Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

NPOV needed

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

How is SPLC described as a civil rights group when its a radical left wing group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what the SPLC does on a daily basis? – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 02:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some difference of opinion about that, Teammm. But there is a plausible compromise position available: SPLC is a radical left-wing civil rights group. Belchfire-TALK 02:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

By what criteria and source do you label it a "radical left-wing" group? – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 03:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for your assertions, Belchfire. If you can. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, no citation is needed. I have no intention of adding anything remotely similar to the article, and this isn't a discussion forum anyway. Besides, even if I brought you a direct quote from the mouth of Jesus himself none of you would accept it. Sufficeth to say for now that the way this article is jealously guarded tells us all we need to know about SPLC's political orientation. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 03:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Jesus would pass WP:RS... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, don't hide this. Let it remain as an example of just how reasonable and impartial Belchfire is. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Now that the article is protected and the edit warring has stopped, may I suggest that anyone who is significantly dissatisfied with the current version make a very specific proposal for changing it? It's just possible that if we avoid tangential discussions we can make a stab at determining where consensus lies. If we can't do that with the current cast of characters, I wonder if someone would like to open an RfC and throw open the theater doors. Either way, we need to get it sorted. The article has been pretty stable for a long time, and just because the SPLC is in the news doesn't mean it should become a free-for-all. Rivertorch (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your statement, especially the last, which I believe was the cause of this "politicized uproar". – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 13:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The "politicized uproar" is ample cause to change the article and there is no such thing as a "stable article". See WP:CCC. Belchfire-TALK 19:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, the term "stable article" has been widely used on Wikipedia for many years (see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and Wikipedia:Good article criteria); it has to do with edit warring. And no, a recent, highly politicized news event whose relation to the subject is peripheral is never "ample cause" for hastily, repeatedly making significant changes to a stable article when there is not clear consensus to do so. It's fine to be bold once, but if the change proves contentious, then the only acceptable path forward is focused discussion. Speaking of which, would you care to outline your proposed change(s) here? I find it's sometimes helpful to place the disputed text on the talk page, since it's easier to scroll up and down than to switch back and forth between tabbed diffs. Rivertorch (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, the term "stable article" is often used (abused, actually) by people trying to fend off edits they don't like. It's considered a symptom of article ownership. Belchfire-TALK 20:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, you are free to suggest deprecating the term "stable" (the FA and GA talk pages seem like appropriate places to propose that, or the Village Pump is thataway), but right now I'd really like to stay focused on proposed changes for this article. Rivertorch (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Long-term stability is a sign of a silent consensus, so it cannot be ignored, according to policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CCC. What's your next argument? Belchfire-TALK 20:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Snipe snipe snipe. Come on. Can we please concentrate on improving this article? Rivertorch (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out fallacious arguments isn't sniping, is it? Make better arguments. Belchfire-TALK 21:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The onus is on you—the editor who wants to add the content—to make a good argument for inclusion. I, for one, am all ears (or I will be again in a few hours). Rivertorch (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a conclusive argument for inclusion. I've got little more than piffle and WP:IDONTLIKEIT back from those who are opposed. If there are good arguments that don't amount to "This article is fine the way it is, leave it alone," I'm all ears. Belchfire-TALK 21:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you made your very best argument but nobody was persuaded. Sounds like you need to drop the stick and just accept that the consensus doesn't support what you suggested. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed.

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I attempted to add a criticism section with critical content from former US House Representative from Colorado, Tom Tancredo, but it was promptly deleted, the editors note claiming that World Net Daily was a fringe source. I dont think he can be honestly said to represent a fringe view, given that he is an elected representative. He is controversial figure, but nevertheless, a notable person. Although one citation was from World Net Daily, Tancredo actually wrote the article, and I backed up his claims with other citations from the Seattle Times and Tolerance.org. WND is an admittedly right wing site but I am merely citing what Tancredo wrote, I'm not relying on them for any facts other than the undisputed fact that he wrote the article. Furthermore, SPLC is clearly a left-wing group, which many view as a fringe group, but it is nonetheless cited extensively as a reliable source of information, with no mention of it's leftward slant. So unless there must be something I don't understand, I think that this article should at least bear a neutrality disputed tag.

Also, World Net Daily was granted press credentials to cover the US Congress by the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. So, I don't think it can be dismissed a fringe source. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_6_34/ai_93090045/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.24.47 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WND is not considered a reliable source for much of anything here. Please don't add a POV tag without extensive and active discussion either. I don't really disagree with the addition of the material as long as you get better sources. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, check out RSN, WND is not considered a reliable source and especially not for claims about living people (Potok). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that WND really isn't reliable. However, as the person above noted, so long as the article is coming from the Congressman in question, Tom Tancredo, it doesn't really matter what website the article is lifted from, because it's the writer, not the publisher, whose reliability needs to be taken into account. For example the Social Contract Press devoted a full issue to the SPLC with an article from Mr. Tancredo (http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_3/index.shtml), the fact that the SPLC declared the SCP a hate group should not preclude Tancredo's criticism from being included. I'm also concerned about automatically disqualifying from consideration any source that that the SPLC labels a "hate group", otherwise, the SPLC could just label everybody with substantive criticism of them that way to avoid any negative reporting of them. For example, in 2007 the SPLC labeled FAIR a hate group, which FAIR reasonably replied to (http://www.fairus.org/publications/a-guide-to-understanding-the-tactics-of-the-southern-poverty-law-center-in-the-immigration-debate), to be shutting down FAIR's response as just pointless moaning prevents people from seeing the full story of the SPLC from both its supporters and its opponents.

Another problem is that the SPLC is allied with the immigration liberalization group "Reform Immigration for America" (http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/about/organizations/), it therefore solicits donations based on the view that high levels of immigration are good for the country. That sets up a conflict of interest situation for the SPLC when it calls groups that support immigration reduction "hate groups", because it now has a financial incentive to shut down viewpoints critical of high immigration. (It's one thing to say a restaurant is owned by a hate group, but it's a conflict of interest when you just happen to own the restaurant across the street from it.) Because of the SPLC's conflict of interest and hence its own bias--its membership in RIfA gives it a financial dog in the fight over whether high levels of immigration are viewed as good in the United States--we shouldn't automatically reject the criticisms from immigration reduction groups in this article on the basis of those groups' bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.48.66 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Some concrete proposals

Latest comment: 11 years ago39 comments7 people in discussion

Putting aside our personal feelings for the SPLC, and our personal feelings regarding other editors here, let's look at at some concrete proposals. It looks like a number of editors do not want a criticism section, but the following pertinent, well-sourced criticisms could be included in the "Hate group listings" section. St Anselm (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC has been criticized by conservatives who say that an "overbroad definition of 'hate' vilifies innocent people and stifles vigorous debate about issues critical to America's future".(Jonsson, Patrik (February 23, 2011). "Annual report cites rise in hate groups, but some ask: What is hate?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved August 16, 2012.)
In 2009, professor of political science and then-member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Carol Swain criticized the SPLC's inaction in the the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, writing in the Huffington Post that the SPLC "has spent far more resources hounding conservative organizations, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, and prominent citizens like CNN's award-winning anchor Lou Dobbs, than it has protecting the civil rights of American voters".(Swain, Carol M. (August 10, 2009). "Mission Creep and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Misguided Focus". Huffington Post. Retrieved August 16, 2012.) Swain charged that the organization has suffered from "mission creep", which she defined as "when an organization strays beyond its original purpose and engages in actions antithetical to its goals."(same ref)
In the wake of a 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, which had been listed by the SPLC as an anti-gay hate group, the FRC's president said the gunman had been "given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations as hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”(Lisee, Chris (August 16, 2012). "Family Research Council accuses Southern Poverty Law Center of sparking shooter's hatred". Washington Post. Retrieved August 16, 2012.) A spokesman for a similar organization, the American Family Association also condemned the SPLC, saying "They have repeatedly and without cause demonized FRC, and have spent years stirring up anger in the homosexual community and directing that anger toward an organization whose only crime is to promote and defend the classic American values of faith, family and freedom.”(same ref)
Lori Lowenthal Marcus, writing for The Jewish Press, has argued that the SPLC has moved from being "an icon for Jewish values of racial tolerance and equality" to being anti-Jewish.(Lori Lowenthal Marcus (August 18, 2012). "Southern Poverty Law Center Joining Pro-Hamas, Hezbollah, Groups in Blasting 'Haters' – Mostly Jews". The Jewish Press. Retrieved August 19, 2012.) Marcus quotes David Horowitz as saying "The SPLC is the most prominent and active leftwing smear site in America."(same ref)

Yes. Every one of those items deserves to be included in some part of the article. Belchfire-TALK 01:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And immediately refuted. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The policy for the inclusion of criticism is WP:WEIGHT: "represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." The first source, which is a news item, establishes the prominence of the opinions it reports by referring "some conservative critics". I do not see how that can be established for 2. to 4. Can you provide any secondary sources that cite these editorials and explain the degree of acceptance they have? TFD (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Go check the bona fides for Carol M. Swain. She's an authority. Belchfire-TALK 02:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

About the only line that didn't have "citation needed" was:

She currently leads The Carol Swain Foundation, a non-profit to “seek to educate the American people about conservative values and principles and to encourage them to acknowledge and to re-embrace the Judeo-Christian heritage of our nation.

So, basically, she's just another conservative activist. Boring. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of this. Are boring references not allowed? Are conservative opinions automatically ruled out of court? St Anselm (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What makes it boring is that, ho-hum, we already know that conservatives think that anti-gay bigotry is ok. It's not news, it's not interesting. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never said this to anyone on Wikipedia before, but on the basis of that comment, I think it's probably better that you recuse yourself from this discussion. St Anselm (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be sure to take that under advisement. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a good question, one that I had about #4 in particular, since that is the one that isn't reported in a secondary source. #3 has been reported in many mainstream news outlets - I could supply references if you need them. St Anselm (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Lowenthal criticism has been reported and repeated in Commentary magazine here. Or perhaps this could be used to expand #4 above: ... Similarly, Jonathan S. Tobin, writing in Commentary, has argued that "the SPLC has long since stopped being the heroic defender of civil rights and become just another left-wing advocacy group that engages in its own version of intolerant and extreme rhetoric."(Jonathan S. Tobin (August 16, 2012). "After DC Attack, Law Center Deserves Flak". Commentary (magazine). Retrieved August 19, 2012.)

Ah, a magazine described as "a leading voice of neoconservatism". Again, we already know that conservatives don't see a problem with anti-gay bigotry. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Swain is a former member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. In other words, she's a recognized expert in the SPLC's area of practice. Her criticism is highly relevant here, and if you see her conservatism as a disqualification, then you just might be (1) partisan and (2) admitting that SPLC is a left-wing organization. Belchfire-TALK 02:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC is a non-partisan organization, yet partisans of the conservative stripe oppose it because they endorse anti-gay and anti-Muslim bigotry. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are the problems I find with with St. Anselm's list:

1 The actual sources for the criticism come from the FRC and the League of the South. The article was written in the aftermath of the brief publicity generated by the FRC’s paid advertisment. This was discussed to death at the time -- Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 8#SPLC character assassination denounced and Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 8#RFC

I don’t intend to repeat the arguments now but St A needs to justify why the earlier decision should be reverted by addressing the issues raised. Most importantly, he needs to recognize that if we discuss the groups’s criticisms, we need to FULLY explain the specific reasons why they are classified as a hate group. With the FRC, this could easily be more than three or four paragraphs. Note that in the FRC article there are two paragraphs of specific SPLC criticisms of the group -- much more detail would be expected in the actual SPLC article. We should also include SPLC criticism of other anti-gay groups.

I will also note that inclusion depends NOT on the reliability of the Christian Science Monitor but on the reliability of the FRC and the L of the S. This issue was taken to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard at the time (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Contention that what an organization says can't be included in WP despite being reported in a reliable source

2 This is nothing but a blog by a right wing commentator. If somehow the case could be made that the material should be considered, the SPLC positions on Lou Dobbs, the CIS (another lengthy section) and Swain herself (see Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 9#Carol Swain and [[1]] and [[2]].

3 More FRC. In addition to the info in #1, specific details of the SPLC response would be in order (much more detailed than the brief response in the FRC article. Once again, the threshold for inclusion is the weight to accord yet another brief blip in the news cycle and the relevance of the opinion of the FRC leader.

4 The source states, “In fact, according to Emerson, “the reality is MPAC, SPLC, CAP and also the ADL and ACLU are the true conspiratorialists in promoting the myth of Islamophobia, a term created by radical Islamic groups, together with their handlers like CAP, the SPLC and the ADL, to silence any criticism of radical Islam.” I think the promotion of a conspiracy theory such as this requires more than a single reference by a limited scope online newspaper. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Swain was one of ten members of the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, not a member of the Commission itself. BTW I made the same argument against inclusion of Sean Wilentz's article[3] in the Tea Party movement. While unlike Swain he is a noted expert we could not establish that his article had received recognition. The reports in Commentary are merely editorials. We are left with only one valid source that says some conservatives have criticized the SPLC. TFD (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"St A needs to justify why the earlier decision should be reverted". I don't understand this at all. You've said above that there was no consensus - now you're talking about "an earlier decision". St Anselm (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read the section carefully, you will find reference to the earlier consensus decision to remove a brief reference to the FRC in the article. See [4] and Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 7#Issue with hategroup listing section. The issue raised was whether the article should focus on two out of 900+ designated hate groups and the consensus was that we shouldn't.

Is that your total response to my response? Do you or do you not recognize the need that if your material is added then a full explanation of the SPLC position needs to be added? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just restrict myself to Proposal #1, since that is the only one that is heading towards a consensus. Firstly, it doesn't mention any groups by name, so it is not going against an earlier consensus. The claim in the proposal concerns the broadness of definition, and this could apply to a number of groups. It is a well-referenced, neutral claim (i.e. this is what conservatives say). It doesn't matter much whether "conservatives" means the politicians or the FRC people - you yourself have acknowledged CSM to be a reliable source. St Anselm (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The article certainly does mention groups by name -- it names the FRC (none of its leaders or members were interviewed) and the League of the South. It mentions two individuals associated with the League of the South (only one of whom he interviewed) and two members of Congress, neither of whom he interviewed. The article falsely claims, as I've pointed out to you before, 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." In fact, it was the FRC that placed and paid for the advertisement. And, as I've also shown elsewhere, the two Representatives only signed off on the petition part of the advertisment which DOES NOT mention the SPLC. The quote about "character assassination" is from the FRC, not from the petition signees.

As editors, we can decide whether an otherwise reliable source is reliable for the information to be added to our article. From the lead of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." You want to add a very broad claim that starts "The SPLC has been criticized by conservatives]] who say ... " However there is nothing in the article that suggests that the author has sources beyond the few that I've identified. A more accurate summary of the article would start "The SPLC has been criticized by some designated hate groups and their supporters ... ."

My first preference is to leave the article as it is. However, if it will result in the placement of the POV tag, I would accept, as a compromise, the following that also allows the SPLC contribution to the CSM to be included:

The SPLC has been criticized by some designated hate groups and their conservative supporters who say that an "overbroad definition of 'hate' vilifies innocent people and stifles vigorous debate about issues critical to America's future". Addressing this, Mark Potok stated that “we're not in any way suggesting that these groups should be outlawed or free speech should be suppressed ... but it's a kind of calling out the liars, the demonizers, the propagandists." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks reasonable. (unsigned edit by StillStanding (24/7))

You keep on saying this thing about the full page ads, and I think you're quibbling with words. Bachmann et al put their names to a statement (available here) that says in its preamble that the SPLC has resorted to character assassination, etc. It is perfectly reasonable of the CSM to say that Bachmann was one of those who "took out" the ads, when her name is on the list of signatories. Unless you are claiming that Bachmann's name is on false pretences (that is, she signed the statement, but didn't realise it was going to be published with a preamble that mentioned the SPLC) - but there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. You are disagreeing with the wording in reliable source, and you have no basis for doing so. Hence, I really don't see how I need to concede to your compromise wording of "designated hate groups and their conservative supporters". I am, on the other hand, very happy to accept Rivertorch's wording below. I am also willing to include the Potok response from the CSM article that you have mentioned above. St Anselm (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Further on this, we would need a very good reason to depart from the wording in a reliable source. I don't think "designated hate group" is a neutral term. Yes, it is clear from the context that it means "designated by the SPLC", but it's the designation that is being debated. Also, your wording suggested that not all these designated hate groups have criticised the SPLC, and that is a ratehr dubious claim. Again, let's stick to what is in the source. St Anselm (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and when I said "it doesn't mention any groups by name", I obviously meant by proposed addition at #1, not the CSM article. St Anselm (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not quibbling. It is clear what Bachman et al signed. The advertisement clearly says: "You can take action by adding your name to the following statement". Bachman's signature is on "the following statement" rather than the full advertisement. Check out how the FRC wikipedia article treats this for exactly the same reasons. Contrary to your claim, it is not at all reasonable to say that "Bachmann was one of those who 'took out' the ads". The CSM got this wrong -- check out any number of other articles on the subject and you'll see that they all state that it was the FRC that "took out" the ad. The entire ad is in the form of an open letter -- the letter (at the bottom) has the FRC seal as well as the FRC address.

We do have a very good reason to not quote directly the CSM article -- the balance of the article does not support the broad claim. You acknowledge that by agreeing to Rivertorch's changes. All I'm doing is replacing the vague term "some" with a more accurate description of who the critics are.

Your version is also misleading in another respect. It implies that there is a general criticism of the SPLC on its policies in identifying hate groups, but it is clear that the only category covered by the advertisement are anti-gay (i.e. pro-family) groups.

Before responding further, I will ask you again -- will a resolution of this issue satisfactory to you warrant the removal of the POV tag. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I was focusing on #1 because this looked the only one with consensus at this stage - I had three other suggestions, and there were several other editors who felt that those sort of criticisms (even with a specific criticism section) should be included in order to make the article neutral. St Anselm (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

With all the editing and discussion going on at the FRC article, I hardly feel it is a great example to follow. Of course, it is technically correct to say that Bachmann put her name to a "section" of the ad, but that doesn't mean the CSM is wrong in implying she gave her imprimatur to the whole thing. You say "check out any number of other articles on the subject", but when I do that, I notice that many sources don't distinguish between the preamble and the statement that was being signed - e.g. GOP Strives to Make Hate Groups Look Respectable and Family Research Council, top GOP lawmakers fight back against SPLC ‘hate group’ label. In any case, my proposed wording doesn't mention the ad, it gives CSM's summary of the situation. If you disagree with their summary, that's fine, but it still belongs in the article, since it is a reliable source and you're not. St Anselm (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's our job to read carefully and use basic sense:

The ad says that the signatures are for the statement. It doesn't even suggest that these people signed the ad as a whole.
The ad was paid for by the FRC, so we can't imply that those who signed the statement paid for the thing.

It's really not that complicated; we just have to follow our sources. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't suggest the people signed the ad as a whole, why don't you withdraw this comment you made earlier? St Anselm (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is a bit complicated. We don't just blindly accept everything simply because of where it was published. Let me repeat the quote from the lead of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." And let me also add this from the same source:

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

It is not the CSM's reliability that is at question, but the writer. He obviously got it wrong about who paid for the ad. His article also fails to document any research to justify his overly broad claims. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

PS Plus there are reliable sources that disagree with the CSM article. For example, this one [[5]] refers to "The extremely low-key statement they've all agreed to" and then quotes the petition part of the ad. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, we will not be mentioning the ad, or even the FRC, in this article. Look Tom, I believe we have consensus here, and you are the only one standing against it. If you like, we can get an uninvolved admin to review the discussion. St Anselm (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I count at least two other people who agree with what I've said about the FRC ad. Rivertorch initially agreed with you but has not responded to my comments to him. The major problem with your claim that "we will not be mentioning the ad" is the fact that your source is based almost entirely on that advertisement. Even is we accept your incorrect interpretation of what Bachman signed off on, it doesn't change the fact that the ad is ENTIRELY about the FRC. It is also disingenuous for you to say that we will not be mentioning the FRC since you are still (apparently) saying that the article won't be neutral unless all of your proposals are accepted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My view on the four proposed additions:
1. Yes, provided the text is modified to change "conservatives" to "some prominent conservative politicians". While the views of people like Bachmann are fringe, they are notable figures and public statements they've made here seem noteworthy and relevant. The linked article was in a thoroughly reliable source which provides sufficient context for all but the most uninformed readers to understand the absurdity of the claim.

2. No. Marginally notable figure who wrote an online essay. Undue weight.

3. No. This is a serious (some might say reckless) charge, and it may eventually be appropriate for inclusion if it proves to attract sustained news coverage and in-depth analysis, particularly from notable academics. Right now, there's a recentism problem. As far as we know, the charge was made in an understandably stressful context, and it may well be thoroughly repudiated or even utterly forgotten in a short while.

4. No. Individual columnists and ideologues' opinions aren't noteworthy here and would constitute undue weight. Maybe at their own articles (except that Marcus doesn't have one.) It doesn't help that the publication is right-wing to the point of fringy. Rivertorch (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Bachman et al. The Monitor article is not consistent with what the politicians signed off on -- see this pdf,. The politicians signed off on a petition that does not mention the SPLC which the FRC then reprinted in a PAID ADVERTISEMENT in which the FRC added its own attack on the SPLC. This, and nothing else, is what Bachman et al signed off on:

We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are 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. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's good research, and it means we need to update both this article and FRC's. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Good observation. BTW I cannot find John Boehner's name on the petitition. TFD (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He's the 12th signature in the first column. Ctrl+F works. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes 12th signature in far left column. You got here before me StillStanding. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 15:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What amuses me is that FRC is guilty of WP:SYNTH. :-) StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Barring criticism by so-called "hate groups" from inclusion in the article is circular reasoning

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

What I don't like is the way circular reasoning has become almost undisputedly the standard method to determine the relevance and validity of criticism of the SPLC. I noticed that now even much of the last remnants of criticism have been removed from the article on the grounds of being 'mere retaliations of a "hate group"'. The SPLC designates some group a "hate group" and when this group reacts to it their criticism is dismissed as it comes from a –SPLC designated– "hate group". This is inexorably circular reasoning. You make the judgments of the SPLC the judgments of inclusion of criticism for Wikipedia. I have been editing WP for like 5 years, but I have never seen such a Lex SPLC argued for in other contentious articles. Therefore, I strongly support keeping the the neutrality template, if necessary permanently until this exceptionalism is dropped for good. Valid criticism of these groups should be included as anywhere else based on WP:reliable sources. No Lex SPLC. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't see how the template can be removed. St Anselm (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're serious about improving the article, give us exact language on this discussion page that will satisfy all of your POV demands. I'll be glad to work off that and add to it as will others I'm sure. The situation is too undefined to go to an RFC now. If you want to mention specific criticisms, then balance requires that the SPLC position being criticized be adequately described. I'm willing to take these issues all the way through arbitration, but first we need to get some actual language to discuss. I've offered this several times before but have gotten no takers from your side -- they want to let the critics define both the criticisms and the SPLC position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Tom, I'm sorry to say you are engaging in tendentious editing. The request for "actual language to discuss" is ridiculous - that is what I've been doing. As I said, I believe we have a consensus above, but I will go through RfC if that is what is needed. St Anselm (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that if your four proposals were added, that this would then resolve all the POV issues? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that - part of the issue is that we are divided on those proposals, and I don't expect resolution any time soon. St Anselm (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So you placed the NPOV tag, but won't tell us what is necessary in order to, in your mind, achieve neutrality? Your placement of the NPOV tag is particularly ironic since none of the language you proposed included the SPLC position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Anselm, please don't try to make this sound as if Tom is fighting a lone battle against the rest of the world. He's just asking for the same thing I am: concrete proposals about improving the article. You can't just complain that it's not neutral if you won't come up with ways to make it neutral. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC on conservative criticism

Latest comment: 11 years ago39 comments24 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as consensus to oppose inserting the statement. Regards, — Moe ε 03:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Should the following statement being inserted in the "Hate group listings" section?

The SPLC has been criticized by some conservatives who say that an "overbroad definition of 'hate' vilifies innocent people and stifles vigorous debate about issues critical to America's future".(Jonsson, Patrik (February 23, 2011). "Annual report cites rise in hate groups, but some ask: What is hate?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved August 16, 2012.)

St Anselm (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The language is an inaccurate representation of the debate that has gone on prior to this. The major issue (and there are other important ones) is that the proposed language is one- sided. The Christian Science Monitor article presents an SPLC response to the accusations. This language from the article was suggested as a second sentence, "Addressing this, Mark Potok stated that “we're not in any way suggesting that these groups should be outlawed or free speech should be suppressed ... but it's a kind of calling out the liars, the demonizers, the propagandists." User St. Anselm had actually agreed to the inclusion, but now appears to want to undo the progress that was actually made, complicating this RFC before it even begins. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - This is WP:WEASELy and does not match our sources. They're not "some conservatives", they're "critics on the right", says the CSM. The CSM then names Republican politicians and a former hate group member/academic. As has been pointed out, the CSM mistakenly credits the signers of the pledge of support with taking out the ad. Rather, the FRC took the ad out and it also wrote the copy above the pledge. It's not actually clear that the signers would agree with that copy. To be fair, the CSM was misled because the ad was intentionally misleading, synthesizing a generic pledge of support with some very specific copy against the SPLC. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought you had recused youself from this debate. St Anselm (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Question - Are there any other reliable sources that can be cited to demonstrate appropriate weight? Judging by the history above, this looks an awful lot like an editor who picked a group that goes against his ideological grain, was dissatisfied with how Wikipedia represents the subject, and then went hunting for a shred of any sort that could backstop said ideology -- cart before the horse. Instead of starting from an ideological position ("there should be some criticism here") and then hunting high and low for supporting evidence, we should start from a neutral position and then look to see what the major positions are based on reliable sourcing... this looks to be the other way around. Before we even start talking about the problems with the proposed text (I'm sure we'll get there), we should be able to demonstrate that the viewpoint is sufficiently represented in multiple, independent, reliable sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be clear, the viewpoint you're asking about is that right-wing criticism? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted the statement that there should be more criticism, (a) because I had come across a lot of criticism of SPLC through Talk:Family Research Council, and (b) several editors have previously called for criticism - see the top of this talk page. So no - I don't think it's putting the cart before the horse. St Anselm (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, in answer to your question, there are lots of reliable sources reporting criticism of the listing of the Family Research Counil in particular - e.g. CNN. I initially added the CSM article because it was more general, and I thought it best not to single out the FRC on this page. St Anselm (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the FACT that the CSM article is also primarily about the FRC. Other than brief mentions of the League of the South, all criticisms are directed at the SPLC-FRC controversy. As far as your claim that it was "best not to single out the FRC on this page", in fact in one of your four specific proposals you did "single out" the FRC. Your two proposals advance the FRC argument while ignoring the SPLC position. If your proposals are accepted as written, the article would have only the FRC position -- hardly balanced. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I think I posted the CSM article here before the shooting incident. St Anselm (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The whole of the SPLC cannot be tarred with a brush dipped only in the FRC dispute. It is undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - The SPLC is a controversial political group and the article needs to be more balanced. Roger (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it balanced to include only the FRC attack while ignoring the SPLC response as St. Anselm has proposed? Even the FRC article on wikipedia presents both sides. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The article has the SPLC views. Adding other views would help. Roger (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No. The article does not have any mention of the FRC. Nor does it have any response, although a response was given, to the charge you want to add that it "vilifies innocent people and stifles vigorous debate". It's a serious charge using extreme language yet you only want to present one side of the issue.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - before people get too worked up about what I might be "ignoring", the text of this RfC comes from the text that User:North Shoreman removed from the article. St Anselm (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Support including the material without rebuttal from Potok or SPLC. Belchfire-TALK 05:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It has been shown that this secondary source incorrectly reported what was in a primary source. BLP issues say that we should not misrepresent what John Boehner and others actually signed. TFD (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose because of weasel word ("some") and it's vague to what it's referring to. It should be specific to the hate listings that are controversial and who actually opposes them. Do an RfC for that and it would be an obvious support. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - this would be undue weight. --Scientiom (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Clear case of undue weight being afforded to a single source; solution in search of a problem. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: Per WP:WEIGHT. Also, weasly to the point of misrepresentation, and source is of dubious reliability or relevance. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Support: This is exactly one of the main criticisms directed against the SPLC, their overbroard definition of hate and racism. There are a number of reliable sources which hold this view, so it is not undue weight. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Support as an improvement, not necessarily allowing removal of the {{POV}} tag. There is notable (which far exceeds the criterion for inclusion) criticism of the SPLC's "overbroad" characterization of groups as "hate groups", from conservaties, not entirely from members of the groups they've called "hate groups". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Support with the caveat that I would prefer not using the specific "overbroad definition of hate . . . " quotation but a more general formulation of the idea which would probably allow us to use additional reliable sources such as Harper's. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC) PS:Harper's Ken Silverstein, for example, writes that the SPLC "has a habit of casually labeling organizations it opposes as 'hate groups.'"
Oppose this suggestion as too vague, and unnaturally combining the sour grapes of listed groups with criticism from neutral third party sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhrr . . . "unnatural"? In other words the idea that the SPLC has received similar criticisms from politically both conservative and politically liberal sources should be kept out of the article? That sounds "unnatural" to me.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC) How about the recent Dana Milbank column in the Washington Post whch concludes " . . the Southern Povery Law Center should stop listing a mainstream Christian advocacy group alongside Neo-Nazis and Klansmen." Another "unnatural" combination?Badmintonhist (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read my post more carefully you will see that you're arguing against a point I never made. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read it carefully. The only other interpretation I can see is that you are arguing against St. Anselm's original proposal, but why you would object to using a "neutral" news source, The Christian Science Monitor, to convey the criticisms of right-leaning "victims" of the SPLC's hate-labeling policies still eludes me. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Undue, apparently unreliably sourced, and weasely. siafu (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per TFD and Scientiom 78.26 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Conditional Support - Provided that the wording "some conservatives" is replaced with "critics on the right" as written in the original CSM article. As written. The statement takes a specific criticism and attempts to attribute it to a broad viewpoint held by a nebulous group of "some conservatives". I think this misrepresents the reality of the situation to readers with WP:UNDUE weight. It also does a disservice to conservatives, who are then automatically lumped into the category of those who oppose a group who opposes hate groups. The fact that the SPLC has critics needs to be acknowledged in the article, but with appropriate weight, context and attribution. — MrX 22:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Weasely and poorly sourced. Notable criticism is welcome and already in the article. Insomesia (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:UNDUE problem and no sufficient source. ツ Teammm ^T·M 02:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Bad sourcing, weasel words and many other reasons stated above. And, contrary to those who claim it, the SPLC is not a political organization. Their data is used by many law enforcement agencies, educational institutions and journalists. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per above, sourcing needs to be better. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

— Cluetrainwoowoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose - This certainly is WP:WEASELy Whiteguru (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposed template for "Hate group listing" addition

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

I see no need at all for the sort of inhibiting detail here that at least one editor has recommended. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That works for me. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me -- at least not at this time. We have an ongoing RFC in which many of the issues that will be raised by your proposal are being addressed -- including what sources to be used to support the attack on the SPLC. I don't think we have agreement on one source, let alone two or three.

The question that comes immediately to mind is why are we mentioning a specific recent incident and a specific hate group to address GENERAL SPLC policy? Why do you then inconsistently propose that the SPLC position be generic? This is what the FRC wikipedia article says about the SPLC position:

In February 2010 the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies, Peter Sprigg, stated on NBC's Hardball that gay behavior should be outlawed and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior" should be enforced.[28] In May that same year, Sprigg publicly suggested that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy would encourage molestation of heterosexual service members.[29] In November FRC President Tony Perkins was asked about Sprigg's comments regarding the criminalization of same-sex behavior: he responded that criminalizing homosexuality is not a goal of the Family Research Council.[30][31] Perkins repeated the FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia, saying that "If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children."[30][31] The opinions expressed by Perkins are contradicted by mainstream social science research on same-sex parenting,[32] and on the likelihood of child molestation by homosexuals and bisexuals, which has been found to be no higher than child molestation by heterosexuals.[32][33] Some scientists whose work is cited by the American College of Pediatricians - a small conservative organization which was formed when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed adoption by same-sex couples - have said that it has distorted and misrepresented their work.[34] Listing as a hate group by SPLC

Following these comments by Sprigg and Perkins, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the FRC as a hate group in the Winter 2010 issue of its magazine, Intelligence Report. As well as citing the statements made earlier in the year by Sprigg and Perkins as justification, SPLC described FRC as a “font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history”.[35][36] As evidence, SPLC cited a 1999 publication by the FRC, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys, which claimed: “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”[36][37] The report said FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001) had both "pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia".[36][38]

Why exactly should we provide less information in this article about the SPLC than is provided in an article that is not about the SPLC? You are suggesting that there be a parity between the pros and cons, despite the fact that NPOV policy states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views."

A better proposal, other than the status quo, would be to add a separate subsection under "Hate Group Listings" labeled "Anti-gay groups" and:

1. Open up with a version of the paragraphs from the FRC article I pasted. 2. Supplement this as needed with info. from 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda, 10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked, and Anti-Gay Movement Fuels Hate Violence. 3. Provide summaries of the arguments made by the anti-gay community in its defense.

Badmintonhist wants to suggest that this is some sort of poison pill that is being proposed because it is too big. In fact, either one of us could have written it in just a fraction of the time we've spent in these discussions.

A Smaller Proposal The most common argument being made by critics is that the SPLC should differentiate between violent groups like the KKK and non-violent groups. We could place two sentences in the place suggested by Badmittonhist that say something like:

Some critics, even those that oppose the policies of listed groups, believe that the SPLC should not list non-violent groups along with organizations such as the KKK on its hate list. Supporters argue that extreme language can lead to violence." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of briefly talking about the nature of violence as to the listings, if we have good sources to support several views. Insomesia (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly prefer the North Shoreman's "smaller proposal" to his larger one; the larger one being basically a resumption of his concept that an article on the SPLC should largely be written by the SPLC rather than by third party sources. However, his "even those that oppose the policies of the listed groups" is gratuitous and, of course, the FRC shooting incident and its political fallout should at least be mentioned briefly. I wouldn't currently use the FRC article as a model of much of anything right now except, perhaps, as a model of what we shouldn't do. I still much prefer my own proposal and believe tha the North Shoreman exaggerates the difficulty of finding sources that most of us can live with. The fact that editor Binksternet, whom I've disagreed with in the past but whose ability I respect, seems to like my version is encouraging.Badmintonhist (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC) PS:I think it is worth noting that "North Shoreman Long Form" still manages to avoid (a.) any criticism of the SPLC from folks outside of "the damned" and (b.) the merest mention of the FRC shooting incident Badmintonhist (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) North Shoreman's (I think - it was a long comment and I hunted the signature for a minute) point is good - it is not true that the listings were particularly controversial after the shooting. Hate groups have always complained about being labeled as such, and I do not see evidence that criticism of the listings began to come from mainstream sources after the shooting, so the assertion is just inaccurate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese's point isn't quite true even we utterly discard any complaints from "the damned" (complaints that include a highly impressive article by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Jerry Kammer, recently interviewed on PBS, on behalf of the Center for Immigration Studies) which we shouldn't do as it is circular reasoning. Respected writers such as Ken Silverstein, Alexander Cockburn, and Laird Wilcox were highly critical of the SPLC's hate list. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But users who want to include criticism have been citing these sources for months or years. That's exactly my point. Criticism has not increased or spread after the shooting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But of course it has! Recent columns by Dana Milbank and Rich Lowry, among others, have been cited in this discussion. They have been met by columns defending the SPLC, but that 's all a sign of controversy. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of August 26 edits

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I also attempted to add something to attempt to balance this article but was deleted. Moreover, I have noticed that some sources are more equal, I mean more "reliable," than others. Conservative sources seem to be almost always deemed to be "unreliable," although as with my own namesake I come in with an open mind, attempting to improve the "questioned neutrality" of this article, an apotheosis of Morris Dees and SPLC. I will post here in part what was deleted and please notice that one of my two sources was a Mcclatchy newspaper piece that was called "unreliable."

"While this article concentrates on the SPLC's battle with truly hateful organizations, it does not discusses the Center's partisanship and radicalism on the left side of the political spectrum. The SPLC has been criticized for its liberal partisanship, and its credibility has been questioned because it has been too quick to label conservative groups with which it disagrees “hate groups.” In fact, it was only day after the Family Research Council (FRC) had been labeled a “hate group” by the SPLC for criticizing gay marriages, that the FRC– a Christian and pro family values, conservative organization–was the target of a shooting incident to which the media pay scanty attention. On the other hand, the SPLC has not been too critical of radical liberal groups and has not labeled them with the same avidity."

1)Erickson E. Intolerant tolerance. Macon Telegraph. August 24, 2012 http://www.macon.com/2012/08/24/2147812/intolerant-tolerance.html 2)Rosslyn S. Southern Poverty Law Center's Lucrative 'Hate Group' Label. American Thinker, August 20, 2012. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/southern_poverty_law_centers_lucrative_hate_group_label.html#.UDI28jRoId0.email#ixzz24ZMJfFFd

I agree with many of the critics here: "It is completely absurd that no substantial criticism is allowed to exist in this article." The opposite viewpoint of this article is only found in these hidden pages! I now retire into the sunset, the incredible bias of this article remains for the public at large! Philipegalite (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC):

Since sunrise typically follows sunset, I'll reply. First of all, just to avoid confusion, the first sentence within the quotation marks three paragraphs up is a comment you're making now, not a part of what you added to the article. The question of what organizations are "truly hateful" is quite subjective, and neither your take on it nor the opinion of any op-ed writer or ideologue allows us to make any assumptions about that. As for the content you added, where to begin? Aside from being sloppily written, it's unacceptable because it's not reliably sourced and is not written from a neutral point of view. We can't say in Wikipedia's voice that SPLC engages in "liberal partisanship" (which is an odd construction anyway), nor can we say in Wikipedia's voice that SPLC has been "too quick" to do anything. "Family values" is a loaded and meaningless term for our purposes. We cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that "the media pay scanty attention". "Radical liberal" is an oxymoron. I could go on, but it would be overkill. Rivertorch (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sunrise does follow sunset but a censorship eclipse can provide Darkness at Noon! Rivertorch, If my statement was "sloppily written," it could have been edited by the so many editors here- plain and simple. As I said, my talk post was "in part" based on my comment in the article, not the sole entry to the article as written. Likewise the offending "subjectivity" could have been ameliorated by selective deletion or editing. After all it was a brief paragraph. As to the not been written from a "neutral point of view," neither is the entire Wiki article, which, as I have said, is a one-sided apotheosis of Morris Dees and the Center. As to the "reliability" of the sources, it is a bogus pretext to exclude inconvenient facts, as one of the sources is a McClatchy newspaper, the sole newspaper of a medium-size town of a State of this nation; and the other source, a university publication, even if it is a conservative Christian university. As to the term "radical liberal" being an oxymoron, it depends on the definition of what is meant by the term liberal. Why I even tried to contribute to Wikipedia, it was my first "edit," a needed addition to bring some "neutrality" to this article. And I was asked to do so when I rated the page. I even signed in for the first time to do so properly. Moreover, the entry itself on SPLC was deemed by Wikipedia as "neutrality disputed," and I thought I could contribute. I was mistaken. Alas, what a disappointment. I found a perpetual eclipse, a darkness at noon on this article, a form of censorship, as many others here have noted. Why invite us newcomers to edit? I hoped to clarify rather than to join in this fracas. I am sorry if I expressed my disappointment subjectively. Philipegalite (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your addition contained serious problems. Your source is one opinion piece yet you use it to make absolute statements of fact. You wrote that the FRC had been designated a hate group "for criticizing gay marriages" but that is patently wrong. The hate speech by Sprigg was not only about gay marriage but "homosexual behavior". The hate speech of Perkins was about the provably wrong connection of gay men with pedophilia. "Scanty attention" is hardly the way anyone watching the media would characterize the media coverage of the shooting at FRC. You also swapped SPLC in for the correct group: Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Your addition was terribly flawed and its total removal by Rivertorch was correct procedure. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of explicity stating that Perkins statement was "hate speech" (ill leave that up to the sources to decide) I agree with Binksternet. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The FRC is not considered a hate group because it opposes same sex marriage but because it claims that homosexuals have an agenda to molest children. TFD (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

More precisely, it has claimed that homosexual rights advocates have such an agenda, and it might have even meant that (only) some homosexual rights advocates have such an agenda. Not the most pleasant sort of argumentation but not quite what you just said. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, they are collectivists who claim that homosexuals as a collective group have a homosexual agenda that includes promoting child molestation. Read their literature. TFD (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, but you haven't demonstrated your claims. Sound familiar? Badmintonhist (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Some concern

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I have participated in the past hour in a deletion discussion for the article on Faithful Word Baptist Church. During the course of perusing the discussion prior to commenting, I noticed that at least two editors had made comments to the effect that earning SPLC designation as a hate group merits including an organization's article on Wikipedia. This concerns me. As I stated in my comments at AfD, I do not embrace this idea in the least. Though the SPLC is an organization of note and repute, it states on its webpage [6] that among its goals is the exposure to the public of extremist or hate groups. Though I in no way oppose the SPLC, I do not believe it is exactly unbiased and, as such, cannot be counted upon as a reliable source. I am interested to see what other editors feel about this subject, but I would just like to express my opposition to the mentioned idea. dci | TALK 23:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

While it may or may not be a reportable fact that SPLC has made a hate group designation, SPLC is only a reliable source regarding its own opinions and is not a reliable source for statements of fact about groups and individuals that are the subject of its designations. This is especially true in instances where there may be BLP concerns. The support for this can be found in the relevant policies concerning reliable sources, specifically WP:SOURCES and WP:NOTRELIABLE, which instruct us to avoid sources without "meaningful editorial oversight" and sources with an "apparent conflict of interest". SPLC falls squarely into this category on both counts. Belchfire-TALK 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you base that SPLC is not a reliable source? You seem to be pushing this based on your beliefs, not facts of their history and subject matter on this. SPLC is a very reliable source in these instance. Even the FBI finds them more than reliable "The Southern Poverty Law Center is named as a resource on the Federal Bureau of Investigation web page on hate crimes". 2605:F700:C0:1:0:0:1DE4:1454 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not my belief; it's Wikipedia policy. The FBI isn't Wikipedia and they have their own policies, which are not the same as Wikipedia's. Furthermore, there is NO evidence that the FBI puts any special emphasis on SPLC's information - that is just your belief, and it's actually something of a myth. Belchfire-TALK 21:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The FBI also names the Anti-Defamation League as a resource in its web page on hate crimes. One might consult our article on the ADL and note the difference in the level of criticism found in that article and this one. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy of neutrality does not mean that we provide parity to hate groups and organizations that study them any more than we provide parity to criminals and people who prosecute them. Neutrality "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". TFD (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said, however did someone here make the assertion to provide hate groups with such parity? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

More cop stuff.

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

http://books.google.com/books?id=c33aeF0FCGgC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=splc+police+training&source=bl&ots=65V_Ee95bT&sig=nqmF7_2DqzqLQV0-WgUEdCVzo0U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YKQ9UI7MGpPM6QH-j4GIDQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=intelligence%20sharing%20splc&f=false

Mentions sharing intelligence with LEO's, including the FBI. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentions attempting to provide information to LEOs. Doesn't mention whether the LEOs used it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, look at pages 20, 25, and 166. It's all there.

I chose this book because it was scholarly and highly critical of the SPLC, so nobody could complain that it was biased in their favor. Yet it supports the fact that the SPLC has shared intelligence with LEO's. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it does say that they provided information to LEOs. It still doesn't say that the LEOs used it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does. I'm confident that your interpretation is simply wrong. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How about something like this . . .

Latest comment: 11 years ago72 comments13 people in discussion

placed in the Hate group listings subsection? -- "Some critics have cited the organization for too eagerly labeling organizations that it opposes as hate groups." At his point there are plenty of reliable sources: the article is the Christian Science Monitor, at least one article in Harper's Magazine by Ken Silverstein, a recent column by Dana Milbankin the Washington Post, and probably others. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer some specifics on what hate group listings are controversial. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support the above, with citations. I'm not sure I like the word "eagerly", though, as it has connotations that are hard to prove one way or the other. "Eagerly" implies that the organization looks forward with pleasure to attaching such labels. I think wording such as "rashly" or "incautiously" may be more neutral. 78.26 (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support this proposal with the word "incautiously". St Anselm (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2012 (UT)

Badmintonhist, do you, by chance, have links to the Harpers and Washington Post articles? You linked to the Wikipedia articles for the columnists, but I can't seem to find the actual articles that you reference.

My main concern with the wording that you proposed is that it seems convoluted, although I acknowledge that it is probably mostly a direct quote. — MrX 22:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's one of Ken Silverstein's articles on the SPLC [7]. Milbank's is all over the place. If someone with my utter lack of computer skills can find it anyone can.Badmintonhist (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I found the [Milbank opinion article]. — MrX 23:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

My take aways, after reading these three articles are:

There are critics of SPLc, who criticize SPLC for a variety of reasons.
Some of the critics are conservative. Some conservative leaders (e.g. Paul Ryan) are implicated by association with certain hate groups (FRC).
Some of the critics are principals of groups labeled as hate groups
Some conservative leaders (John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, [Paul Ryan?]) have criticized the SPLC's labeling of the FRC as a hate group.

So, in my opinion, this criticism needs to be acknowledged in this WP article. I'm not sure that a direct quote from one of the three (fairly disparate) sources is the best way to do it though. I think something brief, and slightly more general that accurately captures this dissent would make the most sense. — MrX 00:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The CSM article is inaccurate when it claims that the politicians, rather than the FRC, paid for the open letter advertisement. More importantly, the CSM article is inaccurate when it attributes specific criticisms of the SPLC to Bachman et al. This is what Slate at [8] has to say about the petition and advertisement that the CSM references:

The extremely low-key statement they've [referring to the Congressmen] all agreed to:

We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are 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 at all of the SPLC in the portion of the advertisement that Bachman et al signed off on. Based on BLP we must be extremely careful on what what words we put into the mouths of political leaders. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an eye opener. It seems that the critics of the SPLC's hate group labeling are mostly op-ed writers. — MrX 01:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose See RfC above. Also, we cannot say what "some critics" have said unless we have a source that says that, per WP:WEASEL and WP:WEIGHT. The mainstream view is that anti-gay groups promote hatred against gays by accusing them as a group of promoting a "homosexual agenda" that includes molesting children. TFD (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream? Who says it's mainstream? St Anselm (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhrr . . . then we'll leave out "some," TFD. Maybe "critics such as (names) have cited the SPLC for , , , ." There are all sorts of statements in the article that summarize what multiple sources have said. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Same problem as with the RFC language. The CSM article is inaccurate in a very important fact as several others noted above. In both the CSM article and the Milbank's article only one group is discussed (The FRC) so it is inaccurate to try to interpret this as a general attack on the SPLC. Also, both of these articles make an attempt to provide the SPLC side of the issue -- something that neither the RFC or this proposal does. There are already WEIGHT problems in the material being suggested -- refusing to even mention the SPLC position magnifies this problem. Silverstein's article is nothing but an opinion attack piece, most of it over a dozen years old. The RFC was premature and a distraction -- this new suggestion is a distraction to the distraction. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear. No new distractions, please. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the latest incarnation of Silverstein's opinion about the SPLC is less than two and a half years old and it criticizes the SPLC's labeling of another group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. I've located more critical articles on the SPLC in the last half hour or so (and few are worse finding online material than I am), including one by Rich Lowry in the Jewish World Review. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you consider their opinions to be important? Can you provide any reliable secondary sources that have paid any attention to their opinions? TFD (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, it would be helpful to have links to the critical articles that you are citing, rather than the Wikipedia articles. — MrX 01:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a matter of whether the world considers their opinions important? Apparently, lots of people find Dana Milbank's latest opinion on the SPLC important. See [9] or [[10].Badmintonhist (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC) The article by Rich Lowry can be found here [11].

Actually those sources find Milbank idiotic, thank you for that. "Milbank's column was met with nearly unanimous objections in the LGBT community including the Washington Blade, Michelangelo Signorile, John Aravosis, Pam Spaulding and many others, including Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos' LaFeminista. Today, the Post was gracious enough to print a great response from Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin who makes an excellent case why it is totally appropriate Family Research Center should be known as a hate group. If anything these support that the Family Research Council object to being called a hate group. That seems unsurprising. Insomesia (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

None of which, of course, diminishes the newsworthiness of Milbank's essay. The fact that someone makes a criticism of the SPLC which is widely condemned on one side of a political divide (and widely praised on the other) doesn't make it less significant to our article on the SPLC . Badmintonhist (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Except your proposal only covers the pro-FRC position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize criticism of the SPLC's hate group labeling practices from folks such as Ken Silverstein and Dana Milbank as "pro-FRC," however I'm perfectly willing to see a notable pro-SPLC response in our article to such criticism. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, as a fan of Ken Silverman, have you added his comments on articles about other subjects, such as Mitt Romney, the Tea Party, the War in Iraq and the capitalist system? TFD (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

An utterly irrelevant query, TFD. The point isn't whether I'VE used him as a source before in OTHER ARTICLES. The point is whether WE should be using his criticism of the SPLC's hate group listings in THIS ARTICLE. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC) PS: His name is SILVERSTEIN.

Getting back to a point that might actually move the conversation forward ... the Ken Silverstein article linked above seemed to casually criticize the whole hate group labeling with about zero substance to it, so it's just an opinion from someone whose profession it is to offer investigation - but they don't offer any evidence, just their opinion. Ken Silverstein does explain why he feels SPLC are discredited when it comes to fundraising but that's another discussion which the article already goes into. Dana Milbank's comments seem to be dismissed rather across the board. Is there someone else who makes the SPLC-labels-hate-groups-when-they-shouldn't-be-labelled-as-such argument that isn't rather discredited and does so in depth that we can actually consider using it? That would be helpful. Insomesia (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Pulitzer prize winning reporter Jerry Kammer (mentioned in Silverstein's Harper's article) has probably written the most detailed criticism of the SPLC's hate group labeling practice [12] but since he is a fellow at an organization, the Center for Immigration Studies, condemned by the SPLC the pro-SPLC editors here will likely immediately dismiss him.Badmintonhist (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course many critcs of the SPLC would probably say that by criticizing its fundraising techniques they are implicitly criticizing its hate group listing since the listing is perhaps its most important fundraising technique. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

They might, they might not. All we've got is your original research on this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox, an authority on modern American political extremism, is another long-time critic of the SPLC [13]. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's see . . . taking inventory we now have a former Washington Bureau chief for Harper's Magazine Ken Silverstein, a well-known columnist for The Washington Post Dana Milbank, the editor of National Review Rich Lowry, an acknowledged expert on extremist activities Laird Wilcox, and a Pulitzer and Polk award-winning journalist Jerry Kammer, all criticizing the SPLC's hate-group designations. And we would omit any such criticism in our article because . . . (??) Badmintonhist (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that we have several RS that report criticism with respect to labeling the FRC. There is no reasonable justification from excluding this cristiscm, WP:WEIGHT notwithstanding. A few sentances should suffice. I suggest someone starts laying down some text below. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We've got two very good reasons for not "laying down some text below" -- there is strong disagreement about the reliability of the sources and strong disagreement that the FRC info. is of sufficient weight to be included. There is also an ongoing RFC involving specific language -- language that would present only the FRC position while excluding the SPLC actual position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The two reasons have been refuted, above. I particularly like Laird Wilcox as a source, as he's an expert on what the SPLC is (or claims to be) investigating (extrement activities and organizations). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up here what the wikipedia policy is on self published sources like Wilcox's. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

For quite a number of years now the only reason that the SPLC has made any significant national news is precisely because of it "hate group" list. The idea that none of the back-and-forth between the SPLC and the critics of its list merits any mention in our SPLC article, that this list is simply beyond reproach, is utterly absurd. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC) PS: It rather reminds me of the of the die-hard protection of the article less than two years ago when much of it was culled nearly verbatim from SPLC publications.Badmintonhist (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To repeat what I said a few days ago in response to a proposal to add FRC criticism to the article:

... we need to FULLY explain the specific reasons why they are classified as a hate group. With the FRC, this could easily be more than three or four paragraphs. Note that in the FRC article there are two paragraphs of specific SPLC criticisms of the group -- much more detail would be expected in the actual SPLC article. We should also include SPLC criticism of other anti-gay groups.

A "back and forth" would show a detailed analysis by the SPLC and a response that addresses none of the specifics and says something like "Well the SPLC is liberal and, besides, at east we're not as bad as the KKK." Do you folks really want that? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read what I said again, North Shoreman, You may note that I said "back-back-and-forth" between the SPLC and its critics, not the SPLC and the groups it has pinned the hate label on. As far as I know the SPLC hasn't directly labeled Ken Silverstein, or Rich Lowry, or Dana Milbank, or Laird Wilcox as haters yet. As for Wilcox he is an expert in the field who has published earlier material in third party publications and thus (if you read WP:SELFPUB carefully) is not thus disqualified. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You bear the burden of establishing that Wilcox is an expert (according to who) and what his third party publications are and what they said about the SPLC. Why don't you cite from his other published works? As far as the "back-and-forth", the inclusion of the criticism, regardless of the source, still opens the door to provide a detailed description of the SPLC position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it appears there is some disagreement about the sources. So that we stay focused and actually make some progress, let's discuss each of the sources in their own section. Feel free to add sources to the list below. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

All of these have been discussed since St. Anselm placed the POV tag on the article. There is no purpose in rehashing arguments that have already been made in the last few days. Perhaps you should read through the entire discussion and place your own comments where you feel appropriate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazing, the North Shoreman has said something that I actually agree with with. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll go through and pick out the salient points and add them below. If people keep trying to cause distractions so we don't get a consensus on the sources, we can call an RfC for each one. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your proposal is a distraction. Besides, you can't really tell whether a source is reliable when you don't have actual language that is being attributed to the source. Context matters --the lead of WP:RS states: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with North Shoreman. We need to discuss the proposed text to be supported with each source, to determine whether it is a reliable source for that text. "The best such source" is questionable, though, even if in the guideline. "The best is the enemy of the good."

In any case, if there is specific criticism from any of the reliable sources, then some such criticism should be included, whether from that source, or another source.

A potential text to be included is that SPLC declares groups to be "hate groups", not on objective criteria, but due to political correctness. Do any of the sources support that statement? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find either of the two new-to-me sources compelling enough as reliable sources and frankly i would like to see something that is usable. Insomesia (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible sources

Christain Science Monitor

Discuss:

Reliable source little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This source has already been discussed, and i believe dismissed as misrepresenting who disputes the hate group label. I think this, again, was chiefly limited to FRC. Insomesia (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a reliable source which says that political leaders accused the SPLC of character assassination of the FRC. We can't "dismiss" sources because people disagree with them. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest since this is highly contested you focus on strong reliable sources that have not already been dismissed as this one has. Reliable sources are really the only way forward to making the changes you seek. Insomesia (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dismissed by whom? I saw no consensus to dismiss this source. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It was dismissed in conversations above. The point is that it has been considered and rejected so is unlikely to be accepted now. Insomesia (talk)

You are right, the various above discussions about the CSM article punch big holes in it, including problems with its facts, especially the terribly misleading quote, "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." The full-page ad did not even mention the SPLC. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Harpers

Discuss:

Opinion little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This source too has already been discussed and dismissed. It lacks anything but an opinion on the matter at hand. Insomesia (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing noteworthy in here. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Milbank

Discuss:

Opinion piece that generated a lot of coverage in other sources little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Not helpful, besides being an opinion piece it almost solely focusses on FRC and basically doesn't discuss specifics beyond that. Insomesia (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This focuses on the FRC & the SPLC. We don't require the sources to focus solely on the subject at hand. Considering this piece had plenty of coverage (see below) it is a worthy source. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I trying to envision what content would actually be added to the article and I'm not seeing this source as helping anything. We need strong reliable sources that will stick. If we don't have them then we have to wait until we do. Insomesia (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Advocate

Discuss:

RS coverage of the Milbank piece little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This too is almost solely about FRC being labelled a hate group and the author agrees with the hate group label. Insomesia (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where the author of this news piece says the FRC is a hate group, nor is it relevant. The article covers criticism of the SLPC. This too is a RS that we can use. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Washington Blade opinion rebutal to Milbank

Discuss:

Opinion little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Ditto as above, an opinion piece mainly about how FRC is indeed a hate group. Insomesia (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No-o-o-o-o-o. Hold steady there, Pilgrim. Our ol' pal the North Shoreman is trying to kill-off any mention of criticism of the SPLC's hit list, I mean hate list, by making making this FAR TOO BIG A PROJECT than it ought to be. That's what he did a while back in successfully killing off any mention of the controversy over the original designation of the FRC as a hate group. Since the FRC is merely the most prominent of hundreds of organizations that the SPLC has put the hate label on, there is no logic to the idea that the SPLC's rationale for labeling it a hate group should be more detailed than what we have in our FRC article. One could make a case that we should have a more detailed explanation for the SPLC's general criteria for the hate label, one that applies to all the groups that it has branded, but not for extraordinary detail on the FRC case. Moreover, the properly sourced criticism of the SPLC's hate group list practice need not go into great detail either, and should not necessarily focus on the FRC case, though a mention of it is probably in order. The Finances section of our article gives us an example of bringing up criticism without getting utterly bogged-down by it. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please roll back the rhetoric, it's not helping healthy discussion. I don't agree with your assessment about another editor and that's not what we're here to discuss. Please focus on content instead. The finances section uses sources that actually address ... the SPLC's fundraising and finances. None of these sources are really criticizing SPLC's labeling practice, instead biased sources object, in some cases, to FRC's being labelled a hate group and other sources assert the hate group label is correct.

I don't know how to be more clear that we need reliable sources that specifically criticize how SPLC labels groups. It seems all the criticism comes from the groups that have been labelled hate groups and their supporters. But even in the FRC case there are people who present research why the FRC earned that designation. Insomesia (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

While this too is an opinion piece essentially saying Milbank got it wrong, it can be used in addition to the RS advocate article as "additional response", as long as we attribute the content to opinion. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does Milbank's opinion carry any WP:WEIGHT on the topic? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever weight his opinion carries is decided by the coverage his opinion piece received by other reliable sources. In this discussion alone there a two opinion pieces that are crtitical of the SPLC, the Harpers and Milbank. The Milbank column must have some weight for the consideration it received from reliable sources. Wheras the Harpers story recieved none. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Coverage alone does not give Milbank's opinion weight as a reliable source. It needs to be a bit more substantial than that. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Coverage by RS is used to determine notability. And I dont think anyone is suggesting that we use Wikipedia's voice to state Milbanks opinion. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How does notability apply? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Objection to tag in lead

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Why is there no explanation on the talk page for the tag which was placed in the lead? And it would be an overdo to place an extra tag when there is already one covering the entire article right at the top.

Whoever placed the tag in the lead needs to explain themselves. There seems to be absolutely no problem with the sentence in question. --Scientiom (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I also don't believe that tag is justified, especially since there is a much larger tag 'POV disputed' tag a few lines above it. It seems that the mainstream, majority view of the media, academics and pundits is that the SPLC's classification of hate groups is based upon reasonable criteria. At the risk of invoking Godwin, this section from WP:YESPOV seems apropos:

“

Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

”

Also, the sentence in question is:

"The SPLC classifies as hate groups organizations that denigrate or assault entire groups of people, typically for attributes that are beyond their control."

This statement is a factually indisputable representation of the SPLC's views and their supporting rationale. The fact that there are a minority who believe that the SPLC's actions are unfair, does not cast doubt on veracity of the statement itself. – MrX 14:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That statement, actually, is not sourced anywhere. If a source were provided, I would consider "The SPLC classifies as hate groups organizations that it considers to denigrate or assault entire groups of people, typically for attributes that are beyond their control." Actually, that's not a bad idea. I'll fix it, although it still requires a citation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is in the source, but since it's SPLC's own words, it needs to be attributed. Sorry about my mistake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done, Arthur. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

most recent content change not reflected in my comments - sorry – MrX 15:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Well, you removed the source, right before you added the citation needed tag. The source says:

“

The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 1,018 active hate groups in the United States in 2011. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2011 are included.

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

This list was compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports.

Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.

”

~~Also,~~ Adding the weasel words "it considers to" is redundant, and not really helpful. – MrX 14:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Except they are not weasel words. Weasel words refer to a vague reference such as "some people consider . . . ;" not a definite reference "the SPLC considers . . . " Badmintonhist (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on more careful reading, Arthur's edit makes sense. – MrX 15:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not WP:WEASEL, but it does introduce doubt. It's like adding "according to NASA" to the staterment that the Curiosity rover landed on Mars. It gives credence to fringe theories. See WP:FLAT: "You must not say 'the earth is not flat' but 'according to critics of the flat-earth theory, the earth is not flat'." TFD (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That SPLC overdefines "hate" is not fringe. It might not be a majority opinion, but it's not fringe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

How do they define it? TFD (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It is 4D who is introducing doubt here where it should not exist. That the Curiosity rover landed on Mars is a straightforward fact .Determining the complete set of organizations that "denigrate or assault entire groups of people typically for attributes that are beyond their control" is inherently subjective. The SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League, for example, differ over whether certain organizations should be labeled "hate groups." Serious scientists don't differ over whether the Curiosity rover landed on Mars. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"The SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League, for example, differ over whether certain organizations should be labeled "hate groups."" Prove it. TFD (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Horowitz? It's hard to find evidence that (say) ADL does not identify an organization as a "hate group". Only if SPLC identified ADL as a hate group or ADL identified SPLC as a hate group would we have firm evidence of a difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"and offers training to the police", in the lead.

Latest comment: 11 years ago52 comments11 people in discussion

~~{{archivetop|Consensus reached not to include "offers training to the police" in the lead (closed by MrX 13:50, 29 August 20120 }}~~

This fits in with the FBI thing. Any comments? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't belong in the lead. In fact, the whole "SLPC is a resource" bit doesn't belong there either. It has no weight with respect to the article and doesn't meet WP:LEAD. There aren't any secondary sources that I am aware of that lends this weight little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the police training thing is from a secondary source, so by your own logic, it belongs in the lead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.. Now what is the importance to the topic? Marginial at best. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the police training to the education section. Now the mention in the lead is a proper summary of what's in the body. Any other objections? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You need better sourcing. And you need to avoid indefinite language like "regularly". Belchfire-TALK 01:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. We have the SPLC for the quotes and CNN for confirmation. The word "regularly" was used in the context of an attributed quote, so it's just fine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The CNN piece gives no specific information at all; it merely mentions the training in passing, which confirms almost nothing that you put into the article. Everything else, beyond the bare fact that the training exists, is a self-published claim. Good grief, most of what you inserted had quotes around it, because it was copy-pasted direct from SPLC's website. Find better sourcing to support your specific claims. Belchfire-TALK 02:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit comment read "This is just a self-published claim. Needs secondary source. And what does "regularly" mean?". As I pointed out, it has a secondary source. As for the specific claims, we quote them with attribution. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk)

Having looked quickly at all the listed sources I don't see anything that substantiates the amount of police training the SPLC actually does; and if the SPLC really doesn't provide a substantial amount of training to police; if it's really mainly PR, which Dees excels at, then such material should not go in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Taking a good look at this new addition to the lead it really should go. "Offers training to law enforcement at all levels" is pretty empty. My partner and I "offer our singing talents to entertainment venues at all levels" but we usually get hired by senior centers and assisted living facilities. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I, too, offer online training to police departments "on request". If they ask me to, I will send them an email with my opinions on how they should catch bank robbers. Can I get a Wikipedia article now? Belchfire-TALK 04:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just get some secondary sources to confirm it. The SPLC has six; how many do you have so far? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a tough choice: do we go with our sources or your original research?! Let me get back to you on that. :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The mere existence of a source doesn't order us to USE THIS IN THE LEAD. IT'S IMPORTANT! Editors use their discretion. There is any amount of material that we could use in the lead but we don't use all of it. We are supposed to be selective. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll note that nothing you said is an argument against mentioning this in the lead. It's not actually clear that you have one, now that it's so heavily sourced. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a desire to include as much information as possible in the lead, while sometimes forgetting the purely editorial aspects of clarity, conciseness and grammar. I have to agree with the points made by Little Green Rosetta, especially as it pertains to inclusion of police training in the lead. This simply is not a significant detail when weighed against all of the other information in the article. I would suggest that it just seems important in the context of recent events. — MrX 04:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that a good lead should include high-level details from the sections of the body, and the law-enforcement education line is the start of the entire education section. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD and WP:IDHT while you're at it. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And I would suggest that you respond to what I said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, your suggestion is ridiculous. That is not how we write leads. Seriously? We start with the first section? Oh, and I noticed you just made then LE the first section. How convenient. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead should be an overview of the body, so picking from each section is a good way to ensure that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This detail is insignificant. Now drop the stick. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion, and yet it doesn't seem convincing. Got anything else? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing new, but i don't think I'm going out on a limb by stating consensus is clearly against your position. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's something rather interesting on an SPLC webpage [14]. First sentence third paragraph reads "SPLC trainers have almost 50 years of combined experience." Yeah, almost 50 year of combined experience. In other words this organization worth hundreds of millions of dollars probably has about 3 or 4 folks doing this work. How much training do you suppose gets done?Badmintonhist (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, just the one, but he's very old. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we can make an RfC for this and see what a real consensus looks like. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think a good case has been made for including this in the lede. It seems like a fairly minor detail. Rivertorch (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am entirely open to a good faith discussion. I think that the organization's various forms of cooperation with law-enforcement agencies is key information about it. It's rather unusual, and distinguishes it from the groups that it reports on. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a good case has been made that it doesn't belong in the body or the lead. Anyone (other than StillStanding) disagree? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe consensus has been reached. Reasons supporting inclusion in the lead are not based on a firm understanding of WP:MOSLEAD. — MrX 13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

~~{{archivebottom}}~~

Clarification need - little green rosetta removed the entire sentence including the mention of the FBI naming the SPLC as a resource. It would seem that the discussion here was only about the police training phrase and not the resource phrase? --Scientiom (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. I think little green rosetta inadvertently removed more than was mandated by this discussion. — MrX 13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to giving it a brief mention in the body, not big deal either way. Putting it in the lead, as if it were some major nationwide program, is silly. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And Scientiom restored the information where consensus is clearly against it here. There is a separate section covering "resource", which hasn't been closed, but I see insufficient arguments in favor of inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted a change which was not mandated in its entirely. As for the rest of it, there is no consensus to exclude it from the lead. And what you think does not matter. Maybe its time for an RFC on the matter. --Scientiom (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was premature to end this discussion. Guess we'll need an RfC. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Should Arthur have closed this discussion? I don't know. Admins generally shouldn't close an RfC in which they were involved. I don't know if this informal discussion rises to the same level as that of an RfC. On the other hand, the consensus here is pretty clear. We have well reasoned arguments and one editor (possibly two) with a case of WP:IDHT. I suppose dropping the closure tags in is something any editor is allowed to do, just as removing them is permissible. If that were to happen, I suspect we would be going to RfC. Now Still, I don't want to sound like I'm making a threat, but if this does go to RfC I will ask the closing admin to examine this (at the moment closed) discussion and determine if combined with the RfC this constitutes disruptive editing. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't close the discussion. I moved up the bottom of the closed section to move the "clarification request" outside; it wasn't closed, even if the discussion above was closed properly (by someone else). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have several problems with this closing, not the least of which is that consensus is declared to have been reached in less than 24 hours. Hardly the usual Wikipedia practice. (For the curious, the closure occurred here) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You can blame me; it was not an RfC and I thought it was a simple matter which had reached its conclusion. Mea Culpa.

I have unclosed the eight day old discussion. Please carry on. – MrX 22:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't an Rfc, there is no need to close it at all. If it is an Rfc, you should leave it open for about 30 days, or until there is clear consensus (usually not before at least 2 weeks have passed.) Thank you for reversing your closure. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The primary problem here is that the claim is not strongly sourced, and a substantial majority of those opining appear opposed to inclusion. WP:CONSENSUS is fairly clear here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with your assessment, Collect, that was not my complaint. The problem was that the closing was inappropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion, not only in the lead, but in the article, until and unless adequately sourced. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's more than adequately sourced, but there's a point of order here, which is that this isn't an RfC because it isn't advertised neutrally so that it can get input from the community. I propose that we make an RfC. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@Still you are welcome to create an RfC, but I think it would be an unwise move and ask that you not do so. Creating RfC's while a discussion is in progress or recently closed can be considered disruptive. And once again, I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that if you were involved in crafting such an RfC that many would consider it disruptive in light of your recent history. Please put your "RfC gun" back in its holster and save everybody a lot of time and try and work towards a consensus in this section. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@KC Do you know any other editors made a determination as to the suitability of using that Boston Globe article? Having not seen it myself, I was under the impression from other editors the article did make the "police" assertion. Or is this a case of "need more sources"? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The article makes the assertion; IMO this placing this in the lead is UNDUE. So far as I am aware the Boston Globe is a RS, and I don't contest that at all. I consider it unlikely that I will be convinced it should be in the lead, simply because it is not core to understanding of the SPLC - it is not a significant enough part of their work/efforts/activities to place there. However, again, I'm open to convincing otherwise. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Support: It's far more than adequately sourced. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Tail wagging dog

Latest comment: 11 years ago28 comments10 people in discussion

The lead is supposed to provide a brief preview/summary of the rest of the article per WP:LEAD. However, our lead provides more detail about the SPLC's workings with FBI than what is found in the remainder of the article. The brief mention of the FBI naming the SPLC as a resource, found in the body of the article, is more or less what should have in the lead. The more detailed description, now found in the lead, is what ought to go in the body of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That means the rest of the article needs to expand the details of how the SPLC works with the FBI. This is one of the more interesting facets of the group and many sources do delve into how law enforcement including the FBI rely on this group's resources.Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, "that" doesn't mean that; "that" means that the info in the body and the info in the lead should basically be reversed. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the additional detail should be added to the body of the article. It would probably be best under the 'Tracking of hate groups section'. — MrX 12:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Additonal sourced detail should be added to the body of the article. Details based only on SPLC's statements should be properly attributed, and there should be no trace of them in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No need to attribute statements inline made by the SPLC since it is a reliable source. It would be like inline attribution of facts about GE because the source was its subsidiary NBC news. I think though what should be in the lead is that law enforcement agencies use the SPLC as a source for information on various groups. TFD (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding information on its relationship with the FBI, the SPLC is a primary source and we treat information from primary sources very carefully, in part because of its tendency to be self-serving. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

We treat primary sources carefully because they are usually not reliable. Some primary sources, for example court judgments, are highly reliable. A history of Oxford University or the biography of its chancellor published by the Oxford University Press would be highly reliable. The Institute of Chartered Accountants is a reliable source about the accounting profession. Mainstream newspapers are reliable sources for facts about their owners. TFD (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, but statements by . . . oh, let's just say the Southern Poverty Law Center about its importance to . . . oh, let's just say the Federal Bureau of Investigation, would require some corroboration. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we heard this complaint before and answered it with secondary sources. Remember? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I remember. The secondary sources said something completely different, and weaker, than either SPLC or the FBI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that the FBI is a secondary source here, right? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is considered a reliable source, however only with respect to their product. We have to treat this relationsip as a priamry source, as Badmintohist indicates. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC and FBI are both primary in this situation, by default. Possibly useful for statements of bare facts, but absolutely not usable for analytic or evaluative information. See: WP:PSTS. Belchfire-TALK 05:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, each is a secondary source for the other. In this article, the subject is the SPLC so it's a primary source for itself, while the FBI is a secondary source. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm. Show us where either the SPLC or FBI acts as a secondary source with respect to this relationship. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not important whether the sources are primary, secondary or tertiary, but whether they are reliable. Both the SPLC and FBI are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

TFD is right with regard to this context. If we were talking about weight, then we might question whether the sources we had were appropriate, but suggesting that neither the SPLC nor the FBI is a reliable source for the nature of the relationship between the two is nonsense. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For self serving statements, we don't generally use primary sources. Im not saying the statements ar self serving, but that claim has been raised. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you agree these aren't self-serving, let's move on. Logically, each organization is a reliable source for confirming the claims of the other with regard to its relationship. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no "generally" about it; we don't do it, period. It's not a question of whether they are reliable; it's a question of what kind of information we are talking about using. For primary sources, when it comes to plain facts (i.e., names, dates, etc.), yes we can usually use them. When it comes to any kind of analysis, evaluative claim, or statement of opinion, no we absolutely may not use them, and it doesn't matter how reliable anybody thinks the source is. See the policy - it's spelled out rather clearly, and it isn't negotiable or flexible. Belchfire-TALK 05:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing primary sources with self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. In the latter case, we can use information from organizations that are not reliable sources for non-controversial information such as their address and date of founding. However if an organization is a reliable source, for example the SPLC, a news organization, or a university publisher, then it is acceptable. The purpose of "self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" is to allow us to use sources that are not normally reliable, rather than to stop us from using reliable sources. A reliable source does not cease to be reliable because it mentions itself, while an unreliable source becomes reliable when it reports non-controversial information. TFD (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. You've got it half-right - we can use basic facts. But we can't use anything of an interpretive nature, and no amount of reliability changes that. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. " Belchfire-TALK 05:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, this means that we can't "interpret" primary source material because we're not qualified. We have to let a reliable secondary source do it. But there's no interpretation involved in a close paraphrase. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here actually suggesting a change in either the wording or the sourcing regarding the relationship between the SPLC and the FBI, or is this just a theoretical discussion? Badmintonhist (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose removing statements about any "relationship" between SPLC and law enforcement which are not reported by third-party sources (which means, other than SPLC and the the enforcement agencies in question). How much that leaves in the body is still open, to some extent, but the lede is OK at present (this revision). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose not doing what you propose, because that's not what WP:RS requires of us. You are arbitrarily raising the bar. I am holding you to community standards while rejecting your own. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with StillStanding. The request is absurd; we have two reliable sources saying they have a relationship—one which is very relevant to the mission of the SPLC. We also have plenty of secondary sources cited in earlier discussion to back it up. There is no question that this is relevant to the article and should remain. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of political rhetoric

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The 'Criticism of political rhetoric' section seems to be almost entirely the opinion of David Horowitz, mostly sourced from his own web site, FrontPageMag.com. I don't understand why such a relatively large portion of this article is devoted to one person's opinion, especially given his apparent bias.

Surely there are more critics of the SPLC such that we could cover the subject of criticism more broadly. — MrX 17:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Undoubtedly a result of argumentum ad temperantiam. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

David Horowitz' opinions are not representative of mainstream thinking. TFD (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

He seems a bit out there. I think we'd need some neutral secondary sources in order to give him enough credibility for inclusion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Just going to note that neither the editor who inserted this questionable material nor the one who restored it against apparent consensus has chosen to discuss their decisions here. That seems rather contrary to WP:BRD. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's usually how it works.

I've removed the paragraph in question, because it is relies on primary, self-serving sources. It is also covered in excessive detail. Before going back in, it needs secondary sources and needs to be summarized, as if it were going into an encyclopedia. – MrX 01:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Support this removal; UNDUE, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of FBI resource from lead

Latest comment: 11 years ago50 comments13 people in discussion

Starting a new section due to the jumble above. I see no reason to keep the "The SPLC is named as a resource by the FBI" sentence. This is problematic for several reasons:

The sources for this are primary sources
The FBI reference cited is a resource for website visitors. Calling it otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Most importantly, the weight is not significant to what the SPLC is all about. This is indicated by the complete lack of RS mentioning this "resource" relationship. What sources that do exist, don't establish weight.

I propose to remove this statement. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to removing this sentence. The multiple sources that StillStanding (24/7) has cited (in the original discussion, above), there seems to be a significant, notable partnership between the FBI and SPLC, inasmuch as the SPLC acts in a partnership; as a resource; undercover; etc. Of the various roles that the SPLC holds, this seems to be a significant one.

If "The SPLC is named as a resource by the FBI" is problematic, then I propose "The SPLC works closely in partnership with the FBI" as an alternative. — MrX 01:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

To directly address LGR's list:

False. We have primary, secondary and perhaps tertiary sources (depending on how you rate that book). The FBI is a secondary source both for listing the SPLC as a resource and for the press release[15].
False. There are two FBI references, not one. There is also nothing on the web page that suggests its not for LEO's.
False. Relationship with LEO's is a key part of how the SPLC does its job.

In short, I am unconvinced by your arguments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You should read up on what constitutes sources before commenting. You have it all wrong. I'll leave it to everyone else to interpret point 2 and your counterpoint. As for your point 3, you've made a claim without any sourcing. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

For ease, I've copied and linkified each of the sources provided by Still.

The Western Center for Journalism is a very questionable source. I'll leave it to other editors to read this article and decide for themselves if this is crackpot journalism. In any case the meat of the SPLC reference this article refers to is mentioned in the Intel Hub article
The Intel Hub a beacon of free speech that hosts many different ideas and topics that the corporate media is simply too scared to cover. This publication too is questionable; however this too relies on another source, the McCurtain Daily Gazette which references an undercover operation. This might be the "go to" source we need.
Daily Paul what appears to be an opinion blog of dubious reliability.
Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA
www.infowars.com/texbook-doublethink-splcs-latest-effort-attacks-constitutionalists/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} Infowars] is a opinion piece. It does reference [http://www.wnd.com/2004/01/22643/ wnd] which references an Oklahoma newspaper story I've been unable to locate. However the reporter in question also asserts that Iraq had a hand in the Oklahoma City bombing, so we would be wise to really question this source.

The Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA link provided fails to provide any detail of intelligence sharing by the SPLC to the FBI. In fact the book indicates the SPLC's quarterly magazine is simply "distributed" to law enforcement organizations.

After looking at the rest only the McCurtain Daily Gazette (whose article is contained in the Intel Hub article) seems reliable.

So what I see is one RS stating a single undercover infiltration the SPLC did in the mid 90’s and a magazine they distribute to LEO’s whose value is unknown. This is a far cry from calling them a resource of the FBI or even claiming that the SPLC is in a partnership with the FBI. One swallow does not a summer make. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What I see is a focus on sources that were brought up on the talk page but were never used in the article, so they can't be relevant to the attempt to remove mention of LEO interaction from the lead. In fact, some of these sources were brought up to show that even unreliable far-right views admit that the SPLC and LEO work together. Given their hatred for the SPLC, you'd think they'd join you in downplaying this link, as it obviously grants the SPLC credibility that the KKK or FRC lack.

If you're going to keep insisting that the lead should avoid summarizing the article, I see an RfC in our future. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, we need to include http://www.mccurtain.com/cgi-bin/okcscript.cgi?record=1346. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We already have consensus about removing LEO interaction from the lead, and that content has been removed.
This section is about removing the "FBI as a resource". I've listed the sources you provided in this section for easy access(and thank you for the additional one). Only two of those seem to be reliable, and neither of them indicate that the FBI uses the SPLC as a resource other than one infiltration operation in the 90's. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - There are enough sources to confirm the fact the FBI uses the SPLC as a resource for hate groups. There is no reason to remove it. Dave Dial (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Provide them and this should be an easy issue. The ones that I've seen so far indicate no such relationship. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Without specifically assessing the quality of those five sources, I regard them as as corroborating a primary source, namely the FBI.

In this case, I think the FBI can be used as a reliable source. From [[WP:RS]

"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

— MrX 03:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And what are the FBI claims as a PS? The only one I found was a mention of accepting "referrals" for pre 1969 civil rights crimes. I'd have no problem using that if it were attributed to that specifically. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Public Outreach: The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. These groups include such organizations as the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, and the National Disability Rights Network."

from here. I believe this supports the re-wording that I proposed above. — MrX 03:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How about The FBI has partnered with the SPLC and other civil rights organizations "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems"? The problem with your alternate version is that the qualifer "closely" and the partnership is nebulous. I'm not a fan of the inline quote, but I wouldn't be opposed to an accurate summarization. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing 'closely'. I recall reading that in one of the sources, but a direct quote would be the most appropriate, if we use the primary source. Of course, we should factor in comments from other editors in this section as well. — MrX 03:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be ok with your version if we exapanded on what the partnership actually was comprised of, which is why I used the quote. You have a way with prose, would you mind trying again and expand on or elaborate what is the partnership? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually meant to suggest that we go with the version that you proposed in your previous post, because it is a direct quote. I'm signing off for the evening. With this progress, I'm sure you fine editors can come up with a compromise that suits most everyone. If it's still not resolved tomorrow morning, I will see if I can help with the wording then. Good night. — MrX 04:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It is sourced and should be kept. The FBI relies on their research because the FBI is not allowed to investigate extremist groups unless the engage in breaking the law. (In the US, hate speech, which is illegal in many countries, is protected under the Bill of Rights.) TFD (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is sourced, then let's see the sources and we can put this to bed. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Already provided above. TFD (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of links on this page. Could you please just post it below? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the sources, or agree with them, doesn't preclude them. As was stated before, the FBI and SPLC have stated the connection between the two and the fact the FBI often uses the SPLC as a resource for certain cases. Here is another source. Boston Globe - August 13, 1999 "The FBI also works in tandem with such nonprofit agencies as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. "Law enforcement agencies come to us regularly" Dave Dial (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Where did I say I didn't agree with the above sources? I just questioned their reliabilty. The Boston Globe is indeed a RS. Could you provide a better link to that story? The link you provided does not even provide the quote you used. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The link provided by David Dial appears to be to a pay to see article and therefore not open to everyone to analyse and it's actual title is the "FBI is limited in battling hate groups" and the abstract states the reason is because the FBI cannot maintain files on hate groups. The article was written in 1999 and that premise, post 9-11 is simply not true anymore. Furthermore, like Little_green_rosetta, I cannot find the two significant quotations "FBI...works in tandem...with SPLC" nor "Law enforcement agencies come to us regularly: Yendor (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Quotations confirmed; I have database access. The FBI also works in tandem with such nonprofit agencies as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. "Law enforcement agencies come to us every day with questions about particular groups," said Mark Potok, a spokesman for the center, based in Montgomery, Ala. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your original research and opinions are noted. Neither have any effect on this issue or article, but are noted. It's one of several sources, and it is definitely reliable. Dave Dial (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to reply, but my Internet connection crashed. The second quote is entirely too self-serving to be usable; the first might be helpful, although it technically doesn't say that the FBI works with SPLC, only "such agencies as SPLC". There's just nothing with any significance in any reliable source. But, if someone has a proposed wording, with specific references which actually support them, we could go forward with that. The present wording is not supported by any of the three sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The second quote is from the same paragraph of the same article in a reliable secondary source. I don't find the second quote to be self serving at all; it seems pretty matter of fact and it was reported in a very reliable source (The Boston Globe). Besides that, verifiability not truth applies here. If there is some specific Wikipedia policy that you think is being contravened, please point it out. — MrX 13:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewording based on FBI and Boston Globe sources

I propose that we take the FBI quote and the quote from the Boston Globe and try to come up with one or two sentences for the lead. — MrX 13:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How about something along the lines with the folloiwng gist? Yes, we will need inline citations. But if that Globe article exists, then others must too.

The FBI has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems". Due to legal limitations, the FBI relies on the SPLC and other civil rights organizations in collecting data on hate groups. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me, although I would slightly prefer to leave out "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems" and convey the same limited role with fewer words. For example,

"The FBI has partnered in a cooperative role with the SPLC and other civil rights organizations to collect data on hate groups."

— MrX 13:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What about adding in the FBI legal limitation? That seems significant.

Yes, that's a good point. But then I struggle with writing it concisely, which suggests your version might be best. — MrX 14:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems". Due to legal limitations, the FBI relies on the SPLC and other civil rights organizations in collecting data on hate groups.^[1]

I hemmed and hawed on putting "alleged" in front of hate groups, but decided against it for now. The only part that nags at me ois the "collect data" piece, which should indicate what sort of data. What is it? Statistics, undercover operatives, etc. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot agree that the second quote is not self-serving. The Boston Globe is quoting SPLC saying "Law enforcement agencies come to us regularly." There are a number of psychics who make that same claim, but are unable to name the law enforcement agencies. Even if SPLC is reliable, that statement cannot be used support the truth of the statement, only that they claim it. Still, it's no longer being used to support the proposed wording.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. Any remaining ambiguities can be explained in the body of the article. I think it's safe to make the actual edit and get rid of the tag grenades. Worse case, making the edit will get others editors to help with the wording via WP:BRD. — MrX 18:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There remains a strong presence on any articles dealing with the SPLC that rely on delete first, discuss later. Having stated that it reads fine to me as well. Insomesia (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The only comment I have is that we lost track of the line about the SPLC providing education to LEO's. It's not just the FBI that the SPLC works with. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't lose track of it. It's not sourced to other than SPLC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

An organization saying that they are asked for help by law enforcement is not considered reliable, even if the organization were a peer-reviewed journal. It's self-reporting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like http://m.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120621/NEWS/206210348/1051/WAP06&template=wapart ? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to placing the SPLC's "offer" to LEO's in the body of the article, but placing it in the lead gives the impression that it is a much larger program, and a bigger part of the SPLC's activities than it actually is. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The claim was that we don't know whether the SPLC just offers it and nobody takes them up on the offer. I've refuted that claim, and now you have a new, vaguer one, which is that you think it makes the program sound larger than it is. Well, we never said how large the program is, so that can't be the case. Moreover, what matters here is how important working the LEO's is to the SPLC, where in-person training is just one component. So, on the whole, I don't find your objections consistent or convincing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, have you considered the possibility that no one here thinks the same about your arguments? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's more likely that sane editors don't want to take part in the endless bickering of a subset of disgruntled conservative leaning editors who seem to enjoy arguing enough to drive away sensible people who don't want to stew in a toxic environment.Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's now a weight problem, rather than an SPS problem. The statement does make the program sound larger than I believe it is, and it would be nice to have even SPLC's statement on how large the program is (in the body). Unfortunately, it is impossible for there to be primary, not-SPLC, reliable information, as to how large the program is, and unlikely to have secondary reliable information. It still doesn't belong in the lead, as noted in the section below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Properly, the weight should be acknowledged as important to SPLC. George Michael, Associate Professor of Nuclear Counterproliferation and Deterrence at the USAF Air War College, writes that SPLC's and ADL's programs of sharing information with the FBI are "by far the most effective mechanism for countering the extreme right". He is saying that the sharing of data with the FBI by SPLC and to a greater extent ADL is more important than the "feared" but controversial lawsuits that SPLC has taken against right-wing groups to punish them for the actions of their (usually) young male members. Michael writes that the "cumulative effort of these NGOs" (ADL, SPLC, mostly) "have done much to neutralize the extreme Right in the United States." This puts SPLC's connection to the FBI at or near the top of all of its other efforts. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Curiously, I see nothing in about the FBI in our article on the ADL which, according to Michael, makes a more important contribution than the SPLC to countering hate groups. 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Badmintonhist (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Badmintonhist. I believe this link will be helpful to you. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Geez, Blax, are you 95 percent retired now? Can't you edit in the material yourself?? Regards, nontheless. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Badmintonhist, sorry for the delayed reply. I wasn't the one identifying a problem in other articles. Since you identified the lack of information over at ADL, why do you believe the onus is on me to expand it? I will be happy to work with you on some appropriate language and sourcing; please reach out to me on my talk page. Best regards! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

References

^ http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/43901842.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+13%2C+1999&author=Anne+E.+Kornblut%2C+Globe+Staff&pub=Boston+Globe&desc=FBI+limited+in+battling+hate+groups&pqatl=google

Verification.

Latest comment: 11 years ago44 comments6 people in discussion

Here's the paragraph that Arthur Rubin recently added tags to:

The SPLC has collaborated with the US Department of Homeland Security to establish guidelines for combating extremism by such means as defining and inculcating terminology and partnership with community-based organizations such as churches, schools, and other civic organizations.<ref>Homeland Security Advisory Council (Spring 2010). [http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hsac_cve_working_group_recommendations.pdf "Countering Violent Extremism Working Group"], p. 9,15</ref>{{verification failed}} Richard Cohen, president and CEO of the SPLC, was part of the Countering Violent Extremism Working Group for the Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2010.<ref>Homeland Security Advisory Council (Spring 2010). [http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hsac_cve_working_group_recommendations.pdf "Countering Violent Extremism Working Group"], p. 27</ref>{{off-topic-inline|the SPLC president is a member of the Council, but SPLC is not a "member"}}

Arthur's tags turn out to be false, so I'll be removing them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

They are not false. Please read the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I did read the source, and it supports the passages it's cited by. Do you have a specific complaint? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to note for the record that you just violated WP:BRD by restoring the tags. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I note for the record that your edits are against Wikipedia guidelines (for the first part) and facts (for the second part). For the first part, even a reliable organization's editorial guidelines should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. For the second, the document says nothing about SPLC on pages 9, 15, or 27 (other than, on page 27, that the (then) current president of SPLC is on the task force.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Rubin, I'm noticing an interesting pattern in which you appear to be artificially raising the reliability bar for the SPLC. The document explicitly lists Cohen as CEO of the SPLC, which means he was there in that capacity. In fact, it lists each of the members with their current organizational affiliation. This is more than enough to show that the SPLC, through its CEO, participated. If you disagree, go file a complaint on WP:NPOVD or even WP:BLPN so that more patient people can explain to you just why you are mistaken. Being an admin does not mean that your interpretation of policy is correct. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And here's another nail for this coffin: the page of "Subject matter experts" lists "Laurie Wood", "Analyst, Southern Poverty Law Center/Instructor, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center". This shows that the SPLC was brought in as the SPLC and for its expertise. It also shows the DHS acknowledging her role in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which supports what the article says about training the feds. This is incontrovertible. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec x2)WP:BRD, to the extent it's a guideline, does not allow removal of tags under discussion. I admit that you removed the tags before I started the discussion, but only ten minutes after I added the first tag.

Your statement that each of the task force members is there because of their affiliation with the organization could possibly sourced, but it doesn't follow from this document alone. Even if your argument were correct, it doesn't support any mention of SPLC in pages 9 or 15, as claimed in the first reference in that section. I didn't read the entire document, but I read the pages quoted, but SPLC and/or "Southern Poery Law Center" are only mentioned on page 27.

As an example of a government task force in which at least some of the affiliations are for information only, Professor Nimmer was on a government copyright task force, but it's because of his individual reputation, not because of the listed academic affiliation.

The same applies to Laurie Wood, although that's a little more likely that her expertise should be attributed to SPLC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at Asli Bali, "Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law" (also p. 27). That cannot possibly be the reason he's on the task force, nor would it likely be appropriate to mention the task force in the article on the UCLA School of Law. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your misreading of this document is tendentious. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ALFALFA!!! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoa -- do you realize how silly your last post is? The fact is that SPLC was not cited as a source or member of the task force - though 2 people who are employed by SPLC appear to have been used as "experts." Arthur is spot on here ... your wording of the claim makes the clear inference that SPLC qua SPLC was used, when absolutely no text in the report bears out any such inference at all. And the "report" is almost laughable as an exercise in "committee reports" - did you actually read it? I suspect a group of high school students could have done the exact same report <g>. And using it for a strong claim about the SPLC being used as an organization? Nope. Sorry Still24 -- you are exceedingly far off-base on this one! Collect (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How is the involvement of an organization's CEO and President in a working group not relevant to an article on said organization? Maybe the first sentence in that section could be reworded to only note that leading members of the SPLC were involved in the working group, but such high-level involvement certainly merits a mention. It is not the same as a college professor being involved since they are not typically seen as being the public face of the university, while CEO's are seen as the public face of the organization.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how such groups operate and the vast numbers of company CEOs with laundry lists of taskforces they have served on? And being a member of a taskforce with a report like the one which was emitted -- is pretty meaningless, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So, if an oil company CEO is on a government energy task force that issues statements about how to pursue energy policy, would you insist we not mention this in the article on said oil company because it is "irrelevant"?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If I noticed it, yes. In that case, though, you could probably find a marginally reliable source to make the connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a pretty ridiculous argument then. Any objective person can see that it is relevant. Not sure what prevents you from seeing that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur on this - and find your apparent lack of good faith objectionable here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith does not mean assuming good arguments or sound reasoning nor does it mean assuming objectivity. Not sure why this material of obvious relevance is so objectionable, but I cannot think of any objective reason for claiming it is not relevant to the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how any rational person, using only the source presented for that section, would believe the first sentence accurate or the second sentence relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct: you don't see. The limitation here is yours. Just because you lack the ability to see something does not mean that the rest of us share your blindness.

You have this notion of a "rational person" that appears to be indistinguishable from a person who agrees with you. Those who disagree are, by implication, "irrational". This manichean dualism is why your attitude is routinely condescending, insulting, and uncivil.

Arthur, let me offer you some sympathetic advice: you're in over your head. Your expertise in one narrow field does not grant you general competence that translates to others. I believe you when you say you can't see it, which is why I ascribe your persistent failures to incompetence, not malice.

However, it doesn't matter which of the two it is. You need to stop acting as if you are the final arbiter and start acting like an editor who is aware of their limitations and willing to compromise to work around them. Humility is not merely a virtue, for you it is a necessity. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. There is nothing in that article to indicate that SPLC works with DHS, even assuming the article is reliable. (It's not published by DHS itself, but by the Working Group.) The President of SPLC is a member of the group, and one of the employees is a resource person for the group. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is actually not even a recommendation that DHS or the Working Group work with SPLC, although that could be rationally concluded from three pages of the document plus some (generally) accepted facts about SPLC. That seems like synthesis to me, though, as the facts are not self-evident. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that my advice went right over your head, because your response is preposterous. You deny that there's anything linking the SPLC with the DHS, but here we have a document published by the DHS which says the opposite. It's right there! If you remain unconvinced, this will have to be your personal burden, but it does not weigh on us. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It does not assert (or even direct recommend) that SPLC work with DHS. And it's not "published" (in the sense of editorial control) by DHS; it's published by the Working Group (which, in your mind, includes SPLC, but, in any case, includes the president of SPLC). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You said it's not published by DHS, yet the URL is in dhs.gov. Which is it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a PP presentation which is not published, not a RS. AR is correct to conclude a link like you are with this PP presentation is original research. Arzel (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect across the board. It is an Adobe PDF document, not a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. It is published on their web site; that's a form of publishing and has been for decades now. And there is no original research involved as it's spelled out clearly in that document. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You factually have no idea what you are talking about or at least have never attended a conference. Turning a PP presentation into a PDF is pretty common. We do not use presentations as RS's here in WP. The original research is you assuming that because the working group gave a presentation that it implies that the SPLC is working with the DHS in some formal manner. Arzel (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked the internal tags in the PDF file, but it looks as if it's a PP document which has been "printed" to PDF. It's "publisned" in a sense, but not in a sense that it is subject to DHS's editorial control. SPLC is not mentioned in the body of the document, so any indication of cooperation between SPLC and DHS is original research. And, finally, attributing the actions of the president of SPLC to SPLC requires a reliable source to that effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're not denying that it's a PDF, you're just bringing up the trivial point that you believe it to have PowerPoint origins because you imagine this undermines it somehow? I suggest you read WP:RS more carefully. This isn't a journalistic document, so the notion of editorial control doesn't correspond well. What we know is that the DHS published this PDF on its web site. If you want to infer that this means the contents are not being endorsed in any way by the DHS, you would have to justify this inference on some non-arbitrary basis. The document is itself evidence of cooperation between the SPLC and DHS. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you want to infer that the contents are being endorsed in any way by the DHS, you would have to justify that inference. And the document is evidence of cooperation between employees of SPLC and the task force. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That claim is absolutely preposterous. We have a document published by the DHS showing a relationship, period. That it just happens to involve the CEO of the SPLC and fit directly within the mission of the SPLC is either a remarkable coincidence or corroborating evidence. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

'That claim should be absurd to anyone who has actually worked for a contractor for a government agency. I have actually authored statements which were posted (I wouldn't have said "published", but it's as good as the document in question, here) on the FAA web site, but were not considered the official position of the FAA. Whether the task force my employer was a member of is a "reliable source" is a separate question as to whether the FAA is a "reliable source". I like to think we did adequate fact-checking, and we were tasked by the FAA to do adequate fact-checking. However, the particular document I authored was the opinion of my employer, presented to the task force. I should add, however, that documents created by the task force were usually advice to the FAA. That also seems to be the case for this document; it consists of advice from the task force to DHS, and does not necessarily represent the view of DHS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only have I worked for a government contractor, I've also represented non-profits on similar occasions. But I'm not going to comment on that experience here, because it would amount to both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and is not admissible. Kerfuffler (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

But I will say that your apparent notion that “DHS” and the “task force” (a.k.a. working group) are somehow disjoint is patently ridiculous. Kerfuffler (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The task force is not part of DHS, and does not speak with DHS's reliablility. However, as the statements aren't supported by the document, we don't really need to go there. Adding additional tags, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, we're already there, so come join us. Your stubborn refusal to accept the contents of this document is not persuasive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're there, but the document isn't a DHS document. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. The document is published on the official DHS web site and outlines what their task force is doing. This seems to be yet another case of raising the bar arbitrarily high. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible I didn't explain myself adequately. Let me just say that a "task force" speaks for itself; it doesn't speak for the parent/sponsoring organization unless that organization explictly approves. That is, even if the document supported the statements attributed to it, which it does not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also possible that you're mistaken, so the clearer the explanation, the less sense it makes as an argument. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC Voice?

Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

With this edit I reverted what was clearly vandalism. Along comes Little green rosetta with this edit to restore the vandalism -- the explanation "not in Wikipedias voice". Of course, it was already in the SPLC's voice -- the top of the section said, "The SPLC reported that 926 hate groups were active in the United States in 2008, up from 888 in 2007. These included:" I went ahead and added a redundant "by the SPLC" -- "problem" solved. Still, with all the controversies on this article it would help if editors would think a little before reflexively reverting. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the edit you reverted was "clearly vandalism" then I suggest it's time for you to step away from this article. While the ip editor made a change you disagreed with, it wasn't even close to what constitutes vandalism, In my view the ip had a point, the descriptions were using Wikipedia's voice. You fixed this. Your assertion that this should have been obvious because of the section heading apparently wasn't obvious to the ip editor. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Really -- an IP with this editing history deletes language with NO EXPLANATION AT ALL isn't committing vandalism. You say, "In my view the ip had a point". Really -- how exactly did the IP communicate what his/her point was? I didn't think ESP worked over the Internet. I issued a level 1 warning so the IP can respond if they choose -- preferably by a more traditional means of communication. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the ip edits fall under the examples inWP:VANDAL. You reverted content you disagreed with. No big deal, but don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am also mystified as to why the North Shoreman would consider the edit in question vandalism. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Ownership issues maybe?

Allow me to help out: removal of material for no stated reason is vandalism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't see that here: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't see it, it's because you're mistaken about the nature of vandalism. Randomly cutting words you dislike is vandalism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The IP editor's removal of the two words was not at all random. I can see his/her basic rationale for the changes readily enough, which is not to say I agree with those changes. No, edits that merely annoy us are not necessarily vandalism. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC) PS: I suppose I should have placed the Wikipedia definition of vandalism in my previous comment that I cut from the MOS in quotation marks. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If an editor leaves an edit comment, we can look at their stated objection and compare it to their actions. When there is no stated reason, we can only assume it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what IDONTLIKEIT really is about. But yes, in this case we can assume the ip editor didn't like the text in question. So they changed it. It wasn't vandalism. Tom restored the text and fixed the voice issue. I think we are done with this. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Gotta disagree with you on that one, StillStanding-247. The point of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is conversations where one side plugs their ears and obstinately refuses to participate in discussion. This is not a case of that. —Kerfuffler 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, vandalism concerns "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and in this case an IP removed some unnecessary and contentious qualifiers that were being used in the editorial voice in violation of WP:W2W. I do not believe the removal of these terms was in any way an attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Appears to have been a good-faith removal by an anonymous editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Lot of people reading an IP's mind based on absolutely nothing factual. That's why we have level 1 warnings which I issued in this case:

Hello, I'm North Shoreman. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The edit as made by the IP did not correct the alleged voice issue -- rather it changed what the wikipedia voice was saying. What Little Green did by his/her edit was to put in wikipedia's voice (according to her allegations) the claim that the SPLC had designated "traditionalist Catholic groups" as hate groups when the fact is that the designation only applied to "radical traditionalist Catholic groups." If it really was about "voice" and not just a knee jerk reaction, then Green could have easily "fixed" it rather than simply reverting.

You also miss the point that the entire section was already in SPLC's voice as I've shown above. All my alleged correction did was to create a redundancy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I made some effort to address my concerns and presumably those of the IP. Note that the other parts of the list do not make such liberal use of the word "hate" even when it concerns groups that are not immediately identifiable as hate groups.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The net effect of the IP's edit (and Green's revert) was to include MORE Catholics and MORE Catholic doctrine under the category of hate groups. How exactly do you know that this was not their intent? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone is proposing to change the wording in question again, this dialogue is now becoming quite gratuitous. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This thread was collapsed (by me), and IRWolfie for some unknown reason uncollapsed the thread and and asked "why is this closed?". I say unknown, because two editors feel there is nothing left to accomplish in this thread and have clearly stated so. But since IRWolfie thinks there is more to discuss, let's hear what he has to say. After he's had his turn, will someone please put the carcass back in the freezer? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion is not even a day old. It's not your call to cut off discussions just because you don't like them. Let's see whether other folks want to contribute and let the archive bot do its job at the appropriate time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have made the same edit as North Shoreman but I would not have called it vandalism. I would have said it was a good faith effort but against NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What matters isn't so much the age of the discussion as the point(lessness) of the discussion. What are we doing here? Determining whether or not the North Shoreman should have called a particular edit vandalism? I've had my two cents on that; anyone else care to contribute? But where does that lead us? Now, if someone actually thinks that the IP editor was correct, or doesn't like something else about the current phrasing of the passage in question, that's a different story. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

[1] ttp://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/43901842.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+13%2C+1999&author=Anne+E.+Kornblut%2C+Globe+Staff&pub=Boston+Globe&desc=FBI+limited+in+battling+hate+groups&pqatl=google

[1]