Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Study: Southern Poverty Law Center Ignores Liberal Hate

Has this academic study on SPLC's alleged liberal bias already been integrated into the article? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it has not. Be bold. If you aren't feeling bold, suggest a proposed addition here at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea to be bold right now as it would be a good idea to discuss it first - if we are going to add it, it has got to be in a way that meets NPOV, we can't just add what it says. I had an edit conflict with your post, which I'm glad happened. The link shows that it's published by the National Association of Scholars, a conservative advocacy group.

Also take a look at [1] from Media Matters for America.

It's being promoted by anti-gay Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute which the SPLC has called an anti-LGBT hate group .

Mediamatters charges the claim that it's a study, and says it really concentrates on attacking the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Yancey's main interest seems to be anti-Christian activity, and as this group seems to have been very successful, it's an obvious target. Yancey has "denounced what he called the often "downright hateful" views of cultural progressives, asserting that many liberals' views are "born out of fear and irrationality." Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's anti-gay, anti-contraception, anti-UN, anti-international law Austin Ruse. — goethean 14:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Academic Questions, the journal this is in, is the journal of the National Association of Scholars, which sounds like a real educational organization but is actually a conservative pressure group which has as its goal opposition to multiculturalism. I'm sure no one in that journal/organization would ever say anything bad about anti-racist groups. /sarcasm –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, the author, George Yancey, is a serious and respectable scholar. We often let the reputation of the author override the reputation of the publisher as in, e.g., the extreme case of WP:SPS. Does anyone actually have a copy of the article?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to Yancey article here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12129-014-9411-x#page-1 Defensor1956 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's paywalled, but it turns out Breitbart put it on docstore here. Is that even legal? Who cares, I guess.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

He's a serious scholar, but he is also quite clearly an opponent of anything that smacks of atheism or anti-Christianity (specifically conservative Christianity from reading his essay). This doesn't seem to be a serious study - which is presumably why it isn't in an academic journal. I've downloaded that, you have to go through a lot of hoops. It's an essay and Yancey doesn't call it a study. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Read it over quickly (to summarize for you all) and his points seem to be these: 1. FRC isn't really a hate group because maybe gays are child molesters, Regnerus and other anti-gay activists say that gay parenting is bad, and NAMBLA exists; 2. SPLC's failure to identify the Military Religious Freedom Foundation as a hate group discredits all its work and disagreeing with the tactics of fundamentalist Christian proselytizers, in language that is hyperbolic but specifically identifies them as fundamentalists, is the same thing as hating all Christians; 3. Christians are a persecuted minority in the US. Seems like it's a pet cause, nothing else. I don't think this justifies an IAR (the R being WP:RS) here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll read it. I wasn't arguing for its inclusion, but just against its automatic dismissal based on the crap journal it was published in given that Yancey is an actual serious sociologist given where else he's published.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not even sure why this is a debate. The SLPC self acknowledges that they don't cover liberal hate groups. "“We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.” " Though anyone that knows anything about them would see this as quite obvious. Arzel (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point. On the other hand, Yancey would be far from the first academic to publish an article proving something that everyone already knew anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"The SLPC self acknowledges that they don't cover liberal hate groups" - Uhhh, that is some kind of logic there. They "acknowledge" no such thing. Dave Dial (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems they they do acknowledge that here:

He felt the need to keep explaining, so I let him. We only ever cover left-wing groups when they have a right-wing component, he told me. For example, “when anarchist groups are infiltrated by those on the right; Neo-Nazis, that sort of thing.”

I asked whether this was a little like the way the French do masculine and feminine plurals; that if there are a thousand women and one man, it becomes masculine. In other words, that the SPLC covers a group if there is even a minute “right-wing” component. “Yes, I suppose so,” he said.

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A blog or op-ed piece in the National Review reporting an interview with an anonymous person at the SPLC? Nope, that isn't the SPLC acknowledging anything. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For Pete's sake. No, "they" do not. A quote from an anon source in a opinion blog is not some kind of evidence that the SPLC doesn't cover "liberal hate groups"(which is defined by what anyway?, and how is the extreme left being defined as "liberal"?). Far be it from me to state that someone has a bias, but if I saw some anon source being quoted from an organization that I didn't already have a bias against, I would not take that as 100% proof of that organizations policies. Far from it. Dave Dial (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The NR is not a reliable source and this appears to be a misrepresentation. The SPLC monitors hate groups, regardless of political orientation. Hate involves racism, anti-semitism, islamophobia, anti-semtism, homophobia, etc., attitudes not typical of left-wing groups. Furthermore, there are far fewer left-wing groups in the U.S. than right-wing groups, and violence by left-wing groups today is minimal.

Yancey's opinion might be mentioned provided we use reliable secondary sources such as MediaMatters. But at this point it appears to be just an isolated comment, more relevant to his article than to this one.

TFD (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha that is laughable. MMfA is reliable and NR is not?!? Seriously, let us take our heads out of the sand here. You can only piss on someone for so long and still have them believe it is raining. Arzel (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It is only laughable to you because you think that while mainstream media and academic writing does not. I would point out that mainstream media, police and academic take SPLC analysis seriously, and they do not provide parity to the views of hate groups. TFD (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

After reading Yancey's article, I'd have to say it's not relevant. It's hyperspecific, and compares the SPLC's listing of FRC as a hate group with their nonlisting of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. It draws general conclusions from this, but Yancey doesn't claim it's social science. Its an opinion piece, seemingly consciously so. So I guess, per Dougweller, I don't see any reason to discuss this in here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I must agree. It is more than possible that their are left wing groups that could designated as hate groups. But how can the Military Religious Freedom Foundation be a hate group. It fights for everyone (that's right everyone) to have religious freedom in the military. And none of its policies are attacking one group in particular and not all religious groups. If you can actually find a left wing group that is attacking very specific groups then feel free to call the SPLC and talk to them about it. Just make sure they are actually anti-_______ and you are not just trying to stir up the pot.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You know a great example of a true organization the SPLC would list as an extreme left hate group could be one that wants to make employment discrimination against conservatives legal or maybe those that do an active witch hunt and hunt down conservatives to kill them. These would be great organizations to talk to the SPLC about.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide an example of a left-wing hate group, then please do so and we can write to the SPLC. TFD (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This argument was had 2 years ago. The SPLC ignores socialist anarchist groups. It refuses to list them as violent hate groups despite leftist ideologically driven rioting, murderm and seizure of public and private property. For details of anarchists groups in america begin here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States. At the end of this discussion (which I will try and find in the archive) it was agreed that SPLC is biased towards 'right wing extremism' generally and racial supremacy issues.

SPLC no longer on FBI page

Okay, I do not see what the issue is. The reference fails verification plain and simple. SPLC is no longer listed under "Resources" on http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/hate_crimes. It was listed in the resources section, as seen here, but no longer is. Thus the statement is no longer true and should be removed. We do not need a press release from the FBI saying it was removed. Please explain why a false statement should be kept in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Because there are MANY sources that state the FBI works with the SPLC to combate hate crimes. Also, SPLC is still listed as an outreach partner for investigating hate crimes listed as cold cases. You absolutely have to have a statement from the FBI to remove the link AND the wording. Period. Even if it was true up until today and they really are not working with the SPLC anymore, they have worked with them before so the wording would just be changed. NOT removed. Dave Dial (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. Take a brief moment to read the edit. I removed "The Southern Poverty Law Center is listed under the resources section of the Federal Bureau of Investigation web page on hate crimes." because it's no longer true. The reference given for the statement fails verification because IT'S NOT ON THE WEBPAGE. The statement is false. The other page of the edit is the removal of that same reference from the statement "The FBI has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems". Due to legal limitations on the FBI, it relies on the SPLC and other civil rights organizations in collecting data on hate groups." The reference does not support that claim. SPLC is not mentioned on the linked webpage. The other references remain and thus the statement itself remains.

Frankly I have no clue what you are talking about. I am not arguing that the FBI no longer uses SPLC. I am saying SPLC is no longer linked on its webpage. We cannot use the FBI webpage as a source for the claim that they rely on SPLC because it's not there. Again, please read the actual edit contents before jumping to some wild conclusion and demanding a press release. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In other words, if the FBI issues a statement that it has ended using the SPLC as a resource, it can be reworded. Changing - "The Southern Poverty Law Center is listed under the resources section of the Federal Bureau of Investigation web page on hate crimes." to "The Southern Poverty Law Center has been listed as a resource under the FBI resources section of the Federal Bureau of Investigation web page on hate crimes.". But there is no reason to completely remove the text and source. Also, I will let you self revert, or I am reporting you to WP:3RR. Dave Dial (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR. I have made 3 reverts. Revert of Anomie bot does not count as I was removing kruft from the original removal. You are welcome to add your second sentence with a link to the Wayback Machine. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The SPLC is no longer listed on the FBI website as a resource. That fact does not appear to be under contention. It is erroneous to say that it is there, and thus a violation of Wikipedia guidelines to claim that it is. What is this argument about again? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No idea... trying to ascertain that myself. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that, since the FBI no longer lists the Southern Poverty Law Center under the resources section of the FBI web page on hate crimes, we should not state that it does list it. Stating that it used to list it is verifiable, per Internet Archive (shown above). But present tense? Again, no. So this latest revert is correct. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a bit silly. Even if we had a reliable secondary source pointing out that the SPLC was listed as a resource, the fact that we could independently confirm that it no longer is should necessarily lead us to remove or reword that statement in spite of NOR. But when the source is the FBI website, which no longer lists the SPLC - it's ridiculous! We don't have to and shouldn't remove information about FBI-SPLC collaboration, and I don't see anything wrong with saying it was a Resource in the past, but clearly it isn't listed anymore. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/27/no-the-fbi-hasnt-ditched-the-southern-poverty-l/198645 Gamaliel (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

See the Media Matters for America, which is a reliable source and accurately reports the echo chamber story. "[T]he FBI continues to report the SPLC as a partner in the fight against hate crimes on its website."[2] TFD (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the Media Matters for America article, it is a "politically progressive media watchdog group that says it is 'dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media'." That does not sound very neutral as a source. Bahooka (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEUTRAL and WP:RS are two separate policies. Few reliable sources are neutral. TFD (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. Few sources are completely neutral. However, even fewer are quite so unabashedly proud of their lack of neutrality like Media Matters. JayHubie (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, that has nothing to do with reliability. MMfA may wish to portray the right-wing media as factually inaccurate, and many of them are. But they do that by finding examples of inaccurate reporting rather than making up examples of inaccurate reporting. Academic sources, which are the most reliable sources, almost never are written from a neutral point of view. That is because the whole reason for most academic writing is to present viewpoints, well supported and taking into account other possible interpretations and presenting the facts accurately. And as a study of U.S. media shows, all media is biased, but mainstream media is more closely biased to the mainstream of U.S. views. TFD (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So then it should be perfectly acceptable to use Breitbart to source this claim, right? (And the author of that article has a journalism degree, too.)JayHubie (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about using it as a source in the article, it's about preventing us from reporting factual inaccuracies in the article, as some editors above have proposed. Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Couple of problems with the Media Matters source. First, it is a blog and subject to Wikipedia's guidelines using blogs as sources, specifically: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." So the author of that particular blog post is Carlos Maza. He is Media Matters' LGBT Program Director and therefore is neither a professional journalist nor an expert in the field which he is writing (i.e. about the workings of the FBI). Therefore, his blog post cannot be considered a reliable source on the matter. Additionally, this was reported in the Washington Examiner by Paul Bedard who actually IS a journalist who has worked for U.S. News & World Report. JayHubie (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What was "reported"? Nothing but speculation and innuendos by a "Washington Secrets" tabloid hack. MMFA is far more reliable than Bedard or the WE. Dave Dial (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that's based on your completely unbiased view of Bedard, WE, and MM. JayHubie (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

Emphasis mine. Doesn't sound like reporting. — goethean 21:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad Wikipedia doesn't base things on what one person or another thinks "doesn't sound like reporting." JayHubie (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what an opinion column is? — goethean 21:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Here is a prime example: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/27/no-the-fbi-hasnt-ditched-the-southern-poverty-l/198645 JayHubie (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as we attribute it to Media Matters we can use it. We aren't going to restrict anything about this only to writers who are experts on the FBI. And of course the FBI still mentions the SPLC so we can't suggest it doesn't. " 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."[3]. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you are running afoul of the Wikipedia guideline regarding blogs I shared above. The MM page is a blog and the author is neither a journalist nor an expert on the FBI. To use the one FBI page in and of itself is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding primary sources. JayHubie (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the claim that the SPLC is not on an FBI page, added the link to the correct page mentioning it. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course you have despite there being no consensus on the matter. You do realize that the FBI page, besides being a primary source, doesn't necessarily indicate a current relationship between the FBI and those groups, right? JayHubie (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Media Matters' non-reliable opinion blog seems to be the only source denying this and, like you, is basing it on pretty flimsy proof. It's quite outnumbered. JayHubie (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

MMfA is not reliable for anything other than their opinion, but it is not surprising to see the same crowd touting it as an example of fine journalism. </sarc> Arzel (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Readded and tweaked statement Dougweller removed. Fact remains that the link to SPLC was removed from the FBI's hate crime home page. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely not Consensus to add that to the article, nor for rewording the Lede. The wording of the Lede went through a RFC style discussion and the wording was agreed on by many editors. Dave Dial (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be the only one against these edits (again). Not every edit needs to be hashed to death on the talk page. These edits are factual and measured. Frankly I don't care if you remove stuff from the lead, but it's nonsense to remove it from the body of the article without raising specific Wiki policy issues. These changes are well-sourced and constructive. Your reversion of dozens of edits is not. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

For f***:'s sake, can no minor, factual edits be done without a committee? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

While some editors may object to the SPLC for calling racist, homophobic, anit-Muslim, anti-Semitic groups etc. "hate groups", their classifications are widely accepted. TFD (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Given your indent, that appears to be in reply to me. But it makes no sense to me given that no one I can see is questioning that. The edit you and DD2K undid was the inclusion of a sentence explaining that the FBI removed SPLC and the ADL from their Resources list on their Hate Crimes page, despite it being oversourced. What is the issue here? No policy has been raised as to why anyone objects to this inclusion. DD2K previously objected to factual statements being added and that appears to be the case here. Dougweller originally removed it, so let's ask them... EvergreenFir (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact that the link was removed. It's also a fact that the only sources touting this appear to be conservative sources. I've searched for mainstream sources mentioning it and failed. Now it's possible someone can find one or two (actually the Washngton Times covered it), but it's obvious that this hasn't been seen as significant by more neutral sources. 'Oversourced' is incorrect - "several rightwing sources" would be more accurate. WP:UNDUE is the policy that applies here. Interesting that most of the sources don't mention the FBI quote giving the reason why they removed the various links they removed. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I feel it would be UNDUE if we hashed it further or speculated as to the reason for it (as past edits did), but to mention their removal alone does not seem UNDUE. It's just a statement of the facts. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

But there are a lot of facts that we don't state because of WP:UNDUE. And stating it as a bare fact is I would argue undue. Why is this significant enough to include? Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, if something is only mentioned in fringe right-wing sources, then it is unimportant and those sources are not rs anyway. If mainstream sources ignore something then it is unimportant. Instead of reading fringe sources and trying to add their info to articles, read mainstream sources and put in what they say. TFD (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, the addition is undue weight. The sources listed are POV and are only rumors and innuendos. As for your claim that only I object, you seem to have not read this thread. In addition to me, there is Roscelese, Gamaliel, TFD, Goethean and Dougweller. There is no consensus to add that to the article nor change the Lede. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think young EvergreenFir is getting an excellent education in the way things work around here when it comes to "politically sensitive" articles. Notice how ol' TFD twice reduced the amount of the SPLC's endowment even though the larger figure was sourced to the SPLC itself (the figure is probably even larger than 245.3 million presently in the article since another year has passed). As for the SPLC's presumably close relationship with the FBI in our article notice how sparsely it is sourced, and notice how it kind'a implies an exclusive reliance on the SPLC by not mentioning the laundry list of other organizations that the FBI webpage also mentions in passing. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we dial back the battleground mentality please? If you have a complaint or concern regarding another editor's changes, please phrase it in a less confrontational and more productive manner. Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The relationship between the SPLC and the FBI is explained in many rs such as Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance, pp. 31-32. (George Michael, Vanderbilt University Press).[4] The reality is that most rs find hate speech objectionable and it is illegal in most developed countries although allowed in the U.S. under their Bill of Rights. Incidentally, I reversed an edit because most of it was wrong. I have no objections to including the updated value of the endowment. TFD (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, we can if you can. Your sillytags on Bedard's reporting that a link to SPLC is no longer on the FBI Hate Crimes page indicate a battleground mentality. TFD did you a favor by deleting them. Here's a koan for you: what does Wikipedia need less than another POV-pushing admin? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

100px

TFD, are you referring to this edit you made? If so, your edit was vandalism, pure and simple. You "incidentally" reversed an edit because "most of it was wrong"? Oh? Can you be a little more specific, please? Exactly which of my edits there is "wrong"? None of it was wrong, as far as I can tell. Please explain yourself, and I expect details. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

71.x, between your recent edit summaries and some of the comments above, you're moving into personal attacks. Please tone it down. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Acro, I admire any sysop who can admit he made a mistake, reverse himself and apologize, as you did today with IP 128.x. re Jeanne Calment. Per your request, I will back off. (I can see I'm outnumbered!) But let the record show that the mass reverts that Dave Dial (DD2K) and The Four Deuces (TFD) did to my recent edits were largely vandalism. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's still incorrect, and hardly an example of "backing off." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

IP, please read Wikipedia's policy on vandalism at WP:VANDAL. None of the reversions of your edits are vandalism and your accusations are personal attacks. If you continue your personal attacks, you may be blocked from editing. TFD (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

71.x, thank your. Humility is a virtue, and I try to practice it when pride allows. Following up on one's commitments is another virtue, yet I see you repeating the same action right after committing to stop. Acroterion (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You removed well-sourced and relevant info. If not vandalism, what was it? Roger (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism is defined as "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property", in this case WikiProperty, namely, my edits. If the reverts of my constructive edits were not WP:VANDALISM then how would you characterize them? Anyone? EvergreenFir knew the reverts were not kosher; why are the rest of you having so much trouble seeing that? (It ain't rocket surgery, to coin a phrase.) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_wrongly_accuses_others_of_vandalism: "Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion." You've been repeatedly warned about civility on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

100px

So we're at that point now, huh? Inserting images as if this were some stupid online forum instead of actually making rational, reasoned arguments in a discussion? Sad. JayHubie (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I used the word "vandalism" to describe what was done to my edits and I may have been incorrect, technically, as regards policy. But, as you can see, they're more concerned about telling me to shut up and go away than they are about discussing what was done to my edits. Still no answers to my questions. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are willing to discuss the disputed edits in civil terms, then the other editors should be willing to do so as well. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, Gamaliel, thank you for looking into the issue more closely; I just don't think my efforts would be worthwhile, so I'll go play somewhere else. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

71.178.50.222 said: "I used the word 'vandalism' to describe what was done to my edits and I may have been incorrect, technically, as regards policy." (20:02, 31 March 2014)

You were right to use "vandalism," Number 71.178.50.222. That's what it was, both according to the vernacular, and according to WP policy (I know; what a joke!). Never back off when you're right. The bullies here, as elsewhere, will just see it as a sign of weakness, and go in for the kill. Number 24.90.190.96 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed from lead

I removed from the lead: The SPLC's hate group list has been the source of some controversy.

It's not worded well, weaselly? Looking at this page it's likely this has come up before so maybe there is already agreement on what might work there? Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a summary of the body. You don't neeed to have special concensus to follow basic wp guidelines and procedures. If you don't like the way is worded then consider re-wording it, however it is a good sized topic in the body, so it should be summarized in the lead. Arzel (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is in the lead and no one has a problem with it "Its fundraising appeals and accumulation of reserves have been the subject of some criticism." Defensor1956 (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Second Arzel's statement. It summarizes the body of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If a topic is substantively treated in the body of any article, it ought be represented in the lead as well. That is sort of why leads exist in the first place. Collect (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources show that the hate group list has been the source of some controversy among groups listed as hate groups and their supporters. The current wording implies that there is controversy of the listings in the mainstream, which there is not. TFD (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream example. Dana Milbank, syndicated columnist at the Washington Post.Defensor1956 (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Human Rights Campaign isn’t responsible for the shooting. Neither should the organization that deemed the FRC a 'hate group,' the Southern Poverty Law Center, be blamed for a madman’s act. But both are reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions, on issues from stem cells to euthanasia...I disagree with the Family Research Council’s views on gays and lesbians. But it’s absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church." -Dana Milbank, "Hateful speech on hate groups," The Washington Post, August 16, 2012.

One comment from Dana Milbank ≠ a controversy. — goethean 18:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Try the NYT [5] In a statement on the law center’s Web site, Mark Potok, a senior fellow there, called Mr. Perkins’s statement “outrageous.” “Perkins and his allies, seeing an opportunity to score points, are using the attack on their offices to pose a false equivalency” between the law center’s criticisms of the Family Research Council and the council’s criticisms of gay men and lesbians, he wrote. looks like the NYT considered it a "controversy" with the SPLC defending its position.

[6] has The liberal advocacy group People for the American Way has called on the presidential candidates, and especially Mr. Romney because he will share a stage, to publicly disassociate themselves from Mr. Fischer and what it called, in a statement on Wednesday, his “unmitigated bigotry.” The Southern Poverty Law Center has made similar appeals to the candidates. The Family Research Council and the American Family Association have both been labeled “antigay hate groups” by the law center, a private advocacy organization, for spreading misinformation about homosexuality. also appears, by adding the rationale given by the SPLC to acknowledge that labelling is controversial"

[7] has an editorial piece by a student saying A $250 donation to the Family Research Council – an extremist group that vehemently opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and asserts that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia – earns the credit card company about $7.50. seems on its face to use the NYT to label the FRC an "extremist group" which might also be of interest.

In short, the labeling by the SPLC is reasonably considered by people on all sides to be "controversial" and clearly that controversy is spoken of by both sides of the controversy. It is not our job to decide which side of any controversy is correct, but that does not mean we can not call it a "controversy" cited to reliable sources. Collect (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A columnist's opinions are only significant if other writers mention them. Please provide a source that mentions Potock's views. Otherwise we would have to include the views of the Southern Avenger in articles about every single subject he decided to mention. BTW the SPLC does not group hate groups and the KKK. The KKK is a white nationalist violent group, while hate groups need merely engage in hate speech. While hate speech is legal in the U.S., it is illegal in most Western countries. Violence against people based on ethnicity is illegal under U.S. federal law. TFD (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the debate here? A substantially referenced subsection of the article is devoted to the controversy surrounding the SPLC's hate group list. It includes both sources that directly criticize the list and sources that report on the criticism and response by the SPLC. Of course this is worth a brief mention in a lead that is supposed to provide an overview of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Badmintonhist is correct. It is worth a mention. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, in fact it is the perfect place to put a reference to Yancey (2014) Watching the Watchers: The Neglect of Academic Analysis of Progressive Groups. Academic Questions. Mrdthree (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Academic Questions is not a real journal, we've been through this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

On the first Amendment

The first amendment protects your right to say or print anything. It doesn't protect you from backlash and most certainly doesn't protect people like SPLC from using their first amendment rights to criticize you which is what they are doing.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this in response to something from the article? I'm a bit confused. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a response to attempted edits to the article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay! Was confused. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The SPLC has a left wing bias; informs allegedly Anti-government patriot groups

The SPLC built its reputation on racial equality and that is the only topic they have criticized both left and right on. Facts demonstrate systematic bias in the political activities and 'reporting' published by the SPLC. -the SPLC characterizes the Patriot Movement as anti-government but the Patriot Movement website does not use that word anywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Movement -The Patriot movement is more properly Anti-administration or anti-policy. Self-described anti-government movements include anarchists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States However the SPLC does not track any of the violent leftist groups listed by the government http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf -the SPLC claims it is against groups "characterized by anti-government doctrines, conspiracy theories or opposition to the New World Order" in general. However it has never criticized left wing anarchist groups that protest precisely those things, examples: Leftist anarchists protests of the WTO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity -The SPLC does not care about left wing secessionist movements these include Vermont secessionists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vermont_Republic the 'think tank' of leftist secessionists the 'Middlebury Institute' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlebury_Institute. Is this not something that should be pointed out? Mrdthree (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is more appropriate for a talk forum someplace. Debating SPLC's political stance through your own research is completely inappropriate here. We don't "point out" things in this way, we follow WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, the SPLC ant-govenment extremist section should be put as allegedly anti-government extremists. For the reasons above. Mrdthree (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:ALLEGED. This article is reporting on what the SPLC is, does, and says. The section clearly states that the SPLC calls these groups hate groups and anti-government, and we have verified that with sources. Whether or not they are hate groups or anti-government is part of WP:TRUTH. We have a controversy section where we address sources that disagree with the labels they use. Whether or not the SPLC includes left-wing groups is a separate issue and a strawman argument. We could try to create a "criticism" section addressing things like their labels and overlooking left-wing groups, but it would have to be well sourced with reliable sources and avoid WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

the section title I dont have a problem with. However the body of the section needs to point out that there is no support for their oxymoronic statement that Patriot groups are anti-government. Anti-government groups are anarchists.Mrdthree (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, Badmintonhist changed the section that bugged me to a statement of fact (by prefacing with "the SPLC describes these groups as ..."). It may be a separate issue that the SPLC doesnt track left anarchist groups (anti-gov, conspiracy, anti-NWO) and it could be a criticism but it is probably original research unless its mentioned in that Yancey article. Mrdthree (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you name any anarchist groups that advocate racial discrimination? Certainly there are lots of anti-social groups the SPLC does not monitor - the Mafia for example. But so what? TFD (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't resist trivia questions; always been a weakness: National-Anarchism. And look!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I don't think they are anarchists but maybe that is the "no true Scotsman" argument. The SPLC also lists the New Black Panthers. Also, since editors who hate the SPLC are always arguing that nazis are really left-wing and that the terms left and right are meaningless terms only used by leftists, how can they argue that the SPLC only investigates right-wing groups? TFD (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

They have tried to be fair on racial supremacy. However they also advocate on issues that are not racial. I have a bit of a beef with their campaign against the Patriot Movement. I suppose its ok to track the right wing extremists (media matters does) but it is is a disservice to declare that people who believe in the US government are anti-government (e.g. Alex Jones). It may be a definition that flies with their supporters, but its not a definition that flies on wikipedia (anti-government). Mrdthree (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

They do not call patriot groups hate groups but they track them because there is an overlap between them and hate groups. While you may dislike the term "anti-government", that seems like the best description. Joe Vogler said, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." I suppose one could argue that he only hated the U.S. government, so "anti-federal government" might be more apt. TFD (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well if anti-government doesn't mean anti-policy or limited government it's fair and I'll hyperlink it. But I don't think they mean anti-government in the sense of an anti state or anarchist ideology. I think they mean seditious and anti-government should hyperlink to sedition. Mrdthree (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-state anarchist ideology can be seditious. — goethean 12:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree though I would say Anti-state anarchist ideology is necessarily seditious when there is a government. My point is I dont think the vast majority of the militias that SPLC monitors are Anti-state anarchist. SPLC calls them anti-government in the sense that they are seditious.Mrdthree (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, our article doesn't claim that the SPLC's hate group designations are universally approved; on the contrary, it mentions criticisms. If you can find reliably sourced criticism specifically related to its listing and/or descriptions of "patriot" groups, then feel free to use it. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Antigovernment is a vague term. Unfortunately in wikipedia it links to left-wing anarchism, which ironically is the topic the SPLC wont touch with a stick. Mrdthree (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It should not link to that or any other article. "Anti-government" groups oppose the U.S. government, which they see as having exceeded its authority under the U.S. constitution. TFD (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-government links to Anti-statism and has for about 5 years. Antigovernment was created May 2010 and links to the same article. That article does say "Anti-statists differ greatly according to the beliefs they hold in addition to anti-statism. Thus the categories of anti-statist thought are sometimes classified, at one extreme as collectivist towards the other extreme individualist." but could probably use some clarification and examples. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That is something you need to discuss over on that article. The fact that on Wikipedia a term links to anti-statist is not evidence that is how the SPLC uses it. TFD (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Typical online sources give a definition that is much less extreme than either anarchy or sedition (e.g. Against a government or the administration in office. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/antigovernment). Which is a very broad concept that includes political opposition within the system to sedition/rebellion. I may put a disambiguate link on the anti-government page that tells user to choose Anti-statism,Opposition (politics),Political dissent, or Sedition and then hyperlink references here to that page. Mrdthree (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Made link to anti-government in body of anti-govenment patriot groups section.Mrdthree (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Silverstein's criticism in history section

Is there some reason I'm missing why the following material is in the history section? It seems as if it ought to be somewhere else:

The SPLC has been criticized for using hyperbole and overstating the prevalence of hate groups to raise large amounts of money. In a 2000 ''[[Harper's Magazine]]'' article, Ken Silverstein said that Dees has kept the SPLC focused on fighting anti-minority groups like the KKK, whose membership has declined to just 2,000, instead of on issues like homelessness, mostly because the former issue makes for more lucrative fundraising. The article also claimed that the SPLC "spends twice as much on fund-raising--$5.76 million last year--as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses."<ref name="harpers">[http://www.harpers.org/archive/2000/11/0068709 The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance], Ken Silverstein, ''Harper's Magazine'', November 2000</ref> ''Harper's'' also pointed out that more than 95% of hate crimes are committed by [[Lone wolf (terrorism)|lone wolves]] without any connection to militia groups the SPLC speaks of.<ref name="harpers"/>

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It should be somewhere in the Tracking of hate groups and extremists > Controversy section.- MrX 21:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

SPLC financial information as a reference

This material is cited twice, both times to support the statement that the SPLC doesn't take money from awards it wins in court. This statement is true, and is supported by independent sources, and also does not appear in the current version of the SPLC financial info linked to. Are there objections to removing it as a source since (a) it doesn't support what it's meant to support and (b) what it's meant to support is adequately supported by other sources already cited:

<ref name="SPLCFI">{{cite web | url = http://www.splcenter.org/donate/financialinfo/financial.jsp | title = Financial Information {{!}} Southern Poverty Law Center | author = | authorlink= | accessdate = 2012-09-12 | date = | publisher = Southern Poverty Law Center }}</ref>

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, since no one said anything I took it out, but, of course, put it back in if you wish, by all means.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguity in YMCA case relating to foundation of YMCA

Even Dees and Fiffer don't discuss what happened between Dees's victory in the trial court in 1969 and the upholding of the ruling in 1972 with respect to the foundation of the SPLC and who was running the case (Dees or the SPLC), so I suppose it's just going to have to stay vague in the section unless someone can come up with a good source. And so it goes...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Montgomery YMCA case use of SPLC summary as a source

Here's what I removed:

<ref name="SPLC-YMCA">{{Cite news| url=http://www.splcenter.org/legal/docket/files.jsp?cdrID=36 | title=Smith v. Young Men's Christian Association | publisher=Southern Poverty Law Center |date= June 11, 1969 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2007-09-18}}</ref>

I just want to open a section in case there are objections. Here's my reasoning: this case is sufficiently covered in independent sources that there's no need to take any information from the primary source. I will be adding more of these and expanding the section a little quite soon. I also want to note in advance that I'm not removing it as a source because of doubts about its reliability or any such thing; it's just so brief and doesn't really say much that isn't available elsewhere.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct to remove any primary source. I would also be concerned if that source or similar sources make allegations or claims against any living persons as also being problematic. Collect (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

????— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

We must make sure no actual living persons are treated other than in accord with WP:BLP. Some individuals in court cases even from years ago are still alive, and we must be sure no contentious claims get made without strong specific sourcing. I think that was clear :). Collect (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's clear enough as an abstract principle, it was just confusing in this context, where it doesn't actually apply. But if you were just stating a context-free principle, then naturally I concur!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue of (and there used to be a lot more of it in the article then) self-sourcing came up several years ago when whole sections of the article were virtually copied out of SPLC literature. As I remember some editors argued that it was perfectly okay to use SPLC summaries of the cases it was involved in because it was a third party reliable source on the adventures of hate groups. I kid you not. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

1981 Bullock County lawsuit

I removed this:

===Staff salaries=== In 1981, the SPLC won a case filed to force [[Bullock County, Alabama]] to pay salaries to the staff of its first black probate judge. Alabama state law at the time required probate judges to pay for their own staff, but Bullock County, in violation of this law, paid the salaries of the staff of its white probate judges.<ref>{{Cite news| url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70F14FE385C0C7A8EDDAB0994D9484D81 | title=Black Judge in Alabama Wins Staff Salary Case | work=[[The New York Times]] |date= December 29, 1981 | first= Reginald| last= Stuart| accessdate = 2007-09-18}}</ref>

because the only discussion of it that I can find is the single NYT article cited. There's no discussion in books, in other newspapers, or anywhere else that I can find. Given the lack of discussion I conclude that it was a routine case and not really illustrative of the SPLC's work. I would love to be proved wrong, and if someone can find other sources that indicate the importance of this case for this article, by all means, put it back in. Or put it back in if you just disagree with my removal. But lacking sources to expand the section, I don't think it merits an entire level three subsection to itself. Perhaps there's somewhere else it can be mentioned? Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It was in The Tuscaloosa News too.[8] I could find several other mentions of the story in rs. The probate judge was Rufus Huffman, and the relevant law was the Voting Rights Act. It may have received wider coverage at the time, but stories were not posted to the internet then. However, with no subsequent coverage, it may not be worth mentioning. TFD (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I did search the Google newspaper archive, but I can see that I missed that one because I was searching on Huffman + various combinations of Dees, SPLC, etc. and that article doesn't mention them. I wonder if it's because they weren't so well known at the time? Anyway, like I said, I have no problem with it being in the article, I just couldn't find much to say about it in the context of the SPLC.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Nation is a questionable source?

Both Alexander Cockburn and JoAnn Wypijewski of The Nation have a subtle but important criticism about the distraction of an exaggerated threat (attributed to the SPLC's alarms about hate) and the real needs of poverty and the underclass. Why would someone object to my recent insertion? What is undue about this? How is the listing of two critics a synthesis when they are making the same point? Has The Nation become a questionable source of such an opinion? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Cockburn opinion is just a snide comment about how SPLC should be focusing on some other wrongs. It is not a specific criticism about some aspect of the hate groups and the danger they pose. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I admit Cockburn’s rhetoric is heated and perhaps over the top. For example, he calls Morris Dees the “arch-salesman of hate-mongering” claiming there’s a “resurgence out there in the hinterland with massed legions of haters” to the point that “hate is on the rise and America ready to burst apart at the seams.” The SPLC paints a “lurid depictions of hate-sodden America.” ... Cockburn argues that public schools are a greater menace to blacks given for the failure to educated inner city minorities, more likely to be raped by big banks with predatory lending, prohibited from organizing a union, disproportionately incarcerated, etc. He is complaining that the SPLC is evading structural racism while exaggerating individual malcontents. [9] Perhaps you’re looking at the other reference which does have basically a drive-by swipe. Cockburn fleshes out his criticism in the 2009 article. Take a look at that article, Bink, he has a subtle but potent criticism under the heated rhetoric. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

De mortuis nihil nisi bonum and so forth, but your last sentence pretty much sums up Cockburn's entire career. And I say that as a devoted fan of his work.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to have conflated two relatively non-noteworthy opinions into one unified criticism of the SPLC. The Cockburn piece is a polemic, not a reasoned analysis worthy of citation in an encyclopedia article. The Wypijewski article You Can't Get There from Here simply does not discuss "...fear-mongering by exaggerating the threat of the hate-groups while ignoring the real social problems that afflict the poor." as your edit asserts. Instead, it criticizes the SPLC for "Mostly making money." - MrX 16:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that worries about synthesis in the sentence Jason from nyc proposes can be ameliorated by adding the word "Both" at the beginning of the sentence, thus: "Both Alexander Cockburn and JoAnn Wypijewski have accused the SPLC of fear-mongering..." I don't know about Wypijewski, but I can't imagine that including a mention of Cockburn's criticisms could possibly be undue weight. He spent decades criticizing the SPLC both in his biweekly column in the Nation and in Counterpunch. I read every damn issue through the 1980s and it seems that if he wasn't dissing Christopher Hitchens he was dissing the SPLC. He's an important critic of Dees's project. Perhaps this particular item isn't the right one to include, but I support the addition of at least a sentence on Cockburn's views. I wonder if those who oppose it could forget about this one Cockburn source and consider discussing the general idea of putting something in from him, and then, if that seems reasonable, we could decide what it might be. Meanwhile I will look for sources independent of Cockburn that discuss his opposition to Dees's work.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: I think this will be the ticket for establishing due weight. It's only in snippet view on gbooks. I will have access to a copy soon and will report back. If anyone has a copy on hand perhaps they could investigate? It might also be worth including some material on Cockburn's disagreement with SPLC on the meaning of the militia movement in the 1990s.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is the relevant issue. One can always find isolated incidents of criticism of anything, even in reliable sources. Before including them however, we need to establish their significance. Do reliable sources regularly mention Cockburn's opinion on the SPLC? Would we regularly add Cockburn's comments to articles about every topic which he chose to discuss? The answer is no. Laird Wilcox's brief criticism of the SPLC does not establish weight either.

There is a misconception among some editors that criticism must be added to articles to balance articles. But it should only be added if it is significant.

TFD (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I do understand the issue, and I think that a due weight case can be made for Cockburn's criticisms of the SPLC, but I certainly won't attempt to add material about it until I have the sources at hand. Cockburn was notorious in the 80s and 90s for being one of the few commentators to criticize the SPLC from the left and it was written about in secondary sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to find those secondary sources and we can then use them. However, the sources must be about the SPLC, rather than Cockburn. We could for example find secondary sources explaining how Andrew Breivik saw the world. That would not establish the weight of his opinion for every topic he chose to write about. TFD (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I understand how these things work. Cockburn's criticisms of the SPLC are discussed in sources about the SPLC. By the way, it made me smile when you asked " Would we regularly add Cockburn's comments to articles about every topic which he chose to discuss?" You're right that the answer is no. Also, the only three things I recall him not criticising are (a) the country blues, (b) pickup trucks, and (c) magic mushrooms. We'd have an awful lot of work to do if the answer were yes.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple answer: Notable people (Cockburn decidedly qualifies) with opinions can have their opinions, properly cited and ascribed as opinion, used. The Nation is a known reliable source for such opinion columns. That said, Wikipedia is better off using quotes from such columns rather than trying to summarize material which may not be in such columns directly, and disparate opinions from other persons should be in separate sentences. . Collect (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Breivik is a notable person too, in fact more notable than Cockburn. That does not mean that his opinions are noteworthy for every subject he chose to address, unless secondary sources say they are. TFD (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Breivik is not a noted journalist and commentator, AFAICT. Apples and Oranges time. Alexander Cockburn is actually noted as one. And his views are routinely found notable in such publications as The New York Times. We can not give it huge weight, but as a noted journalist, his opinion has far greater weight than that of Breivik for sure, and absolutely citable as his opinion. Collect (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)True dat, but secondary sources discussing Cockburn's criticisms are useful to establish the due weight of the criticisms. As I said, Cockburn hated pretty much everything, so it's essential to have objective criteria to single out this or that thing that he hated. (as I see TFD said at the same time I did...)— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: I think TFD must have been referring to Gunnar Breivik the sports sociologist, or Marit Breivik the team handball coach, or else Terje Breivik the Norwegian politician. Surely he wasn't referring to Anders Behring Breivik the mass murderer. Why that would be insulting! Badmintonhist (talk)

Could you, Collect and alf laylah wa laylah point to other examples where you have argued for the inclusion of Cockburn's opinions in other articles? If he is that important then one would expect his views to be well reflected across the range of topics on which he wrote. TFD (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I routinely state that opinions may be cited as opinions, but not as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice a few hundred times now. There are WP:BLP exceptions about allegations and contentious claims, but that policy does not apply to the general article at hand. In point of fact, I have spoken for the inclusion of views from just about any source one can name -- is there a reason for your apparent implication that I favour a left-wing author? Collect (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't even argued for the inclusion of his opinions in this article, actually. I've merely indicated my intent to argue for the inclusion of his opinions. As far as I can tell his opinions on the SPLC and on 1990s militias are important enough to be regularly discussed in sources independent of him, but that's it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of prominent commentators who have offered strong opinions, pro or con, about the SPLC is somewhat limited. We take them as they are available. For other topics, say the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Cockburn's opinions would have to compete with hundreds or even thousands of other notable ones. By the way, TFD, have you argued to exclude Cockburn's opinions from other Wikipedia articles (except, perhaps, Morris Dees' biography)? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear why there would be an objection to Cockburn. The SPLC is an advocacy/activist organization in the public sphere. Clearly public intellectuals discussing the issues raised by SPLC actions are appropriate for the article. We have many newspaper articles and individuals writing in "serious" magazines already in our citations. One such source is Silverstein. Like Cockburn, he has worked for The Nation and Counterpunch.

I can see an argument that with Silverstein's critique we already have a source for a criticism similar to Cockburn's. In particular, they both argue that (1) Dees exaggerates and (2) he squanders the wealth he raises when it could be used more effectively on fighting for "structural" reforms. As the article now stands it mentions in passing "homelessness" as an issue worthing of attention according to Silverstein. I can't read Silverstein's Harper's article because it is protected by a subscription. Cockburn's article in Counterpunch gives more depth to the idea of the SPLC needs to use some of its bloated war chest to address real current-day pressing concerns: public schools are a greater menace to blacks given for the failure to educated inner city minorities, more likely to be raped by big banks with predatory lending, prohibited from organizing a union, disproportionately incarcerated, etc. Perhaps that could be emphasized somewhere in the article and not merely the limited example of "homelessness." Jason from nyc (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing useful in conjecture about what the SPLC should be doing rather than critical observations about what it is doing. The SPLC alone determines its mission, not outside critics. They are welcome to criticize how well the mission is being accomplished. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist makes an excellent argument for excluding Cockburn: "The number of prominent commentators who have offered strong opinions, pro or con, about the SPLC is somewhat limited." Weight therefore does not justify their inclusion. And no I have not argued against including Cockburn's views in other articles, because I have not come across anyone who wanted to include them. However, I have never AFAIC added an opinion to an article unless its weight has been established in secondary sources. That is I would not add an opinion unless secondary sources had mentioned and described it and explain the degree of acceptance it had. TFD (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, TFD, I figured that you might use that line of argument but it doesn't fly. While the number of fairly prominent commentators who have expressed strong opinions, pro or con, about the SPLC isn't anywhere near as extensive as the list who have expressed strong opinion about, say, US Presidential administrations, it is still significant enough to include samples. Editors are free, of course, to find some notable commentators who have given the SPLC glowing reviews and include them in the article. PS: Cockburn is certainly mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, TFD,: [10]; you might want to check them out.

As for Binksternet's point it's, well, pretty pointless. Of course criticism of an organization's actual activities is relevant. If, say, a prominent theologian makes a scathing criticism of The Roman Catholic Church's time, effort, and money spent trying to make abortion illegal, or working against same sex marriage, as opposed to protecting children from pedophile priests; then it would be silly to say "there's nothing useful about conjecturing what the RC Church's mission "should be" because only it determines its mission. Good grief! Badmintonhist (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It does not see when no significant views have been published to add insignificant ones, especially when no reliable secondary sources have reported them, although I notice that Cockburn's views have been reported extensively in the echo chamber, which is probably the only place their readers would have encountered him. TFD (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Since when are views by editors and regular contributors published in quite prominent left-leaning journals such as The Nation and Harper's about other left-leaning entities considered "insignificant."? As I said before, we are also free to find "significant views" quite favorable toward the Southern Poverty law Center. I would think that you would be quite expert at that. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how this proposed content benefits our readers in understanding the SPLC, especially since Cockburn's criticism of SPLC's finances is already noted in the article?- MrX 20:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because the topic is completely different and thus ought to be addressed? In fact, this criticism is more directly aimed at the core value of SPLC than their interesting finances. Collect (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but your argument is that it's different so we should include it? The different topic would be that the SPLC ignores "the real social problems that afflict the poor"? Please help me understand the relevance to the SPLC's stated purpose(s).- MrX 20:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's pretty clear that ol' Cockburn despised the whole organization, so in what place or places do we put his criticism? I'd say a brief mention, probably combined in the same sentence with another critic or two, in both the "Hate groups" and "Finances" section is about right. I wouldn't include any of his specific, colorful rhetoric about Dees and Co., however great the temptation. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, even opinions expressed in the New York Times are not significant unless they are noted in reliable secondary sources. Why do you think that left-wing publications automatically elevate the value of an opinion? This is Wikopedia not Leftopedia, and the last I looked The Nation had a weekly circulation under 200,000 compared with 20,000,000 people who watch Glenn Beck and company on Fox News Channel every night. If you think that Wikipedia should give more emphasis to views expressed in left-wing publications, then argue your view on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Really? Would you cite the specific Wikipedia policy which would prevent us from using New York Times editorials in our article about the SPLC unless the editorial itself was discussed in reliable secondary sources? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." TFD (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good job, TFD, but a rather ambiguously phrased rule or guideline. For example does "each viewpoint" mean a generally shared viewpoint (sources highly critical of the SPLC's hate group list) or the specific viewpoint of a single author or team of authors (Cockburn)? In any case Cockburn's take on the SPLC, presented in The Nation and Counterpunch, has received notice in The Weekly Standard and Harper's and, of course, in all sorts of political websites and blogs. Once again, you are free to recommend reliably sourced glowing reviews of the SPLC's activities. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Well, I got this book, and it has dozens of pages of discussion of various critics of the SPLC vis-a-vis fundraising in relation to the militia movement. It seems quite comprehensive. Out of those dozens of pages, Cockburn is quoted once, and not even about the SPLC in particular, but about ostensibly left-leaning organizations supporting anti-militia laws when they'd, according to him, oppose the same laws if they weren't targeting the right. From the gbooks snippets this looked like the best hope for establishing some weight for Cockburn's criticisms, but it fails to do so. So I think I support leaving out Cockburn for now, as much as I love the guy's work. This book would be an excellent source for anyone who wants to add some critical material on the SPLC because we currently have zero coverage on issues that the book discusses at great length and quite comprehensively. I personally am not really up for it, but I thought I'd note it here in case anyone else is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

White Patriot Party section emphasis; can anyone help find sources or agree there aren't any?

Right now a the first paragraph of this section is about the Bobby Persons suit in 1982-4. I find that with one very minor exception all the coverage of the SPLC's interaction with the WPP is about the later events involving soldiers at Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg and Dees's investigation into their involvement with the WPP to enforce the injunction obtained in the Persons suit, which is mentioned in the RS only briefly as background to the events of 1985 and subsequent.

For instance, an NYT article on Dees's investigation says by way of explanation: "The White Patriot Party was ordered by a Federal court last fall not to operate a paramilitary organization or harass black people. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has pressed successful civil lawsuits against Klan organizations in Alabama and Texas, had demonstrated in court documents that members of the group threatened a black prison guard in North Carolina." This is typical of the level of detail about Persons. But there is extensive coverage of the SPLC's efforts to enforce the court order which is missing from the article section. Also missing from our section is the 1987 conviction of WPP members for conspiracy to assassinate Dees in retaliation for taking them to pieces in court.

I can't find anything independent that supports the idea that the suit on behalf of Persons deserves as much space here as it has. I plan to add the missing material outlined above soonish and I hope that The Four Deuces or anyone can possibly find independent sources that demonstrate the appropriate weight to be given to the story of the Persons suit itself. I think probably that part of the section should be severely reduced in length while the overall section should maybe be longer once the soldiers, the various investigations in support of court order enforcement and the conspiracy are added.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hyperlinking to Antigovernment is not overlinking

Antigovernment is not an everyday word; it is something like number 42,200 in the list of common words and the average person is said to know 20,000 words (http://expsy.ugent.be/subtlexus/ ). It is a word used in a contentious topic and I did not understand its meaning so I researched it. It does appear its proper spelling is 'antigovernment' not 'anti-government'. The likely meaning of the word varies by country (in UK anti-government is preferred over anti-administration). A link will increase the understanding of other readers. Other words that have links are more common and less relevant. Including: firebomb, pistol-whipping, vigilante, militia, documentary film, gender,diversity,board of directors, endowment, etc. Last the webpage for Patriot Movement does not describe the groups as anti-government, so the term makes its first appearance here. Mrdthree (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you had to ask what "antigovernment" means doesn't mean most readers don't understand the word. You're engaging in original research by steering readers to any analysis of the word that isn't the SPLC's. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The disambiguation page includes a link to wiktionary and 4 topical sites. If you are claiming that the SPLC uses it in an unconventional manner please help explain the usage of antigovernment by providing additional links on the disambiguation page. Mrdthree (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

How is gender or diversity more priviledged or unconventional than antigovernment? Certainly they are not more uncommon. Nor are they being used in an unconventional way. They are all words critical to the mission of the SPLC. Mrdthree (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"Anti" means against and can be added to almost anything. So literally these groups are against the government. Consider what Joe Vogler said, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." Sounds anti government to me. TFD (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree but the question is what about the exceptional cases? what is the rule is and what the exception? Plus whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant for hyperlinking antigovernment. Why gender? why diversity? why firebomb? why vigilante? Mrdthree (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: By even the greatest stretch of the imagination, linking is not OR. Nor was this edit overlinking. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it should not be linked. See WP:OVERLINK: Do not link "everyday words understood by most readers in context." The words "anti" and "government" are understood by most readers and they can figure out the context. Also see WP:LINKSTYLE: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked." And we are not supposed to link to disambiguation pages. We cannot assume that the SPLC has in mind any of our articles when we link. In other cases, such as when they refer to specific groups, it is clear what they mean. TFD (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis on WP:LINKSTYLE so I did not link the reference to anti-government that is in quotations. That is a statement made by the SPLC. However the subsequent sentence is a wikipedia editors' summary of that statement. That is the sentence that contains the clarifying links to the Patriot Movement and antigovernment. Your point about WP:D requires discussion. Prior to the changes I made, antigovernment redirected to Anti-statism however we all agree that this isnt what SPLC means by anti-government. Hence what wikipedia judged to be the usual meaning was 'wrong' in this case. I would be interested in some thoughts from a senior editor (outside this discussion) Mrdthree (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the style of disambiguation pages and they are for listing 'articles associated with the same title.' as opposed to same concept. So I am not even sure I made a disambiguation page. I will label it a disambiguoation page and see if editors agree that it is a disambiguation page and not a short article so I can resolve that first. Mrdthree (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I started a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_2

Discussion concluded: antigovernment thought to be proper disambig page. So WP:D applies at editors discretionMrdthree (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

FBI no longer using SPLC as a reliable source?

FBI will no longer use SPLC as a source as they are deemed biased and unreliable. Ref here: [11] MaxPont (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

According to Tony Perkins, president of the SPLC-classified hate group the Family Research Council? Sorry, but that would be synthesis. The source that you provided does not make any such claim. In fact, it says "The FBI had no comment and offered no explanation for its decision to end their website's relationship with the two groups...". - MrX 11:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

They haven't stopped using it as a source, they just changed the sources list on their website. This is old news [12] [13]. Either way, going from that to claiming that it is no longer a reliable source is definitely synthesis --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

I find it quite remarkable that despite this SPLC being a highly biased one dimensional organisation, there is no criticism section to be seen anywhere on this page.

No wonder Wikipedia is often accused of systematic bias. This a very clear example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.9.150 (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the importance of a criticism section. You don't posit that there is no criticism but just that there is no special section for it. Upon review of the article I find there is criticism. So what is the need for a special section? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party, but I think that somewhere on Wikipedia among the policies, essays, and guidelines, there is a recommendation against using "criticism" sections. Criticism sections draw away from the point at hand and give undue weight to opponents of the subject, so it is far better to include any criticism of the subject elsewhere in the article (not all together in its own section). Dustin (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hate group listing, again

Listing the Family Research Council as a hate group shows that the SPLC is biased and not a reliable source. There is a lot of criticism from all political views of the bullying tactics and outright libel by the SPLC. Why is that ignored on this page? 173.153.9.121 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has a systemic bias. Of course they're not going to call out others who share the same kind of bias. -- Glynth (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming polemic and unconstructive. Please stick to the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't pretend you've taken the high ground here. The high ground is reserved for those who deal in reality even if they don't like the political consequences (e.g. noting SPLC's obviously political, divisive, and uncalled for "hate group" classifications here and consequently not acting like they're a credible source on other pages), not those who try to stop those of us who want to address Wikipedia's flaws. Also, stop cyberstalking me. It's creepy. -- Glynth (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You are editing on pages I follow. Again, discuss the article vis-a-vis the FBI, start a new section, or stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have bothered replying (not a forum, blah blah), but you imply something here with "You are editing on pages I follow." This may be, but you also (creepily) "welcomed" me back, indicating how long I was gone, linked a previous discussion, etc. It's passive aggressive at best. So why don't you stop? -- Glynth (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Already discussed before. A non-reliable source misrepresents information, then it gets posted to multiple blogs and IP editors discuss it here. TFD (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted many times before, the source mentioned by the IP only quotes FRC saying it's a good thing that the FBI dropped SPLC for reporting groups such as FRC as hate groups. That is not an interesting statement. It is true the SPLC is criticized in reliable sources for declaring FRC a "hate group". This is controversial, and the majority of the active editors seem to be opposed to even that being in the article, in spite of its removal being a violation of WP:NPOV. But that still doesn't support what the IP(s) want in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Groups called hate groups object to the term and we mention that in articles about them. But unless reliable secondary sources cover the issue, it seems undue to add it here, particularly when we do not mention that the SPLC calls the FRC a hate group. It seems anyway that the FRC etc. are opposed to the definition of hate speech which is generally accepted in the mainstream, including the courts of other Western nations. TFD (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To answer ol' 173.159.9.121's question at what is now the beginning of this section, our article DOES NOT ignore the controversy over the SPLC's hate group listings. It is mentioned in the lead and we have included a specific subsection on it. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You know, 90% of the time SPLC is right on target when it comes to hate groups. But when they star accusing anti-jihadist organizations like Stop Islamization of America as being on the same level as the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party, it makes me question their credibility too. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

They distinguish between "Ku Klux Klan", "Neo-nazi" and "Anti-Muslim" groups. Other categories of hate groups include white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others.[14] That the leaders of SIOA are banned from the UK is confirmation their classification is not unique to the SPLC.

There is a distinction between groups that preach hate which may lead to violence and groups that carry out that violence, which is clear in the SPLC's distinction of types of hate groups. The confusion comes from "hate groups" themselves who claim the SPLC is putting them on the same level of violent hate groups.

TFD (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson

So when Carson is called a hate extremist by the SLPC it is fine to plaster his page with that idiocy, yet when the SLPC retracts the statement it is not fine? Hypocrites. Arzel (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's what the SPLC has said, we should use them.[15] Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please avoid making personal attacks against other editors. Certainly we should change Ben Carson's article to reflect the change in the SPLC analysis. But it is of no relevance to this article, and has not received any mainstream media attention. TFD (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Its appropriateness for inclusion is irrelevant until a reliable source is presented. Breitbart ain't it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Links to Assorted Shooters?

Should SPLC's connection to assorted shooters be mentioned? Craig Hicks's followed them, and their Hate Map inspired a gunman in 2012 to enter the Family Research Council building and try to murder everyone inside. Said listing was called reckless by at least one political science professor, though I've not seen any suggestion they're directly responsible for any acts of violence - they just supply lists of targets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.162.71 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You can, of course, provide reliable third-party sources for such a claim? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Shifted Controversy to it's own section then added references - community considers act a hate crime, then the Hicks:SPLC connection. 1 source is definite Left Wing, another Far Right according to the SPLC. The mainstream source classifies them as a Left Wing Hate Group :-) SPLC:Hicks connection is publicly accessible info though. May look at rephrasing later with a source such as http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/02/media-consults-splc-about-splc-friendly-chapel-hill-shooter/ to focus on the irony of it all. 118.208.81.2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed that section, prompting one editor to reinstate it and another to remove it again. Firstly, the sources are not wp:RELIABLE. Secondly, even if there was evidence from reliable sources that the perpetrator was a "fan" of the SPLC, this is not relevant to the article. The FRC shooting incident is mentioned briefly on the article, because a) there is evidence that the perpetrator had cited the SPLC's designation of the FRC as a "hate group" when stating his motivation and b) it led to a debate over whether the SPLC was right to designate the FRC as such. But thirdly, emphasising a connection (true or false) between the SPLC and a murderer (an obviously contemptible person) prevents the article from having an wp:NPOV. 194.34.10.1 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather than starting a revert war I'll post the question here and hope there's a decent response. The Hicks:SPLC connection is internationally known and a publicly accessible fact. Am I to conclude that since news organizations such as The Washington Post or the US' ABC News quote the SPLC as an authoritative source on hate crimes, but do not identify the Hicks:SPLC connection despite using FB to identify Hick's views on religion it does not exist and thus cannot be mentioned in Wikipedia? Even if Jihad Watch is disallowed as questionable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources) I do not see how either the Huffington Post or MRC NewsBusters would fail to meet said criteria. I agree that in most circumstances a connection would be irrelevant however since we are talking about a fan of an "anti-hate group" committing a hate crime it is relevant. And by the by no a murderer is not an obviously contemptible person. Someone who has apparently done something wrong yes but without further info you're making an ethical judgement without facts. 118.208.112.34 (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's more a question for the reliable source noticeboard (RSN). I will say though that there's usually a higher threshold for sources when it comes to discussions of living people (and HuffPo is not viewed terribly favorably by the RSN board when it comes to living people). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

HuffPo's reliability is irrelevant here since it doesn't contain the claim the IP user is trying to add. I've googled this pretty thoroughly and am only seeing it in nonsensical fringe sources like Breitbart, Jihadwatch, Dailycaller, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Puhh, Huffington Post is a reliable source, but the added link makes no connection between Hicks and the SPLC. The other websites are not reliable sources and are ridiculous, making a connection between Hicks and the SPLC because of a Facebook like? I have George W Bush as a like on my Facebook page, would I be connected to him if I went batshit and killed some people? These accusations are absurd. Beyond fringe. Dave Dial (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You need sources. TFD (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Starting discussion about section being added/removed by editors (see, for example, this edit).

I agree Academic Questions is not a sufficient source for this. It does not appear to be peer reviewed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit was reverted. I was asked to use the talk page so here I am. ERIC indicates the journal "Academic Questions" is peer reviewed. The language of my edit Despite criticism from many conservative sources, SPLC is a definitive source amongst progressive academics and media organisations. A 2014 critical analysis of their stated ideals as compared to outcomes found they applied subjective criteria in defining hate groups and that they focused almost exclusively on right-wing groups despite left-wing groups that "... have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people". In spite of this the analysis found that SPLC would not include such groups lest it jeopardize the generous sums funneled its way by progressive donors. seems neutral and appropriate for a controversy/criticism section. What specifically is the objection? José Antonio Zapato (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph looks reasonable to me, except for the British spellings. Roger (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a shame we can't follow the standard edit/re-edit process on the article page, but here I've refined the quote above.

Despite this criticism from conservative sources , SPLC is a definitive source amongst progressive academics and media organizations. An analysis comparing their stated ideals to outcomes in the journal Academic Questioned found they applied subjective criteria in defining hate groups and that they focused almost exclusively on right-wing groups despite left-wing groups that "... have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people." The analysis noted that criticizing progressive groups might negatively impact the SPLC's funding, the majority of which comes from progressive donors.

References

Academic Questions is a journal published by Springer and does appear to be peer-reviewed, both of which are factors in favor of considering it WP:RS. The issue is that the group responsible for its content is National Association of Scholars, "a politically conservative advocacy group" (from the lead of the Wikipedia article about them, not an official position). I don't think that necessarily rules it out as a reliable source, but it does mean we can't use it as though it's presenting an objective analysis. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading WP:SCHOLARSHIP I think the examples given in the citation for "journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view" are illustrative. They are:

Examples include The Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Frontier Science (the latter uses blog comments as peer review).

The latter doesn't apply and the former implies advocacy of a single issue or set of issues, which is the same standard we'd apply to WP:NEWSORG, e.g. we'd give less weight to "UFO News" than the NY Times for UFO sightings. But we don't disqualify the NY Times or The Nation for political information just because they have a particular bent. Mmy proposed wording doesn't state the conclusions of the study as fact, would it help if it were clearly attributed, e.g. "...as compared to outcomes in the journal Academic Questions found..." ? It seems close enough at least that we can iron out these particulars on the article page. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reverted the addition of this paragraph in the first instance, on the basis that Academic Questions ("Though written mainly by scholars, it is a missionary journal, not a scholarly one") is not a reliable source. Now that I've done some research and read the Yancey paper, I realize that the paragraph should have been deleted because it's original research; the source doesn't support what it says. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What part of my proposed paragraph is original research? Please be specific. Re: precieved bias, please see WP:BIASED which suggests at the most "in-text attribution." José Antonio Zapato (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If there are no substantive objections to the proposed text I'll reinsert it. A peer-reviewed scholarly analysis improves the article. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

There have already been several objections, if you add this again without consensus, you are edit warring. Dave Dial (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Arguments were made, I presented counter arguments then solicited substantive objections. Isn't that exactly how one establishes consensus? I don't see what I've written to deserve a threat. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is how you establish consensus, and there is now established a fairly clear consensus here that your proposed addition is not acceptable. Besides the dubious and partisan nature of the journal in question, the other source supplied (The Blaze) is of similarly-dubious and highly-partisan nature, being effectively the media arm of a notable conservative pundit. We can and should seek better, more reliable and dispassionate sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have specific objections to my proposed text (above)? I don't know why this conversation turned hostile. Maybe best to take a break. I will check back tomorrow, hopefully we can resume productive discussion? José Antonio Zapato (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Academic Questions is not a reliable source and even if it were the article expresses an opinion. If we did mention it we would have to say whose opinion it is, i,e., the opinion of defenders of groups the SPLC writes about and explain that it has little or no support in mainstream sources. Furthermore, the ideological jargon needs to translated into mainstream usage. "progressive academics and media organisations" means academics publishing in reliable sources and mainstream news media including mainstream conservative media such as Fox News. And the reference to "an entire class of people" that some left-wing groups "malign" are privileged economic classes. No serious sources equate them with minorities and significantly hate laws - and the criticism was the SPLC's use of the term hate - never includes left-wing groups, even ones that carry out terrorist attacks. José Antonio Zapato, I suppose the reason for the reaction is that you are trying to insert fringe views as facts. TFD (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone actually paid attention to the material or simply sought to eliminate it on the grounds they object to the source? As the article itself says, groups such as SPLC have not had critical analysis applied to them by academia, or very few at least. Unless somebody can supply an alternative reference this is probably the lone study of them available. To object to it because of perceived ideological differences is not NPOV!

As for The Blaze not being an acceptable source, if it is in fact a conservative publication, then it is entirely appropriate to use it IF the purpose is to establish what conservatives say about SPLC. NPOV has exceptions.

And as for the use of English, if anyone has problems with the spelling, phrasing, grammar ... adjust it. Wikipedia is supposed to be flexible! :-D 118.208.73.224 (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The question is, do we care about what The Blaze says, and are we giving undue weight to a fringe POV by including its claims? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it a fringe source or a conservative source? You previously referenced it as conservative media. Shifting terms? Being Partisan is useful if it is reflective of the conservative position. 118.208.73.224 (talk)

A left-wing group (SPLC) raises money by attacking right-wing groups. But if a scholarly journal points this out, then it must be stricken because the author might be a right-winger with an opinion. Is that the logic here? Roger (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Academic Questions is not a reliable source. If what you say is correct, we should be able to find plenty reliable sources to support these claims. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Roger I believe you are correct. Objections to AQ appears to be an solely motivated by ideological reasons - it fully complies with wp:npov and wp:nor. The article itself points out that organisations such as SPLC have rarely if ever been critically analysed by academics. If someone can provide an alternative source I'd be fascinated. My impression is that they don't exist but better no source than an academic promoting crimethink ;-) I'll hold off reverting for a bit in case someone can suggest an alternate source but I'm not expecting anyone to find anything. 118.208.73.224 (talk)

Roger, it is not a "scholarly journal." It is a forum for views that cannot be published in scholarly journals. And you are equating apologists for hate groups with an organization that reports on them, which is a false parity. So the Ku Klux Klan is right-wing and Fox News is left-wing and we need to balance the views of both. TFD (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see in this discussion, and the publishers page, it meets the peer reviewed requirements and publishing requirements to be considered a scholarly journal. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It says in "Aims and Scope", "American higher education has been profoundly compromised in the past three decades. Standards have been eroded, the curriculum has been debased, and research has been trivialized or distorted by ideology." That certainly puts it outside mainstream academia. If it indeed is peer-reviewed that merely means that the facts are checked, but certainly does not elevate the opinions expressed into the mainstream. TFD (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussions about the journal should be taken to WP:RSN. It might be scholarly, but it's unclear if it's reliable. Until that's resolved, it doesn't belong in the article.

Are there no other RS that say the same thing? Why are we hellbent on using this one? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Posted the question to WP:RSN. Will give it a couple of days. If no dispute there then it's likely that it's largely only those watching this page that have issues with the source. We'll see. Not sure whether it's simpler to link or quote if there are comments?

Oh, as to why use this source, it's possibly the sole scholarly analysis available - yes I'm aware most here dispute that claim. If it is indeed the sole analysis then it's not a matter of insisting on using this one as having found the single scholarly critique and folk here wishing to deny the inclusion of its findings. There is an interesting symmetry amongst the profiles of those doing the objecting. 118.208.177.225 (talk)

Link to the discussion Australian IP started: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Questions.3F

Honestly I don't think we need an academic source in this case, especially one from such a questionable source get it? Academic Questions is questionable? I slay me. I can see the desire to find a "neutral-but-credible" take on the issue, but perhaps something like the BBC or a Canadian source would provide a more neutral POV? The general lack of far-left groups on SPLC's lists is a fair critique (though I wonder how many are "hate" groups... is eco-terrorism hate-feuled?) and I see no reason not to include such a critique. Just need adequate sourcing and due weight. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh BBC is not neutral. Research has demonstrated most media organisations are left of centre - Fox is reportedly one of the few that may not be. I'm not sure whether BBC is left of centre or very left but I have an inkling I read something that suggested the latter, I'd have to do some research to be sure. From memory the Yancey article applied the SPLC hate criteria to one left wing Christophobic group that SPLC has somehow managed to avoid noticing. I'd have to revisit the material to see the details though. 118.208.177.225 (talk)

Here is an analysis in Media Matters of Yancey's paper. TFD (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Media matters is WP:NEWSBLOG (along the lines of Think Progress and NewsMax), lobbying and political action group. [16] [17] which makes no pretense to being an objective news org - for example they've called for boycotts of conservative personalities. Discrediting a WP:SCHOLARSHIP-compliant academic source with an iffy NEWSBLOG won't fly. Yancey at least is a professor of sociology. The author of the Media Matters critique appears to have no qualifications beyond his experience as an opinion columnist. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the analysis isn't worth the paper it's not actually written on. I looked up the author - he's definitely a hardcore ideologue. More in the way of an attack piece than a scholarly critique.

As for the original source, I'm holding off summarizing the views given in the discussion on it's reliability. I had a brief look at the page and there seemed to be a fair few. I'll go through and break down the results in a few more days. There was a reference to a tool called researchgate as a basis for judging whether the original source has been cited much which was interesting. I've never heard of the site myself and it seems pretty specialized - field and country specific, so may be totally irrelevant. Something else to test out if the site's not too locked down. 118.208.113.119 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of adding the paragraph. I'm against wording that tries to pigeonhole the SPLC as being a 'left-wing'/'liberal'/'progressive' group. In the polarised American political landscape, that tends to imply that the organisation is more politicised than it actually is. Much of the SPLC's work isn't that controversial. It just so happens that they sometimes irritate social conservatives, especially with their stance on gay rights and the rights of immigrants.

The fact that the SPLC spend more time attacking far-right groups than far-left groups isn't particularly surprising. The SPLC targets racism, homophobia and religion-based discrimination. These are not vices that we usually associate with left-wing politics. But neither are they inherently 'right-wing' vices. These days, you don't hear many stories about left-wing extremists in America, either. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Results from the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources discussion - it's been archived now so I guess the discussion's over. Six (whoops no seven) unique individuals commented, not including myself, some of whom posted multiple times. Two are definitely liberal\progressive the other five are unclear though I suspect a roughly equal split between progressive and conservative - it's rather hard to judge based on some user accounts. That being said one of the possible conservatives (Jose) has been blocked indefinitely as the account is purportedly that of a banned user. Three individuals reject the OS as unreliable - one strongly, two consider it reliable, and another two give qualified views - may not be sole source, should be attributed etc.

Here's the summarized version:
Qualified RS - statements should be attributed => EvergreenFir
Opposed - it's a missionary journal [Anyone able to explain what on Earth a missionary journal is?] => Stephan Schulz
Strongly opposed - recommends non-RS secondary source instead. => TFD
Support - attribute appropriately => José Antonio Zapato
Opposed - sole piece hasn't been cited, nor is it scholarly hence undue weight. Journal exists to promote 1 viewpoint. => MastCell
Articles don't get cited until other articles are written on the same topic. => José Antonio Zapato
Insignificant - no impact on ResearchGate => Stephan Schulz
ResearchGate irelevant - it caters primarily to hard sciences. => José Antonio Zapato
Journal publishes non-mainstream papers. Bias isn't important but is the source relevant? => TFD
Agnostic - Should not assume article is sole source => Liz
Yes it's a reliable source but discussion about use should be on SPLC page => RightCowLeftCoast

As an aside, while ResearchGate proved interesting it appears to be very ad hoc with it's inclusion of professional magazines. I checked a couple I know of - only one was listed and that had a negligible impact. And those academics I looked up had less of an impact than the OS author. Also, while Liz may be correct that the OS is not the sole source analysing SPLC, or at least about SPLC, no other sources have been suggested despite encouragement. 118.208.102.207 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Just commenting on a question of yours, "It's sponsored by the National Association of Scholars, a conservative advocacy group, and, according to our own article (which referents the Times Literary Supplement) "is a missionary journal, not a scholarly one". I'd treat it with extreme care. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 8:37 am, 17 April 2015, Friday (16 days ago) (UTC+1)" I guess the TLS might be the place to look but to me the term is another word for advocacy. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing

This is my update of a portion of the lede. Much of the editing was typographical/copyedits. The substantive changes were in the lede, so let's read carefully. (BTW: I was re-editing when I hit an edit conflict from the last editor, and I had an extensive edit summary):

In 1971, [[Morris Dees]] and Joseph J. Levin Jr. founded the SPLC as a civil rights law firm based in Montgomery, Alabama.<ref name="CNNpioneer">{{Cite news|url=http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/08/morris.dees.profile|title=Attorney Morris Dees pioneer in using 'damage litigation' to fight hate groups|publisher=CNN|date=September 8, 2000|accessdate=2007-08-17|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20060618234711/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/08/morris.dees.profile|archivedate=June 18, 2006}}</ref> Civil rights leader [[Julian Bond]] joined Dees and Levin and served as president of the board between 1971 and 1979.<ref>Dees, Morris, and Steve Fiffer. ''A Season For Justice''. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons (1991), pp. 132-133.<!-- ISBN needed --></ref> The SPLC's litigating strategy involves filing civil suits for damages on behalf of reported victims of hate group harassment, threats, and violence, with the goal of financially depleting the responsible groups and individuals. While it originally focused on damages done by the [[Ku Klux Klan]] and other white supremacist groups, as those groups have declined in influence, the Center became involved in other civil rights causes, among them, cases regarding allegations of institutional racial segregation and discrimination, discrimination based on [[sexual orientation]], mistreatment of [[Alien (law)|aliens]], and the [[separation of church and state]]. Along with civil rights organizations such as the [[Anti-Defamation League]] (ADL), the SPLC has provided information about hate groups to the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (FBI).<ref>{{cite book|title=Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance|page=32|first=George|last=Michael|publisher=Vanderbilt University Press|year=2012|isbn=0826518559}}</ref> The SPLC has been criticized by conservative politicians and media, and by organizations that have been listed as hate groups in their reports.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-m-swain/mission-creep-and-the-sou_b_255029.html Mission creep and the SPLC], huffingtonpost.com; accessed May 6, 2015.</ref><ref>[http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/17741-anti-christian-hate-group-splc-becoming-increasingly-discredited SPLC becoming increasingly distracted], thenewamerican.com; accessed May 6, 2015.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/26/splc-the-wolf-who-cried-hate/?page=all SPLC: the wolf who cried hate], washingtontimes.com; accessed May 6, 2015.</ref><ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/southern_poverty_law_centers_lucrative_hate_group_label.html SPLC's lucrative hate group label], americanthinker.com, August 2012; accessed May 6, 2015.</ref> Although the SPLC continues to work with the FBI, the bureau removed the Center as an official source from its Hate Crimes webpage. The SPLC declined to comment.<ref>[http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview FBI website], fbi.gov; accessed May 6, 2015.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shocker-fbi-dumps-southern-poverty-law-center-as-hate-crime-watchdog-partner/article/2546305 FBI dumps SPLC as hate crime watchdog partner], washingtonexaminer.com; accessed May 6, 2015.</ref>

Quis separabit? 19:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• If it was an edit conflict, I retract my accusation about the misleading edit summary. But my objections to the portion removed remain. Also, you removed the sourced link to National Geographic, how can someone 'CN' for a source that was removed entirely? I found many results for the episode, including an archived link and their YouTube link. In any case, sorry about the accusation, but please make changes incrementally and for controversial changes, the Talk page would be better to gain consensus. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me check what happened with the National Geographic link; I only rv links and replace them with {{cn}} if they are clearly dead or invalid. I then try to find a replacement link or links. Let me check what you are stating. I'll be back. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, as per this diff, the link was deadlink tagged. But I checked and this link is not dead. Sorry for any inconvenience. However, more to the point, I am glad you object to what was removed, not to what was added or reworded. Could you review the above lede as I propse rewriting it and let me know what you think, i.e. if it's OK, or, if not, how I can fix it. Thanks. Quis separabit? 20:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source for the FBI removal, it doesn't even belong in the article, let alone the lede. Wikipedia policy is that we can only include what is supported by reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The source is provided (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shocker-fbi-dumps-southern-poverty-law-center-as-hate-crime-watchdog-partner/article/2546305) and please don't tell me it is not RS because you don't like its politics. Actually, I think I can update it to both of our satisfaction:

The FBI removed ("scrubbed") website links to the SPLC on its Hate Crimes webpage but continues to list the Center as an Outreach Partner.<ref>[http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview]</ref><ref>[http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/partnerships_and_outreach/community_outreach/outreach_contacts]</ref>

Quis separabit? 21:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I also object to that portion. The piece by the Washington Examiner (which is questionable as reliable sources go),makes assumptions based on political advocacy and does not report the facts. The FBI stated they just have a new policy about putting links to other organizations on the page. So either entry you've suggested is incorrect and just political. Dave Dial (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, back to the drawing board. Quis separabit? 01:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the writer of the story in the Washington Examiner is billed as a columnist, his story does not meet rs. Also, neutrality means we should not be reporting stories that have been noticed in only obscure sources. Also, as pointed out in Media Matters, the story is false.[18] TFD (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Aliens

That word as multiple meanings. Better to use a common word. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume this was handled in the dispute a week or so ago? I cannot find any additional instances of the word "alien" in the article, so... Dustin (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Source check

Would someone else check the reference to fundraising in the lede? It seems to me that the source referenced in the last paragraph does not backup what the text states. "Its fundraising appeals and accumulation of reserves have been the subject of some criticism.[16]" XenoRasta (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The end of the source discusses the subject of SPLC's fundraising. Frankly, I would remove the source from the lead per WP:LEADCITE. I think that sentence is an accurate summary of the Finances section, which uses that source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree; the source seems to indicate one article published in 1995 was critical of some aspects of the organization's finances; this may merit mention in the article itself, but hardly seems to merit placement in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI litigation

Check under “Harrassment, race-baiting personal attacks, edit-warring and NPOV violations.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harrassment.2C_Race-Baiting_Personal_Attacks.2C_Edit-Warring_and_NPOV_Violations2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have "litigation". AN/I is a community discussion to determine if there is a consensus that a complaint is valid and what to do about it. The behavior of all parties involved in the dispute, including the reporting party, are examined. Frequently, complaints are closed or peter out with no determination about what to do about them. So-called WP:BOOMERANGS, in which the complaining party is sanctioned, are far from unusual. BMK (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Southern Poverty Law Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926215522/http://www.pe.com/localnews/rivcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_D_hate25.3563952.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/rivcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_D_hate25.3563952.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070811113406/http://www.tolerance.org:80/teach/index.jsp to http://www.tolerance.org/teach/index.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070811113344/http://www.tolerance.org:80/pt/index.html to http://www.tolerance.org/pt/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150511113234/http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/03/sb-this-week-in-1172847076 to http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/03/sb-this-week-in-1172847076

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

SPLC criticized for wildly inflating their list of hate groups

Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League has criticized the SPLC for wildly inflating their list of hate groups. This is a person who the SPLC has interviewed, held up as an expert, and quoted in the past. Link

"The SPLC's registry of hate groups isn't without its critics.

According to Mark Pitcavage, director of investigative research at that Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the SPLC has a habit of counting single individuals as groups or chapters, which can give a skewed impression of hate groups in any given state.

As an example, he noted that the American Front racist skinhead group largely fell apart in 2012 and 2013, after its leaders were arrested in Florida. Since then, its presence in New Jersey and other places has been virtually nonexistent, he said.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center's list is wildly inflated," said Pitcavage. "They list skinhead groups in places where there are no organized groups, but instead it's just a couple of individuals."LinkPutanotherway (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the Black Panthers listed on this page. Was this an oversight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.154.127 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the page you're looking for. It includes the New Black Panther Party. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's because The Black Panther Party for Self Defense is a hated group not a hate group. 104.156.240.153 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

2012 shooting incident (shouldn't this be mentioned here?)

Was left out of this page. From Wikipedia FRC: "During his FBI interview Corkins was asked how he chose his target. His response was "Southern Poverty Law, lists...uh...anti-gay groups. I found them online"."

1. 2012 shooting incident[[19]]
   

--OxAO (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why should it be mentioned here? Does it matter? It's really to do with him, not the SPLC - should we mention the search engine? Doug Weller talk 21:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That article leaves out that he said next he did research and went to the FRC website. When read out of context it appears he targeted the FRC because the SPLC said they were anti-gay. I do not see that it has any relevance to this article. TFD (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, not relevant here. The FRC page should probably be edited anyway because those statements aren't credited to a reliable source, just a YouTube video put out by the FRC and the link is broken to the 2nd source. This WaPo article talks about how he had been planning for years, so I really don't think it has relevance on the SPLC article. Permstrump (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of their Cayman Islands & Bermuda Bank Accounts or interest in foreign corporations?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/27/1124823/-SPLC-238M-assets-Bermuda-acct-co-owns-foreign-firms

Directly from the SPLC itself, documenting its own foreign bank holdings and interests in foreign companies:

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/downloads/resource/splc_tax_return.pdf

Why does a non-profit need offshore bank accounts to begin with, one has to ask?208.102.198.209 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Do encyclopedia articles typically discuss the banking habits of organizations? Gamaliel (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they should, especially one that passes itself off as grassroots. I'm sure articles on organized criminal organizations do, along with corporate and political corruption. 208.102.198.209 (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the Daily Kos even potentially a reliable source? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it is, the article is a diary cross-posted from a blog by Michael Petrelis. As such it falls under opinion pieces and hence cannot be considered rs. TFD (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider it reliable, but it is far-left, just like the SPLC, so you can't argue a right-wing agenda and you can't argue that the author did access their IRS 990s, which is the actual source for his claims. I guess most here will conveniently ignore this until the New York Times or Mother Jones does an article about them. 208.102.198.209 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The finances are covered in the article. It does not seem signficant and you would have to show that mainstream media consider this an issue. TFD (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is the SPLC itself considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? 208.102.198.209 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. All the sources I could find are just attacking the SPLC. They may even be copying each other. Doug Weller (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the SPLC be considered a reliable source - generally needing attribution? It's used as a source for many other reliable sources, from the media to academic publications. It's been discussed a number of times and it's always been agreed that it can be used. Doug Weller (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

SPLC is considered a reliable source because news media and academic sources consider it so. It is particularly useful for articles about small groups that have received little other coverage. TFD (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

SPLC is only considered a reliable source for liberal criticism of people. It is not a reliable source for factual claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with FBI

Should it be mentioned that it's an FBI "outreach partner"?[20] Doug Weller talk 15:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The comment you just made on Talk:Hate group reminded me that I saw this comment here a few weeks ago and meant to respond, but I guess it fell off my radar. I figured, "While I'm thinking of it, I'll come back over here to see if anyone responded yet." And I've honestly been really confused for the past few minutes (ok, maybe seconds), but I toggled between this page and Talk:Hate group a few times before I figured out the same person had made both comments. Hehe. That was kinda hard to articulate, so just ignore me if it didn't make any sense. :-P But anyway, back to the point... As the article stands now, the lead says, "...the SPLC has provided information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)." Then in the Tracking of hate groups and extremists section, it says, "The FBI has partnered with the SPLC and many other local and national organizations 'to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems.'" Did you think it should be expanded more or has that stuff been re-added since a month ago when you first made this post? Permstrump (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: Thanks for raising this. No, that's been there for quite a while, it does need expanding. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It definitely seems relevant to me. It shouldn't be ambiguous, but for whatever reason there are still people writing things on other websites that perpetuate rumors that the FBI ended their working relationship, as you said on the Hate group talkpage. People might come to this article specifically to verify if the rumors are true. (I actually might have done so myself at some point.) I wouldn't know what more to write off the top of my head though. Did you have something in mind? Permstrump (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Something like "one of a number of civil rights groups partnered with the FBI " to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems."" Doug Weller talk 18:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Our Outreach Partners FBI.gov
• Hate Crimes--Overview:Public Outreach FBI.gov

Seems pretty ironclad to me. Permstrump (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Carson

@Motsebboh: any particular reason for removing Carson's extreme views on Obamacare? You didn't explain this in your edit summary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Good question, @Roscelese:. Carson's views on Obamacare are mentioned in the HuffPo/Curtis Wong article, but from the writing it isn't clear that Wong is referencing the SPLC here. It could taken from Media Matters (which he cites just before the mention) or from some other source. Motsebboh (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The profile itself obviously doesn't exist anymore, but coverage of the announcement elsewhere (shitty sources like the Blaze, Independent Journal Review, etc. but which I would hope are not making bald-faced lies about a direct quote) indicates that that's from the profile, not from elsewhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Overall, I don't suppose it makes much difference whether we mention Carson's view on Obamacare (or what the SPLC calls his Biblical views on economics) as a reason for them putting Carson on their list. For brevity's sake, though, I'm inclined to leave it as it is now. Motsebboh (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent Muslim Brotherhood edits

So BorderRuffian added content about the Muslim Brotherhood not being listed as a hate group ([21]) and MShabazz and North Shoreman removed it. Looking at the content, there are two books cited ([22] and [23]). These citations appear to be meant to support the claim the the Muslim Brotherhood supported Nazi Germany. The first book makes one mention of the SPLC, but not in relation to the Muslim Brotherhood. The second source does not mention it at all. There is also a source from a blog post from The Hill ([24]) calling for the Muslim Brotherhood to be classified as a hate group. It makes no mention of the SPLC. The last sentence of BorderRuffian's edit "Left wing extremist groups are also excluded." has no sources.

MShabazz and North Shoreman were correct to remove this. The first sentence is WP:SYNTH, including a non-RS source. The second sentence is entirely unsourced and the editor's personal assessment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What's a "non-RS" source?-BorderRuffian

I posted links to WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY to this editor's talk page hours before this question, so it's been answered. Doug Weller talk 06:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

To boot, the first book is published by Regnery Publishing and the third "source" is an op-ed by the dean and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Hardly reliable sources, even if they supported the silliness they were being used for. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"Be polite, and welcoming to new users - Assume good faith"-BorderRuffian

I'm a bit surprised an editor could find this but not what we mean by "rs". I think we've tried to agf and be polite. Doug Weller talk 06:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This article needs a full criticism section

The intro discusses the criticism the SPLC has received, yet the article makes no mention of it, despite such topics being noteworthy and necessary of inclusion in this article. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources we could use to cite the criticism it's received? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Best practices says that criticism should be incorporated into the main text rather than be presented as a separate section. So we can say for example in one section that the SPLC criticises the Ku Klux Klan and say in the same section that the Klan objects to the criticism. But it would be not neutral to have a section "Ku Klux Klan criticisms of the SPLC." TFD (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not really noteworthy criticism and is expected. The criticism of note is the substantive allegations of bias from major news outlets, such as: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ae439e16db5641c3b1380f4190c7638c/critics-splc-targets-demonizes-conservative-groups

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/southern-poverty-law-center-joining-pro-hamas-hezbollah-groups-in-blasting-haters-mostly-jews/2012/08/16/ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343115/splc-and-slant-patrick-brennan http://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-poverty-law-center-biased-in-labeling-family-research-council-a-hate-group-academic-study-argues-115612/ http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/219730/southern-poverty-law-centers-ridiculous-hate-group-robert-spencer VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, see Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism. clpo13_(talk) 15:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

While some of those sources could be used for the opinions they contain, they don't establish WP:WEIGHT. Admittedly I've only taken a brief look, but it looks like the AP is the only organization known for neutral reporting/fact-checking/accuracy on such matters (i.e. the others are not just "major news outlets" but news outlets with a noted evangelical Christian, orthodox Judaism, American right-wing political missions or biases). That doesn't mean they aren't ever reliable, to be clear, but they don't establish WP:WEIGHT because for these purposes, they're primarily just reliable for their own opinion. So it's possible there would be a use for them if we could establish WP:WEIGHT using better sources, but we need the better sources first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd expect a large number of rightwing sources including almost all of the groups on its list of hate groups would criticise the SPLC. but that's no more noteworthy than saying the sky is blue. Which is one reason why we would need better sources. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Need better sources? The AP is literally the gold standard of sources. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Need better sources. AP is fine, but, again, see WP:WEIGHT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The AP story does not criticize the SPLC, but says it has been criticized by the groups it categorizes as hate groups. TFD (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources VoltaireEditor2016 provided are either articles saying that groups listed by the SPLC do not consider themselves hate groups or are opinion pieces written by sympathizers of those groups. The article in FrontPage Magazine for example is by Robert Spencer. Spencer is denied entry to the UK and the Court of Appeal referred to the SPLC's findings when they refused to order the government to remove the ban. Spencer had planned to address a meeting of the far right English Defence League. If this article specifically names groups then we should explain their response. But we would also need to provide the SPLC view on the group and explain to readers that mainstream sources accept it. TFD (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

While I have not checked whether there are reliable sources on criticism of this organization, I find rather puzzling The Four Deuces's argument against criticism sections. We have Category:Criticisms which lists entire articles devoted to "criticisms of people, organisations, ideas, or other entities". We have articles like Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of Greenpeace, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of the National Health Service (England), Criticism of the United Nations, and Criticism of the World Trade Organization. All notable organizations with plenty of criticisms by various sources. In many cases they seem to be more informative than articles with no criticism at all. Dimadick (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And how many of those have good article status? The essay Wikipedia:Criticism outlines some of the reasons to avoid these sections. Consider the example of Spencer who was just mentioned. Which is more neutral or informative? (1) A section that says that the SPLC called Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), saying what SIOA is and why SPLC listed it, explaining how the SPLC's findings contributed to its officers exclusion from the UK and reporting the responses of SIOA officers and their supporters. (2) A section explaining the opinions of Spencer and other opponents of the SPLC.

Another approach would be to explain public reaction beginning with academics, media and law enforcement then the individuals about whom SPLC writes.

As a parallel, Vincent Bugliosi does not have a criticisms section, although we could present Charles Manson's opinion that he was innocent.

TFD (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

SPLC representative: “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.” @ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299011/occupy-southern-poverty-law-center-charles-c-w-cooke http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343115/splc-and-slant-patrick-brennan -BorderRuffian —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Human Events magazine

I've removed (here) a quote (recently added by an IP editor) from an unsigned article on the Human Events website under the Controversy over hate group listings section. Malik Shabazz removed the same content, although the IP added it back.

I think we already have enough quality material in this section: we specifically quote or reference five individually named critics, in addition to more general criticisms ("some commentators criticized X and Y"). I simply do not think we need to add another quote from a quite marginal publication — especially when the quote is from something resembling a blog post (it is bylined with the anonymous "admin" but it's not an editorial since the writer uses the first person "I"). This is low-quality and is simply unnecessary here. Neutrality^talk 19:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

When I removed the criticism, I wasn't aware that Human Events had been a print newspaper; like too many Wikipedia articles, its article suffers from WP:RECENTISM and describes it as a "news and analysis website". (Its case wasn't helped by the IP editor, who also described it as "conservative website Human Events".) I left the criticism the IP editor added from The Washington Times.

In any event, having now read the "editorial", I agree with Neutrality that it more resembles an anonymous blog post than a newspaper editorial. I think my first instinct was right. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

FBI resource

The information added in this edit suggests that the FBI cut ties with SPLC, but a counterpoint article shows that it's nothing of the sort. The FBI removing links to non-federal resources is absolutely WP:UNDUE information. clpo13_(talk) 15:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would also caution the editor who added this information that a publication being "70+ year" old is not a valid indicator of reliability. clpo13_(talk) 15:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You do not get to determine what is a reliable source just because you ideologically disagree with the information provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Reliability is not decided solely by age or ideology but by the presence of editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking, among other things (see WP:NEWSORG, WP:QUESTIONABLE, etc.). I'm not saying that Washington Examiner is not reliable, however. I'm just that saying being old doesn't give it a free pass. (I do see that others have called it unreliable, which is an issue that should be taken up at WP:RSN.)

The bigger issue with this article is that it claims something patently not true. The FBI did remove links to non-federal resources on a certain page, but did not stop their partnership with SPLC altogether, as the counterpoint article above points out. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The implication of your edit is that the FBI no longer partners with the SPLC when in fact the FBI merely decided to list only links to government resources on its website. I do not know whether the Washington Examiner fails rs, but it's coverage is extremely misleading. TFD (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think people are looking at this all wrong. From what I can tell, both of the removed references are completely factual. Such as, SPLC does not, at this point, show under the resources on the page cited. The reverted edit said noting about stopping any supposed partnership, so I don't know why that is being used as any sort of justification. The Due-ness or whatever may be a different matter, but the objections so far don't seem to be on point. Arkon (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016

Request update on fbi cutting ties with SPLC, as it is an important detail when considering how political enemies of the current administration have been attacked by the IRS illegally, as well as FBI inquiries into right wing, patriot, or anti government groups that are critical of the government.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/03/fbi-quietly-cuts-ties-with-anti-christian-hate-group/

Thank you

2602:304:CDC4:F060:7497:5822:A52C:6A21 (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Topher385 (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No liberal, left leaning in the lede? I guess there are exactly ZERO left wing hate groups in the US? More liberal denialism hard at work

Or maybe Morris just forgot them in some kind of clerical error?

Or maybe they don't even follow the extreme left?

SLPC Spokesman “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299011/occupy-southern-poverty-law-center-charles-c-w-cooke

Shame the supposed to be NPOV, encyclopedic Wikipedia project is often anything but juat that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The usual "it's not NPOV" as code for "I don't like what it says". clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This is also not the first time that National Review article has been brought up, but I'm not sure why it's relevant. Yes, SPLC focuses on right-wing groups, but that doesn't necessarily make them left-wing, unless you think a person or organization can only be one or the other. clpo13_(talk) 18:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you name any left-wing hate groups, that is left-wing groups whose primary purpose is discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or gender-identity? TFD (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Very tricky, the SLPC spokesman says we do not really cover the extreme left. That doesn't mean left leaning or liberal, it means exclusively and only left wing.

Do you really believe no such left wing hate groups exists? Weird given nationwide race rioting, calls to hunt down and burn those opposed to prop 8 in CA, calls for death to climate change deniers, attempts to blow up infrastructure in the name of Occupy, calls to burn down pizza places, florists, endless physical attacks on GOP supporters and on and on and on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You said, "I guess there are exactly ZERO left wing hate groups in the US? " Name one. TFD (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

TFD, WP:NOTAFORUM, please take your discussions about left-wing hate groups elsewhere. 213.205.198.74 (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh gee, a brand new anon account that knows about WP:NOTAFORUM... Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

hidden note and weight

1) I see there is a hidden note saying that the criticism of listing of hate groups is for groups only and not individuals. can someone point me to where in the archives of this very big talk page this decision was taken? 2) Also, I think the article clearly should mention the controversy over the most recent 'antiIslamic extremism' listings. The Atlantic (the most prestigious magazine in america probably) which according to wiki article has a "national reputation as a high-quality review organ" had an article on the controversy, the Independent gave Nawaz a rebuttal column, the WSJ editorial board (which is the only serious rival of the nytimes and washpo as the leading american newspaper) denounced the listing in an editorial. This is notable coverage by RSs and including it is completely in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, the topic heading is "Tracking of hate groups and extremists", so it is logical that a subtopic under that heading would include controversies over the labeling of individual extremists as well as hate groups. Motsebboh (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

As has been discussed earlier, controvery sections are bad style. Controversies do not just happen, they arise in the course of actions by organizations, and should be incorporated into the body of the article, not put into separate attack sections. The narrative should be: what the subject did, what the reaction was. Not what the reaction was, how the organization responded.

I will therefore add a section on the SPLC's article, "A Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists." It will explain what the SPLC said followed by criticism, which will be moved from the current controversies section.

So that resolves the weight issues in describing their approach to Nawaz and Ali. However, the SPLC profiles hundreds of organizations and individuals, and in fairness we would include sections on all of them, which would make the article unwieldy.

TFD (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please explain what sentences like

"Despite calling himself a feminist, he was filmed touching a naked lap dancer in a London strip club"

have to do with anti-Muslim extremism, or for that matter with the Southern Poverty Law Center?

Well, one could make a case for a connection to the SPLC: the SPLC seemed to be forced to dig up whatever they could find to make Nawaz look bad, so they even used stuff that has no connection with the subject.

But as long as that connection is not made explicit, that sentence and some of the other stuff should be removed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Another thing: The chapter makes it sound as if Nawaz and Ali had been the only "anti-Muslim extremists" on that list. Actually they are the only people on the list that have been defended publicly as not belonging on the list - the presence of all the others on the list is generally accepted as valid. I am getting the impression that neither the SPLC nor you care for either truth or consequences. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That is a summary of what the SPLC said about him. They think that groping naked women in public is not consistent with being a feminist. It is not up to us to decide whether the SPLC's assessment is fair or not. We state what they said and how Nawaz and other critics responded.

I only mentioned two people on the list because those were the only two mentions that attracted attention.

As for your final comment, please avoid personal attacks. It is a poor substitute for reasoned discussion and does not encourage other editors to cooperate with you.

TFD (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It is up to us what is relevant for inclusion in this article. The lap dancer thing is not relevant for the question being discussed publicly - namely whether Nawaz is an "anti-Muslim extremist".

Your version of the events was botched and slanted, and you are obviously anti-Nawaz and either not willing or not capable of neutral description of the situation. Someone had to tell you that. If you don't like how you come across, you should change your behaviour accordingly instead of complaining when people tell you how it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Blanket revert... Don't do that. If you want to revert, revert the stuff you specifically disagree with. I get less and less impressed with your flexibility, cooperativeness, and openness to discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Example: An "ex-radical Islamist" is an Islamist who used to be radical. A "former radical Islamist" is someone you used to be a radical Islamist. My version is obviously better. TFD does not care about that. TFD reverts this change together with the others.

Second example: I added important context, namely that the list consisted of more people than those two. TFD does not care about that. TFD reverts this change together with the others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that in my reversion I kept "the SPLC profiled several activists."[25] I do not agree with your distinction between "ex-radical Islamist" and "former radical Islamist" ("ex" and "former" mean the same thing) and am therefore fine with "former." If you think that the SPLC's profiling of Nawaz is important, then we should report what they said. It does not matter whether you think their reporting was relevant. If Nawaz supporters want to criticise the report for irrelevance or any other reason, we can mention that. I do not want to have to defend the SPLC since we should remain neutral but will explain what their position is. They see Nawaz as hypocritical, claiming to be a feminist yet not behaving like one. That is an attack on his credibility. If he is not truthful about his avowed feminism, then he is not credible in his anti-islamism. That argument could of course be bosh, but we need sources that say that rather than our own interpretation. TFD (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"They see Nawaz as" - Exactly. They see him as. Your version described their view as truth instead of ascribing it as an opinion. That was a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Several people have debunked the SPLC reasoning. But now that is irrelevant here, of course. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

For anybody who is interested, here is a dialogue with the SPLC regarding Maajid's inclusion on the list:

http://oneofmanymonkeys.tumblr.com/post/152869373600/the-curious-blacklisting-of-maajid-nawaz

They do not exactly give a rational and reasonable impression.

Also, the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice has written a public letter to the SPLC to retract their listing of Nawaz and Hirsi Ali:

http://www.lantosfoundation.org/news/2016/11/8/lantos-foundation-calls-out-southern-poverty-law-center

David A (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is another one: [26], including links to detailed debunkings: "I wrote a post in support of Maajid Nawaz on 1 November, and yesterday posted one in support of Ayaan Hirsi Ali." --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, saying "they see Nawaz as" is not the same thing as describing their view as truth. However, the facts presented by the SPLC are taken from reports in The Guardian and the Daily Mail. Neutrality means explaining the SPLC's position if we are going to present criticism of it. And just as you do not think we should present the opinions of the SPLC as the truth, neither should we do the same for the Lantos Foundation. This is not a forum for deciding who is right or wrong, but we need to follow neutrality. TFD (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"is not the same thing as describing their view as truth" - Nobody claimed it was. Describing their view as truth is what you were doing at other places:

• Your version said "Despite calling himself a feminist, he was filmed [..]" and the "despite" implies that there is a contradiction, instead of clearly saying that the SPLC "sees" a contradiction.
• Your version said "Nawaz also called for criminalizing women wearing veils" omitting the context - he actually said "“It is not only reasonable, but our duty to insist individuals remove the veil when they enter identity-sensitive environments such as banks, airports, courts and schools.”" The SPLC removed the condition, making it seem as if he wanted to ban veils everywhere, thus lying by omission and pulling the "criminalize" bit out of thin air. Your version propagated that lie.
• And so on. Almost every sentence contains half-truths and opinions.

I will not continue since, as I said before, it does not matter because your POV paragraph has already been deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be clear to you from the context that I am outlining the SPLC position, not stating it as fact. It's tedious style to begin each sentence with "According to the SPLC," but you are welcome to add it. When mentioning what the SPLC said, we should not remove what we think is relevant and annotate with what we think they wrongly omitted. Those aspects are rightly mentioned when we describe the response.

I detect a note of hostility in your tone and suggest you stick to the issues rather than engage in attacks.

TFD (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"It's tedious style to begin each sentence" - Then one should start the paragraph with a sentence that clearly explains that what follows is the opinion of the SPLC. "It should be clear" is not the same as "it is clear". Don't assume every reader thinks like you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I raised the issue at NPOVN. TFD (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? It's history. Motsebboh has deleted your POV paragraph and replaced it by two lines, which are actually much better. Don't tell me you want to reinstate it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, it is tendentious to provide criticism of what the SPLC said without explaining what they said. TFD (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

One can explain what they said without endorsing it. Your paragraph endorsed it. That's a big no-no, especially with reasoning as weak as the SPLC's, so the current version is better than yours. That does not mean it cannot be improved upon. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that's your reading of it and based on your comments it appears you may come away with a different understanding of what you read than the average reader. You are of course welcome to change the wording to make it clear to readers like yourself that it is an expression of the SPLC's views, rather than holy script. Instead you just remove it. TFD (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Naturally, I agree with Hob Gadling. TFD's "Field Guide . . ." subsection amounted to undue weight being given to this particular controversy , one that should have been concisely included in the "Controversy over hate group . . listings" (as it now is) along with the other controversies. This is a general article on the SPLC, not a specific article on its controversies or on anti-Islamism. Motsebboh (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As a general article about the SPLC it makes no sense to describe in detail what they say about the each of the hundreds of groups and individuals they profile. But if we decide to mention any one of them we should say what SPLC said and why the subject objected. Note that follows the neutrality policy. It is reasonable anyway that if we say Nawaz objected to what the SPLC said about hin, we should say what they said. Anyway, it appears you object to the listing of many of the groups and individuals based on your comments elsewhere, so we are unlikely to come to any agreement. TFD (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, TFD, if you can concisely summarize the SPLC's stated reasons for labeling Nawaz an extremist, for example, in the way that the SPLC's reasons for labeling of the Family Research Council a hate group is summarized in the Controversy section: "The SPLC defended its listing . . . stating that groups were selected not because of their stances on political issues such as gay marriage, but rather on their 'propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people ... that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities'"; then go for it. But please keep it within the last paragraph of the Controversy section. Motsebboh (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC) PS: It's not as if Nawaz's complaint has been given a disproportionately large amount of space. Motsebboh (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In order to avoid controversy, you could summarize the SPLC's position and Nawaz's response. I have already done that, you did not like what I wrote, maybe you can do better. TFD (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If the SPLC's points are summarised, then it would be best if somebody summarises the rebuttals as well. David A (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, for anybody who thinks that he is some kind of bigoted monster, please read this post-US election article. David A (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

David, this isn't the place to write about Nawaz, radical Islam, or anything except how to improve the article about the Southern Poverty Law Center. Please follow the talk page guidelines and stay on topic. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not say someone is a bigoted monster, which is against guidelines. We merely present various opinions, in this case what the SPLC said about him and his response. TFD (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I will try to keep myself in line. Anyway, I still think that if we are going to include the SPLC's rationales, somebody should summarise the rebuttals from the referenced news articles as well. David A (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)