgomery Advertiser) are well worth noting. Motsebboh (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at the Heritage Foundation page, whose "Funding" section notes that its past president was the highest-paid person ($2.7 million) employed by any charity in 2011... this is not mentioned in the article lede, and rightly so. A couple 20-year-old articles don't rise to the level of lede-worthy material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
And according to SourceWatch, they had $217 million in the bank in 2014. I am surprised that no one has found a 20 year old editorial in a socialist magazine about this. TFD (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Kind of difficult to find a twenty year old article about a fact that is only three years old. In the case of the SPLC, there are sources criticizing its finances and/or fundraising from 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2007, 2012, and 2017. Motsebboh (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
What are these sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure I could find plenty of articles like this one and this one and this one and this one or this one criticizing the Heritage Foundation's fundraising tactics and strategies; no matter, it still wouldn't belong in the lede because all non-profit organizations fundraise, and IMO the only thing that would make any of these fundraising stories lede-worthy is if it was widely reported that they were engaged in outright fraud, misuse of funds or had particularly bad ratios of fundraising spending to program spending. That doesn't appear to be the case with SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
They had $171 net assets ten years ago (see [http://origin.heritage.org/~/media/financial%20pdfs/annualreport07.ashx annual report p. 28) I am sure this wasn't a recent windfall. As our resident expert on how much money charities have, you should know what they had in the 1990s. I'm sure that someone sometime somewhere said it was hypocritical to prey on rich donors who were suffering from punitive taxes. TFD (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You should be editing at the Heritage Foundation article then, comrade. Perhaps I'll join you there later. Motsebboh (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this is not about the Heritage Foundation, what they do is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A new relevant article about the SPLC in the Washington Post

I think that this article makes good points, and merits a mention in the criticism section.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-labeling-my-organization-a-hate-group-shuts-down-public-debate/2017/03/17/656ab9c8-0812-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html

David A (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece by the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and therefore is not a reliable source. What would be helpful is an actual news article that reports a "controversy" about the SPLC listings. Then we could have facts about the organization and a fair presentation of views about whether the SPLC assessment was correct. In the meantime, here is a link to an article published in the CATO Institute explaining how the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) misrepresents facts in order to create hostility to immigration. The CIS article incidentally is wrong when it says the SPLC "conflates groups that really do preach hatred, such as the Ku Klux Klan and Nation of Islam. I suggest you read the SPLC website rather than rely on what the CIS write about it. TFD (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we could hve this as a rebuttal, if the article mentions his organisation, does it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. If it did, then we should present their defense. And if we present their defense, then we should present what the SPLC said about them. The problem is that there are hundreds of organizations and people reported by the SPLC, all of them oppose this attention, and it would be a lengthy article if we had a section about each and every one. TFD (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Better to have a lengthy article, possibly with a division in multiple articles, than to omit pertinent information. I'm not talking about this piece from the WPo in specific, but about this argument that has been used in this talk page before to dismiss criticism about this organization to be added to the article. "It would be too long" - well, if there's that much criticism, it seems that a criticism section is missing. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
There is one, what does not help is to arbitrarily pick criticisms with no reference to what is in the article.17:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
No, there isn't. There's a sub-section about a fraction of the numerous controversies over hate group listings that got published by liberal newspapers. There have been several suggestions about a criticism section - three ([9] [10] [11]) in the last three months, dismissing it with "it would be too long" is not very convincing. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Ohh I see, so it is not reporting of criticism, it is who reports it that matters? Yes (by the way) "it being too long is a convincing argument, you just don't think so. Simply put why do we need random peoples opinions of SPLC in the article? So what you want is not a section that reports controversies, but just a list of criticism? I am not convinced by that argument.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Precisely the opposite, what matters is the content. No one is talking about "random people", read the links I posted if you're really interested in the suggestions. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
So why is his opinion more worthy of note then the hundreds of others who have criticized SPLC? Why should his opinion be here? This is what I mean by "RANDOM PEOPLE", it is just another Op-Ed piece, no more worthy of note then any other. It is (in essence) fishing for something to include as criticism. Make the argument for why his views are significant.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
As I have said in my very first comment in this section I am not talking about the WPo op-ed, I haven't even read it yet. I was replying to TFDs comment and commenting on criticism in general and how it is treated in this article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
"Due and undue weight" says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Since reliable sources routinely quote the SPLC on hate speech, without qualification, the SPLC position must be given greater prominence. There may not even be a weight-based justification for including criticisms that while presented in opinion pieces, have not been reported in news articles or academic papers.
We must bear in mind is that the media, academics, police and immigration officials use SPLC assessments and have no criticisms of them. For example, the Home Office cited them in Pamela Geller's challenge to her exclusion from the UK. Furthermore, the types of statements many of them issue is criminalized as hate speech in all developed countries except the U.S., where hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Criticism comes from groups and individuals targeted by the SPLC. If one disagrees with the mainstream assessment of what the SPLC calls hate groups, this is not the place to argue against it.
TFD (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of the policy. A criticism is an opinion so I fail to see your point. There is criticism by the media, government officials and academics, they have been cited in the aforelinked discussions (e.g. [12], [13], [14]). And while some listings may be used for legal action, certainly not all have been used by governments - nor would they be immune from criticism, even if used for legal action. About the US and hate speech, criticism is usually about targeting speech that is not hate speech as so (according to the critics), so the point is moot. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
So why is the section we have no not sufficient?Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I - among others - believe some of the content in the aforelinked discussions should be included, as I have expressed in those discussions; there was no consensus for the inclusion though, other discussions still being open in this talk page. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Great, but why is what we have not sufficient? I have seen all those arguments, and they all boil down to "but we should include some criticism", we do. WE are not disusing something that does (in fact) exist we are discussing why this persons opinions are of note.Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, that is the only point worth discussing, and I have already expressed why I think X is worthy of inclusion in the (lengthy) discussions about X. Turns out editors disagree - not a process (or lack thereof) I wholly agree with, but well, it is what it is - or the discussion is still open. This comment chain started simply because I criticized the "article would be too long if we add all the criticism" comment. I do not wish to revisit discussions that are already stagnated nor bring the discussion about including X Y or Z from other sections here, to what started as a response and is turning out to be nonsensically meta. Notability is/was being discussed there, let's keep it there. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Saturnalia0, the criteria for including opinions are mentioned under "Due and undue weight", which says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." An op-ed by the director of CIS carries little or no weight in this article although it is rightly carried in the article about CIS. TFD (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
"That's an opinion piece by the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and therefore is not a reliable source"
That's nonsense. @The Four Deuces: please do not clutter legitimate discussion with nonsense claims.
The very same language you repeatedly quote shows that being featured prominently in major newspapers makes an opinion significant and thus WP's goal is to fairly report it. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Which ones?Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, I'm sure if we were to scour the first line of this Talk page section, we might find one. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
A: One is not many.
B: An op-ed piece is not independent of the person who wrote it.
Sorry if I misunderstood your point, but as far as I know just being featured in one newspaper does not give an opinion weight, not do I think any user has argued for it (except those who ant to include this).Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
How much RS attention did SPLC's claim receive in the first place? I sure don't see much, but I do see that PolitFact looked at the claim and was unwilling to even rate it.
That said, just being featured "in one newspaper" does give an opinion weight if the newspaper is The Washington Post. Further, Krikorian and CIS are both cited regularly by top quality sources such as New York Times. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Err, I think it was already pointed out we do not have CIS mentioned in this article, and no just being published in the NYT (or even the London times) does not grant weight. It also doe not matter how often they are cited, what matters is the relevance to this article. As this article does not discus Krikorian or CIS is is undue weight to present their opinions of SPLC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Related but off-topic discussion
Would you perhaps agree that there are WEIGHT problems at the article on Center for Immigration Studies itself, due to nearly 7kb of material on criticisms that received little RS attention and which a prominent fact-checking publication in the U.S. explicitly declined to even rate as true or false? All the more so because the claim essentially labels living people as racists?
Put differently, if SPLC's racism claim is not important or serious enough to be in the SPLC's own article, why should the debatable and contentious self-pubbed claim about living people be given any weight elsewhere? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice 17:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Factchecker at your service, could you please drop your offensive tone. An opinion piece in the Washington Post does not establish weight, otherwise every single opinion published in that paper could be entered into every article. There have been a few controversies in the news lately, for example, allegations that Russia was behind the leaks of DNC emails. Note that there are secondary sources about the scandal. Not just op-eds but news articles are reporting opinions. We are therefore able to establish the weight of the opinions, who holds what opinion, and the degree of acceptance. For example, we can say that there is a consensus among U.S. intelligence that Russia hacked into the DNC servers. We can also establish and report dissenting views, and the response of the Trump administration. In other words, we can "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." TFD (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of how many top newspapers an op-ed must be published in before you believe it is worthy of inclusion...
Do you agree then that if SPLC's claims about CIS have been ignored by RS's, they shouldn't appear in the CIS article per UNDUE? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


It does not matter what another article says, we are discussing this one. Take that to the appropriate page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Just making sure you wouldn't object to removal of other material on the same rationale. Cheers. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said this is not the place (and I have not) to discuss other pages.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
And as I said, I just wanted to see if you have any basis whatsoever for objecting to such a removal. Sounds like the answer is No. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
NO, my answer is "discus this there, not here". This is no longer about this article, it is about users. Please stop now.18:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Users are the people who edit articles, they are the people who come and dispute content changes. The two articles and the policy implications are very closely related. It was a completely reasonable question that you could have said yes or no to, while still urging me to go to the other talk page. Cheers. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
We should discuss what should be in the CIS article on its talk page. The same policies apply equally to the SPLC and CIS articles. I would have to look at the article to determine whether policy was being correctly applied. TFD (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I wuld say that the Washington Post giving Krikorian an op-ed to counter SPLC's desigation is notable. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And a lot of people have disagreed. We do not even mention CIS in this article, so saying what they think is undue.Slatersteven (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that we don't even mention the designation anywhere else, before we give CIS "rebuttal" space, we would need to discuss why the SPLC has designated the CIS a hate group and include their reasoning and rationale for doing so. To mention their counter-claims without discussing the reason for the claim is putting the cart before the horse. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Leaders of groups designated as hate groups objecting to the designation -- not news. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
"Due and undue weight" refers to "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It does not say that one op-ed gives prominence if the publication is prominent. If it did, then any opinion expressed in any op-ed in the Washington Post or other prestigious newspaper would be notable and we could enter it into any relevant article. TFD (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Southern Poverty Law Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Southern Poverty Law Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on lead sentence

OPPOSE
*Summary: Consensus exists that the text should be excluded from the leading sentence
  • Reason: Concerns were voiced that the proposal is contrary to WP:NPOV, particularly regarding the inclusion of this statement in the first sentence, and even one of the "support" comments states a concern about the placement. The concern about WP:OVERCITE is also worth considering. Furthermore, a strong consensus exists against implementing the alternative text and placement suggestion. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

Should the lead sentence of Southern Poverty Law Center describe it as [left-leaning / liberal-leaning] or not? Proposed wording:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a left-leaning[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation

NPalgan2 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:!VOTE

  • Include OP and prefer left-leaning as opposed to liberal-leaning as although left≠liberal, liberal is a subset of left. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose/exclude. Certainly not in the first three words of the article, because "left-leaning" is not one of the most important things about the group, and because the first sentence of the article should be limited to the most defining and important characteristics. The most important thing about the group is that it tracks extremists in the United States. For all of the sources that you cite (some of which, by the way, are certainly not usable: Ron Radosh is an opinion columnist), an even larger number and more impressive array of reliable source do not tag the SPLC with the "left" descriptor. Contrast your proposal, with its great emphasis on left, with the "short form descriptors" used by other sources, for example, which make no mention of it:

  • Liam Stack & Daniel Victor, Hate Group Numbers in U.S. Rose for 2nd Year in a Row, Report Says, New York Times (Feb. 15, 2017): "the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremism in the United States."
  • Liam Stack, White Lives Matter Has Been Declared a Hate Group, New York Times (August 30, 2016): "the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that tracks extremist groups in the United States...Researchers with the law center..."
  • Caitlin Dickerson, Reports of Bias-Based Attacks Tick Upward After Election, New York Times (November 11, 2016): "the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups."
  • Kim Severson, Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says, New York Times (March 7, 2012): "The center, which has kept track of such groups for 30 years, recorded 1,018 hate groups operating last year. ... The center, based in Montgomery, Ala., records only groups that are active..."
  • Miriam Jordan, In Immigrant Fight, Grass-Roots Groups Boost Their Clout, Wall Street Journal (September 28, 2006): "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups"
  • Joel Millman & Evan Perez, Suspect Is Arrested in Spokane Bomb Case, Wall Street Journal (March 10, 2011): "The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil-rights group that tracks hate groups and has won numerous lawsuits on behalf of victims ..."
  • Amol Sharma & Diksha Sahni, Sikhs in India Grieve After U.S. Shooting, Wall Street Journal (August 6, 2012): "a U.S. civil-rights group"
  • "Right-Wing Extremism" in Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues, Vol. 2 (ed. Michael Shally-Jensen), p. 653: "the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the main sources of information for right-wing extremist groups."
  • David Mark Chalmers, Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), p. 188: "the Southern Poverty Center ... [is one of several groups that] monitor extremism on the Right ... prime source of reliable published information."
Now, if you wanted to discuss this content further down in the article, or even further down in the lead, then I'd be open to that. But no, not in the first three words. --Neutralitytalk 02:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd argue that we describe lots of organizations as [liberal/conservative/progressive/libertarian] [think tank/advocacy group/legal fund/magazine] in lead sentence even though RSs may not refer to their ideological orientation all the time. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Not when it's not a defining feature. Neutralitytalk 02:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It's defining for SPLC. Some of their listings are pretty difficult to explain in absence of a political motive. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Include - Numerous Wikipedia articles on right-leaning organizations prominently and repeatedly describe such organizations as "right-leaning", often repeating that phrase all over the article. Using a different policy for leftwing organizations would be inconsistent. For the SPLC's case, OP cited cases in which even the New York Times and Washington Post described the SPLC as left-leaning or similar terms, and many other publications have done likewise. There's no question that its politics and policies are decidedly leftwing, and there is no legitimate reason to cite the political leanings of only rightwing organizations but not leftwing ones. Ryn78 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Include, but I tend to agree with User:Neutrality regarding placement, although I do not have such a strong objection as to completely discard the original suggestion, because of what I already expressed in the previous section regarding this topic - i.e. concerning the political classification not appearing on every reference to a group. I added a talkquote below with an alternative placement at the last paragraph of the lead. I also agree with Neutrality concerning RSs, and there is an excessive amount of citations. Per WP:CITEKILL only the most relevant should be kept. I addressed that as well in the alternative proposed below, but any improvements to it are more than welcome. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude The mission of the SPLC is to fight religious, racial and other types of prejudice, which is a position lauded by people across the political spectrum. It does not align itself with any political movement. The use of 9 footnotes is typical of tendentious writing. When no definitive source can be found, an attempt is made to compensate with lots of weak sources, in this case opinions expressed by nine out of tens of thousands of articles and opinion pieces that mention the SPLC. And in most sources the terms left and liberal have different meanings: liberals are enthusiastically pro-capitalist, while the Left ranges from acceptance to outright hostility. There is no evidence where the SPLC fits along this spectrum. TFD (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologize in advance for this gratuitous insertion, but I can't help myself. While I agree that we should not label the SPLC as "liberal" in the lead (just as we shouldn't label an organization such as AEI as "conservative") nobody of sound mind should doubt that by TODAY's common political usage the SPLC epitomizes that description which, btw, has little to do with economics. When a bunch of folks advocate replacing Mother's Day and Father's Day with Someone Special's Day ["The publication also advises parents to use culturally sensitive language (such as the gender-neutral phrasing "Someone Special Day" instead of the traditional Mothers Day and Fathers Day) and to make sure that cultural diversity (is) reflected in your home's artwork, music and literature."] they are bleeding-heart liberals. Motsebboh (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Just because they appeal to progressives doesn't mean they are "progressive" themselves. All this means is that they have ONE program which is targeted at progressives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they are clearly targeting centerists and non-progressives! See my point? Let's use the terms that the RS has provided. (And let's see if SPLC objects to the term "Progressive".) – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Strictly speaking it is not the SPLC saying that but the recently appointed Coordinator for their college program, SPLC on Campus, writing about SPLC on Campus on splconcampus.org/blog. This is the type of source that experts may use in determining whether the SPLC is a progressive organization, but it requires a number of assumptions and guess work and knowledge of how the organization operates, which is original research. TFD (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, we have numerous neutral reliable sources which use the terms "left" and "liberal" to describe SPLC. And SPLC itself uses the terms "far-right activists", "white liberal critics", " scofflaw ..., a radical Nevada rancher", "common right-wing cannard", "conservative news site ...", and "debunked right-wing claim".[10] – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - this is a POV attempt at poisoning the well. Also agree with User:TFD.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Fuck no, unless you (you know who you are) are willing to allow me to add "conservative" before the name of every hate group identified in the article. I guarantee I can find thousands of reliable sources that call each of them conservative, and it's equally irrelevant well-poisoning. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 04:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
If you do find said sources you should most definitively do so, add the term. And comment on content, not on contributors. Justify your vote preferably in terms of policy but not as "fuck no you'd be complaining if I did the same", otherwise it's irrelevant. It's not a vote count. I could just as well accuse some of the people here of POV pushing for trying to omit a widely used (by relevant sources) classification without actual discussion, just "fuck no" or similar. Saturnalia0 (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Holy fucking shit, User:MShabazz, way to post a comment consisting almost entirely of profanity and ABF. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude I'm not a fan of immediately placing an ideological label on groups unless they describe themselves that way. As Volunteer Marek points out it's a form of poisoning the well. Yes, this is common in Wikipedia when it comes to right-of-center groups but that doesn't mean we should further a bad practice. Any reader with a modicum of political savvy will realize from the rest of the article that by American standards the SPLC is a left-of-center group. Motsebboh (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude per Neutrality, MShabazz, and others. This is a heavy-handed and non-neutral. Sources which contextualize it as left-leaning or similar or mostly doing so in explicitly political contexts related to specific news stories, but a Wikipedia article should not be limited in that way or to those sources. Emphasizing their ideology shoehorns them into a false-dichotomy and suggests that they confine their activity to right-wing groups only, which is false. Including the ideology later in the lead should be discussed elsewhere, but that seems more reasonable. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
False, this has already been discussed and not responded to. Even if we ignore the whole "context" bullshit, there is a Washington Post story specifically about the SPLC[9]. Saturnalia0 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying the Washington Post story (about a specific incident) which specifically says that conservatives emphasize the SPLC's left-lean to discredit them... supports that not all sources discuss the point in a political context? I don't get it. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm the one who doesn't get it. There are several stories (WPo, NYT, Guardian) calling the SPLC "left-leaning" or "liberal", while reporting a hate group classification, as practically all stories about the SPLC do, and you say that for those stories the term is "taken out of context" because they are reporting on a hate group classification "by the left-leaning SPLC", and that the latter somehow only makes sense in the context of the former (well hate group classifications is what the SPLC does so I guess it always makes sense...). Since that discussion didn't go anywhere in the previous section I provided another story where this isn't the case. There is attribution in it, of course, but there's no "hate group classification context" to complain about. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. This appears to be well-sourced, and I see no basis for excluding it. The counterarguments don't hold water. We routinely include these sorts of labels (liberal, conservative, moderate, nonpartisan, etc. etc.) in the first sentences of our articles on think tanks and other NGOs, since they help readers make a straight-up assessment of where they stand on the political spectrum. The way an organization describes itself is worthy of inclusion in body of the article, but no organization is a reliable source on itself for this purpose, and unreliable sources should never be placed on par with reliable sources (per WP:NPV). There are other !votes here based on accusations of bad faith conduct - these are not constructive and should be ignored by the closer. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman: This is a matter of degree/importance, though. We apply such a label so early in articles only where the political orientation is of core importance to the subject (for example, we properly identify, within the first three or four words in the articles, The New Republic, the Center for American Progress, and the American Constitution Society as "liberal" or "progressive" and The American Spectator, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society as "conservative"). But I'm very hard-pressed to believe that the SPLC's political leanings are of equivalent importance to it, as they are with respect to these other groups, so as to justify the appellation right away in the article, before anything else. This is basically the five-word test: If you asked a knowledgeable person to describe any of the six organizations above in five words, they would probably give you the liberal/conservative descriptor. But if you asked a knowledgeable person "describe the SPLC in five words," they would probably tell would that it's a U.S. civil rights group that monitors extremist organizations/hate groups. Neutralitytalk 20:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable argument. However I think the political ideology of any group that deals with politics (and the SPLC certainly does) is of utmost importance. The reliable sources appear to agree with this, as I believe most of them label the SPLC as "left-leaning" right up front alongside their first mention of the organization. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC has three distinct main missions (education, watchdog, litigation) so summing them up in 5 words is a squeeze, but how about: 'The SPLC is a liberal U.S. civil rights law firm, anti-extremist 'watchdog' group & tolerance education organization. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This reads as a subtle attempt to poison the well. Even our article on the Ku Klux Klan doesn't mention right-wing until the 3rd sentence. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The KKK is described as "extremist reactionary" in the first sentence. "extremist reactionary"≈extreme right-wing. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Too wordy, and "liberal" doesn't conform to the cited sources (which almost exclusively use "left-leaning"). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Re:I see no reason to not make make the same judgement here. How about because it isn't a defining feature? How about if they are not a party political group? It is very possible that secular third world charities are more likely to attract left or liberal supporters, religious ones perhaps more likely to attract conservatives, but in either case if one of their primary purposes is not advocacy of left/right positions, why define them thus in the lead? Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Because that is what they have been called, and I do not see it as something they should feel ashamed of. Also if the SPLC's accusations of being a hate group can be in the lead for such groups why can their label as left not be in theirs, it is as relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't object to this content being somewhere, I object strongly to it being in the opening sentence, since no one has shown that this a, let alone the defining feature. In so far as it is relevant, I often object to labels in the opening sentence for other groups, especially if no one can show it as the defining feature of such groups. Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
It is a defining feature and it is what RSs call it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
And these RS use the term in the first three words of their descriptions do they? RS indicate that the central purpose of SPLC is the promotion of left-wing politics do they? I would not be surprised to find that there were more centre-right/left/liberals among, for example the US civil rights movements or the SA anti-apartheid movements than right-wingers, but characterising any of these as inherently 'left' in their primary purpose is getting awfully close to J E Hoover territory. It can simply not be justified as the defining feature. Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
No one proposed to add anything about promoting anything. RSs use the definition, so can and should we. If your only criticism is placement then suggest an alternative placement as I did. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
'Promoting' or 'advocating' is implicit in making 'left' the first defining feature, a 'left-wing newspaper' promotes or advocates or defends left-wing political positions, that is what the description means, so placement is not incidental. I haven't yet commented in the second RfC partly because it is unclear where the proposed text is to go. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude Undue in the opening sentence, but support the alternative proposal below. Eperoton (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude Per WP:NPOV. The SPLC is a well-documented non-profit civil rights advocacy organization rooted in not only bringing legitimate legal claims to court, but succeeding on the merits. It focuses not only on right-wing extremism, but left-wing extremism as well. Defining it as a left-wing "political-type" organization in the lead is misleading at best and it's clearly an attempt to smear. Teammm talk
    email     01:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Look, not even an SPLC representative claims that it "focuses not only on right-wing extremism, but left-wing extremism as well". See this: "He paused. “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”..."We only ever cover left-wing groups when they have a right-wing component, he told me. For example, “when anarchist groups are infiltrated by those on the right; Neo-Nazis, that sort of thing.”" http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299011/occupy-southern-poverty-law-center-charles-c-w-cooke NPalgan2 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Including would be an NPOV violation. The SPLC is not a political party. Civil rights is not necessary left or right. Before the 1960's, the Republican party was the stronger supporter of civil rights. Many conservatives and libertarians support certain SPLC goals. Some groups traditionally affiliated with left-of-center politics have opposed certain SPLC goals. I am not arguing anything politically, just that I don't see left or right as an appropriate adjective in this situation.--Rpclod (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
You're basically arguing that the RSs that call it left/liberal-leaning are wrong. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please don't try to put words in my mouth. You are wrong. The question is "Should the lead sentence of Southern Poverty Law Center describe it as [left-leaning / liberal-leaning] or not?" My response is only to that question and is "The lead sentence should not describe the subject as such."--Rpclod (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - The perceived political leanings are not critical enough to be included in the opening sentence, especially since this is not a de jure political organization. I see no issue with commenting on its potentially left-leaning politics at another point in the article, but in no way should "left-leaning" appear in the lede sentence before much more vital pieces of information ie "American" "nonprofit" "legal advocacy organization" "specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation". --NoGhost (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Exclude (aka "fuck no"), as this is an encyclopedia. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - if you need nine citations to make a point, it shouldn't be in the lede. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Obvious POV pushing is obvious. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude Agree with prior statement about WP:NPOV Kamalthebest (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude For all the talk about the wealth of sources, the fact is that none of the sources include any explanation of what "left leaning" means or how it applies to the SPLC. It sure seems that if the political (or social, or economic, or whatever the author meant when using the adjective phrase) leanings of the SPLC were so significant as to be in the first sentence of the lead, then we should at least be able to use these sources listed and write a paragraph or two in the body describing how this leaning affects the SPLC. In fact, however, there isn't enough material in all the sources to write a full sentence other than "Some people refer to the SPLC as left leaning." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternative text and placement suggestion

Per WP:CITEKILL keeps only the most relevant citations. As discussed above, moves it down the lead. Text in italic is already present in the article. Any improvements to the text or the placement are welcome.Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC has been referred to as left-leaning[1][5][9][3], and was criticized over particular listings and what some see as overly aggressive and misleading fundraising tactics.[11][12][13]

Is this suggestion for the lead or the body?Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If the only way we we can figure out how to explain their bias is to weasel-in the phrase "left-leaning" in the first sentence, we're not really doing our job. Supporting anything that places that in the lead would be trying to prove a point based on personal certainty, which is not neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support at the end of the lead, but as two separate sentences to avoid synthesis. On some issues SPLC comes down with gusto on a particular side of the left/right political divide and enough RSs reflect that orientation. Eperoton (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose material being in the lede; a compromise could be placement somewhere in the body. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose material being in the lead, proposed text is distintly 'weasel-ly' (what some see as[who?] overly aggressive and misleading fundraising tactics[clarification needed]). Would probably support expanded and more specific text in body, but unfortunately I cannot access the originals, except one book which criticised SPLC for not passing on any money fundraised in a particular KKK murder damages case to the victim's family and accused it of overspending on offices and unfair treatment of non-white employees. Properly articulated, weighed and attributed criticism is valid, I'm fairly sure this text isn't. Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Apart from other issues, the description 'left' isn't very imformative. In Europe, the left-right divide (except perhaps far-right) is primarily about economic matters. In the US left-right has also become intertwined with social/moral issues (gun control, abortion?), so, in what sense is SPLC characterised as 'left-ish'? Does it favour power/wealth distribution? The description doesn't tell me is what sense 'left'. Pincrete (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pincrete's reasoning. Teammm talk
    email     01:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not neutral and non-specific. Criticisms like that belong in the body, properly cited and attributed, not in the first sentence of the lede. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this alternative. Go with the NYT "liberal-leaning" description in the lede. People who follow these designations will know that "left is liberal is progressive" and "right is conservative and classical liberal" and never the twain shall meet. When organizations lean one way or the other they are leaning away from the middle (and consensus). – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed language ("The SPLC has been referred to as left-leaning") hints that there might be an explanation and details elsewhere in the article of what the phrase means. In fact, no such information exists in either our article or the articles listed as sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Let's be honest about what's going on here. I thoroughly reject the obvious and on-going attempt to trivialize protection of Americans' civil rights as a liberal concern, and encourage other editors with good sense to do the same. The phrase "liberal-leaning" was added to the lead sentence by an inveterate POV-pusher—who has since been blocked temporarily for tendentious and disruptive editing—with a bullshit edit summary of "Additional clarity". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
While I am not in favor of describing the SPLC as a "liberal" or "left-leaning" in the lead, I can certainly see why some editors are. Right and center-right organizations, including some that see themselves as protecting constitutional rights (ex. Federalist Society, American Center for Law and Justice), are commonly given an ideological label in the leads of their Wikipedia articles, whereas left and center-left organizations often are not. Yes, "let's be honest", the SPLC's major issues have been those associated with late 20th and early 21st century political liberalism. Moreover, their literature is replete with highly opinionated, politically charged language. Motsebboh (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Uh, at least for the AC4L&J, it's sort of hard to avoid stating their ideology since that's pretty much what they're all about and they pretty much wear it on their sleeve. To some extent the same is true with the Federalist Society where liberterianism is an integral part of their mission. For the SPLC, unless you think that protecting civil rights is inherently "liberal" or "left-leaning" (and I guess some folks do think that, but that's their problem) the same thing is not true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of getting too far into a forum on the organization and not the article, notice the name Morris Dees gave to his organization. Wouldn't that imply that he had some notion that the organization would fight poverty, the great LIBERAL trope of the 60's? But as to the organization which the SPLC actually became, one that is not especially concerned with economics, the notion that "protecting civil rights" is a non-ideological concern is simply wrong. That's because there is a vast and bitter political disagreement over what those rights are and what they should be. Organizations such as the ACLU and the SPLC have their notions of civil rights and ACLJ and the Federalist Society have theirs. Motsebboh (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to say, the idea that somehow liberal organizations' affiliations are somehow systemically hidden by Wikipedia, while conservative organizations' are not, strikes me as kind of bogus. Consider the open lines of following articles' lead sections (these were the first items to come to mind, trying to think of groups which are nearly counterparts or mirror images):
Organization Conservative group Liberal group
Lawyers' group Federalist Society: "is an organization of conservatives and libertarians..." American Constitution Society: "a progressive legal organization."
Think tank Heritage Foundation: "is an American conservative think tank" Center for American Progress: "is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization"
Judicial appointments pressure group Judicial Crisis Network: " is an American conservative political campaign organization" Alliance for Justice: "is a progressive judicial advocacy group"
Magazine The American Spectator: "a conservative U.S. monthly magazine" The New Republic: " a liberal American magazine of commentary"
I mean, that seems pretty straightforward, NPOV, and on the mark to me. Neutralitytalk 06:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The chart above shows that there are liberal and conservative approaches to different issues, causing them to form rival groups. But how does that translate to the issue of racial, religious etc. equality? Is there a conservative equivalent to the SPLC that fights against inequality, but in a conservative way? Or are we saying that the equivalent would be conservative groups that advocate for the civil rights of white people? TFD (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It really doesn't make any difference whether or not there is a close conservative counterpart to the SPLC, though I've mentioned the ACLJ above (which apparently sees itself as a conservative equivalent to the ACLU) and I suppose one could add the Rutherford Institute. The point is that the SPLC takes predictably liberal (in the modern political sense; not the 19th century economic sense) positions on the issues it engages. Regarding racial equality, for example, it (predictably) defends "affirmative action" (as opposed to "color blindness") when it seems to benefit racial minorities. Regarding language, it is hyper-sensitive to any real or imagined slight of any group that can possibly be seen as oppressed. My favorite example, as I mentioned above, is its desire to make Mother's Day and Father's Day . . . Someone Special's Day(s). Motsebboh (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem is the SPLC does not "(predictably) defend[] "affirmative action." It has no position on it. And most conservatives support it. And I don't see that it is particularly liberal to celebrate "someone special day" when children do not have a mother or father. You only achieve a dichotomy by pretending that the positions of hate groups and the SPLC have parity. TFD (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
One issue (of many) is the SPLC's persistent placement of conservative politicians (such as Dr. Ben Carson) on the hate list (until public outrage forced them to back peddle in Carson's case) or mainstream conservative Christian groups such as the FRC, which led to a massive lawsuit against the SPLC after the FRC's offices were attacked. But they rarely (if ever) place liberal politicians or mainstream liberal groups on the hate list. There are many other issues, but this isn't supposed to be an OR discussion but rather a discussion about what RSs say. Someone listed several RSs which label them liberal (or variations of that term), including the New York Times and Washington Post (which are hardly conservative publications that might have a bias against the SPLC). Ryn78 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@ TFD: If the SPLC "has no position" on affirmative action then it most certainly dissembles on the issue because it frequently rails against those they say oppose it, as seen here [15], and in its attacks against figures such as Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, and David Horowitz. Your assertion that most conservatives [in the United States?] support affirmative action comes from what study? I also don't think that it is "particularly liberal to celebrate a 'someone special day,'" but I do think it is indicative of extreme liberalism to request others to change the names of Of Mother's Day and Father's Day to Someone Special's Day. Finally, I have never pretended that the positions of what I consider to be hate groups have parity those of the SPLC. Motsebboh (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
" and in its attacks against figures such as Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, and David Horowitz" (sic) What does that have to do with anything? I'm sure the KKK opposes affirmative action, and I'm sure the SPLC "attacks" the KKK that doesn't mean it has a strong position on affirmative action. I'm sure the SPLC has plenty good reasons to "attack" Murray and Gottfredson without dragging affirmative action into it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Motsebboh, affirmative action is one of the bogeymen of groups the SPLC describes as hate groups. So is Sharia. You don't have to support affirmative action or sharia in order to object to fear-mongering about them and opposing them is not necessarily hate. Also, a timeline of affirmative action shows that it has been pushed mostly by liberals and opposed mostly by conservatives, but conservatives have also advanced the agenda and made little effort to reverse it.[16] But that's a distraction. A reasonable person may argue that affirmative action hurts poor white people, but when they describe it in apocalyptic terms, such as "racial suicide," they are being extreme. TFD (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes Volunteer Marek, I'm sure they do have other good reasons to attack Murray and the others "without dragging affirmative action into it" which makes it curious that they very much DO drag affirmative action into it. Look it up; it's in all four cases I mention. Either the SPLC supports "affirmative action" and thinks that it is a very bad thing when people don't, or else it is dissembling to give the impression to certain people that it supports affirmative action when it actually doesn't. Motsebboh (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@ TFD: You're trying to cut it too fine, comrade. Yes, Sharia IS pretty much a bogeyman in the USA, except when some unstable person does something absolutely horrible in its name. Affirmative action definitely is not. It affects many people daily. The fact of the matter is that any uninitiated person reading the SPLC blurbs I brought to your attention would certainly get the impression that the SPLC staunchly supported affirmative action. Otherwise why exhort College students to keep these programs alive which it most certainly does? As for describing issues in "apocalyptic terms", have you read much of the SPLC's literature?? It sometimes makes Trump sound quite reasonable. Motsebboh (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Sarcasm, such as calling someone comrade, disrupts discussion and I request you stop. Right-wing extremists latch onto issues such as the threat of affirmative action to promote racism, the threat of sharia to promote Islamophobia, the alleged crimes of Israel to promote anti-Semitism. That is not to say that people who oppose affirmative action, sharia or Israeli policies are extremists or that they are necessarily good things. They just happen to be good issues to promote hate. Anyway, do you have any sources that say the SPLC promotes affirmative action, therefore it is a left-wing group? Otherwise this is just synthesis and does not forward the discussion. TFD (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
We both edit Wikipedia, so in that sense we are comrades. You seem to have a "thing" about getting the last word which is probably, in part, why your Talk edits far outnumber your edits to articles. As I mentioned before this has become a forum on the SPLC rather than a discussion on how to improve the article. I also do not favor a description of the SPLC as left-leaning or liberal in the lead; let readers figure that out for themselves. However, I do see why some editors think that it should be so labelled from the get-go. As for the SPLC
and affirmative action, while some use opposition to affirmative action to promote racial hatred, others use fear of losing affirmative action to promote political hatred. Notice Volunteer Marek's comment above about the SPLC not needing to bring up affirmative action in its attack on Charles Murray since it could have stressed more obvious complaints. Yes, they didn't need to; but they did. Nor did they need to bring it up in the other examples I presented; but they did. Curious, isn't it, that an organization which takes no official position on affirmative action (trusting you here), and which apparently doesn't practice affirmative action internally, makes such a big deal about the possible loss of affirmative action? It's called fear-mongering. Motsebboh (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors ought to note we have numerous articles which reference SPLC's "hate group" designations in the lede. Seems that WP is using such designations to describe the various groups as hate groups, even when the designations are contested or problematic. Doing so gives the SPLC designations UNDUE weight (in the ledes). If SPLC is "the authority" for such designations, then it is certainly proper for readers to know that SPLC is a liberal-leaning group. (But maybe we can remedy the situation by describing SPLC as a "love group" in this article.  ;-)  ) – S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that an argument for adding 'left' here, or for removing the SPLC description from other articles? Regardless, as you acknowledge, the SPLC description is attributed, the proposals here are that 'left' should be stated in WPVoice. Also, I hope the relevant 'group' articles make it clear what about the group has caused SPLC to label them thus, why exactly are SPLC 'left'? I would have no objection to inclusion of criticism if I had any idea of who was making it and what was being criticised. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Srich32977: @Pincrete: I think there's a pretty clear case for ignoring SPLC's "designations" whenever they don't get wide attention in RS's, per WP:REDFLAG which requires multiple high quality RS's for any apparently important claim. IMO any claim that somebody is a racist, hatemonger, etc., fits the bill beyond comparison. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on that. Only came for here the RfC. Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ a b American hate groups — and particularly anti-Muslim groups — are on the rise, fueled in part by the recent presidential election, according to a new report from a liberal-leaning advocacy group that tracks domestic extremism. Hauslohner, Abigail. "Southern Poverty Law Center says American hate groups are on the rise". Washington Post. Retrieved 7 March 2017.
  2. ^ The number of organized anti-Muslim hate groups in America nearly tripled last year, from 34 to more than 100, according to a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-leaning non-profit that tracks extremist groups.Beckett, Lois (15 February 2017). "Anti-Muslim hate groups nearly triple in US since last year, report finds". The Guardian.
  3. ^ a b The left-leaning SPLC also said in its report that President Donald Trump is partly to blame. Byrd, Caitlin. "Hate groups on the rise nationwide in 'an unprecedented year for hate,' according to Southern Poverty Law Center". Post and Courier.
  4. ^ Brother Andre's group is listed under "radical traditional Catholicism" on the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center's "Hate Map" for 2016, released Feb. 15. "Richmond religious sect rejects 'hate group' label | New Hampshire". UnionLeader.com.
  5. ^ a b The liberal-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center, founded in 1971, has faced criticism in the past for applying the designation to mainstream conservative groups, such as the Family Research Council. McPhate, Mike. "California Today: The State's Hate Landscape". New York Times. Retrieved 6 March 2017.
  6. ^ First, they establish that Murray is a “white nationalist” by quoting the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center, a sometimes admirable but not always reliable authority that’s been the subject of debunking on both the left and the right. Radosh, Ronald (6 March 2017). "Liberal Intolerance Revives as Charles Murray Is Chased From Middlebury College". The Daily Beast.
  7. ^ These anti-Muslim hate groups are detailed in a report by the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC), an American liberal leaning advocacy group that monitors extremism. "Anti-Muslim hate groups on the rise in the US | The National". The National.
  8. ^ According to the SPLC, a left-leaning think tank, "all hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." "Two Texas ministries named hate groups". Houston Chronicle.
  9. ^ a b c The law center is left-leaning, a nugget conservatives and even moderates have used to deem some SPLC distinctions illegitimate — especially when it labeled the Family Research Council, a conservative organization, a hate group for its stance on people’s being gay. "Why SPLC says White Lives Matter is a hate group but Black Lives Matter is not". Washington Post.
  10. ^ SPLC Statement on Dr.Ben Carson, February 11, 2015
  11. ^ Cockburn, Alexander (November 9, 1998), "The Conscience Industry", The Nation, "Morris Dees has raised an endowment of close to $100 million, with which he's done little, by frightening elderly liberals that the heirs of Adolf Hitler are about to march down Main Street, lynching blacks and putting Jews into ovens. The fundraising of Dees and the richly rewarded efforts of terror mongers like Leonard Zeskind offer a dreadfully distorted view of American political realities."
  12. ^ Silverstein, Ken (November 1, 2000), "The Church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance", Harper's Magazine, p. 54
  13. ^ Silverstein, Ken (March 2, 2007), "This Week in Babylon: Southern Poverty: richer than Tonga", Harper's Magazine. , Archived August 4, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
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.

Controversy section missing immigration contention

Does not appear to be anything on SPLC's controversial labeling groups supporting deportation of illegal immigrants and reducing legal immigration levels as anti-immigrant and hate groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.95.60 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, the information can easily be added to the article. clpo13(talk) 23:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Connection" a la FBI?

The FBI webpage has a pluperfect reference ("has") to "partnership" between it and the SPLC (and many other groups). But RCP has a rather explicit (and rational) statement that says the FBI no longer relies on SPLC for hate-group info. Given that RCP is RS, I think the "discontinuance" of reliance by the FBI should stay in the article (and out of the lede). – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. David A (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope. RCP is just one dude's opinion and interpretation. It's not a news article. Since we have sources that say that they do cooperate, and we have the FBI webpage, you need a reliable source here which says that this cooperation has been terminated. AFAIK, there isn't one. This is just spin going around far-right media outlets and fake news sites.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The article cited is an opinion column, not a straight reported news story. This does not make it unuseful, but it does mean we have to attribute its claims to its author. Carl Cannon may say something, but we can't take it as gospel — we must present his opinion and let the reader decide. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
What makes you assume RealClearPolitics is a reliable source for facts? I don't read it often, but my impression is that it's an opinion journal, just like The Nation or National Review. Fine source for citing opinions, which should be attributed in the article text, but not a reliable source for facts. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 05:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
FBI "has forged partnerships" is perfect, not pluperfect. An RCP op-ed not RS for stuff like this. However, the statement SPLC "often works in partnership with the bureau" is neither taken from the FBI webpage nor from the 5 year old book. The lead mention of the FBI should stick closer to the language from the FBI website (I assume that they work with some of the groups listed less and more often). NPalgan2 (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
We had a lengthy discussion about this several years ago. The story is not true, and opinion pieces are not reliable sources. Note in an actual news article, a professional journalist would ask the opinions of experts and would call both the SPLC and FBI to confirm their findings and the publisher would stand behind the accuracy of their statements. TFD (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Lately there's been news about the FBI's disconnect from the SPLC. The only current reference is the FBI's own website that talks about past partnership with SPLC and other groups. Given that we have the WPost saying the FBI does not investigate groups simply because SPLC lists them, I think it is UNDUE to include this (promotional) information in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The reason the FBI relies on the SPLC is that the FBI is not allowed to investigate these groups. In every other developed nation, hate speech is criminalized and the police investigate hate groups. While most of these groups do nothing illegal under U.S. law, the intelligence is helpful to police because people who commit violent hate crimes are often influenced by them. Dylann Roof for example was influenced by the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), which has never been investigated by the FBI.[17] Like it or not, the SPLC is the only reliable secondary source always has current information about the CCC. TFD (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This page on the FBI website [18] simply includes the SPLC in a laundry list of organizations that it has formed "partnerships" with to combat hate crimes. Is there any current info indicating a more special relationship between the FBI and the SPLC? Motsebboh (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
We have the Founding Fathers to thank for our First Amendment to the United States Constitution rights, and "developed" nations would do well to follow our example. So SPLC is free to publish their lists, whether or not it uses the listings as a fundraising tool (as alleged). But to say or imply that the SPLC is supplying info to the FBI (and thereby preventing or solving crimes) is not in the RS. This implication does not belong in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
There are limits to free speech in the U.S. as well, and questionable whether the Founding Fathers anticipated how their amendments would be interpreted. There was no KKK or Nazi Party or Westboro Baptist Church back then. In any case, the meme that the FBI was no longer cooperating with the SPLC has been debunked and was not published in any reliable sources to begin with. TFD (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Have we not had this discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Many aspects of this article have been debated before. I'm not opposed to a mention of the SPLC helping out the FBI somewhere in the article but I don't see enough meat from reliable sources to make it lead-worthy. Motsebboh (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, discussed in the past. But with new facts, WP:CCC. Now we have the FBI mentioning past "partnerships", but a few years ago they dropped SPLC as an actual resource from their webpages. – S. Rich (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
See "No, The FBI Hasn't Ditched The Southern Poverty Law Center" in Media Matters for America, the only reliable source that actual that actually discusses the meme. Whether or not the right wing sources are right, we need reliable sources to determine that the relationship has ended. TFD (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a battle between the right-wing and the left-wing news sources! Choose your champion!! Bang-bang, Clash-clash!!! The only common ground is the actual FBI website that says "has partnered" in the past. The Washington Post story which quotes the FBI as saying it does not investigate merely because group designations is reliable and neutral. This info is cited as a footnote. Best that the lede give proper weight as well. The past "partnership" is incidental. – S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not left and right. It is reliable sources such as the SPLC and MMfA and unreliable sources such as opinion pieces. If you have an actual news report in a reliable conservative source then please present it. Contrary to some people's beliefs, facts are not left or right they're right or wrong. Pizzagate for example is wrong not because it originated in conservative media, but because it it happens to be false. But conservative media that maintain fact-checking and journalistic standards are acceptable. TFD (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Come on, please admit that SPLC itself has a left-leaning bent. And then admit that MMfA, too, is left-leaning. (Hopefully, then, the 2 sources might neutralize the left-right spin that we see.) The source I used (RCP), when noting that the FBI had "distanced" itself from SPLC (RealClearPolitics), is accepted as one striving to be neutral. FWIIW, I predict that the FBI will continue to dissociate itself from SPLC because of the new the new administration. When that occurs, WP will be obliged to re-state whatever FBI-line is presented. E.g., I predict we will not see info from the FBI that says "We had a partnership with SPLC." When that occurs we will edit in accordance with the RS we find. – S. Rich (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
No I don't think they are socialists and it would be bizarre that corporate American would have given so much money to the Democrats or corporate media to have accepted SPLC as a source if they were. It seems you identify the extreme right in the U.S. as right-wing and mainstream business and media as left-wing. TFD (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead now reads:

"The SPLC has provided information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies."

Unless an editor thinks that this should be changed in some way we are basically spinning our wheels in discussion. Motsebboh (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The current version reads like the SPLC is a resource the FBI rely on. Given media reports saying the FBI dropped the SPLC because of concerns, and the fact SPLC have not been mentioned in any FBI pages more recent than 2010, that's at best misleading. Quoting SPLC as evidence that the FBI relies on them strikes me as problematic in the extreme. They are not a secondary source and part of the comments here are noting SPLC are a politically skewed organisation. According to the Wikipedia link for MMfA they're a left-wing organisation. Whether they're reliable is another matter, but it is a common bias. If you want another link how about?[1] It's really only a sentence in the piece and nothing new, but the MMfA's 'rebuttal' pf the piece is even more flawed - claims the piece lies and a link included that leads to the FBI page where the SPLC link exists - except it doesn't. Oh and a couple of interesting points from an Academic Questions article (don't think that journal is deemed acceptable as a source correct?). SPLC's Hatewatch caption is 'Hatewatch monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right' which means the left get a free pass. Also, SPLC has no set criteria for defining a hate group with the result that inclusion and exclusion is largely political - a group accusing Christians of seeking to usher in “a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, naturalistic militarism and superstitious theocracy" is somehow not deemed a hate group, in fact there are no anti-Jewish or anti-Christian groups listed, whilst a Christian group which includes references to scientific studies or articles or somesuch that point out problems with homosexuality constitute hate. 人族 (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/28/editorial-the-fbi-dumps-a-hate-group/

VDARE and Congressman Tancredo and Breitbart.com

Congressman Tom Tancredo, writing in VDARE, criticized the SPLC. This is certainly WP:NOTEWORTHY and properly sourced. The article certainly presents lots of info about the successes of the SPLC; in turn the SPLC has been criticized. So we cannot, in terms of WP:BALANCE, exclude such noteworthy criticisms. – S. Rich (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I already self-reverted, missed a bit of context. Sorry bout that! Chalk it up to editing before coffee... Fyddlestix (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I started this thread IOT avoid an edit war. – S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not noteworthy or properly sourced — VDARE is not an acceptable reliable secondary source, and if you question that decision, you're welcome to launch a thread on the RSN. If the only place you can find a particular criticism is a white supremacist website, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If Tancredo's criticism is really noteworthy, you can find a reliable secondary source for it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, I have reverted your insertion of a link to Breitbart.com, which by extremely longstanding consensus is perhaps the canonical example of a non-reliable source, due to its long and well-documented tradition of publishing distortions, half-truths, fabrications and outright lies about people and groups it disagrees with. I would ask that you stick to using mainstream reliable sources and discuss any contentious or questionable sources here before inserting them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You are mixing apples and oranges. Tancredo is a US Congressman and the SPLC does not like him. He chose VDARE to counter the SPLC criticism. There is no dispute that he did so. RS is important when determining whether or not factual info presented in a source is reliable. In this case (for both VDARE and Breitbart) WP:BIASED applies. Please revert. – S. Rich (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The question is not whether the sites have an ideological viewpoint, the question is whether the sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as policy demands. Neither VDARE nor Breitbart have such a reputation and Breitbart has literally the opposite of such a reputation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:QUESTIONABLE also applies: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. Both Breitbart and VDARE are, at best, questionable sources — they do not have widespread reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, and express views widely acknowledged as extremist, and thus cannot be used to cite claims about the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
A contrary example here is your sourcing to The Weekly Standard — that is certainly a WP:BIASED source, but TWS is generally acknowledged to have responsible fact-checking and editorial standards, and thus I have not removed it — it is biased but not questionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You are ignoring the admonition in BIASED. "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Both VDARE and Breitbart are presenting their viewpoints about the SPLC. By your logic, absolutely anything and everything linked to VDARE and Breitbart should be excluded. – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, the question is not one of neutrality but of reliability. If a viewpoint is only published in sources which do not meet our standards for reliability and accuracy, then that viewpoint is not going to be represented in the encyclopedia - such is the reason for the WP:FRINGE viewpoints standard. There is plenty of criticism of the SPLC which has been published by mainstream reliable sources - we do not need to go digging in the fever swamps of racial conspiracism and white supremacy to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Policy says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." VDARE, which the SPLC describes as a "hate website" is not a reliable source. It publishes articles supporting white supremacy, black inferiority and anti-Semitism. It's not a criticism that the SPLC opposes those views, it's what they do.
Regarding SRich's mention of BIAS: bias and reliability are independent of each other.

But when sites promote conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, they cannot be considered reliable. Racism is a bias but it is also a factually incorrect theory.

TFD (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Omitting (or censoring) VDARE (or Breitbart) can only lead to a one-sided presentation of the views. That is, SPLC says VDARE is "such-and=such". (These particular references do NOT promote conspiracy theories or pseudoscience, so those factors do not apply here.) So for WP:Balance the contrary views (from VDARE itself) must be included; in this case it is Tancredo's rebuttal. The proportion aspects of the proposed edits is taken care by 1. the fact that the Congressman himself is making the criticism, and 2. the Breitbart criticism is confined to a footnote. (Also, readers and editors ought to recognize that Breitbart is a significant voice in the American political scene these days.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)22:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, whether they are "a significant voice in the American political scene" or not, there exists longstanding consensus that Breitbart's long and well-documented history of distortions, lies, errors and fabrications targeting their political opponents renders the site utterly useless as a source for this encyclopedia. I return again to WP:RS, which states that reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I do not believe either Breitbart or VDARE qualify - neither of those sites have such a mainstream reputation. I would invite you to open a thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you wish to confirm this consensus. Your reference to "censorship" is spurious and irrelevant - making editorial decisions about what is and isn't included in an article is the very definition of what we do as encyclopedia editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If the congressman's views are important, he will get them published by a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Heads-up: CapitalResearch.org article – S. Rich (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If the congressman's views are important, he will get them published by a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

VDARE is mentioned (not discussed) twice on the WP:RSN. See Archive 95 & Archive 24. In my search for Breitbart on the RSN, I got 38 hits. Looking at Archives 200+ I see various editors giving their 2¢ for and against Breitbart, but the only closed discussion is at this RFC. Other discussions which have Breitbart as the topic are at: Archive 176, Archive 208, Archive 211, here, and Archive 216. Generally the remarks are that Breitbart is non-RS for facts, but acceptable for attributed opinions. No RSN discussion (so far) says Breitbart is unacceptable for all purposes. – S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Since VDARE is not mentioned in the article they don't get the right of reply. Otherwise the article would be full of comments of 900 hate groups.And they do publish pseudoscience and conspiracy theories - racial theories and anti-Semitism. From the Capital Research Center's website, "“Civil War 2017” is the first episode in a five-part “America Under Siege” documentary web-series to be released over the course of 2017. Each episode will profile the influence of radical Marxists on various segments of American society." That's crazy. TFD (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not VDARE is mentioned (or criticized) in the article is not the point. VDARE served as the media outlet for Tancredo. That's all. – S. Rich (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
"Due and undue" says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources...." Since VDARE is not a reliable source, then nothing printed in it is due for inclusion. The only exception is "questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...so long as...it does not involve claims about third parties." Your position is Tancredo is a notable person, therefore anything he says can be entered into any article and we need to put in some negative comments to balance the positive ones. But that is contrary to policy and you would need to change policy to do that. TFD (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the insertion of material sourced to "FrontPage Magazine" — as extensively discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, FrontPage is a far-right opinion publication that does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the particular opinion writer cited does not appear to have specific expertise in the subject material. That a far-right opinion writer believes the SPLC is a "scam" based upon his political opposition to the organization's mission and goals is entirely unsurprising and does not appear to merit inclusion in this article. We are not a compendium of every single person who has ever criticized the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
And what was the result of the "extensive discussion"? Zilch! There was no closing or community consensus. You are simply presenting your version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It's quite clear what's going on here, Srich. You are attempting to slant this article negatively, and are attempting to do so using questionable and unreliable sources because those are apparently the sources that best fit your POV about the SPLC. Unfortunately, this is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia, and we have standards for our articles that direct us to use high-quality reliable sources and to write our articles in a balanced manner, avoiding undue weight on any given viewpoint. That you have to resort to using white supremacist gutter-slime like VDARE speaks volumes about the perspective you are attempting to write from. That you do not like our reliable sourcing policies does not give you license to ignore them. It is now incumbent upon you to gain consensus for your proposed additions to the article, explaining why and how you believe they improve it. I have explained my objections clearly, and they constitute far more than "IDONTLIKEIT". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I would add that it is my belief that this article already more than adequately summarizes the various criticisms of the SPLC, and that adding more pile-on opinions (on either side) is not in keeping with our responsibility to give due weight to various perspectives, and to provide a balanced view of the subject. This article is not a compendium of every person who has ever criticized (or supported) the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Everyone has their biases, including me. As presented, the article is laudatory of the SPLC with the various sub-topic headings and full paragraphs about its successes. But those successes MUST be weighted against the criticisms. (My gosh! Even liberals are asking why does the SPLC have a $300,000,000 endowment fund.) I have corrected citation problems and, to a great extent, consigned the criticisms to bullet lists and footnotes. If SPLC is so saintly, then these various criticisms should not hurt. We are here to present the info to the readers so that they can decide. – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
We should not weigh successes against criticisms, but "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources....Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all..." And no "liberals" are complaining about the endowment. That comes from a fringe of the radical left that sees the SPLC as just another bourgeois organization, concentrating on the symptoms of capitalism rather than overthrowing it. This is the only article where you insist on giving weight to Trotskyist views. TFD (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Should extracts from [1] be added? Upthread there was a section about SPLCs controversial approach to labelling anti-illegal groups as hate groups. clpo13 wanted a source and I stumbled over this while following up some other stuff. Apologies it's a very long article with an extensive reference list, but is an interesting piece about one small element of US politics. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://cis.org/immigration-splc

: The citation is now in the ref section, but it needs incorporation (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) into the text – S. Rich (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not controversial except among a few defenders of these groups, and their descriptions are routinely used in news media. (For example, in NBC, "In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated ADF an "active hate group" in a list that includes Westboro Baptist Church, KKK chapters, and Neo-Nazi groups. "[19] If it were controversial, they wouldn't do this. Your first source is an editorial in an extremely controversial newspaper. But in their actual news reporting, the Washington Times cites the SPLC as authoritative on hate groups, although it gratuitously calls it "left-leaning."[20] I imagine that means to the left of their typical reader. TFD (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Pardon me, but but I'm confused here. What are we discussing in this section? What TFD says above doesn't seem to jibe with what 人族 and S. Rich are talking about. Motsebboh (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The issue is whether the CIS link should be in the article. I had added it as a further reading item, pointing out that the author is a Pulitzer Prize journalist. IMO, the CIS article ought to be added (at some point) into the article for BALANCE. (Please note that I've been seeking to confine the criticisms to footnotes, while SPLC's courtroom successes get their own full section.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. However, TFD's comments above don't seem to have anything to do with that. Or am I missing something? Motsebboh (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I oppose including the CIS link as an EL or further reading - CIS is a Spinoff of FAIR, so this is basically a case of someone complaining that a group they're directly affiliated with was designated a hate group by the splc. This is something already discussed in the article, so while this could conceivably be used as a citation in that section (documenting FAIR'S position), it's not worth highlighting as further reading or an EL imo, and if used, it needs to be attributed and the connection to FAIR made clear. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually TFD SPLC's status as controversial wouldn't affect NBC's reliance on them in the slightest if NBC's bias accords with SPLC's. According to [21] NBC is frequently accused of a liberal bias, and their staff donated radically more to the 2008 Democrat campaign than to the Republican one. Elsewhere SPLC has been deemed an extreme (or extremist) liberal organisation. That suggests an overlap of views. You called the Washington Times an extremely controversial newspaper, and yet Wikipedia merely calls it centre-right and conservative. How does that translate to extremely controversial? Feel free to point out something I've missed but based on the Wikipedia info I'm not seeing a case for the claim, unless you mean right\conservative=controversial?
As for Fyddlestix's point, I'm open to better, and more succinct criticisms e.g. the Philanthropy article downthread, but I don't see CIS' link to FAIR as automatic grounds for discounting the article. SPLC is a controversial organisation - most of the American's I communicate with deem it a borderline hate group. If SPLC is a hate group - and I'm not asking you to agree here mind you, then their criticism of any other group doesn't negate that group's criticism of them. They need to be assessed in light of their own claims and actions. If FAIR have for instance advocated violence against immigrants then that rather than SPLC's views should be used against them. Since I'm not aware of them having so advocated CIS' association with them is irrelevant. If they had so advocated then I'd be more inclined to be cautious and want more info about CIS and the author. 人族 (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Berger's criticism

Continuing this discussion re: Berger: in my opinion weight is primarily from the reputation of the publication (Foreign Policy) not Berger himself. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's used, then Berger's specific criticism needs to be made clear. His primary concern is that splc counts individual chapters of an organization as "groups," to arrive a time the 1000+ figure, and that some of the "groups" are a business or website. That's really all he takes issue with, so that needs to be clarified and the source can't be used to imply that splc is listing are flawed in other ways (ie, labels groups as hate groups that aren't) since Berger clearly does not make that argument. He criticizes how they count hard groups, not the splc's evaluation of who is a hate group. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be a criticism of semantics, and hardly seems a major or noteworthy criticism.Slatersteven (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix: He makes two criticisms which you cite: duplicate groups and non-groups e.g. websites and bookstores.
(1) On the first, he says "the number of entries that require such debate is staggering ... 65 or 70 percent." If we detail that criticism we should include his estimate of the extent, or a description to that effect.
(2) On the second, he says:
  • Radical bookstores and racist record labels also appear on the list. Are these hate groups, or hate businesses, or just businesses?
I take issue with your argument: "the source can't be used to imply that splc is listing are flawed in other ways (ie, labels groups as hate groups that aren't)" because here that's exactly what he does here with "just businesses?"
(3) Re: semantics, quoting again:
  • "The problem is that the SPLC ... are not objective purveyors of data. They’re anti-hate activists. There’s nothing wrong with that — advocating against hate is a noble idea. But as activists, their research needs to be weighed more carefully by media outlets that cover their pronouncements."
I would not summarize that as merely a criticism of semantics. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation there. If you read the whole article from start to finish like I did, the context and content of his argument is very clear, and it's obvious that his primary issue is with the counting. If the "just businesses" part is a broader criticism, it's an awfully vague, indirect one (and made in the context of a discussion of how the splc counts hate groups). Regardless, though, the solution is to place any quote that is pulled out in context, by summarizing Berger's main argument (perhaps as TDD suggests below). Otherwise, the quote is cherry picked and implies much broader/deeper criticism than Berger makes. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better to say something like, "The SPLC currently lists 1,007 hate groups. However, that counts regional branches of national groups." Then explain why the SPLC counts chapters rather than national organizations and what difference it would make on the numbers. There are two sides to this. if tomorrow the American Nazi Party set up 10,000 additional chapters, the SPLC counting would reflect it. TFD (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Republican Party

The article says, "In 2010, a group of Republican politicians and conservative organizations criticized the SPLC in full-page advertisements in two Washington, D.C., newspapers for what they described as "character assassination" because the SPLC had listed the Family Research Council as a hate group due to its characterization of LGBT people as sexual deviants, predators and pedophiles." The statement is false. A number of congressmen signed a petititon that said, "We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council...that [is] working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans." There is no mention of the SPLC in the petition, it was added by the FRC, which is clear from the ad.[22] TFD (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The material is sourced to the Christian Science Monitor. Specifically, the sourced article states that "In December, 22 Republican lawmakers, among them Speaker Boehner and Representative Bachmann, three governors, and a number of conservative organizations took out full-page ads in two Washington papers castigating the SPLC for “character assassination” by listing the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group.". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Beat me to the revert, agree that it should stay, this might be a good additional source. Arkon (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree with EvergreenFir. TFD, you are conflating the Christian Science Monitor article with a (downloaded) petition from the FRC. (Which, BTW, has a dead link posted.) The CS Monitor does not say that petition is the one circulated as an ad in the WP. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Gee, TFD, do you really think that any of the petition signers didn't know that the petition would be used in a pro-FRC anti SPLC ad?? There's a bridge spanning Manhattan and Brooklyn that's for sale! At most a little rewording of the item in question would be required to satisfy the ultra-fastidious. Motsebboh (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't wish to speculate about what Boehner, Bachmann, etc. intended, because that is original research. But the ad is [here http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10L12.pdf], preserved on the FRC website. If you cannot see it, go to the website here and click on "Start Debating Stop Hating]. The fact the story was not picked up by major media shows how insignificant it is. Anyway I posted the question to RSN. TFD (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I've recommended that the RSN thread WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Conflict between secondary and primary sources be closed. – S. Rich (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please try to check your facts before making claims: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/24/conservative-groups-southern-poverty-law-center-stop-hating-start-debating.html, or don't you consider Fox to be a major? If not then who are you defining as major given that raises the issue of bias? 人族 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_15&oldid=1092000213"