Wikipedia

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 7

< Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Becritical in topic Non-encylopedic Fund Raising Section Revisited
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Categorization?

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Since the SPLC appears to be the most influential hate group watchdog in the United States, perhaps its listings should have a Wikipedia category? Something like Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center — similar to the function of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government and similar categories. I thought it would be best to float the idea first. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Opposed. I think the category is a bad idea. Imagine having a category on every political organization by every non-profit that rates the organizations. Henry00sher6 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure this is the proper venue to discuss this proposal. I'm not well versed on the procedure to suggest a new category, but wouldn't this discussion be better placed on a Category talk page, or perhaps the pump? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Eh, I thought it might be a good idea. But whatever, I'm not really attached to it. I didn't even expect an actual vote — just a discussion. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Supported As Gilgamesh said, being on the SPLC's list of hate groups is notable and a good way to find others of its kind. Dylan Flaherty 05:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - as nom Gilgamesh says, there are a bunch of similar categories at Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator. Roscelese (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - 3 to 1 seems like a small reaction overall...but I'd also not want to advertise reactions which could be slantedly for or against. I suppose the only way to know if such a category can succeed or fail is to measure the reaction to its being launched. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have to say...while I proposed the categorization and still think it's a good idea, I'm not entirely sure I want to start it myself. Such edits, while legitimate, may be a magnet for the worst kind of extremist online behavior. And, when it comes down to it, I am not actually interested in dwelling on the world of hate, or being called back into dwelling on it because of edits I already made. It's a social underbelly whose study can have taxing effects on an editor's sanity. Wikipedia needn't shy away from such notable content, but I'm only one user on Wikipedia who makes casual edits in my free time, and I don't particularly like being excessively reminded about the myriad ways human beings can treat one another other with inhuman contempt and cruelty. I still support, but I may just have to bail from involvement. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to WP:CAT. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you specify what policy at WP:CAT you're referring to? I don't see anything that would preclude the formation of a category, though a list would also be an alternative. Roscelese (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
See WP:OVERCAT. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you specify what policy at WP:OVERCAT you're referring to? I don't see anything that would preclude the formation of a category, though a list would also be an alternative. Roscelese (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion that we return to the lead

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

While more remains to be done on body of article, it is substantially better than it was a week ago. I would suggest that we return to the lead to correct the peacockery and primary source problem found its first sentence. No reason, however, not to get the whole thing done. I think we should work with the North Shoreman's 1.1 model which, in my opinion, is fine until the middle of the last sentence starting with "welfare rights" when he lists some things that aren't talked about much in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Because what happens here is that there are multiple discussions ongoing about other aspects of the page that are not resolved, and contentious. The outcome of those discussions will affect what needs to be in the lead, so I suggest we first finish the issues with the article itself before dealing with the lead again. Besides that, I do not see the issues as you indicate, and more important, I think you maybe better concentrate on that yet-to-be-produced list of issues with this article, which might change what needs to go in the lead by itself. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree it's not time to edit the lead yet, and it should be done on the talk page first. BE——Critical__Talk 21:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Issue with hategroup listing section

Latest comment: 13 years ago39 comments7 people in discussion

It does seem odd that out of 900+ groups labeled as hate groups by the SPLC, only 2 are discussed by name. I'm sure it's pure coincidence that both of those are conservative groups. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I count far more than two being discussed in the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that clarifies. I created a header as to make this clear. Anyway, yes, and I think that is just an artifact of h0ow WP is pieced together. I actually think we should either remove those two entries, or condense it and make it more general. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just editing on that section, hope people like what I did. I'm curious about how the groups under "Organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object to this characterization:" were picked? Why just those? Was it purely chance, when people came upon sources? If there isn't a good reason, I agree with Kim in taking them out. BE——Critical__Talk 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Assuming it was just a coincidence and that the 2 picked just happened to be conservative orgs, then it shouldn't bother anyone if the list is either balanced or those two removed. There is nothing wrong with how you edited it, but nothing really changed either. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't my intent to change anything, just to improve the structure and make it more encyclopedic sounding. BE——Critical__Talk 05:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift, the reason that any list of groups named by the SPLC as hategroups would be heavily weighted toward conservative groups is that the SPLC really isn't that interested in hate on the left. Out of the nearly 1,000 groups they identify, you could probably count on one hand the number of left-wing groups that the SPLC identifies as hategroups. Their prominent blog Hatewatch is subtitled "keeping an eye on the radical right" and a quick glance at the entries there reveal a focus on not just hategroups, but on mainstream conservatives. Drrll (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm on the SPLC's mailing list. I know who is on their list and there are non-conservative, non-right groups on the list. So I'm curious why the only two listed are conservative. Since I'm assuming good faith, it must be a coincidence, right? So the remedy would be to either balance the groups mentioned by name or remove the two specific examples, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The answer would be to come up with some sourcable way to justify listing any particular groups who object to SPLC. I would suggest just taking them out and forgetting about the issue. BE——Critical__Talk 23:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I am in favor of a two, three sentence section with a general picture that groups often do not like it that they are listed, although I have seen some exceptions to that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It is probably because hate groups are typically right-wing. TFD (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That's not really conducive to keeping what's left of a nice atmosphere here. And yes, we could say they generally don't like being listed... although I don't know why we'd bother. BE——Critical__Talk 02:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It should not be taken that way. I have never heard of any hate group that was not right-wing. TFD (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can't remember one off-hand either. Sigh. BE——Critical__Talk 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You guys need to get out more :) Ever heard of the Nation of Islam? They're on the SPLC's list of hate groups. New Black Panther Party? They are on the list too. The The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ is a black separatist group that is on the list. Of course I don't truly consider the c of CC to be an actual conservative group (just using conservative in your title doesn't make you one), but there is a chance it was specified in the section because it has the word conservative in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
For example, some left-wing animal right activists fit the category of hate groups. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC) To add, if you really want to get a real feel for that, look at some groups in Europe, where left wing hate groups do exist. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand that either. How do animal rights groups discriminate or hate people because of their immutable characteristics, not their choices? BE——Critical__Talk 03:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Re your addition about European groups, I don't know anything about them. BE——Critical__Talk 03:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Some pro-Palestinian groups can be called left-wing hate groups because of their hate against Israel. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yes, that is an example, thx (: BE——Critical__Talk 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you know of any left-wing anti-Semitic or anti-Israel hate groups in the US? Drrll (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No. The US is very far to the right on the political scale covering the world. What you consider left wing here is our hard core right wing, like liberals. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the SPLC, "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics". Can you name any left-wing Palestinian group in the United States (which is the only country where the SPLC monitors hate groups) that meets this description. TFD (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No idea. I was talking from a European perspective for the moment in order to demonstrate what the left wing hate group COULD look like. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: these two groups are specifically mentioned because of their objection to being listed, apparently thought notable enough to include and survive over time -- I think that's what Kim meant by 'artifact' of editing -- not by coincidence. In the past others have been mentioned as objecting to the designation. Besides, hate groups are not so easily ascribed to any part of the political spectrum. For example, isn't the Nation of Islam considered right-wing? I believe TFD has mentioned Laird Wilcox's work before on this. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Who considers NOI to be conservative? They are black separatists that believe that black scientists created the world on a plan that repeats every 25,000 years and a number of other fringe theories. They are far from conservative. Picking out 2 of 900+ that you happen to be able to find disputed the designation doesn't seem like any sort of balance or pattern. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Do some digging before you make such a blatantly false allegation. I never added either one. As far as I can tell they were both added by editors who are sympathetic to conservative causes. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What allegation? I haven't made ANY statement about any editor. I don't know who added them. I don't care who added them. Who added them is completely immaterial to the discussion. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but everything I say isn't about you. Read it again, realize that you have imagined some allegation (maybe surprise me and admit it) and stick to the topic, m'kay? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Then choose your words more carefully, especially given our history of disagreements. And while you're at it drop the sarcasm. You clearly said "Picking out 2 of 900+ that you happen to be able to find..." (my emphasis) -- this is not an imagined reference to me when it comes directly after my comment. That's a natural implication of your (sloppy) word choice. I know that you don't appreciate it when others do that to you. Perhaps you assumed I was defending the questionable content as status quo -- that would be another mistake. As Kim said, the section should be reworked anyway and I don't give a damn if conservatives are mentioned with their objections or not. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh give it a rest. You (PRBeacon) want to ignore the rest of the entire conversation and manufacture an allegation because of a generic "you"? See, unlike you (yes, PRBeacon), I don't enter every conversation carrying the baggage of every conversation I've ever had with you (PRBeacon). If you (PRBeacon) bothered to get past your (PRBeacon) own sense of self-importance, you'd (PRBeacon) see that I said almost the exact same thing at the start of this discussion. In fact, I avoided contributing in some of the other discussion you (PRBeacon) were involved in because I predicted that you (PRBeacon) wouldn't be able to have a conversation without dragging everything ever said into it. Stop manufacturing drama where there is none. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Heh, ' give it a rest ' and then that ridiculously pointy reply? Get off your high horse and stop trying to re-frame what I said. It's a stale old tactic of trying to wear down other editors because you have nothing more substantial to add. You're free to move along and suggest a re-write of the section, as others have already agreed to. Yet you prefer to focus on the partisan angle, apparently. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, give it a rest. There is no accusation. Period. Repeating yourself won't change that. And now you start with accusations of your own? What was your point? Apparently, it got buried in all the bullshit about the imaginary allegation. Can you make the point again, without the paranoia this time? Stop living in the past and focus on the topic. Are you able to do that? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Takes two to tango eh. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No one said they were conservatives, any more than one would call Kim Jong Il a liberal. They are listed as a hate group by the SPLC and as right-wing extremists by Laird Wilcox. Their leaders have met with George Lincoln Rockwell, Tom Metzger and other rightist leaders. TFD (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, :)
I added the two organizations described by hate groups who object to the characterization.
Because we don't have a Criticism section in this article, criticism of the SPLC is spread throughout the article. In this case, the groups that criticize the SPLC were listed as hate groups. So their criticism goes into the "Hate group listings" section.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
...And the entire financial section is criticism. BE——Critical__Talk 16:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So can I take out the selective objecting groups from this section? BE——Critical__Talk 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Will try this edit later if no one responds. BE——Critical__Talk 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

funny bot antics

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi everyone,

About ten hours ago, a bot reverted a change an IP user made where he changed American Family Association lead sentence from:

The American Family Association (AFA) is an American group.

to

The American Family Association (AFA) is an American hate group.

Even though I object to calling the Americian Family Association a hate group, I think it is strange that a bot would make this decision. I think it is a decision that the editors of American Family Association need to make.

I have notified the bot that it made a bad revert. I have also written on the user's page that the edit he made wasn't vandalism.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't vandalism, but I doubt the bot would have done that for a regular user. Bots can't be perfect, and it looks like they know that which is why they say "possible vandalism." However, the IP might have been responding to the source [1] added by another IP [2]. BE——Critical__Talk 20:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
To someone unfamiliar with the article, an IP changing "group" to "hate group" would appear to be vandalism. It is up to the IP to deal with the bot. TFD (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back, TFD! --Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Badmintonhist's proposed changes.

Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

Ok, go ahead and justify them. Dylan Flaherty 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I did think some of the edits were good. Good copy edits, and also possibly some sound judgments on taking things out. BE——Critical__Talk 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps some of them were. Would you like to provide diffs? Dylan Flaherty 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I like most changes, except for the removal of the section highlighting that the SPLC was the target of assassination plans etc. Why are those removed??-- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
For example this took out some unnecessary text, and also took out an unnecessary mention of Hal Turner. That is kind of random information which doesn't really add to the informational needs of the article but does drag in something rather off-topic. BE——Critical__Talk 00:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting choice, as I would have picked that one out as an example of a sloppy, pointless edit. Look at how, in the "after" version, there are two references to GruvermontgomeryJuly back to back. Sloppy. He removed a quote on the basis that it sounded kind of silly to point out that this was going to be a bigger threat than past ones, but this is precisely the thinking of the sender, so why are we doing them any favors? Finally, while the brief explanation of who Turner is could be cut, the reference ought not be, precisely because we'd otherwise not have a clue about his role. Dylan Flaherty 00:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Badmintonhist has reverted his change twice now, the second time with a dishonest "minor" flag, but hasn't said a word here. Clearly, he is not interested in cooperating, and that's reason enough to throw out everything he did. Dylan Flaherty 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of not needing to repeat the rhetoric of terrorists, and also of paring the article down as much as possible while still retaining its core information. We want to have something that people will actually read. In that light, it just seemed like a good edit to me. Any sloppiness could be corrected. He also corrected some sloppiness, for example "While Metzger lost his home and will not be publishing any more material" ---> "While Metzger lost his home and ability to publish material." So I just don't think we can condemn the entire series of edits, and it would be worthwhile to do corrections or further edits rather than wholesale revert. BE——Critical__Talk 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
All possible good he did the article aside, however, the edit summary here [3] is disruptive of normal WP process, as he was reverting almost entirely [4] to the changes he himself had just made. BE——Critical__Talk 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the boldly removed part, under WP:BRD. Now that it is reverted because I think the reasons are not valid, discussion is next. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. I prefer to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring, so I generally stick to 1RR and only go to 2RR if its warranted. The one thing we seem to agree on is that discussion is needed, but Bad has not seen fit to join the discussion. I think it's very nice of Becritical to try to step in for Bad, but it's ultimately Bad's job. Dylan Flaherty 01:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say that each and every change was wholly bad. However, they're a mixed batch and there's enough bad in them to make it hard to filter out the good. I recommend that each change be considered individually, resolving it fully before moving on. Dylan Flaherty 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree about either more discussion or more editing care. here is the current state of the changes after I put some stuff back in. I accidentally moved the information about Bond, but don't see a reason to correct that. BE——Critical__Talk 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
And note that "Several neo-Nazi groups held a rally in front of SPLC headquarters in early 2003." is still missing, as is ""promising the most dangerous threat" ever faced"" et seq. I'm leaving it up to others to vet this current version. I'm not endorsing it necessarily as the one that should be kept. BE——Critical__Talk 04:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I might have joined the discussion earlier but my singing talents are often in demand on Saturday nights. Right now the family computer is being demanded by my wife so more detailed comments will have to wait. For now, I'll just observe that my recent edits were excellent and should be embraced by discerning editors throughout the Wikipedia project,. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
/cringe. Jeez, now he's channeling fictional character Ignatius J. Reilly?! Next he'll be quoting Boethius and Fortuna. Even more so now, I stand by my earlier objections [5] [6] to his editorial opinion of what constitutes article improvement. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
We bow to thee, great Badmintonhist the Mighty. It is thy editing which doth set us an example, tho verily never shall we meet thy admirable standard. Forgive us our humble objections, for it is merely our ignorance and perversity which hath overcome us in our tear-filled and loathsome debasement. Whilst thou walkest among the stars of True Knowledge, do we scrape our bellies on the lowly thorns, and drag our weary tails in the mud of ignorance and contrariness. Be lenient and patient with us, oh Badmintonhist, Father of All Good Writing and NPOV, for we are weak. BE——Critical__Talk 05:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Funny! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
:P BE——Critical__Talk 06:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
All kidding aside, I took the time to write edit summaries for all but the most obvious edits so I would have expected an individual approach to each edit rather than a blanket deletion. I would be happy to defend each change that I made but not all at once. Dylan sent me a rather odd note threatening to "report" me for mischaracterizing my edits as minor? Where does that come from? Badmintonhist (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I have to compliment BeCritical on his rejoinder.
A note which you ignored and apparently fail to understand. The note includes a diff in which you made many significant changes but labeled it as Minor. This is Bad. Do not do this. Dylan Flaherty 17:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
As I remember I was hurrying out for the evening. Perhaps I noted some small glitch in the edit summary, corrected it, and unconsciously labeled it a minor change before clicking "submit." Even the great ones can make small mistakes from time to time. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm certain you'll be more careful in the future. Marking a large reversion as Minor may be seen as suggesting that you are reverting vandalism. Dylan Flaherty 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think wiki software automatically labels some kinds of reverts as minor, it's a flaw in their software rather than something he did on purpose (or at least that used to be the case, they keep updating the software). He obviously didn't mean to do that and it's too obvious a ploy for any intelligent person to have done it to try and get by our radar on this article. Since it can't have been bad faith, let's AGF. BE——Critical__Talk 20:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the case, but I'm willing to AGF if they say it wasn't intentional. Dylan Flaherty 05:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

FBI partnership

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I found that the FBI actually formed a partnership with the SPLC. This should probably be in the article in a special section. What do others think? [7][8]; this might be of use for something [9] [10] BE——Critical__Talk 21:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Two years ago, the FBI and the Department of Justice began to work with the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Urban League on the Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative. " BE——Critical__Talk 21:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this is notable, relevant and should be included in this article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Drrll (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's save some time here: does anyone actually object? If not, let's move on. Dylan Flaherty 13:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks guys for the vote of agreement. BE——Critical__Talk 20:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to edit this, feel welcome. BE——Critical__Talk 17:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism or controversy section

Latest comment: 13 years ago29 comments9 people in discussion

I was on the edge about suggesting this before, as it's usually better (I think per MOS) to keep criticism and controversy in-line. However, especially with the section above, there seem to be a significant number of reliable sources which are critical of the SPLC, and which would be disruptive to the general flow of the article if not focused into a summary. So what do people think of putting most of the critical material (such as financial section and new info) in its own section? BE——Critical__Talk 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, as long as we have two separate criticism sub headers, one by groups listed by them as hate groups, and one from third parties. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. BE——Critical__Talk 21:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As of this revision, why does the "Finances" section begin with criticisms of SPLC's finances and center largely around them? Why not call the section "Criticisms of the SPLC's finances" or similar? Or maybe, perhaps more consistently with WP:NPOV, why not begin with a summary of SPLC's finances and then get to the criticisms of what some regard as excess holdings and fundraising costs? ... Kenosis (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, but I'm suggesting there are enough criticisms they need their own section; and probably our sources mainly cover criticism in this area. BE——Critical__Talk 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not fond of the idea of a criticism ghetto. There's not much criticism that belongs in the article -- we don't need a long list of "Sons of Aryan Death denies being a hate group as does Cousins of White Power Hour, as does..." -- and it's best to deal with it briefly and in context. Dylan Flaherty 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually I dug up a few more RS which criticize [11] [12] as well as info supportive of SPLC like the FBI stuff, and now we have the congressional stuff. It's not a ghetto, it's keeping the article from becoming a criticism/response. BE——Critical__Talk 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm reading through these while looking up information. The first article talks about an org named "We are Change" that was branded a hate group. On the one hand, it does claim to be peaceful. On the other, they're 9/11 "truthers", which is a fringe (chiefly) Libertarian view that does indeed enable right-wing extremism. I was unable to find a site for "We the People" (even after plugging in the quoted statement). As for Republic of Texas secessionists, the complaint seems to be that they were slow in adding them to the list, not that the label is wrong. It complains that the Hutaree, all of whom are imprisoned, were not listed, and it also repeats an accusation about the Pulitzer Prize thing. It quotes a zinger out of Ken Silverstein's piece for Harper's, but I can't find the original article to get some context. Finally, it quotes a much milder complaint by Alexander Cockburn. Frankly, if this were in a Wikipedia article, we'd be laughing at it for undue synthesis, but I guess all's fair in journalism.
Where's all this coming from? Well, this is an opinion piece from the New America Foundation. The NEF is a radical-center org, whose goal is to play down the left/right dichotomy, which is what the SPLC plays up. There's the bias right there, as well as a question of notability.
The second article is an opinion piece from National Catholic Reporter, whose web site is practically blank, but does have an article here that calls it a liberal Catholic paper. In any case, it has complaints about how successful the SPLC is at getting contributions, but doesn't seem to be suggesting that they inaccurately label hate groups. Their main concern is that, by highlighting web sites of hate groups, this will lead to censorship. While this is a reasonable concern, the decade since the article was published do not seem to support it.
I'm not averse to including criticism, but I hope we can do better than this. Dylan Flaherty 04:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
L::::I do not think it improves article to scour the internet for critisms. The fact that it is so hard to find criticism of the SPLC, and that it all comes from fringe groups, means that it lacks notability. The comment by Laird Wilcox is of signicance because it was published in a major book about political extremism, but it does not seem to have attracted any attention outside the far right itself. An opinion piece, such as the one from the Christian Science Monitor, is not a reliable source except for the opinions of its writer. TFD (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This "fringe" mantra is silly, especially if it is meant to imply that criticism of the SPLC is limited to the right-wing fringe. Periodicals such as Harper's and the Nation are not on the right-wing fringe. Folks such Millard Fuller, Stephen Bright, Ken Silverstein, and Alexander Cockburn are not the right-wing fringe. The description of the SPLC as "controversial" is not right-wing when it comes from the Washington Post. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
"Controversial" is not a criticism; it's an observation that the thing has been criticized by others. Roscelese (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and do you think that WaPo would bother with that "observation" if it were only fringe groups who were criticizing the SPLC? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on the current state of the news media? Yup. But my opinion isn't what matters - does the WaPo article go into detail? Roscelese (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Nope. But Silverstein, Cockburn, Bright and other progressives do. In fact, the bitterest criticism of Dees and his outfit comes from folks one might think would be his ideological allies. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The criticism definitely does not all come from fringe groups. Some of it is from highly reliable sources, as already reflected in the article. Christian Science Monitor and National Catholic Reporter are pretty good sources, even if they are opinion pieces, which of course are regularly used on Wikipedia when from RS and with attribution. But let's say that the opinion pieces alone would be insufficient for inclusion: they are not alone, but rather build upon or analyze other more reliable sources we have, such as the Advertiser. Of course we shouldn't scour the web for criticism, but we should not ignore it from reliable sources either. We should note the fringe group complaints, and we should give appropriate coverage to the RS criticisms and things like Congressmen signing criticisms. BE——Critical__Talk 21:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And let's be realistic. There is a real and quite legitimate concern that an article like this could turn into either a fawning advertisement or a hit piece. However, given recent developments with reliable sources, that is just not going to happen. Yes, we/I found more RS critical of the SPLC, but also more to say which has greatly strengthened its high standing in scholarly and official circles. So people, please relax a bit here, we're doing fine. BE——Critical__Talk 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is a lengthier article from Slate about the controversy. TFD (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Slate.com is normally considered an RS, but I'm not so sure about the Slate blogs. However David Weigel seems to be a reliable journalist, per a quick perusal of his article. He seems to be lefty, not righty, which I mention because one would normally consider SPLC a lefty. So I don't find a problem with using this as an RS. Nice find. Anyone else? BE——Critical__Talk 00:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The mainstream view of the SPLC is that it is a respected organization that accurately identifies groups that promote hatred against minorities. That view is shared by Fox News and the FBI. While these groups dislike the categorization, we cannot give the same parity to their positions. TFD (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Correct, but there isn't a question of doing so on this talk page. The criticism section would be from RS, and not do anything besides a bare mention of the fact that hate groups sometimes don't like the designation. BE——Critical__Talk 17:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus against such a section and I don't see any reason to change this. It is fine to say that "The criticism section would be from RS", but nobody has shown that such sources actually exist. What reliable sources not already included in the article need to be added to the article in this new section? Every time this question gets asked the only response is the same old listing of opinions from political commentators from the right wing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, When one of the main points of criticism is that SPLC has moved from its original mission to becoming more of a left wing attack dog group, that they are more interested in silencing debate from those whom they disagree with then its core mission, who is the criticism going to come from but the right wing? If a acknowledged right wing journalist, wrote a obejective article giving explicit detail on how the SPLC's serious flaws, would you deny its value just cause of the writer political leanings? I want to understand what, in your mind, is a reliable source. Ucscottb4u (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess you haven't been keeping up with the discussion. The sources are listed above, but I'll try and consolidate them later today. BE——Critical__Talk 19:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you but I think I'm up to speed. You are still presenting nothing but political editorial opinion. WP:NEWSORG seems to be on point and none of the authors cited fall into the category of "specialists and recognized experts." "Specialists and recognized experts" would consist of folks with academic credentials (such as the two scholarly articles that you have moved around) or practical experience (such as the FBI) in dealing with hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I admit I haven't but my point is more general. I have followed this for a while (atleast a year or two now) and consistently seen any attempt at honest criticism brushed aside, because the author of the criticism was "right wing." There are definetly issues with mission creep within the SPLC, how serious the issue is, is where the debate really should be.Ucscottb4u (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Rather than mission creep, the SPLC's mission has changed as the times have changed. The biggest change is the recognition of the dangers of hate speech as well as the attempted mainstreaming of such speech. The bottom line is still that regardless of the perception of the right wing, mainstream news organizations and academics continue to rely on the SPLC as an important and accurate source for information on hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter whether critics are right-wing, but whether their criticism is informed. There are for example informed sources that criticize anti-hate laws in other countries. If they also criticized the activities of the SPLC in being anti-free speech then we could report that too. But no one has found any. TFD (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
We have to remember to be careful about the "expert" thing. It would backfire, since there are many subjects where you have criticism from people who don't have degrees in a subject, but are nevertheless experts. Also, you have "experts" a lot of times where they have doctorates but are nevertheless irrational people going against the scientific consensus, for example the American College of Pediatricians. So it's very very very iffy to rely on expertise, and much more reliable to look at the venue in which the material is published. BE——Critical__Talk 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
In addition, what we have with certain criticisms of the SPLC is multiple opinions in multiple reliable sources building upon each other and expanding the same information. So to ask that the authors also be experts is not correct in this case. We may or may not need a separate section, but questioning whether these sources are reliable enough for inclusion, especially when taken together as a whole, doesn't seem to me a productive path. BE——Critical__Talk 23:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

On reopening discussion of the lead

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I was happy enough with the one that existed about three edits ago. Not to pull any punches, the opening sentence now is an encyclopedic monstrosity. As for reopening discussion of the lead, it all depends on whether we want to be editors or whether we want to be complacent SPLC acolytes who were perfectly happy when much of the article was copied directly out of on-line SPLC publications. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Most of the plagiarism seems to have been the work of a self-styled history academic, though not our beloved North Shoreman. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

With that attitude, it looks like serious editors will need to work around you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I tell it like it is, baby. You haven't exactly been Mr. Congeniality yourself, my fellow retiree. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a difference between not pulling punches and creating negativity where it doesn't need to exist. BE——Critical__Talk 00:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ten Commandments image

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A rather minor issue but does the article really need the photograph of Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument? It does look rather nice and may add to the article's visual appeal but is it all that pertinent to an article on the Southern Poverty Law Center? Is it supposed to show readers what the SPLC delivered them from? Thoughts? Badmintonhist (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't need be in. Frankly, I don't see why the monument needs to be mentioned at all in this article. It seems like a very minor incident unrelated to the mission of the SPLC, and a better fit for the ACLU article. Drrll (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The picture is appropriate since it is EXACTLY what the lawsuit was about. Separation of church and state is a very important issue and received much more coverage in reliable sources than, for example, the whole FRC situation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think it was put there, in part, because it looked nice on the page which is kind of ironic since the SPLC din't want the thing viewed on public grounds. This reminds of a more important issue, however. In the lead, North Shoreman, why don't we include the SPLC's involvement in Establishment clause, and immigration cases which are actually in the body of the article rather than those other issues that are not? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I agree it doesn't need to be there, but why not? It's cool. And relevant to the article. And agree that whatever's in the lead should be in the body. BE——Critical__Talk 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Lead -- Version 1.1 Revisited

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Somehow the lead got changed apparently w/o any discussion and certainly w/o us ever reaching consensus. I am repeating what I wrote earlier since it received some favorable response. The discussion is back in archive 5. The following is my proposal:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization internationally known for its free legal defense of hate group victims, monitoring of hate groups and their activities, and educational programs promoting tolerance. The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations which denigrate or assault entire groups of people for attributes which are beyond their control. SPLC publishes a quarterly Intelligence Report that investigates extremism and hate crimes in the United States.

The SPLC was founded in 1971 by Morris Dees and Joseph J. Levin Jr. as a civil rights law firm based in Montgomery, Alabama. They were quickly joined by civil rights leader Julian Bond who served as president of the board from 1971 to 1979. Its litigating strategy involved filing civil suits for damages on behalf of victims of discrimination with the goal of financially damaging the groups and individuals who directed the discrimination. While they originally focused on the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists, throughout the years they have become involved in cases concerning illegal segregation by groups such as the YMCA and Alabama State Police, welfare rights, work place rights for women, the constitutionality of the death penalty and its disparate application to African Americans, and the rights of adequate representation for poor African Americans in criminal trials.

I would also suggest a third paragraph that would focus on a summary of the history and current state of the SPLC's education programs and a fourth paragraph (see [13]) for guidelines on the size of a lead section) that summarizes the section on "Tracking of hate groups".

It was properly pointed out that "welfare rights, the rights of women, the death penalty, and the rights of criminal defendants" were not currently in the article. They should be -- this is the problem with working on the lead with the article in flux. The Encyclopedia of Alabama (see [14]) would be the source for this material -- it states:

Advocacy on behalf of women in the workplace and welfare recipients also resulted in landmark decisions. During this time, the organization also focused on the racially unbalanced death-row populations in U.S. prisons. SPLC provided legal representation in individual cases of poor black defendants who had not had the benefit of adequate counsel in their original trials. SPLC lawyers argued successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court that Alabama's laws regarding the death penalty were unconstitutional and won the freedom of 11 inmates in 1980.

A summary of this would be added in the subsection "Notable Cases"Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the first paragraph [15] two weeks ago, based on talkpage discussion at the time as well as the previous change by User:K [16]. As I said in the edit summary, the then-second sentence ('The SPLC is internationally known...') made the quote ("dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society") mostly redundant, so other problems with it would be moot -- since I agree with other editors about trying to avoid quotes, per WP:LEAD, especially in the very first sentence. I also thought it worked well to include the home city in the first sentence..:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization based in Montgomery, Alabama.[2] The SPLC is internationally known for its legal victories against white supremacist groups, its tolerance education programs and its tracking of hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations.[3][4][5] The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations that it has determined "have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."[6]

As for the second and possibly third paragraph, I'd like to see that material worked into the body text first, as you've indicated. I would also support including the "dedicated" quote somewhere like the History section. Fwiw, I've tried rewriting the final sentence to eliminate the quote, but no luck so far. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to briefly encapsulate what is found in the body of the article. Welfare rights, workplace rights for women, the constitutionality of the death penalty, and the right to adequate counsel in criminal proceedings aren't in the body of the article now, so why bother with them? They can be added to the lead later, if and when they become part of the body. The body does talk about at least one religious Establishment Clause case and an immigration case. Why not mention those aspects of of the SPLC's efforts instead? Badmintonhist (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This section sounds good. I agree we should first put the material in the body. Then, decide whether we're finished for now with adding sections/material to the body. Then rewrite the lead accordingly. But we already have body sections which could be used in the lead. It would be fine to edit the lead to include the "Tracking of hate groups" section. BE——Critical__Talk 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Badmintonhist continues to remove significant points of the SPLC's notability, this time from the lead: [17] -- which conspicuously omits "legal victories against white supremacist groups" as well as its tracking of "militias and extremist organizations" both of which were there before. This edit is yet another example of what I brought up in the previous thread, More questionable edits. I'm restoring those points to the lead. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I largely modeled my recent editing of the lead after the North Shoreman's proposal above. Although he and I have had our differences I thought most of his proposal was fine. As for PrBeacon's very recent edits to the lead they are okay with me too, though he needs to take care not emphasize the "Pr" part of his name when editing articles on subjects that he likes. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not the one here who is making questionable POV edits. Unless you can provide specific diffs of edits where you think I'm in the wrong here, I'll assume your warning/advice is simply another attempt to deflect and distract. And since you don't know what my username means, don't starting pretending to in some sort of veiled insult. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe we've pretty much decided to edit the article before the lead? If so, messing with the lead is just temporary edits, till a consensus lead can be worked out on the talk page. BE——Critical__Talk 21:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ranch Rescue

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Interesting how Becritical didn't see fit to remove repetition of "El Salvadorans" even as he removed other repetitions.Strde (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I commend Stride for adding useful information from a reliable source (The New York Times) to this subsection, I think that Becritical's wording was fine. Repeating "El Salvadorans" is innocuous. Repeating "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" twice gives one the impression that the editor is trying to make a political point. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, eliminating the rep. that they are illegal aliens while keeping the rep. that they are El Sav. gives one the impression that Badmintonhist is trying to make a political point. My position is consistent, your position is not.Strde (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"El Salvadorans" was BeCritical's wording, though I'm fine with it. Just out of curiosity, however, what political point would I have been making? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't read your mind any more than you can read mine, but I can spot inconsistency. Becritical showed his own bias by ignoring the repitition of "vigilantes" and "El Salvadorians", while cleansing the repetition of illegal aliens. Do you not see that?Strde (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "El Salvadoran" is preferred to "El Salvadorian." Sometimes writers avoid repetition when referring to the same thing simply because of the monotony of repetition, sometimes for other reasons. In the case at hand repetitious use of the adjective "illegal" when referring to the two people from El Salvador gives the impression (to me, at least) that the editor is trying to emphasize that status to create more sympathy for the vigilantes (or would you prefer "good samaritans"?) who stopped them. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, I would prefer consistency to your bias. There you go again trying to read my mind and pigeon-hole me. You don't get it do you? Your bias is coming through crystal clear.Strde (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw the repetition of "illegal" as POV, true. I don't know how else to designate the two groups, except by repeating "El Salvadorans." However, vigilante is not a POV term. It is only POV relative to a person's idea about the behavior. If one were to think that, in the case that the government does not perform its basic duty to protect the people from illegal acts, the citizens have a right and duty to take matters into their own hands (and I think that's pretty much what Ranch Rescue would say), then it's a positive-POV term. If the reader thinks that only governmental agencies should enforce the law under all circumstances, then it's a negative-POV term. In the end, it's a neutral term since its POV can't be determined. BE——Critical__Talk 21:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Illegal Alien is not a POV term. If one were to think that, in the case that the government does not allow enough immigrants into the country, would-be immigrants have a right and duty to take matters into their own hands (and I think that's pretty much what Illegal Immigrants would say), then it's a positive-POV term. If the reader thinks that only legal immigrants should be allowed in the country under all circumstances, then it's a negative-POV term. In the end, it's a neutral term since its POV can't be determined. Agree?Strde (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but repetition would be POV because the reader is certainly programmed over a lifetime to think negatively about anything "illegal." Thus making it plain once that their status is "illegal" is sufficient. Certainly repetition of "El Salvadoran" is, at least, less POV. At any rate, your change to the article didn't make it any less POV. If you can think of some way to designate groups which is less POV than the way I did it, then I'm all for that. BE——Critical__Talk 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose every dispute in Wikipedia is a tempest in a teapot but this is a tempest in a teapot inside a miniature ship caught in the tempest in the teapot. I've complimented Strde for bringing in the New York Times article and its info about the incident, but let's not get hung up on the terms we use to describe the man and the woman from El Salvador. The time would be better spent on finding other reliable sources for other incidents that are as yet described solely by the SPLC in this article. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Lol, agree. And I'm going to edit the section assuming you know that it was 2 people a man and a woman. BE——Critical__Talk 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Just caught your latest edit of this incident, Becritical. It's good. Kind of reads like a police report. Remind me to recommend you for a barnstar one of these days. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
lol, thanks :D :P BE——Critical__Talk 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

List of sources on finances

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I hope that other editors will add to this list, if I have missed any.

Used in the article:

  • Andrea Stone, "Morris Dees: At the Center of the Racial Storm," USA Today, August 3, 1996, A-7
  • The Conscience Industry by Alexander Cockburn The NationNovember 9, 1998
  • American Institute of Philanthropy. Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report. December 2008.

In a paragraph we've almost agreed to take out:

"white power, white pride!"]

  • [Rory McVeigh. Structured Ignorance and Organized Racism in the United States. Social Forces, Vol. 82, No. 3, (Mar., 2004), p. 913 JSTOR]

Additional sources:

BE——Critical__Talk 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your list In a paragraph we've almost agreed to take out is improperly titled. There has been no discussion of it. I believe you are the one that moved the material from elsewhere in the article. It is necessary in this section until such time as the more extreme and misleading language is removed -- then it should be restored to where it was originally placed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A few miscellaneous items

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would it be "audacious" to expect a serious journalistic defense against the Montgomery Advertiser's Pulitzer-Prize-nominated series or to various very low grades from the Better Business Bureau, the American Institute of Philanthropy, or Charity Navigator?

I still haven't heard an answer to a previous question: Do the the SPLC's fundraising appeals routinely, or even occasionally, tell prospective donors that their contributions go toward the building of a budgetary surplus in order to create a self-perpetuating fund?

Should Joe Levin's response to the Montgomery Advertiser series stay in the article? On one hand it appears to be the SPLC's "offical" response to the series. On the other hand it is rather impertinent in both senses of the word. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Categorization or List

Latest comment: 13 years ago83 comments11 people in discussion

Take 2, since the first try generated no consensus. So, two questions here:

  • Should Wikipedia have information on groups that the SPLC designates as hate groups?
  • If so, should this information be in the form of a category, or a list?

(If you're going to link to a policy page, it would be helpful if you'd provide a quote so we know what you're referring to.)

  • Yes - its tracking of hate groups is definitely notable, and Wikipedia already has both List of designated terrorist organizations and Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator (some subcats of which also include lists). So it's clearly not unprecedented, and it's also notable. I have no opinion on whether it should be a category or a list. Roscelese (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes - this is an authoritative list and therefore quite helpful. Ditto about category/list, although leaning slightly towards category, for convenience. Dylan Flaherty 04:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong No - A list might be okay for "information on groups that the SPLC designates as hate groups" if is it presented as the SPLC's list, not an actual list. But then why have that at all since a simple link to the SPLC will suffice? Designated terrorist organizations come from a reliable source, a national government. They have encyclopedic significance. Hate groups as listed by the SPLC would come from a source that has admitted it is trying to smear certain groups, not in so many words, of course. SPLC's listing is not encyclopedic, except to the extent that a hyperlink is made to the SPLC web site for the SPLC's list on an as needed basis, or except for mention on the SPLC page itself. Giving the SPLC's list an encyclopedia page would give its list qualities of reliability, etc., that its list on the SPLC site does not now have, and that is not the mission of Wikipedia. It may be the mission of SPLC, but not Wikipedia. On a related note, a list of actual hate groups would be a strong magnet for trouble.
And a category is inappropriate per WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT.
Procedurally, I am not comfortable with attempting to gain consensus in a new section for something that had no consensus so recently, as in a day ago. The existing section was entirely appropriate for continuing the conversation. By having this new section, it essentially nullifies the previous one, and if the editors there do not comment here, suddenly their votes have disappeared. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I've already asked you to specify what policies at WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT you're referring to, since I see nothing there that would preclude the creation of a category. Now I'll also ask you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups." Roscelese (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The list is the more likely of the two, and that suffers from serious problems as I stated. So I'll pass on spending time on the CAT problem for now. As to the smearing, see, for example, the Tom Brokaw matter here: "SPLC's Cowardly Lyin'", FRC, 8 December 2010. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand. When I ask you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups," I mean that I want you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups." Roscelese (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As for the other issues you raised: 1. Procedurally, I started a new section because I wanted to discuss the alternate possibility of creating a list. Hopefully some of the editors from before will contribute their opinions as well, but I think it's neater this way. (I don't see what you're worried about with opposing votes being lost - of the people from the previous discussion who haven't commented here yet, the number of supporting and opposing is the same.) 2. What makes the government more reliable than an organization whose mission is, largely, tracking hate groups? I suppose the Simon Wiesenthal Center is also not reliable, because it is not a government and it is biased against Nazis. Roscelese (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to hear you actually answer her question. If you don't, I will give "Huckleberry Finn" as a Christmas gift to a teen. Dylan Flaherty 04:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Easy answer. You misquoted me. The full quote is, "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups, not in so many words, of course". The key phrase is "not in so many words, of course". However, I have linked to an article where Tom Brokaw questioned the SPLC's action. There's a RS if there ever was one. The focus here is on Wikipedia, not on it editors. Tom Brokaw, not LAEC. And Tom Brokaw or the like did not question the Simon Wiesenthal Center on why it was smearing Nazis. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has an impeccable reputation. As the Tom Brokaw matter shows, the SPLC does not.
Huckleberry Finn is outstanding writing and beloved by almost everyone, including myself. That said, the book comment was genuinely funny. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Then provide that evidence in "not so many words." Even if Brokaw had said anything of the kind in the unreliable source that you cited, his own personal opinion, as someone completely unaffiliated with the SPLC, would not be a substitute for the admission you are claiming exists. Roscelese (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no need for the category. People should be able to find the up-to-date on the SPLC website. LAEC, could you please stop linking to sites that cannot be used as reliable sources. I find them just as offensive as you find pornography. TFD (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I mean, I think it would be useful as a navigational tool - so that articles about the groups would all be in one place or all accessible from one place. Roscelese (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
We could have a list with links, which would be easier to maintain. We probably do not even have articles about most of the groups, so it could be helpful in showing that. TFD (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that was one of the alternatives I was suggesting. So, to be clear, do you, like LAEC, oppose the idea of Wikipedia's having this information, or is it just that you oppose a category? Roscelese (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
TFD, good to have you back. I do not oppose pornography, unless it is illegal. I know the ref is not necessarily a RS, but we are talking in Talk and Tom Brokaw is the RS contained in the link I provided, and he directly calls into question the SPLC motives for labeling certain groups as hate groups. I see that Tom Brokaw/SPLC exchange and I am not impressed with the SPLC's response, and it appears neither is Tom Brokaw. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
^Pls. note that this comment misrepresents the source in multiple ways: Brokaw says nothing of the kind, nor is his personal opinion (ie. not a news broadcast on which he is host) a reliable source. Roscelese (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the category because the terminology is specific to the SPLC and will no doubt cause disruption over dozens of articles. But a list article would be fine, if someone wants to copy over the 900+ organizations and provide internal links. TFD (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear (again), the proposed category would be something like "Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center," so it would be quite clear who was doing the designating. Roscelese (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
TFD is exactly correct. And in saying "copy over", that reminds me of the potential for WP:COPYVIO. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh - do you also support a list? (I really should have made two separate headings so this would all be clearer.) Roscelese (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I would support a list, but for the problems TFD and I have discussed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The category would have no utility and would soon be out of date. We can always mention in individual articles that groups are listed by the SPLC as hate groups. I do not see btw any copyright problems with copying a list but you may wish to check it. Incidentally if you were to create a category at a later date, having a list with internal links would make the process a lot easier. TFD (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Well, I've addressed your contention about reliability - do you really think there would be a copyvio problem, given that the information would likely be presented in a different way (I see no reason to organize by state, as their website does - moreover, this would mean that individual branches of groups would not have to be listed more than once)? Roscelese (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
What would the list consist of? Just the list the SPLC has? If so, we don't need that list here, and it would be an inferior source since it wouldn't be updated as well as the SPLC's version. A category, however, would be highly appropriate for hate groups in general, but not limited to the SPLC's. TFD's point about the disruption it would cause is a good one though. I say, don't do either. BE——Critical__Talk 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
There could never be a category "Hate groups" without including who designates the group as a hate group, for the same reason the "terrorist groups" categories are by designator. Roscelese (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Right so I'd say it's definitely not something we should do... and the list is merely redundant to the SPLC's and less up-to-date. There's a reason to have List of designated terrorist organizations, since it includes more than one authority's designation. I doubt that is feasible in this case? If we could include groups designated by other authorities, it would be a good idea to have the list. BE——Critical__Talk 07:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I still think it would be useful as a navigational tool, but that's a decent point, and it would be an even better list if it had more than one organization's info. We could add the ADL. The article hate group says the FBI also tracks hate groups, which I confirmed on their website, but I can't find a public list. Roscelese (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Be cool if we could find the FBI list. BE——Critical__Talk 21:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did find this, useful for the article as it recommends SPLC. We already knew that, but could add it. I didn't find an FBI list either, and I think I would have if one existed. They keep track, but don't publish the list apparently. I would think they wouldn't, it would give the groups a heads-up. BE——Critical__Talk 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I saw that as well - guess there's no list we could use. Do you think we'd be able to start an article with the SPLC and ADL, though? (Any other monitoring groups I might not be thinking of? I found something called Hate Directory, but no reliable info on the creator's credentials, so I wouldn't include it.) Roscelese (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure... the Anti Defamation League "publishes a list of the "ten leading organizations responsible for maligning Israel in the US", which have included a group calling for the United States to "stop funding Israeli apartheid"." That's not much to go on is it? What it looks like to me is that the SPLC is it. It maintains the list on which the FBI depends and no other organizations feel the need to duplicate the SPLC's work. BE——Critical__Talk 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
That's what I found at first, too, which isn't very useful, but then I dug a bit and found this, which has at least a few. (the "movements" category on the sidebar also includes the KKK and others). Roscelese (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The ADL lists the American Front's ideology as "Anti-Semitism, White supremacy, Third Positionist". The WP article already puts them in the category of "White supremacist groups in the United States". We also have a category, "Antisemitism in the United States", and could create a sub-category for organizations. We could also create categories for third position, etc. TFD (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
There's actually a discussion going on now over whether it's acceptable to categorize groups as anti-Semitic, since previous consensus is that they can't be categorized as homophobic. An attributed list would solve the POV issue. Roscelese (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it would not. No one wants to be labeled with a negative category, just because it's "attributed." I know three public libraries that are defrauding the government of millions. Should there be a "defrauder" cat that attribute the allegation to me? Some libraries even cover up child pron crimes. Should the "child pron" cat be added to the pages of various libraries? And the cat you seek, even if attributed, would still suffer from all the other problems discussed by the various editors above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Aren't you cute. Since your opinion is so clearly authoritative, as substantiated by dozens of reliable sources, how about you try adding "Cat:Libraries that LAEC thinks are committing fraud" to the articles and see what happens? Maybe you'll get an A on your school project. Roscelese (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Really, I'm not joking, you've just made my point. Besides that, I view your last comment as incivil. Between that and your driven efforts to promote your view, I will now ascribe less weight to your contributions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Good luck. Roscelese (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This would be a list or a category of hate groups designated as such by some official agency I assume such as the FBI, right? Sounds okay to me but why are we discussing it on the SPLC talk page? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you have some reliable sources that don't accept the SPLC's categorization prima facie? We have plenty of demonstrations of reliable sources that do. Let's not travel down the fringe rabbit hole... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the FBI have a list? There are a number sources, some used in our Wikipedia article and hardly "fringe" (Harper's, The Nation [well the Nation is a bit Lefty in its orientation], The Montgomery Advertiser) that have accused the SPLC of exaggerating hate group threats. The FBI has been known to exaggerate too but I think we would be safer and more "official" with its list if we're going to have one. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
According to Becritical's recent edit, the FBI recommends the SPLC's list. Roscelese (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that any organization that makes the SPLC's hate group list should have this fact stated in the article, in addition to any category or list. Dylan Flaherty 01:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
To be more precise, Roscelese, The FBI lists the SPLC as a resource in it's hate crimes effort. However, as far as I know the FBI doesn't simply accept the SPLC's list of hate groups as its own. Again, why use a private organization's list as opposed to the list of the federal government agency which officially investigates hate crimes and hate groups? Badmintonhist (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)\
The SPLC hate group list is generally used by researchers etc as the list to use. See one of the links BeCritical gave above. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I think I would go with a more official kind of list, Kim. One that's got the U.S. government behind it. Besides, the more I read from sources that the SPLC hasn't yet designated as hate organizations , such as Harper's and The Nation, the more it seems as if the SPLC has a pecuniary interest in exaggerating hate threats. I'm not sure we should be giving a charity that gets failing grades for raising lots of money that it doesn't use on its mission such weight in our encyclopedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
We obviously disagree here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
How long do we let editors like Badmintonhist just make things up, and/or push fringe facts/conclusions not supported by mainstream sources and deserving of no WP:WEIGHT? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
"Not supported by mainstream sources"--what exactly would be mainstream sources if Harper's, The Nation, The Montgomery Advertiser, and Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard are not mainstream in your estimation? Drrll (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What sources support the statement "the SPLC has a pecuniary interest in exaggerating hate threats"? Are there enough to rise above a fringe viewpoint? You guys are are simply cherry picking those 3 or 4 sources from over 20 years of the SPLC's existence and trying to use them to legitimize fringe viewpoints. It's dishonest, inappropriate, and it certainly looks like you're more concerned with being sympathetic to their cause than you are interested in reflecting what is commonly accepted by nearly all mainstream sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's return to my first objection. What is the point of using the SPLC's list as opposed to the FBI's list? I have the feeling that the major purpose for some editors is to bloat the list with non-violent but politically rightish organizations which certain editors dislike. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. If you want me to cite policies WP:POV and WP:UNDUE for starters.
  1. The FBI publishes no such list.
  2. The SPLC's list is accepted prima facie by all the reliable sources and government organizations we've seen. By any preponderance of the available reliable sources, the SPLC is accepted as the authority on hate group tracking and categorization.
  3. Couldn't it also be said that the "major purpose" of some other editors is to push fringe viewpoints sympathetic to hate groups?
//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If such a list article is created, it should specify for each group listed whether it is designated as a hate group by the SPLC and whether it is designated as such by the ADL. The ADL is a far less ideologically-charged organization than the SPLC and thus has more credibility on such matters. The 'Resources' section on the FBI page on hate crimes lists both the SPLC and the ADL. It should also include reliably-sourced responses to the designation, such as the response in the Washington Post by the Family Research Council. Drrll (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is your declaration that the SPLC is "ideologically charged" and therefore "has less credibility" based on your own opinion, or do you have some sources to back up your assertion? So far, this looks more like a case of ideologically-motivated Wikipedia editors trying to inject a fringe viewpoint not supported with demonstrated weight in reliable sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Gee, I dunno, Blax. The Nation calls Dees's outfit "one of the greatest frauds in American life," Harper's calls it "basically a fraud," The Washington Post calls it "controversial;" all sorts of liberal once-allies have turned against it, complaints about the way it treats black employees, tons of money raised by pushing the "danger" posed by hate groups but little actually spent on seeking justice for hate's victims, horrible official ratings as a charitable organization, big annual salaries for Dees. I wouldn't think we would be anxious to sully the pristine reputation of our noble Wikipedia project by relying so heavily on the dubious virtues of such an organization. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Whow, lets see. The Harper quote of about their financial strategy, they do not say if their work is suspect. The nation link I cannot find. The Washington post link is an opinion piece of someone labeled a hate group, geez, how surprising. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh Harper's Ken Silverstein very much questions their work as does ol' Alexander Cockburn (tough name to be born with) over at The Nation. There is an intimate connection between the SPLC's hate group danger pushing and its finances since the hate group alarm is integral in filling the coffers of the organization. It apparently needs plenty of money to fight the hate group problem and secure justice to its victims but very little of this money actually goes into substantive programs for those purposes. Dees does manage to set aside $350,000 of it for himself each year. Most of the rest adds to the richness of its treasury. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It's already covered under Southern Poverty Law Center#Finances, which already takes up one fifth of the article. TFD (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Kim, the Washington Post piece Badmintonhist was referring to is a straight news piece. Drrll (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Evidence it is a straight news piece:
  • It is listed in the "politics" tab of the Washington Post web site, instead of the "opinion" tab.
  • It is written by a person on the staff of the Washington Post Staff, unlike a guest from another organization.
  • Phrases like "I think" or "I want" or "I believe" are absent. Lots of opinion pieces are written in first person.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Blaxthos, there is plenty of support in reliable sources that the SPLC is an ideologically charged organization. For starters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Newsweek, and The ABA Journal all call the SPLC liberal. The premier publication of the SPLC, The Intelligence Report describes itself as "the nation's preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S.," not something like "monitoring radicals in the U.S." Their very active blog, published by The Intelligence Report staff is subtitled "keeping a eye on the radical right." In Ken Silverstein's (no conservative) words from Harper's, the SPLC "has a habit of casually labeling organizations as 'hate groups.'" Drrll (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
On the one side, we have your synthesis of sources complaining that the SPLC is too successful at raising money. On the other, we have the FBI using their hate list as a resource. What should we really care about? Dylan Flaherty 02:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
"Your synthesis of sources complaining that the SPLC is too successful at raising money." That's not his only argument. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I went after his strongest; the rest are worse. For example, it's a simple fact that hate groups are not associated with liberalism in America, so you'd expect a liberal group to monitor hate groups. Stieg Larsson, who monitored hate groups in Sweden, was a communist. Therefore, the fact that a hate-watching group is liberal does not make it at all biased. Dylan Flaherty 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
While true hate groups in the US are largely on the right, the SPLC doesn't limit its criticism to just hate groups, but to what it considers hateful speech and radical actions. Hateful speech and radical actions are hardly monopolized by the right. Drrll (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The SPLC monitors "patriot groups", like the John Birch Society, because they share some beliefs (such as the New World Order) and membership with hate groups. On the other hand, the radical Right in the U.S. is a hundred times larger than the Left, and there have been no violent actions by left-wing groups for over twenty years. TFD (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I was referring primarily to hateful speech and radical actions by individuals rather than groups, which the Intelligence Report staff regularly report on. But haven't there been violent actions in the past twenty years by such left-wing groups as environmentalist, animal rights, antiwar, and anti-globalization groups? Drrll (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course there have. But "hate group" and "terrorist group" aren't synonyms. Some animal rights groups commit terrorism in the name of protecting animals, but one could hardly argue that they hate humans. On the other hand, many of SPLC's groups haven't committed violent actions, but it would be equally difficult to argue that neo-Nazi groups are not full of hate.
Also, can we end this tangent about their finances? It's already covered in the article, and it has apparently no bearing on the credibility of their list. If no one has - not only one source contesting the credibility of their list, because there exists strong consensus on the credibility of the list from other sources, but a substantial number of reliable sources contesting that credibility - then there is no reason not to use it. Roscelese (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Sources are required to state that the SPLC is "ideologically charged". TFD (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, what I asked for were sources that support Badmintonhist's statement that the SPLC is less credible. What I got was a few editors trying to cherry pick disparate sources and distort their meaning to give validity to a fringe viewpoint. Reliable sources, academia, and the government all regard SPLC as authoritative on hate groups; Wikipedia doesn't give equal voice to fringe viewpoints, and at this point I'm questioning whether the article gives undue weight to those viewpoints already. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a list in the works on one of my subpages, but I ran into some difficulty (mainly as to what to do if a group isn't in SPLC's or ADL's formal list, but they discuss it elsewhere) and then I got distracted. You're welcome to contribute. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
oooo... neat! What is your source of SPLC's list? Did you go through the Hate map state by state or was there another page on the web site that gave a list of groups? --Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking the category would be good. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I used their ideology list rather than their map, because the map includes a lot of redundant chapters. (Eh...I'm thinking a category would be better, mostly because SPLC's list is a lot more comprehensive than ADL's, but consensus appears to be against it unless I've miscounted, so I'd better just do what I can with the list.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

more questionable edits

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion
For previous (stale) discussion, see Talk:SPLC - Badmintonhist's proposed changes.

After other editors disputed an earlier round of edits, Badmintonhist responded with what appears to be a brush off. More recently he continued to remove and reword content without discussing here first. I have reverted and restored content from the following two edits:

  1. 07:24, 26 December 2010 Badmintonhist (talk | contribs) (62,028 bytes) (→Hate group listings: The FBI lists the SPLC as a resource for information on hate groups BUT it does not specifically recommend the SPLC's list of hate groups.) [18]
  2. 06:36, 29 December 2010 Badmintonhist (talk | contribs) (62,080 bytes) (→Criticism of overheated rhetoric: I think that this wording more accurately summarizes what is found in the source.) [19]

In the first one, instead of improving the content in question, he simply removed it as well as the reference to the FBI. I believe this kind of edit is meant to diminish the credibility of the SPLC. The second edit's changed wording reads like lawyerspeak and further diminishes the content's impact. Discussion in the thread above has not properly addressed specific edit summaries like this [20] "Take to Talk. Changes this big have to be explained in more detail" -- which, as BeCritical noted (above), "is disruptive of normal WP process, as he was reverting almost entirely [21] to the changes he himself had just made." Badmintonhist has not answered to that concern, one which I and others share. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

+ this edit [22] removed significant points of the SPLC's notability from the lead: "legal victories against white supremacist groups" as well as its tracking of "militias and extremist organizations" both of which were there before. Also mentioned in discussion thread about lead changes, below. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The current formulation about the FBI & the SPLC says that the FBI recommends the SPLC's list of hate groups as a resource, but as Badmintonhist said, they do not specifically recommend the hate group list--they simply recommend the SPLC in general as a resource on hate groups (linking to the SPLC's homepage). Drrll (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The appropriate response would have been to correct the entry, as PrBeacon did rather easily, rather than delete it -- especially since the addition of the material was agreed to (if I remember correctly) by four editors with no negative opinions voiced. I believe even Bad himself at some point advocated adding the FBI.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, except he didn't do it properly and as it stands now it's still incorrect. The FBI website lists the SPLC as a resource. It doesn't list the SPLC's list of hate groups as a resource. See the difference. I don't really blame Beacon, however. He needs practice actually editing articles rather than being mainly a heckler and kibbitzer on talk pages, and I'm rather proud of him for attempting to do some substantive editing here. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
To the distinction over what the FBI is endorsing as a resource, the SPLC's list is how the Center designates hate groups. Thus the connection seems logical to me. Regardless, Badmin's recent change [23] seems okay, as it implies the connection -- I tweaked it a bit for readability. But I think we can do without the unfunny sarcasm, Badmin -- I think you of all people should not be criticizing anyone else's preferred way of collaboration. Some of us are more comfortable discussing things on the talkpage, first, especially when relatively new to an article. Disagreements are not 'heckling' and it is certainly fair to bring up what appears to be agenda-driven editing when it interferes with article improvement. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The sum of the SPLC's hate group activity is not simply the list, and certain entries on it, such as the Family Research Council, are probably of little interest to the FBI. As I said I am (sincerely) happy that Beacon is now spending more time on substantive edits to the article and actually doing a decent job with them. This is definitely preferable to his excessively frequent talk page tendency to assume that other editors are "agenda-driven." Badmintonhist (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If the shoe fits... As long as you ignore the mounting questions about your contentious edits (and edit summaries), instead choosing to take weak personal jabs, we can only assume you are here to whittle down the SPLC's relevancy. So your editorial opinion of article improvement and talkpage discussion means about as much as your edit count. Why do you keep removing endorsements of the hate group listings instead of working to improve them? -PrBeacon (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
"We can only assume . . ." What you mean "we" Ke-mo sah-bee?? Our task as editors is neither to build up nor to "whittle down" the SPLC's relevancy. It is to describe the organization accurately according to reliable sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we as in other editors who object to your contributions. Your prickly condescension is unconstructive and distracting. You still have not answered the question: why didn't you improve the FBI content instead of removing it (along with the FBI website reference)? -PrBeacon (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Looking at the FBI web site, I think that the FBI's Civil Right Program's focus is on hate crimes rather than hate groups. Because of this, I think they would not use the SPLC's list of hate groups as a resource, just the crimes that SPLC identifies and researches. Because of this, I support the current sentence in the article, "The Southern Poverty Law Center is named as a resource by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Bureau's fight against hate crimes." --Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have hidden my research to support my thoughts in a collapsable box:

Does the FBI investigate hate groups?

I think there are two pages on the FBI web site that are most relevant:

Five paragraphs from Hate Crime—Overview: My comments are in italic.

Investigating hate crime is the number one priority of our Civil Rights Program. Why? Not only because hate crime has a devastating impact on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance plant the seeds of terrorism here in our country.
The opening paragraph does talk about hate groups, but especially in the context of domestic terrorism.
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
I suggest that the SPLC hate group listing is more about hate speech than about hate crimes. Hate speech that does not lead to hate crimes is not investigated by the FBI's Civil Rights Program.
In 2009, the passage of a new law—the first significant expansion of federal criminal civil rights law since the mid-1990s—gave the federal government the authority to prosecute violent hate crimes, including violence and attempted violence directed at the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community, to the fullest extent of its jurisdiction. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act also provides funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate, prosecute, and prevent hate crimes.
This references crimes against the LGBT community. So anti-gay comments by the FRC, if they lead to hate crimes, are relevant.
In 2007, we announced this renewed focus on racially-motivated killings from the civil rights era, involving FBI agents from more than a dozen field offices who—with the assistance of our law enforcement partners, community leaders, and the media—identified cases and then began tracking down witnesses and locating family members, pursuing leads, reviewing law enforcement records and other documents, and seeking closure for family members.
Other pages in the FBI website say that they partner with the SPLC (and others) to investigate cold cases involving hate crimes.
Hate crimes directed at the U.S. government or the American population may be investigated as acts of domestic terrorism. Incidents involving hate groups are also investigated as domestic terrorism (the FBI's Civil Rights Program cannot investigate groups, only individuals).
Another mention of hate groups, again in the context of domestic terrorism.

Two paragraphs and a list from Domestic Terrorism: In the Post-9/11 Era: Again, my comments are in italics.

Today’s domestic terror threats run the gamut, from hate-filled white supremacists…to highly destructive eco-terrorists…to violence-prone anti-government extremists…to radical separatist groups.
The SPLC has files on white supremist groups (Ku Klux Klan, Racist Skinhead, and White Nationalist) and radical separtist groups (Black Separatist and White Separatist).
One particularly insidious concern that touches all forms of domestic extremism is the lone offender—a single individual driven to hateful attacks based on a particular set of beliefs without a larger group’s knowledge or support. In some cases, these lone offenders may have tried to join a group but were kicked out for being too radical or simply left the group because they felt it wasn’t extreme or violent enough. We believe most domestic attacks are carried out by lone offenders to promote their own grievances and agendas.
Hate group listings are useful, but not enough. FBI must investigate members and ex-members.
Other domestic terror threats:

The SPLC is a listed resource for FBI's Civil Rights Program, but the Civil Rights Program does not investigate hate groups.

The SPLC and Hatewatch are potential resources for FBI's Domestic Anti-Terrorism Program, but are not listed as such on FBI's website.

It has been my understanding for years and years, that the Southern Poverty Law Center is among the preeminent organizations for monitoring and documenting hate group activities. Before organizations like FRC were listed, I doubt most people would have taken this much issue with it. And now that FRC is listed, it seems like the SPLC as a resource has suddenly has a much more stringent burden of proof, including the very question of whether it is a credible source, let alone a credible resource. Somewhere in this very long, drawn-out recent discussion, I sense a great deal of recursive hairsplitting. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. No doubt that the SPLC is "among the preeminent organizations for monitoring and documenting hate group activities." This would not mean, however, that its list of hate groups would be beyond dispute. The criteria for designating an organization as a hate group is inherently subjective. The SPLC may be quite faithful in adhering to its own criteria in its listing of hate groups, but the validity of that criteria is a matter of opinion. To illustrate, the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover undoubtedly had technical proficiency in monitoring and documenting the activities of "subversive" groups. That does not mean that Hoover's FBI was beyond reproach in deciding which groups it considered subversive. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
That is a fair assertion...it's not like J. Edgar Hoover was never known for his overreaching. Still, if the criteria itself needs more external consensus, I wonder if the Simon Wiesenthal Center also compiles a similar list. SPLC can't be the only operation to maintain such a list. Though, as I understand, being a hate monitoring organization is inherently extremely dangerous work, and it's reasonable that there might not be too many organizations willing to very publicly do similar work. If I recall, SPLC had their headquarters destroyed in a terrorist attack earlier in their history — I think that was around the same time they were famously suing the Aryan Nation for damages on behalf of a victim, and later succeeded in bankrupting that group. The inherent problem with legitimate hate monitoring is that it necessarily makes the monitor a magnet not only for criticism, but also for deadly crimes against them. One of the things over the years that has given SPLC so much notability is how they have persevered even in the face of terrorist attacks, assassination attempts, etc. They have a strong accumulated credibility as being one of the "good guys", so to say. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, which part of SPLC's criteria is the point of contention? - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no present point of contention as to whether or not the SPLC's list of hate groups should be included as an FBI hate crimes resource. It's basically been decided here that the SPLC itself, but not its specific list of hate groups, should be credited as such a resource in the Wiki article. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Then I don't understand what the fuss is about. No one here seems to argue that the SPLC doesn't adhere well to its own clear criteria. And the criterion that includes among hate groups those that use libelous pseudoscience to denigrate categories of human beings for their immutable characteristics, seems very scientifically sound, as per the common definition of hate. I can imagine no more credible source on Wikipedia than accredited peer-reviewed scientific consensus. - Gilgamesh (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
(: I argue that the SPLC does not adhere well to its criteria and (as well) its criteria is not clear. :) --Kevinkor2 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
As I had hoped to make clear the fuss had pretty much ended before Gilgamesh weighed in with his "It has been my understanding . . ." comment. I probably shouldn't have responded initially because I was really just making an academic point. The questions of whether or not the SPLC's criteria for hate groups are consistent and/or whether or not its concept of hate is "scientific" should probably wait until such time as they actually involve proposed edits to the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point, Badmintonhist, about waiting until proposed edits. I agree. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope, the 'fuss' has not ended because you continue to make questionable edits and refuse to discuss them here. I believe Gilgamesh was talking about the fuss over the SPLC's credibility for its hate group listings. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to be more specific here, Pr. Which specific edit or edits did you have in mind? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You could start with the three (3) already listed at the top of this thread. Your replies so far have been non-responsive. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-encylopedic Fund Raising Section Revisited

Latest comment: 13 years ago83 comments8 people in discussion

The issue was brought up before Xmas (see archive 6) and there was discussion about streamlining the sectionand eliminating unnecessary quotes -- something that is considered good with the other editing going on. The best way to determine whether something in wikipedia is encyclopedic is to compare how the same material is treated in other encyclopedias. They seem to manage to cover the same material w/o resorting to inflammatory quotes or discussions of Pulitzer Prizes.

From the Encyclopedia of Alabama ([26]):

"The dramatic, and often heroic, work of the SPLC has not gone without its critics. Questions have been raised in local and national media about changes in SPLC's fundraising tactics as it has grown to become "one of the most profitable charities in the country," as noted in Harper's magazine. Critics contend that efforts at marketing the organization for potential donors have taken the focus off the important work of the organization, such as its early efforts to fight the death penalty."

From West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (original article pasted at [27]):

"In addition to being the subject of continuous vitriolic attacks by extremist organizations, whose activity it monitors, the center was the subject of strong criticism by Washington, D.C. based writer Ken Silverstein. Writing in the November 2000 issue of Harper's Magazine, Silverstein accused the center of raising millions of dollars from fund-raising and investments but spending only a portion of the money raised on its civil rights programs."

The Encyclopedia of Business at [28] states (located by Badmintonhist):

In November 2000, the organization and Dees were profiled in a highly critical article in Harper's magazine. The writer of the article echoed comments made over the years by other critics: the firm's emphasis on fundraising well beyond its current needs, its relatively small percentage of black employees, and the reputed unhappiness of many who worked there were all touched on, with some calling Dees the "televangelist" of the civil rights movement. He responded that many of the complaints had been made by disgruntled former employees and that the endowment was necessary to keep the organization positioned for long term survival.

The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties covers the issue in more details (start at [29] and then switch to Amazon to get the rest of the section -- I can’t paste from either site) but it still zeroes in on what’s relevant by focusing only on what the Advertiser and Silverstein w/o inflamatory quotes.

We should be able to reduce the section to one paragraph representing the SPLC position and one on the criticism, eliminating the quotes and limiting it to Silverstein and the Advertiser in the text with other references, per BeCritical's suggestion, included as footnotes.

My suggestion for text:

Starting in 1971 the SPLC utilized fund raising efforts to build up its endowment, stating that all its activities including litigation are supported by fundraising efforts, and it does not accept any fees or share of legal judgments awarded to clients it represents in court. At the end of 2010 the endowment stood at $189.7 million. Dees has stated that the large endowment is necessary "for long term survival". According to Charity Navigator, SPLC's 2008 outlays fell into the following categories: program expenses of 68.0%, administrative expenses of 14.3%, and fundraising expenses of 17.6%.

The SPLC has received criticism for excessive fundraising, high salaries for officers, and disproportionate reserves. In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser ran a series alleging the SPLC was financially mismanaged and employed misleading fundraising practices. In 2000 Harper's Magazine published an article by Ken Silverstein with similar criticism and updated the charges in 2007. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree to the extent that we should eliminate quotes. Also, the last paragraph "Sociologists Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile..." is unnecessary. But I see no reason to eliminate historical detail which gives context to the criticisms, or other information. Considering the sources I don't think this is undue weight as it is, and giving a summary of the criticism and its context is useful to the reader. What I noticed about those articles is that their articles are much smaller than ours (2977 is the largest I could copy/paste, versus our 4945), so our more detailed article would naturally have more on this subject. The article here looks about the same size as ours, and gives criticism about the same amount of space. So looking at the other encyclopedias, I note that they WEIGHT it about the same as we do now relative to their articles. BE——Critical__Talk 03:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
In other words, I can't help being persuaded when I look at the section that the information dug up by WP editors belongs in the article. It's a pretty succinct rundown of what seem to me to be substantial claims or information, such as the American Institute of Philanthropy rating. It's in order now. There is a question about whether we should have the Pulitzer in there. I tried to solve that by seeing if RS also mentioned it, and found a couple that did. So anyway, I hope others here will respond to this so we can try to come to some consensus, especially about whether it violates WEIGHT. BE——Critical__Talk 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. My initial reaction is that were the present article about one quarter of its present length with an encyclopedic tone maintained throughout (rather than the golly, gee whiz, aren't they wonderful! tone that much of the article still exudes) then a section on its finances something like the one suggested by the North Shoreman might be okay (though even then its failing charity grade should not be omitted). This, obviously, is not the case. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Rather off topic, though not unrelated to the SPLC's finances: one of the great omissions of this article is that it fails to give the reader an idea of the financial reality of the SPLC's successful lawsuits for monetary damages; to wit: that the groups and people that it sues are routinely already impoverished and therefore cannot provide any substantial portion of the damages that are won. I notice in the case of Michael Donald's mother the article mentions that the United Klans of America was forced to turn over its "national headquarters" because it could not pay the $7 million dollar judgment against it. What the article doesn't say is that these headquarters were a warehouse worth a whopping $52,000. Must have been some palace. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) PSS. The Montgomery Advertiser series, I believe, said that the SPLC raised something like $9 million by pushing the McDonald slaying with its contributors. The money did not go to McDonald's mother. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a really good observation and I hope there can be some way of putting it in the article, because it gives context to the SPLC's money hoarding. BE——Critical__Talk 08:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Odd argument -- the rest of the article is bad so let's make this section bad too.
As far as the McDonald case, there is no indication that the SPLC misrepresented in its fund raising that the money was going to McDonald's mother or that she was dissatisfied with the result. Let's remember, the SPLC can't file criminal charges -- their only option is civil action. You seem to be very confused over who the bad guys were (the KKK), who the victim was (the McDonalds), and who actually did SOMETHING about it after government failed to (the SPLC). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:51, 5 January

2011 (UTC)

In the better late than never department a couple of corrections here, one very minor and one quite major. The family name of the murder victim and his mother was Donald not McDonald. That's minor, but he the North Shoreman's contention that the government failed to do something about Donald's murder is not minor and it is simply false. One of Donald's murderers was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, the other was convicted, sentenced to death, and eventually executed. These convictions came before the SPLC's lawsuit, not after it. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Building a strong endowment fund is essential for any charitable organization -- especially an organization that has long term plans to continue to provide free legal service to people who need it the most. Calling it "money hoarding" implies that there is some nefarious purpose to it. In reality, people voluntarily decide what charities they contribute to and the attacks, largely from the extreme right, on the fund raising has been visible for a good while. Fully informed people continue to vote with their pocketbooks to support the SPLC and the SPLC is still generally seen as a positive force in the areas of civil rights, education, and exposure of bigotry. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This is by Stephen Bright published by Ken Silverstein on the Harpers website? What do people think of it as a source? BE——Critical__Talk 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
More of the same. It adds nothing to the information that is already in the article. Rather than doing any original research, Black relies on the published results of others. It is non-encyclopedic to fill up an article with endless quotes that all support a single conclusion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Ummm, who's Black? Do you mean Bright? Speaking of black (and white) however, some people are sophisticated enough to realize that the enemy of my enemy may not always be such a "good guy." Badmintonhist (talk) PS As for the "right wing" mantra, not one of the criticisms that I have yet seen in this section of the article comes from the right wing. Not one. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sophisticated enough to recognize an orchestrated effort to attack the SPLC on a phony issue when the real agenda is hate groups whining about being labeled hate groups. I first saw Harpers being promoted as the final word on the SPLC by the League of the South and other neo-confederate and non-KKK white supremacist groups. Later they were promoted by the anti-immigrant groups and now the gay bashing groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes Tom, but as you say, more of the same, and this time, by an expert in the field, isn't he? So an expert confirming the RS? We wouldn't use this source since as you say it's repetitive, but it's an argument against this section being UNDUE as it is. BE——Critical__Talk 01:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Really? Mr. Bright is at expert at fund raising? Has he done any actual investigation of the SPLC? Written a peer reviewed article on the subject? Is he widely quoted on the SPLC in reliable sources? All you have is a letter he wrote declining a speaking engagement. As reliable sources go, pretty lame. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

. A corollary of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset is that if my enemy puts forth a third party's argument then that third party must also be wrong. Speaking of sources, another potential one would be the work of John Egerton a highly respected journalist who wrote about Dees and his operation in one of the essays in Shades of Gray (1991) published by the Louisiana State University Press. Articles similar to this essay had previously been published in a couple of periodicals, one of them was The Progressive. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it's certainly not the very best source, but experts come much lamer than "Stephen Bright (born 1947) is president and senior counsel for the Southern Center for Human Rights and teaches at Harvard University and Yale University Law Schools and the Georgetown University Law Center...Bright received the American Bar Association’s Thurgood Marshall Award in 1998; the American Civil Liberties Union’s Roger Baldwin Medal of Liberty in 1991; the National Legal Aid & Defender Association’s Kutak-Dodds Prize in 1992, honorary degrees from Emory, Northeastern, Louisville universities, the University of Central England, and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and other awards." I could see you asking for peer review if this were a hard science article, but it's not. As the president of a similar institution [30], even one whose focus is different, I would think he would be an expert on whether it's proper for the SPLC to raise funds in the way it does. Further, since the SPLC's actual fundraising practices are not in question, but rather whether they are proper, he doesn't need to be an expert in fundraising, nor does he need to have done research. He merely needs to be in a position to determine whether they are proper. Since this question has several facets including: he's not an expert directly in fund raising but does head a similar institution; the source is his letter, which isn't RS. The venue is less-RS because it's a blog, but it is the blog of Harper's Washington Editor, and Harper's is an RS. So factors which detract from it being and RS: it's in a blog, and the person isn't an expert on fund raising per se. Factors which advance it as an RS: Bright is president of a similar institution to the SPLC, quoted on the website of an RS by an editor of that RS. He does seem to be quoted [31] [32] [33] It might be an interesting question for the RS noticeboard. BE——Critical__Talk 02:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Other notes on finances

""The Center’s Endowment has been built by setting aside each year a portion of the funds we raise. The Board decided that the Center should continue to save and invest until such a time when the income from the endowment was either adequate to support our programs, or the exigencies of fundraising made it necessary to invade the fund. Based on the foundation practice of spending approximately 5.5% of assets each year, our current endowment of $190 million would not begin to support our existing programs." If we could source this we should put it in the article

Another interesting source Unsigned edit by BeCritical

Endowment Fund The quote on how the SPLC uses its endowment fund describes pretty much how ANY ORGANIZATION utilizes an endowment fund. This is why we should give very limited weight to claims that the SPLC endowment is excessive IF those claims fail to provide ANY analysis of the size of the endowment within the actual context of the SPLC. '
The audited financial statement of the SPLC shows that its operating expenses for the fiscal year ending in October 2009 were $29,613,634 while the net income generated from the endowment fund was $29,486,045 -- not quite at the break even point.
The SPLCs Form 990 states, as required by IRS regulations, the goal of its endowment fund (Schedule D pages 4-5) is “to have an endowment large enough to sustain its current level of activities, to fund new projects and lawsuits as the need arises, and to protect the center from inflation.” There is no sourcing that suggests that (1) this is an improper goal for an endowment fund or that (2) the actual amount in the fund goes beyond this amount. In fact, building an adequate endowment is exactly what the SPLC should be doing.
Bright’s mention of the SPLC’s “$175-million operation” (which refers to the size of the endowment) is misleading and relies on the reader concluding that this is such a big number it must be bad. Similarly, this sentence attributed to Silverstein:
"Dees had previously promised that when the SPLC's assets reached $55 million, the organization would cease fundraising; when the endowment neared that sum, he increased the amount to the now surpassed $100 million."
is a distortion. $55 million may have been an adequate endowment at one time (it was actually said in 1978!!), but now even the $100 million amount would be inadequate. The continuing effort to post additional numbers WITHOUT ADEQUATE CONTEXT is a NPOV violation.
Excessive Salary Your Another interesting source is interesting with regard to claims that the SPLC’s officer compensation is excessive. The tables on page 6 suggest that Dees’ salary may be high but not extremely so -- it certainly falls well short of the most extreme cases that the article mentions. I imagine it also falls well short of what the senior partner for a national law firm earns. The only source mentioned to support the case was Silverstein’s reference to a 1998 magazine survey -- much less reliable today than it would have been in 1998. Somebody has to be at the top of any list -- what we lack and what is very relevant to WP:WEIGHT is what does being at the top of such a list mean? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Good research and analysis. I don't have time to fully respond right now, but If you had a dollar in 1978 it would be worth $3.36 now. So $55 million times 3.36 = 184 million, and the current assets of the SPLC are 189 million. So essentially, they are at the point they said they would cease fundraising [34]. Their compensation may be excessive, but it's not excessive relative to that of other organizations of the same nature. BE——Critical__Talk 22:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Presumably, Dees, both a lawyer and a businessman, had no real concept of inflation when he said that fundraising (apparently, as aggressive now as ever) would cease when the endowment reached 55 million. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Is that suggested text? It would be WP:OR. We could just say that "as of 2010 the SPLC endowment of 189 million, when adjusted for inflation, had slightly surpassed the 55 million landmark stated by Dees in 1978." That's a statement relating pure simple math, which is allowable and not OR. BE——Critical__Talk 23:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not suggested text. It's a point related to the sincerity, or lack of same, in Dees's "promise.". Even an economic ignoramus such as myself makes some rough allowance for inflation when estimating future economic needs. When Dees said that fundraising would be scaled back when the SPLC's endowment reached 55 million did he really think that the value of 55 million would remain constant? What I'm arguing is that the North Shoreman's point about inflation is cogent only if Dees was an economic babe in the woods back in 1978, and somehow I get the feeling that Dees hasn't been economically naive for a long, long time. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I guess. Does it really matter? The level Dees talked about has been surpassed, even if he did mean "adjusted for inflation." Whether or not the criticism is valid, that's what we seem to have from RS. Not only do the SPLC's fundraising practices look wrong to them, but Dees said what he said and that was not followed by the board over the years (under either interpretation). It's also silly to think that Dees would make such a statement and not mean "adjusted for inflation." So let's just make the most liberal assumption since it doesn't matter here. BE——Critical__Talk 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It's still a matter of weight and calling a living person a liar (as the article certainly does now) requires a very conservative approach to the source. My original suggestion to reduce it all to The SPLC has received criticism for excessive fundraising, high salaries for officers, and disproportionate reserves is accurate without giving undue weight to a few very partisan statements. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It's still a matter of weight. How relevant is an erroneous statement made 32 years ago to this article? What Silverstein actually said was:
Back in 1978, when the center had less than $10 million, Dees promised that his organization would quit fund-raising and live off interest as soon as its endowment hit $55 million.
Of course a very sophisticated economist can make an error on the future rate of inflation and the rate of return on investments. The issue is not whether there would be inflation but how much inflation would a reasonable person expect in 1978 and what rate of return could a reasonable person expect on investments in 1978. And of course $55 million WAS NOT sufficient for the SPLC to live off the interest. The SPLC should have closed its doors because of something Dees MIGHT have said in 1978?
I say "might" because Silverstein neglects to provide either a source for the alleged statement, the context it was said in, or even an exact quote. Once again, a less than ideal source with limited relevance to the article.
Silverstein plays fast and loose with his interpretations elsewhere in the article. He says that the SPLC could have lasted 4.6 years w/o any further fund raising -- a completely nonsensical argument that totally ignores the purpose of an endowment. The wikipedia article suggests ONLY that Dees made an outright lie (32 years ago) -- there are two many other possible interpretations. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
We could take that sentence out entirely, since it's not really relevant to the case that the SPLC fundraising practices seem wrong to the RS authors. You make a good case. BE——Critical__Talk 01:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
To anyone who wants to field it. What other civil rights charities, or charities in general, for that matter, expect to provide services in perpetuity off their investment income? And perhaps more to the point, have the SPLC's fundraising appeals told average Joe donors that this is what their contributions were all about, not present cases, really, but rather the building of an enormous surplus so that the SPLC could conquer future generations of haters merely with its investment income. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The Ford Foundation and the Harvard University Endowment. TFD (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yup, HUGE operations begun by the fabulously wealthy such as the Ford Foundation, or a fund connected to a venerable, centuries old institution such as Harvard. Not a start-up operation such as Dees's which solicits donations from the great unwashed (relatively speaking) by stating that these funds are needed for pressing, immediate concerns. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Here you go here[[35]] or here [[36]] or here [[37]]. The first listed start up endowment fund:
"The Board projects that the Endowment Fund needs to reach $500,000 to be self-sustaining enough to generate enough annual revenue to support the District's student initiatives."
Just because I responded doesn't mean that I buy into the elitist argument that Harvard gets to operate with a different set of rules than start-up operations.
Your concern for "the great unwashed" doesn't sound too sincere. Any actual violations of law? Anybody successfully sued the SPLC for taking funds under false pretenses? Any survey of contributors that suggests a significant number are unhappy with their donations? In reality, all we have is Silverstein et al telling people how they OUGHT to view their donations. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And your predictable defense of anything and everything that Dees has done doesn't sound too intelligent. Any fund-raising literature from the SPLC explaining to the great unwashed that their donations are part of an effort to create a self-sustaining SPLC fund so that their grandchildren, or great grandchildren, perhaps, won't have to contribute? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There ought to be someone else around her to ask about the criticisms and see whether they are really based on anything. WP should include someone who can really evaluate such things. BE——Critical__Talk 21:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've done my best to stay above/out of the fray, but it's time to point out that this whole thread (nay, this whole talk page) reeks of a few editors who seem intent on interpreting sources and advocating a viewpoint. Certainly these fringe assertions regarding finances are not accepted (or even acknowledged as legitimate concerns) by reliable sources or the general public. Over the last twenty years there have been so few sources that one can count them on one hand, which doesn't even come close to meeting due weight for inclusion. The length to which editors are attempting to wrangle policy and link sources to "prove" a point is absolutely shameful. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You're being a bit harsh, Blax. No need to be so disdainful of the group of editors who allowed the article to be built on plagiarized material from the SPLC. That's who you're talking about, right? Anybody can make a mistake, and we're getting them under control now. Yes, it's true that the reliable sources who've written about it (John Egerton, Laird Wilcox, Stephen Bright, Ken Silverstein, Alexander Cockburn, Jerry Kammer, and the Montgomery Advertiser) have strongly criticized the SPLC's financial operation; yes it's true that the SPLC has gotten miserable ratings from the American Institute of Philanthropy and Charity Navigator; but I think that editors should at least have a chance to demonstrate that there are reliable sources that support the SPLC's financial tactics. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A bit harsh? Ironic, considering you recently devolved into calling an editor stupid. Any way you slice it, it's obvious there are two or three of you are pursuing a fringe agenda that isn't supported by a preponderance of sources. Have at it with confidence, as I have no doubt the rest of us will tire of going in circles with someone who is motivated by ideology instead of policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh I didn't call our friend stupid, Blax. I said that his predictable defense of any and all things Dees didn't sound too intelligent. And that was only after he called me insincere . . . whoops! I mean after he said that my concern for the "great unwashed" didn't sound too sincere. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between "I don't think you are being sincere" and "you don't sound too intelligent". To the larger point, you're being tendentious and ignoring several policies, guidelines, and general consensus. Please take your axe to another grindstone. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm possibly, possibly. Though, it's arguable either way. In any case, as you should know, Blax, insults tend to escalate, which is why one should avoid being the first to throw one. On the other matter my axe is comfortable where it is; it likes it here for now. You see, as perhaps you didn't notice, the "general consensus," on this section of the article, at least, seems to favor my point of view. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No sir, it's not arguable -- Tom simply stated his belief that you're being insincere (not a personal attack), and you called him stupid (a personal attack). Peddle your false equivalence to try and justify your behavior elsewhere; You were the first, and you certainly have no standing to act sanctimonious or justified. The only redeeming statement in this entire section is your admission that you're pushing an agenda (obvious as it may be without your acknowledgment). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, yes sir, yes sir. Tom called me insincere and I simply stated my belief that certain of his edits "didn't sound too intelligent," not that they were positively stupid. No, he was definitely the first, but I've already forgiven him. As for you, Blax, I would suggest you quit trolling the talk pages to harass editors who actually edit the article not just its discussion area. I used to good naturedly kid PrBeacon about that, but he has come along splendidly and is actually making some defensible edits to the article, BUT YOU . . . ZILCH! Moreover, your failure to detect obvious massive plagiarism in the article indicates to me that you have never been interested in its integrity, only in guarding it from serious, un-acolytish editors. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Which policy or guideline recommends weighting editors' opinions based on the breakdown of their edits across namespaces? Does it mean I can ignore your opinions, since I have nearly twice as many article edits? Does it mean I am more willing to discuss changes, since I have five times the number of talk page contributions? Does it mean I am more valuable, since I have made four times the contributions you have? Perhaps your high article edit count means you frequently engage in reversion cycles and edit wars... Perhaps we should base respect on the number of times someone's mainspace edit has been reverted. Falling back to ad hominem justification is as sad as it is unexpected, so instead of continuing to devolve into pissing contests, let's leave the advocacy, fringe viewpoints, personal attacks, and original research behind and work with in policy. Feel free to take the last word... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I really can't help responding to this thread, because the latest round started with so many incorrect assertions. Let's pick them apart:

Certainly these fringe assertions regarding finances...

WP:FRINGE is determined by WP:RS, and thus they cannot be fringe assertions.

...are not accepted (or even acknowledged as legitimate concerns) by reliable sources...

Untrue, the sources are RS in and of themselves, and are acknowledged as RS by other sources, notably ones like the Christian Science Monitor and other encyclopedias.

...or the general public....

Whether the general public says anything about anything is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.

...Over the last twenty years there have been so few sources that one can count them on one hand, which doesn't even come close to meeting due weight for inclusion....

There are more sources than that, especially if you count the other encyclopedia articles. BE——Critical__Talk 04:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BeCritical, I have no problem with you disagreeing with my assessment, however my point is that a reading of the past few weeks' discussions looks like two or three editors who try to tie together disparate sources to draw conclusions and give prominence to viewpoints that aren't generally held. A reading of the sources, and a general familiarity with most reliable sources, shows the SPLC is a respected organization without a dark shadow of shady financing and questionable leadership. It is clear to me that instead of Wikipedia reflecting the generally held view of a preponderance of sources, some are attempting to use Wikipedia to give prominence to those alleged shadows. That's not what we're supposed to be about. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right in everything you say there, except I'm not expert enough to know whether they are shady in some respect. There are editors here who would like the article to go too far in both directions. Nevertheless the discussion has so far been fairly polite and productive. Just because people have differing views based on their own standpoint is not a reason to say they don't have their place in creating an overall NPOV article. As to whether the SPLC is shady, I think they are most likely as shady as most institutions such as the ACLU which sends me letters of the most detestable rhetoric. I used to send them back an analysis on their questionnaires saying basically how POV pushy they were. The SPLC cries HATE GROUP, MURDER, MAYHEM, INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF GROUPS, and people donate. Maybe the reason there are more groups is that the SPLC splintered them. BE——Critical__Talk 04:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I must disagree with your logic, BeCritical. What you describe is the golden mean fallacy -- one does not create a neutral article by treating all viewpoints as equal and then seeking a middle ground. Policy dictates that articles should reflect viewpoints with the weight it's accorded in reliable sources, and I don't think any of the recent discussions have been in furtherance of that goal. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to substance, it is interesting to me that the criticism of the SPLC by highly respected charity watchdogs, well-known journalists, and well-known progressive thinkers and activists doesn't seem to have been met with anything like an equally weighty and cogent response from third party reliable source defenders. I remember a previous discussion concerning Hillary Clinton's association with Media Matters for America. Someone observed that relatively few major media outlets linked the two together. I made the counter-point that among those outlets that actually covered Media Matters most either described or assumed a link between the two. I think the situation here may be somewhat similar. Among the charity watchdog orgs., journalists, and political commentators who have actually devoted some time to studying the SPLC's financial operation, which ones have mounted a rousing defense of it? Badmintonhist (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Another failure in logic (see evidence of absence); the absence of sources disproving an allegation is not an argument that those allegations deserve weight. The proper evaluation is against how the organization and its practices are reported in all reliable sources, and given that academia, media organizations, and the government all seem to hold the SPLC in high regard, I don't see how this is weighty enough to warrant endless discussion and more than a sentence in the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but among the reliable sources that have actually reported on the SPLC's finances what is the consensus? RS's that allegedly "hold the the SPLC in high regard" don't really count for the purposes of this section of the article, unless they have taken a good look at the SPLC's financial operation. Some may appreciate its effort against Klan remnants, enjoy its list of "hate groups, may be pleased to see that it is adding groups who disapprove of homosexual behavior to that list, but all this has no real relevance to the SPLC's finances. If only one or two somewhat "iffy" sources had said that the operation was dubious then your point would be stronger, but it is far, far more than one or two. AS I mentioned before it's the likes of Stephen Bright, Ken Silverstein, John Egerton, Laird Wilcox, Alexander Cockburn, Jerry Kammer (a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter), Millard Farmer, the Montgomery Advertiser, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, the American Institute of Philanthropy, and others. For the section on the the SPLC's finances we have to ask "what do reliable sources say about those finances?" not "do most reliable sources hold the SPLC in high regard?" Badmintonhist (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That's certainly how it seems to me. Unless someone can come up with a different analysis in RS about the SPLC's finances. BE——Critical__Talk 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

BeCritical I disagree with your claim that this latest thread has been productive. Instead I see circular arguments and speculation unsuited for discussion of article improvement. In this and other threads, Badmintonhist continues to apply his skewed sense of collaboration: judging editors by edit counts, dismissing objections as 'heckling' and 'trolling' [38] [39], and ignoring questions about his edits by various means. As I said before, his prickly condescension is destructive and diversionary. Incredibly patronizing statements like "I used to good naturedly kid PrBeacon about that, but he has come along splendidly.." [40] are just his latest attempt to reframe his nastiness. As usual he's counting on wearing other editors down, but I'm getting closer to taking this kind of continual disruption to the next step in WP:DR. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is at least the second time, Pr, that you have used the adjective "prickly" to describe my behavior. I can't help but feel that this is a an indirect way of calling me a prick. For the time being I'll let it go, but my patience is not infinite. Normally I only allow my spouse to make such comments. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you really just make up your own definition out of whole cloth, and then act all sanctimonious? Let's consult Merriam-Webster (emphasis mine):

prick·ly
adj \ˈpri-k(ə-)lē\
1 - full of or covered with prickles; especially : distinguished from related kinds by the presence of prickles
2 - marked by prickling : stinging (a prickly sensation)
3 - a : troublesome, vexatious (prickly issues) b : easily irritated (had a prickly disposition)
A sad attempt, sir. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A sad attempt at humor, perhaps. Did you REALLY think I was serious, Blax? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Blaxthos, it's not the golden mean, I would never say that. It's NPOV, but what happens with Wikipedia is that you don't get a golden mean, but from all the POV pushing arises NPOV in the end. Hey, I know it doesn't make sense, but it's usually true. The only time it isn't is when the subject is such that it attracts POV pushers but no neutrals and also attracts no POV pushers from the other side. That's because the only place that it can stick under the rules is NPOV, so the pushing actually tends to stick, as a statistical kind of thing, at NPOV. So POV push on both sides plus NPOV rule tends toward NPOV. Not a golden mean, which would not be correct.
PrBeacon, I agree that he's headed toward a lynching like Dylan, but then so is Blaxthos and you maybe. You're all nasty to each other. As an example of where the discussion took us, I think we would have no trouble now taking out the sentence "Dees had previously promised that when the SPLC's assets reached $55 million, the organization would cease fundraising; when the endowment neared that sum, he increased the amount to the now surpassed $100 million." BE——Critical__Talk 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the parallel you draw between dissenting editors, and there is an unfortunate use of metaphor given the article's subject. Regardless, my comments have been about Badmintonhist's POV-pushing edits and refusal to use the talkpage collaboratively. While I can admit to less than ideal part in the exchange, I have not engaged in the kind of arrogant and dismissive condescension which he has used to deflect and distract. Your mixed approval of some of his questionable edits may be attempt(s) to reach compromise and consensus, but right now I'm not inclined to give either of you benefit of the doubt. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I don't disagree with your edit deleting the reference to Dees's "failed promise," BeCritical, but for propriety's sake, don't you think you were a little quick on the draw in doing it this abruptly? Badmintonhist (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I knew you didn't disagree with that or you would have said something above. And I knew no one else here would. BE——Critical__Talk 23:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to stay away from this article to let things sort themselves out and hope that the group of editors that are obviously trying to use a few sources to include material that does not belong in the article would stop. That does not seem to be happening at all, and in fact the material being added does not belong and the "discussion" on this talk page is nothing more than a pissing contest on a merry-go-round. I would be very supportive if other editors who are not obviously trying to discredit the SPLC, an organization that the majority of reliable sources deem to be exactly what the SPLC states itself to be, want to remove the added material and get this article back to the way it should be. Let's stop letting the POV pushers run this article into the ground now. Dave Dial (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to specify what text you are talking about. Perhaps you are talking about the state of the article some time before I came along. There's nothing specific in what you say that can be responded to (so, to other editors, please don't, as this is very inflammatory and one should not respond except to specifics). BE——Critical__Talk 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Dave -- It will remain nothing but a "pissing contest" until the editors who have consistently opposed the agenda represented by one or two editors start to both speak up and, above all, focus. Three editors other than myself have expressed some sort of general dissatisfaction with the editing style, but have not really addressed the proposal to actually replace the language with a more neutral account. I'm pretty sure I know what language you probably contest, but you do need to be clearer. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Specifically? The whole financial criticism section is poorly sourced, based on opinion pieces with no unbiased facts to back up the criticism. It's absurd, and unfounded. The SPLC has stepped in to try and stop hate groups from hurting the most vulnerable of society, who become the most vulnerable because of who they are, at the time of their ordeals. Just like the Humane Society steps in to try and help abused and vulnerable animals, they put out heart wrenching stories and highlight the most extreme cases. As do the charities who try to find a cure for cancer(the American Cancer Society, etc.). The criticism of the SPLC and their money raising(calling it "money hoarding", etc) is just plain incorrect and not backed up by the facts. It's undue weight to have added this section, and the changes made should be changed back. Dave Dial (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This [41] is perhaps an earlier version that you may have found as more acceptable. I certainly do although some of the changes I've suggested below should also be made to this version -- specifically a clarification of what the significance of the numbers and ratings awarded by the charity watchdogs are. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Improper use of sources

The list of sources below is misleading. The main problem is how some of the poorer sources are given undue weight in the article. In particular is this section which is based entirely on Silverstein and Cockburn.

In 1998, columnist Alexander Cockburn, from The Nation, wrote that SPLC had done little with its funds and used unjustified fear as a tactic to extract money.[108] Similarly in 2000, Harper's Magazine published an article by Ken Silverstein critical of the SPLC noting the poor ratings from charity ranking organizations and that it spent twice as much money on fundraising as it did on legal services.[109] In 2007 Silverstein wrote a follow-up saying that the SPLC had only been more successful in fundraising since the year 2000 and that its endowment had grown exponentially, but the imbalance between monies spent on legal services and fundraising was still present.

Neither Silverstein nor Cockburn made any type of study or original research involving the SPLC -- they wrote editorial opinion.

Silverstein, for example, opens his 2000 opinion piece with the outrageous claim that “The SPLC spends most of its time -- and money -- on a relentless fund-raising campaign.” Powerful charge, but where is the math? Silverstein does use some fuzzy math -- stating that out of $44 million raised “only $13 million [was spent] on civil rights programs.” The problem of course is that civil rights programs are not the only focus of the SPLC -- Silverstein leaves out the expenditures on the their half of its activities, its entire litigation program, Then later Silverstein says that the SPLC spent 5.76 million on fundraising -- hardly “most” of its $44 million income in expenditures.

In fact, the actual percentage, based on 2008 figures of Charity Navigator cited in our article is 17.6% -- once again, hardly most. What it does spend “most” of its income on is program expenses (68%) and administrative expenses (14.3%). So how reliable can Silverstein be when he makes such flagrant false claims?

And what was Silverstein’s “Investigative Update” (“This Week in Babylon”) for 2007 ? It appears that he did nothing but open an envelope. From that article, “Last week, a reader sent me the SPLC's 2005 financial filing with the IRS, which is required by law for charities.” Silverstein spends a grand total of one paragraph reciting three numbers from the return and drawing conclusions. Maybe 15 minutes of study?

And what of Cockburn’s “investigation”? The article cited “The Conscience Industry” is once again merely an opinion piece. It consists of 14 paragraphs of which only ONE PARAGRAPH mentions the SPLC. Within this single paragraph there are TWO SENTENCES referring to the SPLC.

It is pretty audacious to ask, as Badmintonhist does, why there aren’t more sources making a “rousing defense” of Silverstein’s sloppy work or Cockburn’s two sentences. The answer that comes immediately to mind is that serious scholars don’t find it appropriate to address brief mentions in popular magazines when doing serious academic research.

But let’s get back to the 68% spent on its program expenses mean. What exactly does that figure mean. According to The American Institute of Philanthropy source (cited in our article):

In AIP’s view, 60% or greater is reasonable for most charities. The remaining percentage is spent on fundraising and general administration. Note: A 60% program percentage typically indicates a “satisfactory” or “C range” rating. Most highly efficient charities are able to spend 75% or more on programs. (see [[42]]

Charity Navigator says:

Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive zero points for their overall organizational efficiency score.(see [[43]]

As anybody can see, the percentage spent by the SPLC on its program activities, rather than being some fantastic departure from the norm as Silverstein and Cockburn would have people believe, is actually somewhere at the lower end of acceptable. The article should eliminate the Silverstein and Cockburn language and expand the info. from the AIP and Charity Navigator which show what the actual percentages mean. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[Continuing] After eliminating the Cockburn/Silverstein material, we come to this:

SPLC stated that during 2008 it spent about 69% of total expenses on program services, and that at the end of 2008 the endowment stood at $156.2 million.[111] The SPLC's fundraising methods are somewhat unconventional and critics accuse it of leveraging fear to solicit donations, and say that top officials in the SPLC are paid very high salaries.[102] Charity ranking organizations such as the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance do not score the SPLC. According to Charity Navigator, SPLC's 2008 outlays fell into the following categories: program expenses of 68.0%, administrative expenses of 14.3%, and fundraising expenses of 17.6%.[112][113] In 2008 the American Institute of Philanthropy's Charity Ratings Guide gave the SPLC an "F" rating for "excessive" reserves.[114] In 2010 the SPLC reported its endowment at $189.7 million.

While I still prefer my original recommendation, the above should be changed as follows:

According to Charity Navigator, SPLC's 2008 outlays fell into the following categories: program expenses of 68.0%, administrative expenses of 14.3%, and fundraising expenses of 17.6%.[112][113] Both Charity Navigator and the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) place these percentages at the low range of acceptable. Charity Navigator gave the SPLC an overall rating of two stars out of a possible four and in 2008 the AIP's Charity Ratings Guide gave the SPLC an "F" rating for "excessive" reserves.[114] When reserves exceed the amount that would be spent over three years, the AIP automatically ignores ratings in other categories and awards an “F”. In 2010 the SPLC reported its endowment at $189.7 million. The SPLC on its most recent Form 990 states the goal of its endowment fund is “to have an endowment large enough to sustain its current level of activities, to fund new projects and lawsuits as the need arises, and to protect the center from inflation.”

I have eliminated the BBB reference which says nothing significant, the 2008 endowment figure since a more current figure is available, and the repetitious SPLC statement since it basically agrees with the Charity Navigator statement. I have added interpretive info that explains what the figures mean and the SPLC’s own explanation for the size of the reserve.

I left out the reference to high salaries since it doesn’t fit with this paragraph but it could be added back along with the explanatory info. that BeCritical had identified earlier in the discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[Continuing] Using BeCritical's source, I suggest the following:

Critics have also claimed that top officials in the SPLC are paid very high salaries. According to Charity Navigator, in the fiscal year ending October 2009 the SPLC’s Chief Executive Officer received a salary of $299, 598 and Morris Dees, as Chief Trial Counsel, received $303, 936. The median salary for a CEO of a charity the size of the SPLC in 2008 was $265,000.

Of course, it seems like the more you eliminate the fiery rhetoric and concentrate on actual objective numbers, the less justification for going into any great detail on the subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks to me like some very good research and suggestions. The context you give is really great. I'm not entirely sure about eliminating the other sources though, because 1) the venues they were published in are too RS, and 2) there are other RS sources including other encyclopedias which give them about as much weight per their amount of text as we do per our text. So rather than trust my own judgment or yours, I would trust the way other RS have treated the subject on that score. What we can do is to give context, rather than eliminating the very fact of the RS criticism. Certainly we can't eliminate the Advertiser, not sure if you're suggesting that. So, agree we should give more context and I like your text for that. Disagree we should entirely eliminate the critics even if they aren't being fair; even if they are indeed misleading, per WP:MAINSTREAM: we aren't trying to have truth. BE——Critical__Talk 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and if you don't want to leave out the Advertiser, how would you respond to someone who said that the other sources are really just saying "the problem is still there?" If there was a problem at the time of the Advertiser, has something changed, and if so what changed? Yes, I know I should do the reading, but I think you've already done it for me. BE——Critical__Talk 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Too much emphasis on a single year, 2008. The Center, after all, has existed for forty years and its poor charity ratings (example: failing an audit by the Better Business Bureau of Fairfax County, Virginia in 2003 because of the high percentage of its budget devoted to fundraising and administrative costs) are not confined to 2008 alone. The Center now, apparently, refuses to cooperate in giving info to the BBB. I'm no financial expert but it seems to me that 2008 might not be the best year to assess the distribution of the SPLC's income since that total income, especially investment income, was probably down due to the poor economy. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
BAD -- The income is irrelevant to those particular efficiency calculations -- the calculations deal exclusively with expenditures. The numbers for the calculations are taken directly from the first page of the Form 1099 for earlier years which are available using the Wayback Machine[44]. For the fiscal years ending October 2003 through October 2007 the program expenses exceed the AIP's 60% threshhold and the Charity Navigator's 66.7% except for 2003 (65%) and 2005 (66%).
You can't really do the calculations using the Silverstein figures from the 2000 article since he omits the total expenditures and the general expeditures. However if you use the general expenditures for 2002 (1.9 million -- you would actually expect it to be lower in earlier years) -- and use other 1999 numbers from the article you come up with around 63% efficiency.
BeCRITICAL -- I am saying eliminate Cockburn since he wrote only 2 sentences about the SPLC in an article primarily about something else. As far as Silverstein, I have no problem with saying what you suggest -- in his opinion, "the problem is still there". The rest is simply redundant and this is both an appropriate summation and similar to what you have done elsewhere in this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but the strongest criticism of the SPLC's finances has not been so much about the percentage of its expenditures that goes into providing services but rather the percentage of its income that isn't expended; the percentage that effectively becomes its profit. . . to presumably create a future self-perpetuating fund. If 90 percent of the expenditures of a charity is used to provide the promised services it nevertheless has some explaining to do if half its income isn't spent in the first place. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait, you are saying that the ratings reflect percent of expenditures, rather than percent of income spent in certain ways? So the breakdown of expenditures could be fine but the criticisms of excess cash still valid? I'm really not studying this deeply as I don't have time or enough POV here to care that much, but is that correct? Yes, we could eliminate Cockburn. Hmmm.... "On average, the SPLC classifies an estimated 47 percent of the fund-raising letters that it sends out every year as educational, including many that do little more than instruct potential donors on the many evils of "militant right-wing extremists" and the many splendid virtues of Morris Dees. According to tax documents, of the $10. 8 million in educational spending the SPLC reported in 1999, $4 million went to solicitations. Another $2.4 million paid for stamps...Back in 1978, when the Center had less than $10 million, Dees promised that his organization would quit fund-raising and live off interest as soon as its endowment hit $55 million. But as it approached that figure, the SPLC upped the bar to $100 million, a sum that, one 1989 newsletter promised, would allow the Center "to cease the costly and often unreliable task of fund raising. " Today, the SPLC's treasury bulges with $120 million, and it spends twice as much on fund-raising-$5.76 million last year-as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses. The American Institute of Philanthropy gives the Center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors, estimating that the SPLC could operate for 4.6 years without making another tax-exempt nickel from its investments or raising another tax-deductible cent from well-meaning "people like you."...A National Journal survey of salaries paid to the top officers of advocacy groups shows that Dees earned more in 1998 than nearly all of the seventy-eight listed, tens of thousands more than the heads of such groups as the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Children's Defense Fund. The more money the SPLC receives, the less that goes to other civil rights organizations, many of which, including the NAACP, have struggled to stay out of bankruptcy. Dees's compensation alone amounts to one quarter the annual budget of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, which handles several dozen death-penalty cases a year. "You are a fraud and a conman," the Southern Center's director, Stephen Bright, wrote in a 1996 letter to Dees, and proceeded to list his many reasons for thinking so, which included "your failure to respond to the most desperate needs of the poor and powerless despite your millions upon millions, your fund-raising techniques, the fact that you spend so much, accomplish so little, and promote yourself so shamelessly." Soon the SPLC win move into a new six-story headquarters in downtown Montgomery, just across the street from its current headquarters, a building known locally as the Poverty Palace...." Hmmmmmmmmmm I didn't know that Dees statement on stopping fundraising was repeated in a newsletter; We should calculate the inflation on that 1989 newsletter statement [45]. BE——Critical__Talk 02:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if SPLC will have the balls to name Congress a hate group? BE——Critical__Talk 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
$100 million in 1989 was roughly equivalent to $140 million at the beginning of 2000, and is roughly equivalent to $186 million today. W.r.t. the somewhat extensive recent discussion and debate here about the finances section (currently the last section of the article), I'd advocate making it much simpler while keeping most or all of the existing RSs critical of the amount of holdings, reserves, Dees' salary, etc. Seems to me the essential point of the criticisms the SPLC has received from some of the charity/philanthropic community, as well as from some of the legal-aid community, is actually fairly simple. The SPLC keeps much higher portions of money and holdings in reserve than some of the charity watchdogs, and some of the more shoestring-budget legal-aid providers, would like to see.
..... The "Poverty Palace"??--hmm, that's somewhat telling, if true. (There's definitely some cognitive dissonance associated with an apparently well-to-do legal advocate of the poor--normally we imagine such advocates wearing rumpled suits in court and working out of paper-stuffed ramshackle offices.) I sure would like to know a bit more of the local knowledge on this, e.g. who locally calls it this? Everybody in Montgomery? SPLC employees too? Something Silverstein heard in the barbershop down the street? etc.--though I doubt i'll have my curiosity satisfied here ;-) Truth be told, though, if my organization had been burned out of my offices, as happened to the SPLC, I might be inclined to try to make sure in the future that at the very least the organization's building(s) had a very wide security perimeter with a state-of-the-art security apparatus--at least that's my off-the-cuff take on it. .... Kenosis (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
So it's interesting to note that they are now just over the limit where they said they'd stop fundraising. But anyways you're right, the two criticisms of excessive reserves and misleading fundraising practices could probably be said in a simpler way without eliminating RS- yet the summary there now can't be pared down much if we keep explicit mention of the various sources; it also can't be pared down much if we do as Tom says, and give more context, because the context has been suggested as perspective on the criticism; if we pare down the criticism too much it would start sounding like an apologetics section. I personally would make a guess that their reserves are probably fine (a good idea which I'd do myself if in charge), but they are also greedy for personal profit to some extent and their letters to contributors are probably misleading. So they are probably all those things without giving up their status as a valuable entity with high reliability in other areas. I would think it's fair to mention that they have recently gained the level of funding where they said they would stop. So Tom, could we see the entire text you propose for the section? I'm having trouble evaluating it without seeing the balance all laid out. BE——Critical__Talk 02:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there, what sources do you have to demonstrate weight for claims like "greedy for personal profit" and "letters to contributors are probably misleading"? We don't speculate ("probably", "would guess", etc.); we don't use Wiki editor's judgments (we use what's published in reliable sources), and we don't perform our own analysis. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Pardon me for inadvertently leading the discussion a bit astray just above. Noting in parentheses the inflated value of the money, however, has been done in many other articles and IMO should be done here if presenting Silverstein's argument that the SPLC has somehow seriously deviated from its 1989 pledge to supporters. Frankly, on this basis I've just pointed out, it would be Silverstein's assertions that are misleading, not those of the SPLC.
....., W.r.t. Becritical's statement that "if we pare down the criticism too much it would start sounding like an apologetics section", this is completely irrelevant. WP:WEIGHT isn't a formula for how an article should sound or look, or a requirement to put in x number of critical statements so it doesn't, as Becritical said, sound "like an apologetics section". Rather, per WP:Summary style, simply sum up the critics' points, and cite them to RSs. IMO, NorthShoreman is basically on the right track in this regard. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Geez dude, those are quotes from the source I was thinking about, that's why they're in quotes and use ellipsis and give the link. Re making it sound like an apologetics section, these things are notable here because of the RS, if we cut it down so that other explanatory sources are getting most of the text, then that is a weight problem. Anyway, I would need to see the text of the whole section. We have to give these sources their due, and if for no other reason than that I don't want to see this section subject to further major changes. Let's not just get a temporary consensus, but one that has a chance of lasting. BE——Critical__Talk 20:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the major problems here are:
  1. you're giving a very small number of sources too much of their "due"
  2. you're blurring the distinction between an individual's statement from decades ago with the organization in toto
  3. you're attempting to connect bits from different sources to synthesize weight for a particular viewpoint.
Additionally, snarky comments like this are unhelpful and convey the impression that you're here to advocate for a viewpoint rather than reflect views with appropriate weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding WP:DUE one would have to consider the number of secondary reliably sourced articles dealing at least in part with the SPLC's fundraising and finances, and what the consensus view of those articles seems to be. Articles dealing with other aspects of the SPLC have limited relevance to the section on the Center's finances. It is true, however, that if the number of reliably sourced articles critical of the Center's financial policies is small compared to the number of reliably sources articles which deal strictly with other aspects of the SPLC, this would argue for a relatively limited Wikipedia section on the SPLC's finances. On the other hand, if the number of reliably sourced articles dealing with the SPLC's fundraising and finances is quite large compared to the number of articles dealing with other aspects of the Center then this argues for a relatively large "finances" section in the Wikipedia article. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
As I have explained before, you logic is flawed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Blax, your argument was self-contradictory then so it would still be self-contradictory now. Rinsing and repeating a second time won't give any more life to it. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I really think Tom had it right when he said we should look at what other encyclopedias do on this subject as a guide to weight. BE——Critical__Talk 22:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not ignoring your request that I prepare a proposed draft for the entire section -- I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No problemo (; BE——Critical__Talk 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_7&oldid=1142445757"