Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

SPLC getting heat for attacking Maajid Nawaz and Ayan Hirsi Ali

A lot of major news sources are covering the SPLC's recent decision to attack authors/activists Maajid Nawaz and Ayan Hirsi Ali as being "Anti-Muslim extremists." Given this large level of publicity nand scrutiny of the SPLC's tactics and political leanings, this seems like it has to garner a mention in SPLC's broader Wiki Article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/branding-moderates-as-anti-muslim-1477866475

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/29/i-m-a-muslim-reformer-why-am-i-being-smeared-as-an-anti-muslim-extremist.html

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9210/splc-racists

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/216494/southern-poverty-law-center-blacklist

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/10/27/southern-poverty-law-center-ayaan-hirsi-ali-and-maajid-nawaz-are-anti-muslim-extremists/

https://heatst.com/politics/southern-poverty-law-center-marks-muslim-refugees-as-anti-muslim-extremists/ VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does this have to "garner a mention" in the article? It's today's conservative faux outrage, and it'll pass. See WP:Recentism. We're trying to write an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper article.

(And what makes an unsigned op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, partisan screeds from the Gatestone Institute, Nextbook, and Heat Street, and a commentary from Nawaz into reliable sources from which to build an encyclopedia article?) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree that all reliable news source mentions of this major incident warrant to be linked to. Maajid is a liberal Muslim reformer. Attempting to shut him up simply because he criticises radical extremists is downright deplorable. David A (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

All of the groups listed by the SPLC question why they are listed. In the article, none of the groups listed by the SPLC are mentioned, except where SPLC has taken legal action against them. If we do mention criticism by groups, then we need to explain what the SPLC says about them before providing their rebuttals. This information is best covered in articles about these groups. The last complaint comes from Quilliam, a controversial group founded by self-described former extremists that has invited former Islamophobes to join. I do not see a high level of publicity. TFD (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, change.org has also started a petition to remove them that already has over 5000 signatures. This is different from past additions. Intellectual matter-of-fact criticism of any ideology or idea must be allowed without being smeared as a hate-monger, or freedom of thought and speech have turned into truly hollow concepts. David A (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If you think that Qulliam have the right to criticize ideas then you should accept the SPLC has the right to criticize their ideas. In any case, their sections on Ali and Nawaz are supported by sources or contain information that is openly available.[1] What part of it do you think is a smear? TFD (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The "anti-Muslim extremist" part. Maajid Nawaz is risking his life attempting to change attitudes such as the ones listed in this extensive statistical PEW Research survey to become more humane and tolerant, and has consistently fought against actual bigotry from all camps. He should be applauded as a hero, not mislabelled as some kind of hate-monger. He also did an extensive rebuttal of the attack on his own, that you can read here. David A (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Basically, to make a thought experiment, if 85% of the population in your home country considered stoning to death of adulterers to be fully acceptable (as is the case in Afghanistan, if I remember the statistics correctly), would you consider those attitudes to be a problem, or the people who bravely risk themselves in order to change those attitudes to be the problem?

This does not seem to be a legitimate in-depth intellectual criticism of ideas, so much as it is ideologically driven shallow academic name-calling. David A (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It is fine to claim to stand for tolerance and humanism in theory, from a safe position, but it is quite another to start to publicly condemn the people who actually risk their lives fighting against the most extreme forms of genuine bigotry, specifically to make their work much more difficult. David A (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"anti-Muslim extremist" is a conclusion based on the information about Nawaz provided in the article. Is there anything in the information you think is a smear? Do you think they have misrepresented any of his statements or fabricated his actions? There is an article in the New Republic that relates the same points as the SPLC[2] and note the British government removed funding to his organization.

TFD (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not know all of the specifics, but have read two of his books, and find his arguments compelling. Here are a facebook post, and a news article with further points: https://facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1172557052811558&id=135775283156412 http://www.theexmuslim.com/2016/10/27/southern_poverty_law_center_loses_the_plot/ David A (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You're fundamentally misunderstanding what we would need to see in order to include this. Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:NOR, for instance. I haven't looked into it enough to know if we should include this or not - I'm just saying that "I personally think he's a pretty neat dude", "look at this facebook post", and "Muslim countries are bad" are not going to help you get it included. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, going by the following article, the SPLC seems to have used an unreliable source as a basis for including Nawaz: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/white-left-issued-first-fatwa/ David A (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

SPLC aren't Wikipedia. WP and its sources have different standards - for instance, hate watchdogs and news sources can use a lot of primary-source info that we really can't. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Maajid is a member of the UKs Liberal Democrat party and in no possible way should be listed as some sort of extremist. the SPLC is acting out of extreme ignorance typical of white liberal americans who know nothing of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.22.23 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The SPLC has now refused the over 8000 signature change.org petition to remove Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali from their list. Heidi Beirich, a director of the Intelligence Project at the SPLC, made the following statements:

“That kind of talk is not what we want people to discuss when discussing Muslims. These are conspiracy theories and it’s dangerous to portray every Muslim essentially as an infiltrator,”

“My problem with that is he’s muddying that image with these conspiracy theories, so it’s hard for me to believe that that is his goal when he’s doing these other things,”

“He doesn’t sound much different from Pamela Geller or David Horowitz or some of these other people about how Muslims are infiltrating everywhere. So my suggestion would be, if that’s what he’s trying to do, then he should ditch the conspiracy theories.”

This seems to be about Maajid's informative self-experienced book, "Radical". David A (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter whether the SPLC is right or wrong, but whether this is significant to the article. Bear in mind that similar criticisms have been made against Quilliam. If we include the criticism we need first to explain what SPLC said and the degree of acceptance it has before providing Quilliam's response. And we would have to do the same with the hundreds of groups and individuals SPLC writes about, all of whom claim they have been unfairly singled out. TFD (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is definitely significant. It has created quite the media uproar, and caused SPLC to lose an enormous amount of its credibility. Just type in #SPLCaddmetoo on Twitter, and you can see the constant backlash in real time. David A (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Why the fuss?

I don't see much need for debate here. Our article has a Controversy over hate group listings section. When the SPLC's listing of a particular group or person within a group garners significant controversy in reliable sources we should mention it in the controversy section. On the other hand we shouldn't go into great detail on it because that would make the section way too long and unwieldly. Why would anyone think that the SPLC is supposed to be some faultless arbiter of what constitutes "hate"? Of course there have been some controversies over its listings and there will continue to be, but in our article those controversies should just be summarily mentioned. Motsebboh (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, as various articles have mentioned, Maajid's and Ayaan's listing also places them even more in the line of sight of jihadists who want to slit their throats, and simultaneously makes their work to attempt to reform dangerously widespread extremist viewpoints much harder. This is a massive betrayal of past good work that has given the SPLC currently apparently very unwarranted public credibility. Still, I suppose that mentioning this at all is better than nothing. David A (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is actually a trivial mention of the SPLC by the dwindling number of Quilliam supporters. It appears that no one has read the SPLC article so I will summarize criticisms that it and other sources have provided: The British government withdrew its support of Quilliam, both Labour and the Conservatives rejected Nawaz as a candidate. The Liberal Democrats did accept him, regretted their decision after it was too late to replace him but withheld funding to his campaign. He attracted unwanted attention by being filmed in a strip club touching a stripper against club rules after consuming alcohol to excess according to the bouncer. Such conduct and cohabitation are contrary to the Muslim principles he claims to follow. He accused moderate Muslims of having the same ideology as al Qaeda and even claimed part of the Met were secret jihadists. He has given conflicting information about his past and when he gave up extremism, paid the EDL leader, a convicted criminal, to support his group and disseminated disparaging pictures of Mohammed, which Muslims find offensive. He has also accepted funding from a Christian Right group in the U.S. Now if you support people like Pamela Geller who is barred from the UK or other people accused of Islamophobia, then there is nothing wrong with any of this. But in mainstream none of this is reassuring. TFD (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a remarkable list of insinuations and accusations against Nawaz - none of which you have sourced, TFD, which rather calls to question your neutrality in this matter. I suggest you either do so, comprehensively, or be aware that one editor at least now regards you as having by this post shown yourself as partisan and therefore self-disqualified from commenting here - let alone editing - on this matter. Alfietucker (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

More needless discourse, David A and TFD. The job of editors here is EMPHATICALLY NOT to defend either the SPLC or Maajid and Ayaan. It is simply to report the fact of a controversy when a reliably sourced controversy involving the SPLC's hate listings exists. Motsebboh (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Inserting material that is reliably sourced is not the only job of editors. We must also follow "Due and unde weight": "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If views are not significant, we do not include them. For example, if the editor of a tiny local newspaper writes an op-ed on the Middle East peace protest, we can safely ignore it. We must also be neutral and pretend that Qulliam's opinion is more significant than the SPLC's. That means we would have to explain the facts: why the SPLC sees Quilliam as extremist, and why other mainstream sources have come around to a negative opinion of them. The other problem is that the SPLC writes about lots of groups. In order not to single out on any one, we would have to introduce Klansmen, neo-nazis, anti-gay groups, neoconfederates, Islamophobes and every other group that thinks they are hard done by. TFD (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh Please!! Don't insult our intelligence! The listing of most "hate groups" by the SPLC gets no coverage at all, never mind coverage as "controversial", in outside reliable sources. So we obviously DO NOT have mention every group "that thinks they are hard done by". The SPLC listing discussed here obviously DID get significant coverage as controversial in a number of prominent reliable sources. Briefly mention the fact-- the complaint of those listed and the SPLC's rationale for the listing, and be done with it. Motsebboh (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The listing of hate groups by the SPLC is routinely mentioned in stories about those groups. And there is some coverage of many of these groups complaining about their classification. Currently the article does not mention any group that SPLC calls a hate group, but if you think it should then we would need to greatly expand this article, explain why they are called hate groups, the degree of acceptance of the assessment and the groups' response. Anyway, the list of people complaining is trivial: a number of opinion pieces, with no secondary sources reporting them. One of the sources provided is by Nawaz himself. Incidentally, comments like "Oh Please!! Don't insult our intelligence!" are irritating and do not further collegial discussion. If I wanted to insult your intelligence I would not be discussing this with you. Incidentally, why do you use "scare quotes" around the term "hate groups?" Is that an implication you do not consider the groups so classified to be hate groups? I would point out that hate is a well understood term in relation to some political activists. TFD (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Tell you what, instead of going on endlessly, why don't you simply edit the Controversy over hate group listings in whatever way you think is appropriate and we'll go on from there. I happen to think that I write pretty clearly but you apparently have trouble understanding me. NO, I've never remotely suggested that we repeat the SPLC's listing of hate groups here, in fact, quite the contrary (it's already been done, of course, in Wikipedia's list of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups). One hate group, however, IS mentioned in the Controversy section-- The Family Research Council because there was a significant amount of controversy over its listing. Though it is often very hard to tell the difference these days between reporting and opinion pieces (for example, EVERYTHING written in an SPLC publications) some sources on SPLC v. Nawaz appear to be intended as hard news, and those clearly labeled opinion are in very prominent publications. My use of quotation marks around "hate groups" is meant to indicate that they are hate groups by the SPLC's lights. Were I making my own list many of the same would certainly be there but I'm sure some wouldn't. Please don't respond before actually doing something to the article first. This isn't supposed to be a debating society. Motsebboh (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to briefly mention that having problem with the ridiculously extreme forms of bigotry clearly and reliably statistically examined here, does not remotely make somebody comparable to a Nazi or a Klansman. It usually means that somebody has a major problem with true bigots of all stripes. Double-standards regarding tolerance of extreme intolerance, do not make any sense. Also, you can read rebuttals of the SPLC's points in the various articles linked above. David A (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, have the SPLC placed any Islamists on their lists? If not, then, as Maajid said, they are cowards, only focusing on easy targets that cause no potential threat to themselves, such as Ayaan and himself, who very much do risk their lives on a daily basis. Ayaan's close friend was even murdered by an Islamist with a note that she was to be killed as well. David A (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is a letter to the SPLC from an atheist living in Iran that illustrates how patently absurd all of this is. David A (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

There are no known Islamist hate groups in the U.S., which is the only country which the lists cover. If you know of any, then please name them. Inciting ill will toward other people on the basis of gender, gender identity, race, or religion is hate and contrary to the laws of most countries. In the U.S., where it is legal, it is considered an aggravating factor in violent crimes. Based on your links, it appears that you are arguing that hatred of Muslims is justified. TFD (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that it is utterly intellectually and objectively absurd to pretend that the opinion polls statistics regarding Islamist bigotry do not exist, and to compare anybody who points them out, and wishes to change them to turn more humane and tolerant to the Ku Klux Klan, and Adolf Hitler, in order to shut them up. For example, I live in Sweden, where a recent poll shows that roughly 18% of Muslim youths sympathise with the Islamic State, and that 8 in 10 Muslim girls live under honour culture. Should we just pretend like nothing is happening forever, and not even talk about how these attitudes can be changed for the better? David A (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Atheists better watch their criticism of the Westboro Baptist Church. All religions should be protected equally after all. The SPLC has sadly become a parody of itself. There's a word for people who only attack safe targets: bullies. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

AND ALL OF THIS TALK IS DIRECTED TOWARD MAKING OR PREVENTING WHAT ACTUAL CHANGES TO THE ARTICLE?? THIS ISN'T SUPPOSED BE A FORUM ON THE SPLC. WHAT SPECIFIC CHANGES ARE BEING PROPOSED?? Motsebboh (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about getting carried away. I find all of this very upsetting. Anyway, either we can keep adding new relevant references from major reliable newspapers to the current controversy section, or make a minor more elaborate specific column for this incident. David A (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is about the controversy section. Controversy sections are of course poor style, since they cannot be written in a neutral POV. (For a good explanation of handling controversies, see Wikipedia:Criticism. Controversy should be incorporated into aspects of the topic where controversy arises. Every group investigated by SPLC feels hard done by. We should mention that, but this section is undue. If we had a section about SPLC tracking of Islamophobia, that is the place where their resentment should be discussed. I note that David A has evaded my questio.n. He can not name a single Islamic hate group in the U.S. yet calls the SPLC cowardly for not naming one either. James J. Lambden, thr SPLC lists the Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group. But they do not list Christianity and Islam as hate groups. TFD (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Good. We're making some progress; at least up to the point where you say "I notice that David A. has evaded my question." You want to eliminate the subsection Controversy over hate group listings. I'll vote a swift NO on that one (though the subsection might be retitled to include controversies over the SPLC's negative branding of certain individuals). Wikipedia:Criticism starts out by saying that there are times when criticism sections may be appropriate, and the subsection in question isn't a general criticism of the SPLC at all, but rather an objective noting of the times when its hate group additions have raised significant reliably sourced controversy. So your "every group investigated by the SPLC feels hard done by" isn't really an issue. The subsection in question only mentions controversies that have risen to the level of being reported by reliable sources. Additionally nothing prevents editors from (succinctly, one hopes) presenting the SPLC's side of any hate group listing controversy. Motsebboh (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not informed enough about the situation in the United States to state with certainty that there are Islamist hate groups there. I have read that CAIR may have ties to ones abroad though. Regardless, Maajid Nawaz is not a US citizen, but a European, so I thought that the SPLC catalogued people from Europe as well?

Anyway, I am both autistic and Swedish in combination, ergo oversensitive and uneasy with conflict, so I do not like situations such as this. All that I am saying is that I would appreciate if you read up on the various opinion poll statistics, as they are quite worrisome. In addition, there is a massive genocide of Christians going on in the Middle East, there are 10 countries with death penalty for homosexuality, Saudi Arabia is financing a massive number of mosques that spread Wahhabism in Europe and elsewhere, and my own country is rapidly completely falling apart socially, so all of this does not seem to just be paranoia on my part. David A (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Motsebboh by the way. David A (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact they only catalog groups in the U.S. although they sometimes write about people outside the U.S. Whether or not CAIR has ties to Islamist groups, they do not openly advocate hate, for example against gays or Christians, hence would not be included in the SPLC catalog. Some Islamist groups, particularly ISIS do practice hate as defined by the SPLC and there are supporters of ISIS in the U.S. But they have no known organizations there. The SPLC does btw catalog black hate groups, such as the New Black Panthers. The reality though is that discrimination against minorities is mostly carried out by groups in the majority. In the Middle East of course Muslims are in the majority. TFD (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That is true. I do not have any solutions, and do not advocate hatred. I just think that we have to openly talk about these issues in a rational manner. David A (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

"they do not openly advocate hate [..] hence would not be included in the SPLC catalog" Neither do Nawaaz and Hirsi Ali, so this is obviously not a reason against including anyone in that list. Also, as noted above, since Nawaaz is not American, not being American is not a reason against including Islamist groups outside the US either. It seems to me as if ending up on that list is essentially random and can happen to anyone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I recommend actually reading the SPLC article on anti-Islam extremists. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc_field_guide_to_antimuslim_extremists_0.pdf https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists

These two people work with extreme right-wing Islamophobic organizations and spread hate and lies against Muslims. The hate groups they work for exist in both Europe and America. Some of them have been banned in Europe so they moved to America.

For example "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born activist who says she endured female genital mutilation and fled civil wars and an arranged marriage in Africa. She then moved to the Netherlands and became a parliamentarian for a time. But key parts of the story she told Dutch immigration authorities and the public there turned out to be false — she had never witnessed any civil war, attendees said she was at her wedding despite her claim to have not been present, and her husband paid her way to Europe and later granted her a divorce. Leaving the Netherlands after quitting its Parliament in disgrace, Hirsi Ali became a citizen of the United States, accepting an invitation to join the conservative American Enterprise Institute."

And

"Maajid Nawaz is a British activist and part of the “ex-radical” circuit of former Islamists who use that experience to savage Islam. His story, which has been told repeatedly in the British and American press and in testimony to legislators as well, sounds compelling enough — Nawaz says he grew up being attacked by neo-Nazi skinheads in the United Kingdom, spent almost four years in an Egyptian prison after joining a supposedly nonviolent Islamist group, but had a change of heart while imprisoned and then returned to England to work against the radicalization of Muslims. But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute. He told several different versions of his story, emphasizing that he was deradicalized while in Egypt — even though he in fact continued his Islamist agitation for months after returning."

"Nawaz sent a secret list to a top British security official that accused “peaceful Muslim groups, politicians, a television channel and a Scotland Yard unit of sharing the ideology of terrorists,” according to The Guardian. His Quilliam Foundation received more than 1.25 million pounds from the British government, but the government eventually decided to stop funding it. One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. Shortly afterward, Robinson returned to anti-Muslim agitation with other groups."

For "liberal reformers" they sure do have a lot of ties to extreme right-wing organizations that are pro-invading Muslim nations for oil. Of course that isn't the argument here. Anyone with common sense wouldn't really believe that these people aren't Islamophobes, hence why the SPLC put them on a hate list. It should be noted these people have no credibility in Islam, no degrees or anything. And simply are no different than Breitbart or any of those fake news websites. Their "criticism" of Islam is no different than the KKK or Neo-Nazi groups criticizing African Americans. This should be written from a neutral point of view with facts and statistics. If you're a fan of one of these people, you should focus on another article and not get upset if someone criticizes them. This talk page is also not a place to debate Islam or spread lies about them. Again if the SPLC states so then it's so. If you want to debate this then there are plenty of right-wing anti-Islam websites that are already doing it, go do it over there and not here. Remember a lot of people use Wikipedia for university, it's best not to post misinformation and justifying the ideas of fringe hate groups here. 67.80.214.221 (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"These two people work with extreme right-wing Islamophobic organizations" Yes, I know that there are some weird people who think that extremism is contagious - anybody who has contacts to somebody earlier defined as an extremist must be an extremist. So I guess I am an extremist too for defending those people, and therefore anybody who ever agreed with me on anything is also an extremist, and anybody who agreed with them.

The question whether the SPLC's descriptions you quoted are inaccurate and misleading is the reason there even is an issue. Quoting those descriptions as evidence that the descriptions are right... well, words fail me. Let me just say I have been discussing climate change deniers for the last few days, and you seem to fully match their capability of cogent discussion.

Anyway, the issue is at rest now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

David A, instead of growing this paragraph so it overtakes every other controversy in the SPLC's 45-year history, please discuss your proposed additions and explain why they don't contribute to the undue weight problem. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, phrases like "stopping this cancer" are what I would call "hyperbole". And speaking of hyperbole, three lines in a long article do not, for me, qualify as "growing a paragraph so it overtakes every controversy in the SPLC's history". On the contrary I think that David A has made a good edit here [3], providing the SPLC's response to Maajid Nawaz's complaint which was well publicized in reliable sources. Motsebboh (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I tried to compromise by adding both sides, and this is not a long paragraph that takes up significant space. In addition they are just quotes, and Maajid has good reasons for being extremely concerned about being attacked in this manner. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's collaborator was gruesomely murdered by Islamists. The same thing could very well happen to him. David A (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This minor quote does not add any factual value to the article; the opinion expressed (and the SPLC response) are both trivial (and hyperbolic) in the context of an encyclopedic treatment of the SPLC, and shouldn't be included. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the quotes help to flesh-out what is an otherwise threadbare paragraph. I don't think we should be making a huge deal of the affair, but the reader should be given some idea of the SPLC's reason for labeling the two people as anti-Muslim extremists and Maajid's reason for protesting the label. The "hyperbole" complaint is invalid because these are relevant (and short) quotations of the parties to the controversy, not statements in Wikipedia's voice. There are, quite reasonably, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of "hyperbolic" quotations in Wikipedia's articles. Hyperbolic quotations, in fact, are sometimes the subject of entire articles [4]. Motsebboh (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Motsebboh, and this is far from hyperbole. Ayaan and Maajid are very much under constant threat of being killed by Islamists, and unlike Ayaan, Maajid does not have bodyguards for protection. David A (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

hyperbole language that describes something as better or worse than it really is. "They put a target on my head. The kind of work that I do, if you tell the wrong kind of Muslims that I’m an extremist, then that means I’m a target." Did the SPLC really put a target on Nawaz's head? Do "the wrong kind of Muslims" need the SPLC to tell them who is an anti-Muslim extremist? It may be a quote from a person on one of their lists, but it's still hyperbole, and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. (This is still supposed to be an encyclopedia, isn't it?)

Are we going to give "equal time" to every person on every one of the SPLC's lists to complain, and for the SPLC to respond? If not, how will we choose? These are not insignificant questions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

We obviously choose by the ones that receive considerable reliable media attention. And yes, I think that placing heroic reformers and critics of genocidally bigoted fascists on an extremist list, does very much likely put them in greater danger than previously. David A (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

To Malik Shabazz, you are ignoring my points. Hyperbolic quotations abound in Wikipedia which is fine as long as Wikipedia reports them and doesn't make them itself. Only you are raising the issue of "equal time" for others on the SPLC's lists. They only get equal time here if their listings are equally covered by reliable sources. Motsebboh (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

First, Ben Carson received much more publicity than Nawaz has. So this has nothing to do with reliable sources. Second, hyperbole is fine in a tabloid. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If reliable sources cover the hyperbole, then it may be sufficiently notable for its own article, but that's not the case here. You want to include the man's rebuttal to SPLC. Has it received any coverage in reliable sources? (His hyperbole, not the fact that the SPLC put him on its list.) Finally, I can bring up whatever relevant issues I care to. There are only a handful of people discussing this, so the fact that "only I" am raising the issue of other people on SPLC's lists doesn't sway me. You'll have to do better than that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The spirit of BLP requires we give subjects at least a couple of sentences to rebut accusations of extremism and hate-mongering – in whatever way they choose. Restored. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

To Malik Shabazz Feel free to add somethingto the paragraph that already exists on Carson. The "they put a target on my head" quote comes from the venerable Atlantic Monthly though it may be in other sources that David A. listed. Similar quotes are found in The Spectator. As for my mentioning that only you were bringing up the issue of other people or groups labeled by the SPLC, I suppose I could have said something like "only you are vapid enough to bring up such an 'issue'" but that would have been insulting and not precisely true. Other editors might do such a thing but it's still dumb since, as I've already said, the complaints of others branded by the SPLC have to be covered in reliable sources. Motsebboh (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

And since one of those lists the SPLC has already been used as a hit list by a violent criminal - see Family Research Council#2012 shooting incident - this is not some far-out speculation but a very real danger. People seem to listen to the SPLC, even the people the SPLC would rather not have listen. "They put a target on my head" is an important aspect that should not be omitted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And the question remains why exactly that Malik Shabazz and the SPLC seem to view the people who bravely risk their lives rationally criticising genocidally bigoted fascists as the bad guys? If you believe in humanistic and liberal principles, you should be fighting at their sides. David A (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, UN Special Rappateur on Cultural Rights Karima Bennoune has come out in support of Nawaz: https://mobile.twitter.com/UNSRCulture/status/795550388040581121 David A (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

SPLC, a racist organization itself

Is Wikipedia only sourcing from mainstream media outlets? The SPLC are defending Black Lives Matter, undeniably a racist and violent organization, while labeling the reactionary and non-violent 'White Lives Matter' a 'white supremacy group'. Is there anyway Wikipedia could report the obvious bias of the SPLC, or is neutrality off limits here?--188.25.198.208 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia prefers mainstream outlets. No, BLM is not "undeniably a racist and violent organization". And White Lives Matter is absolutely a white supremacy group, even if they deny it. The "white genocide" dog whistle is a clear giveaway, not to mention the Confederate flags and "14 words" signs they're fond of. This article might be worth a read if you're unclear on the differences between the two groups. clpo13_(talk) 20:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The editorial policy is to present views according to their prominence in mainstream sources. If you disagree with them, there are alternatives to Wikipedia that present views you might like better. TFD (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL...not biased...oh your bias is so showing on anything that is opinion based. Yes there are alternatives... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D200:E645:4A8:B94F:1B1:B652 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ten Days After

The SPLC has released a report, Ten Days After (PDF and SPLC comments), on harassment and intimidation in the aftermath of the 2016 Presidential election. According to the reports a "national outbreak of hate, as white supremacists celebrate Donald Trump’s victory. In the ten days following the election, there were almost 900 reports of harassment and intimidation from across the nation. Many harassers invoked Trump’s name during assaults, making it clear that the outbreak of hate stemmed in large part from his electoral success." The report has been covered in the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera, CBS SFBayArea, The Guardian, NBC News, the Jerusalem Post, BBC News, Newsweek, the Daily Beast, the Independent, the International Business Times, a CNN affiliate, and no doubt plenty of others with more to come. I am posting here for the information of anyone who wants to add material to suitable articles here on Wikipedia. Some of the reports focus on a particular sub-set of the incidents – the Jerusalem Post focuses on anti-Jewish incidents, for example, and reports from Florida [5], Oregon, and Pennsylvania have a focus on those States. There have also been some criticisms of the report published, which are potentially relevant for balance, depending on the article being edited. Hopefully better quality ones will follow: [6] [7]. EdChem (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

From what I've read of Ten Days After, it would seem that the SPLC's key statement was " we have not been able to confirm the veracity of all reports." Motsebboh (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

According to The Independent, the DoJ is already investigating a spike in hate crimes: [8] EdChem (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

additional sourcing http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/1201/What-do-the-SPLC-s-post-election-hate-incident-reports-mean NPalgan2 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the SPLC deliberately slanted their report, and buried that 2000 teachers have reported hate crimes against caucasian students after Donald Trump was elected president: http://nypost.com/2016/12/05/report-buried-trump-related-hate-crimes-against-white-kids/

This should definitely be referenced in the page. David A (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If reference to the SPLC report is added to the article, I think the New York Post complaint should be given appropriate weight, considering the newspaper's reliability and reputation for slanting the news to suit its editorial views. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that every report by the SPLC should be added to the article, any more than every article in the New York Times should be added to its article. The claim in the New York Post that the "SPLC deliberately slanted its report" has only been picked up by a few right-wing sources: The Washington Times, The Blaze and The Daily Stormer.[9] Given the misleading reporting typical of those publications, we cannot know if the claim is true. And unless mainstream sources comment on it, it lacks weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, everything we are tossing around here falls (and fails) under recentism, not news and "anecdotalism". Motsebboh (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem this article faces is that the SPLC is the definitive source for information about hate groups used by the media, academics, police and public policy officials. Groups and individuals they call racist, homophobic, Islamophobic or extremist oppose the categorization and their supporters continually press for inclusion of this opposition as "controversies" in the article. While I do not mind stating that these groups and individuals oppose their descriptions by the SPLC, unless there is credence given to these objections in mainstream sources, they carry little if any weight. TFD (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

TFD, it would be more accurate to say that *some* media, academics, police and public policy officials view the SPLC as definitive regarding hate groups. Harvard and lots of respectable newspapers and think tanks don't seem to care that George Borjas is associated with the Center for Immigration Studies despite the SPLC, the WSJ doesn't care what the SPLC says about Maajid Nawaz, Harvard still keeps Ayaan Hirsi Ali a senior fellow at HKS.... Just look at the secondary RSs like https://books.google.com/books?id=5SOAAgAAQBAJ this one, there's plenty of criticism there. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

To be clear You are referring to opinion pieces published by the WSJ, not the news section. Indeed, there are columnists and a small number of academics who promote views regarded as racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic or Islamophobic by the SPLC and the mainstream media and academic writing. George Michael does not criticize the SPLC but reports criticism of it. He writes that "Previously most of the criticism of the SPLC has been localized and confined to small local newspapers and right-wing critics." But by 2003 there had also been a negative article in Harper's and the Bill O'Reilly Show and some civil rights organizations.(p. 22)[10] But all that criticism was about fundraising rather than the SPLC's analysis of extremism. As he writes, "The major Jewish defense groups together with the SPLC constitute, in my opinion, the first level of watchdog organizations." (p. 10) TFD (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to the piece signed by the editorial board of the WSJ, which is part of the mainstream media (largest circulation newspaper in the US, 39 Pultizers) if anyone is. They may be wrong, but it draws into question your claim the SPLC is the "definitive source for information about hate groups used by the media". And just googling Hirsi Ali, Nawaz and Borjas is enough to show they aren't treated by "mainstream media and academic writing" the way (for example) Kevin MacDonald is. (I thought there was criticism of the SPLC casting too wide a dragnet in Michael's book, but can't find it.) NPalgan2 (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It is an opinion piece and per "News organizations" not a reliable source and has not been reported in mainstream media. And the SPLC is not treating Nawaz the same as Kevin MacDonald. They refer to MacDonald as "the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic."[11] Everything they write about Nawaz is sourced to mainstream media (actual news reports not opinion pieces.)[12] TFD (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not suggesting adding "SPLC is bad"(source WSJ editorial) to the article. I am suggesting saying the SPLC is the mainstream media's definitive source for information about hate groups and its ratings are viewed as definitive is, at the least, not universally true. And although the SPLC may cite The Guardian when discussing thew cartoon tweet, for instance, the characterization of Nawaz as an "anti-Muslim" extremist is theirs. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact the WSJ relies on the SPLC just as do other mainstream publications. For example an article in May describes the SPLC as "a civil-rights organization that tracks extremist groups," without qualifications, and quotes its director.[13] TFD (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, sounds like the WSJ editors won't be doing that again.NPalgan2 (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is distinct from the news reporting and has no influence over it. As stated in The Economist, "The Journal is not really one newspaper but two—a newspaper and a highly opinionated conservative magazine. Hitherto it has succeeded in drawing a line between them.

"[14] Or as an article in Investopedia says, "The Wall Street Journal's editorial page has long been anti-tax, anti-government regulation and staunchly opposed to health care reform in the U.S. However, the news reporting is generally considered to be fair and objective."[15] So the news section will continue to use the SPLC as a source for racism, islamophobia, hate speech etc. while the editorial board will continue to claim they do not exist. Similarly, the editorial page is a leading center for climate change scepticism,[16] while news reporting is not. TFD (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that I said in my original post, that "I am posting here for the information of anyone who wants to add material to suitable articles here on Wikipedia" (emphasis added). I thought this would be a suitable place to alert editors interested in SPLC materials to the report to use in line with WP policies, I was not necessarily saying it was appropriate for inclusion in this article on the SPLC itself. My first thought was in a discussion of the Trump transition, but that article seems limited to decisions on appointments and the like, not on broader events. In the Trump context, there are the post-election protests that are relevant to this report, too. Just explaining my thoughts. EdChem (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It might actually be a suitable subject for a separate, new, article. Increase in hate crimes after the 2016 Presidential election or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I don't know if there is sufficient to sustain a full and balanced article, though anyone is welcome to investigate. I don't have any plans to write one, though. EdChem (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What about the following article then? The SPLC now seems to consider the Orlando Islamist terrorist attack as a "right-wing plot": http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/08/the-splc-considers-the-most-deadly-islamic-terror-attack-since-911-a-right-wing-plot/ David A (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Daily Caller doesn't seem to have much support as an RS in the archives of the WP:RSN EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree the Daily Caller is not a reliable source. Certainly they have no expertise in categorizing terrorist motivation. TFD (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The best source on what the SPLC says about a topic is the SPLC itself. Here is "Terror from the Right" which the SPLC describes as "A synopsis of radical-right terrorist plots, conspiracies and racist rampages since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. It includes a roster of murdered law enforcement officials." I do not think this means that every racist rampage is necessarily also a radical-right terrorist plot, and there is a big difference between "right-wing" (the term quoted by David A, above), which includes much or most of the Republican Party and a substantial percentage of Americans, and "radical-right terrorists" (the term used by the SPLC) which is a tiny but dangerous group of extremists. If the Orlando attack was an Islamist terrorist attack then it does seem to fit the latter description; if it was a rampage inspired by homophobia rather than racism, the it does seem to be analogous to the last category which the SPLC is summarising. I don't doubt that this categorisation can be criticised or critiqued, or even spun into something which seems appalling, as the Daily Caller has done (and they are not alone [17] [18] [19] [20]) by pretending everything on the list is a radical-right terrorists plot rather than a conspiracy or a racist rampage, or a murder of a law-enforcement official. The SPLC are not the first to make such a list – here is one from the Anti-Defamation League. If this SPLC list is to get covered on WP, it needs to be covered in reliable independent sources, like reputable newspapers which don't just spew bile. I've yet to see such coverage. EdChem (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

None of the complaining sources are in any way reliable and one of the is just a reprint of the Daily Caller story. Racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic and anti-abortion terrorism is usually grouped with right-wing terrorism. Mateen was also hated blacks, Jews, Hispanics and women. Wikipedia editors cannot determine who is a terrorist or what type, so cannot comment on whether the SPLC categorization is correct. TFD (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, in case it is unclear, I agree with you that they are not reliable, my point is that they are twisting the SPLC report to suit there own ends – as looking at the report itself shows. And, as OR, none of my comments on what they are doing / how they are doing it is usable in main space either. As I said, if the report is to be covered, we will need coverage in a reliable source and I have yet to see that. EdChem (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Long-term semi-protection

Is everyone on board with my requesting another long-term semi-protection? The vast majority of IP edits to this page are vandalism, and they also form a substantial proportion of this page's edits as a whole. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semi-protected for three months. Previous terms have been shorter than that, but I'm convinced it has to be for a longer term. Acroterion (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

More criticism towards the SPLC

Is the following article acceptable to add?

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.759186

David A (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If you really think a single 2016 report is such an important part of the organization's 45-year history, keep adding to the paragraph about it. Or read WP:UNDUE and apply a little common sense. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In the source, Israel's ambassador to the U.S. criticizes the SPLC for calling Frank Gaffney an extremist. Gaffney was uninvited from CPAC after calling Grover Norquist and another CPAC member of secretly helping the Muslim Brotherhood. He then appeared at a Breitbart conference with Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Breitbart has been in the news recently, accused of being the platform of the white supremacist alt-right movement, while Geller and Spencer are banned from the UK for advocating anti-Islamic views.

Every person and their supporters called an extremist by the SPLC objects. We need however to observe neutrality in reporting these criticisms. That means in order to report the details, we would need to explain first why the SPLC considers him an extremist. Since the SPLC reports on hundreds of groups and individuals, this is going to be a lengthy article. I think the best approach is to say that the SPLC reports on groups and individuals and that all of them object to it.

The Washington Post ran an article, "Meet Frank Gaffney, the anti-Muslim gadfly reportedly advising Donald Trump’s transition team." It basically says the same thing as the SPLC.

TFD (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Gaffney clearly belongs on the list, although he has never tried to grab a stripper - which is an important SPLC criterion for extremism, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, regarding the 45-year history comment, their previous good work makes their current stance of indirectly running the errands of Islamists, by composing McCarthy-style lists of critics/political dissenters, all the more dangerous, as it seems to give them automatic clearance/legitimacy, almost no matter what they do. David A (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

David A, please review the talk page guidelines. This isn't the place to gripe about the SPLC, Islamists, or McCarthyism. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding TFD's statement, in this case the criticism is not coming from a labelled group but from the Israeli ambassador to the the US. I would suggest something like having the first sentence of the last paragraph in the "Controversy over hate group and extremist listings" read:

In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, attracting controversy which included a denunciation of the SPLC's action by Israel's ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer. Motsebboh (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You cannot say "attracting controversy" without qualification because it implies equivalency between the view of the SPLC and its detractors. In the Gaffney case for example, the Washington Post has said the same thing about him, and the story was picked up in mainstream media, while the criticism came from fringe right-wing publications. We do not say for example that the theory of relativity is controversial because some right-wing sources oppose it. TFD (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you, TFD. Our article already says "attracting controversy", my suggestion just presents a specific example. Gaffney isn't even mentioned in the section as it now stands. Motsebboh (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. The problem with saying attracting controversy is that we need to mention who is saying it not for verification but to establish weight. In other words, we want to show whether the criticism is widespread or comes from a tiny minority of people who hold fringe views that the SPLC opposes. Dermer is very controversial. See for example, Haaretz published a column[[http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.640771 "Ron Dermer: A History of Arrogance

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.640771 "]] James Baker banned him from the State Department. He irritated both Bill clinton and Joe Biden.

An editorial in the Jewish Week says, "Sharp criticism of Gaffney comes from a variety of respected sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls him “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.” The ADL says he “has promulgated a number of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories over the years.” Those include charges that President Obama is a Muslim, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood and Gen. David Petraeus follows Sharia law./Republican U.S. Sens. John McCain, Marco Rubio and Scott Brown have spoken out against Gaffney, as has former House Speaker John Boehner, calling such allegations “dangerous.”"[21]

TFD (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I raised the issue at NPOVN. TFD (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about Gaffney here??? Not only is Gaffney NOT mentioned in the section in question, he's NOT mentioned in the article at all. Specifically, it is the SPLC's naming of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali that is the point of controversy. Motsebboh (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, did you read the Haaretz article linked at the top of this section? The one about Ron Dermer accepting an award from Gaffney's organization? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup, but that doesn't make Dermer Gaffney although maybe the SPLC will be listing Dermer pretty soon. He was born, raised and mostly educated in the United States, after all. More pertinent is the fact that Dermer's criticism of the SPLC has been widely (if not always approvingly) covered by many reliable sources, including Haaretz. Motsebboh (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The article mentioned at the beginning of the section says that Dermer criticized the SPLC for including Gaffney in its article on anti-Muslim extremism. That's the complaint about the SPLC we are discussing. Do you think that criticism should be in the article and how should it be worded? TFD (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean that's the complaint about the the SPLC which you are discussing. David A. began the thread by simply calling the Haaretz article to our attention. However, I don't see why Gaffney shouldn't be mentioned along with Nawaz and Hirsi Ali in the way I suggested above. Motsebboh (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is about comments Ron Dermer made when receiving an award from the Center for Security Policy, whose president is Frank Gaffney. Indeed the article mentions that he also complained about the SPLC's description of Daniel Pipes, Nawaz and Hirsi Ali, but it is mostly about his defense of Gaffney. But what is your point? Are you saying that the SPLC assessment of Gaffney was correct but he was wrong about the others? In that case, why would we use the source, which is the topic of this discussion thread? TFD (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"it seems to give them automatic clearance/legitimacy, almost no matter what they do" A case of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ("who will guard the guardians?"), where the guardians themselves are corruptible? Interesting idea, but whether this organization has abused its authority is a matter for reliable sources to decide. Not Wikipedia, and not everyone trying to discredit the organization to serve his/her own cause. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't brain surgery. Anybody condemned by the SPLC whom Dermer defended in his speech (Pipes, Nawaz, Hirsi Ali, Gaffney, or anyone else) could be mentioned. We could also (briefly) mention that Dermer praised the SPLC for earlier work Motsebboh (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Are we going to do that with the hundreds of organizations and people the SPLC has written about? Or am I right in concluding that you generally agree with the SPLC's conclusions, except in the case of Nawaz and Hirsi Ali? And per weight, we would first have to explain why the SPLC included these people and the degree to which their views were accepted. TFD (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, you revert to your pet hobby horse and strawman. NO! We are not "going to do this with the hundreds of organizations and people that the SPLC has written about." Only when the SPLC is criticized in reliable sources for attacking specific organizations and people. Motsebboh (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid using personal attacks instead of arguments. Not only do I find it irritating, but It provides me with the impression that you are incapable of proving your point using policy and guideline based arguments. This section provides a reliable source reporting criticism of the SPLC for their reporting of Gaffney, Pipes, Nawaz, Hirsi Ali and the Center for Policy Study. Similar objections have been mentioned in these talk pages on the SPLC position on the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Immigration Studies, Lou Dobbs and other anti-immigrant groups and personalities. Similarly when the Family Research Council was attacked, there was a flurry of reporting of their supporters criticizing the SPLC for listing "homophobic" groups and individuals. So basically reliable sources can be found reporting criticism of the SPLC for its listings of all hate groups. Yet statements similar to those made by those groups often attract prosecution in countries outside the U.S.

So how do we handle this in a neutral manner? Do we have an entire "criticism" section reporting the opposition of alleged hate groups and their supporters to inclusion in hate group listings? Surely that violates weight unless we explain why the SPLC has made its determination and mention that its listings are accepted by mainstream media, academia and law enforcement. Or do you think that an exception should be made for the two mistakes you think the SPLC has made?

TFD (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do as to whether or not I think that the SPLC has made "two mistakes", or a slew of mistakes, or no mistakes at all in its hate listings. When RELIABLE SOURCES report on controversy surrounding particular SPLC listings then editors interested in the SPLC article here should take a look. If lots of RS's have reported on it, as they have in the case of Ron Dermer's criticism, and the complaining source is a notable individual, as Dermer certainly is as the official representative of Israel's government in the United States, then it is fairly obvious to me that this information should at least briefly be included in our article. Naturally, any response by the SPLC should also, at least briefly, be included. And no, this kind of standard does not require us to let every complaining group or individual vent in our article. Motsebboh (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Since it's "fairly obvious", please explain to the rest of us—who keep asking—how to avoid undue weight when dealing with criticism of the group's listings? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"The rest of us" as in you and TFD, I presume. Sorry, but I don't see ten lines of criticism presently (two of which are devoted to the SPLC defending itself) in an article of this length, as veering dangerously toward undue weight. Motsebboh (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Now you're engaging in double-talk. You want the article to include all criticism of the SPLC that is reported by reliable sources but you only want to discuss Dermer. Or you don't want to discuss Dermer, you want to discuss Nawaz and Hirsi Ali. Make up your mind. It isn't brain surgery. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In an earlier response to TFD who kept harping on Gaffney and his organization, I pointed out that the criticism section at present didn't mention Gaffney at all. However if Dermer's criticism of the SPLC is added to the article, and it should be, then it's a good idea to mention any supposed Islamophobe whom Dermer defended. By the way, do we have a copy of Dermer's remarks or just media reports of them? Motsebboh (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edit adding Derner to the article. It gives undue weight to an issue that already has a brief mention. By introducing a new issue to the paragraph (i.e. the Center for Security Policy) you open the door for requiring an explanation of why that group (not to mention Pipes and Gaffney) is targeted by the SPLC. As others have said above, this type of exercise is why criticism sections get out of control. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that if anything should be removed in the paragraph as I left it (and I don't), it should be the earlier stuff -- Nawaz himself complaining about the extremist label he's been given. As Joe Biden might put it, "The Israeli ambassador condemning an SPLC's labeling is much more of a big, f__king deal than one of the branded parties condemning the labeling". As for the criticism, or controversy, sections getting out of control, I think you will find that most of the big SPLC news stories in recent years involve exactly what our section in question deals with: criticism and controversy over the SPLC labeling of hate groups and individual extremists. Motsebboh (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add info about this incident to Ron Dermer? It seems (more) appropriate there. The article Ron Dermer only mentions that incident in the last sentence. It is WP:UNDUE to add it to the SPLC article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

What is or is not a big deal depends on whether or not reliable sources determine to focus on them, not whether we think they are. Dermer's comments have received little media attention and none in mainstream U.S. news sources. The only mainstream attention was in Israeli and U.S. Jewish news. And they only covered it because Dermer "was speaking at an award ceremony held Tuesday by the Center for Security Policy, a think tank which openly espouses anti-Islamic views and conspiracy theories." He was not speaking in his capacity of the Israeli ambassador, i.e., he was not expressing the official views of the government of Israel, but a controversial person speaking as a private person. TFD (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Curious what you say about Dermer not acting in his official capacity since the featured SPLC gripe as reported in Haaretz is that Dermer's acceptance of the award "legitimizes the organization" and can be seen "as an endorsement of of anti-Muslim hate by the Israeli government." As for this story being reported mainly by the Israeli and US Jewish Press (though Politico is neither), that alone gives it a lot more news coverage than most of the information in the SPLC article. Motsebboh (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your arguments are getting weaker. Next thing you'll be telling me that if it weren't for Dermer, no one would ever have heard of the SPLC. TFD (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I obviously agree with Motsebboh that the Israeli ambassador condemning the SPLC for systematically targetting anybody who rationally criticises radical Islamism (even Hirsi Ali, whose filmmaking partner was gruesomely slaughtered by a jihadist, and who needs constant bodyguards to avoid suffering the same fate), is an extremely big deal, and that the paragraph should definitely stay in the page. David A (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you keep believing in propaganda the war will never stop. That stuff happened a couple hundred meters away from where I am sitting right now. It must be difficult to form a moderate opinion about stuff like that for those who do not speak Dutch; there are probably not many people who wrote about this kinda stuff in English with a moderate opinion. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have mostly just read up on the statistics (such as PEW Research 2013), and they are terrifying. In addition, Maajid Nawaz is the very definition of a moderate, and he was character-assassinated by the SPLC. David A (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It is difficult to form a moderate opinion about terrifying stuff. I know very little about Maajid Nawaz but I'll read his article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

True enough. Anyway, I recommend Maajid's LBC radio show (available online), if you wish to know more about him, and his viewpoints. David A (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, interesting stuff. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. David A (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The SPLC isn't "systematically targetting anybody who rationally criticises radical Islamism". I checked the list, and it seems that Nawaz is the only one whose inclusion may be debatable (like I said, I know very little about him, I'll have to do more research). Of course Maajid Nawaz isn't as famous over here (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) as Hirsi Ali is. I'll check lbc.co.uk to learn more about Maajid Nawaz and his point of view. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree about Hirsi Ali, but am not very informed about the others. David A (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I got the impression (personal opinion, original research) that many people who've heard about Hirsi Ali from foreign media are not aware that wasn't working towards peace and love; quite the opposite in fact. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

"Peace and love" are irrelevant. What is important is whether or not she has been rational, fact-based, and realistic in her analysis. David A (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, peace and love are among the most important things in this universe, they are never irrelevant. Hirsi Ali has not been rational, fact-based and realistic. Heck, she lied so much about her backstory that even those who supported her turned on her.

Hirsi Ali had been living comfortably and safely in Kenya with her family for at least 12 years before she sought refugee status in the Netherlands in 1992.

She left Somalia before there was any violence, and lived a comfortable middle class existence in Kenya. She attended a Muslim Girls' school in Kenya, where she received a full western style education in the Humanities and Sciences. Her brother attended a Christian school. She lied to the Dutch immigration service about coming from Somalia so they wouldn't send her back to Kenya.

Hirsi Ali admitted that she had lied about her full name, date of birth, and the manner in which she had come to the Netherlands.

She resigned from Parliament after admitting that she had lied on her asylum application. She almost lost her citizenship because of those lies. See Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Dutch_citizenship_fallout. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@David A: You edited her article, weren't you aware of those facts? You seem to spend a lot of time making edits on Wikipedia that are related to islamophobia, and I wouldn't describe your edits as NPOV. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of this, just that she is a prominent intellectual critic of radical Islamism.

I have admittedly turned extremely worried about this after reading lots of statistics and fact-based news regarding the issue, but to not have an opinion about anything is impossible. We are all biased in one way or another. I have not, however, done anything that breaks Wikipedia rules, mostly just monitored some pages for vandalism, censorship, or suspicious edits recently.

As for peace and love, I agree that they are important when realistic to achieve, but I do not think that it is possible to hug genocidally bigoted fascists into submission. To do believe so, is a type of irrational fundamentalism that is far more POV than I could ever hope to achieve. David A (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstandings: This is a too complex issue for me to have any solutions. All that I am advocating is fact-based information, as opposed to lies, censorship, and wishful thinking. David A (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think the root cause of terrorism is the Muslim religion, then people such as Gaffney, Tommy Robinson, and Pam Geller are heroes for risking their lives by exposing it and the SPLC through misguided or deliberately malicious claims of "tolerance" is helping to bring about the collapse of Western civilization, beginning with Israel. Similar arguments are made about homosexuality (destroying the family), race (watering down white genes), abortion (murdering the unborn), holocaust denial (destroying freedom of speech) and other issues. Since no opinion is incorrect, we cannot endorse or refute the SPLC's views. But per weight, we have to present them as mainstream and their opponents as fringe, in the sense that mainstream sources generally support the actions and conclusions of the SPLC and even opponents usually only oppose them on a few issues. Dermer for example supports them on the issues of race and anti-Semitism.

Incidentally, you said above that some of the people described by the SPLC are not comparable to Nazis or Klansmen. In fact the SPLC does not say they are. But most countries (the U.S. is an exception) have laws against hate speech, and the SPLC definition is no different from that.

TFD (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the teachings of Wahhabism/Salafism qualify as a far more extreme form of hate-speech than the people simply matter-of-fact pointing it out, and as is clearly seen in the massively comprehensive 2013 PEW Research statistical survey that I linked to earlier, it has had a massive effect on Muslim viewpoints all over the world. That said, we should probably drop this, and return to the issue about the ambassador. David A (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Ambassador Dermer is the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, whether he himself is controversial is irrelevant. As the State of Israel's top government representative to the United States, his condemnation [22] of the SPLC (over the specific people he mentions - i.e. Pipes, Hirsi Ali, Gaffney) is very notable.

Regarding whether or not he was "speaking in his capacity of the Israeli ambassador" or "as a private person." He can be a private person in Israel, not in America. As an Ambassador he represents his country wherever he goes in the US, especially when he's attending a highly publicized functions. Additionally, Ambassador Dermer addresses his criticism not only to the SPLC, but to "the SPLC and others who asked me not to come here (i.e. CSP award dinner)." Therefore, I would add criticism by Dermer to J Street[23], The New Israel Fund [24], The Reform Movement, and the Anti-Defamation League's [25] Wiki articles The Armchair General (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

TFD's "If you think the root cause of terrorism . . ." statement above, helps me to understand his eagerness to quash criticism of the SPLC in our article. Among other things he misinterprets WP:Due, which isn't about some presumed notion of what is "mainstream" and what is "fringe" in the realm of thought about Islam, race, homosexuality, abortion, or the Holocaust. Rather, it is about the preponderance of information on those and other topics in reliable sources. The specific topic we are dealing with here is Controversy over [the SPLC's] hate group and extremist listings. Within that realm, Dermer's denunciation of certain SPLC listings is clearly significant and deserves mention. Motsebboh (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources....While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." It is actually not about the preponderance of "information," but about the preponderance of viewpoints. By definition mainstream views have a higher preponderance than fringe views in reliable sources, although perhaps not the sources you normally read for developing your political opinions.

No part of WP:DUE makes Dermer's comments "significant." Dermer challenges the SPLC's categorization of the Center for Security Policy as a hate group. Yet virtually every mention of the group in mainstream reporting says that the SPLC considers it a hate group yet does not mention Dermer's defense. The problem is you disagree with how the media uncritically routinely reports SPLC opinions without what you consider appropriate balance. You could be right on that, but there are no policy based reasons to correct the errors of the media in this article.

TFD (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a serious reply. If the topic at hand were the Center for Security Policy then what you've just said would be an argument for keeping information about the SPLC listing in it, though I don't see anyone trying to change that. But the CSP isn't the topic at hand. The topic at hand is, once again, Controversy over the SPLC's hate group and extremist listings. In this realm, Dermer's defense of not only the CSP but Pipes, Hirsi Ali, and Nawaz, covered in numerous reliable sources is more than deserving of mention. Motsebboh (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It was not covered in MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CBS or ABC news. It was not covered by any major U.S. newpaper. It was covered in only one mainstream news website (Politico). No doubt it was covered in all the sites you rely on for news, which gives you a false sense of its signficance. TFD (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Since when do news stories primarily involving the SPLC get coverage in most of those networks? Looking at the whole "Tracking of hate groups and extremists section" of our article, much of it is sourced to the SPLC itself. While a three or four major news outlets are cited along the way, there are also citations to the likes of the Illinois Association for Cultural Diversity (??), the Atlanta Blackstar (??), and a Huffpo opinion column. Sources such as Politico and Haaretz don't detract from the quality of the works cited, they add to it. Motsebboh (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Stories primarily about the SPLC receive coverage in major news media when they are significant, for example "Southern Poverty Law Center Reports 'Outbreak of Hate' After Election" Lawsuits against extremist groups also attracted attention. You will find more useful information however in Google Books and scholar. Current news articles are good sources for what happened yesterday, but books and serious articles are better sources for everything else. TFD (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Except the NBC news story here is less about the SPLC than it is about some people's reaction to the November election, using the SPLC as a source rather than as a subject. But we are drifting away from the point of our discussion which is about why Ambassador Ron Dermer's reported criticism of the SPLC should or should not find a place in our article. Again, what you've said in your last remark is revealing. Yes, let's assume that scholarly monographs have often used SPLC facts and figures and have sometimes directly praised the organization. Let's concede reliable news sources have often used the SPLC as a font of information on hate groups and extremists. This does not mean that we therefore shy away from including reliably sourced but less than flattering material on it as a violation of due weight. By that standard we would never have an article such as this one [26] on the beloved Gray Lady. Motsebboh (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If you were writing an essay then you might be right. You could add Dermer's thoughts to articles about anything. The reality is that mainstream sources have chosen to ignore his views on the SPLC which is the one and only reason we are supposed to ignore them. I feel we are going in circles. I have explained my position several times, is there anything you do not understand about it? If you think mainstream media should pay attention to Dermer's views on the SPLC and other issues, then write to them, and if you are persuasive then those views will rightfully be reflected here. TFD (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Motsebboh, you seem to get a lot of attention on 8chan from 629e91 who uses (a.o.) the nick "Wikidrama General". Feel free to call me an oldfag but I would recommend /pol/ instead of Wikipedia. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As the State of Israel's top government representative to the United States, his condemnation, at a publicly attended event, of the SPLC and their hate-group list is notable. Claims that no mainstream news has covered the comments are false. There have been several articles about Dermer's comments. Politico[27], Buzzfeed[28], The Jerusalem Post[29], The Times of Israel[30], and Haaretz [31] With the exception of Buzzfeed, all of these are generally considered RS. A brief mention of this sort is not a due weight violation. I am placing a few sentences about the criticism on the page. It's notable and there's RS to back it up. This really is not something that should have been up for debate. The Armchair General (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. It is highly suspicious to wish to remove virtually any criticism whatsoever, no matter how notable. David A (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong when you say, "This really is not something that should have been up for debate." Have you been appointed judge by some authority figure of when wikipedia's consensus policy doesn't apply? It is up for debate, just as any additions to a controversial article are, and to this point there is no consensus and the debate is simply going around in circles. The facts are that the incident has hardly been covered at all and simply because someone with some notoriety says something doesn't make his comments automatically relevant. There is the additional problem of the way the material was actually entered without any context, but that doesn't need to be discussed until we get past the threshold issue of whether to add anything. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

My two peneth. It maybe worthy of inclusion if he was speaking as an official of the Israeli government expressing their opinion. If he was not then the question of undue does rather enter into it. Do we include all comments by all ambassadors (As long as they are made in public, of course)? Yes, RS have reported his comments, but why are they more noteworthy then any other ambassadors on any number of other pages. Is this really a criteria for inclusion we want "an ambassador said it"??Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Could anyone please point to the policy or guideline that says the Israeli ambassador's views are notable. Do you think that applies to everything he chooses to talk about? What does he not have his own press corps following him around in case he has something to say, and why are his comments not carried in the papers every day? BTW, Nawaz and Hirsi Ali were not added to the SPLC "hate group list." They are not groups, and the group they belong to (Quilliam) is not on the list. Nor does the SPLC accuse them of hate speech. TFD (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Dermer is a major diplomat and made a long public statement condemning the SPLC's and their extremist list. It was picked up in several major publications as I show above (only one credible RS is actually needed). The idea that it shouldn't be added to a criticism a section specifically designed to highlight "Controversy over their hate group and extremist listings" is - to me - absurd.

Regarding whether he was speaking as an official of the Israeli government or simply expressing his own opinion. (My off-wiki background includes a stint in working with diplomats) As an major diplomat, whenever he speaks at a public event in his host country he is to conduct himself as a representative of his government. Additionally, Dermer posted his speech to his official Facebook page [32] The Armchair General (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

That does not mean he does conduct himself so, many ambassadors forget themselves. If he was acting in a private capacity at a private event that is what it was. And why is he a " major diplomat", more so then any other ambassador. That to me is the crux here, why are his views more noteworthy for inclusion then (say) the ambassador of Iran or Yemen or North Korea? Why are his private comments more inclusion worthy then any other ambassadors?Slatersteven (talk)

The United States has a very close working relationship with Israel, and I find it offensive to compare it with genocidal Islamist or Communist regimes. David A (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The Armchair General, can you quote the guideline or policy that says that Dermer's statements are inherently notable. And can you please explain why major mainstream U.S. ignored him. TFD (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not comparing the nations, I am comparing how noteworthy what their ambassadors say is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. My apologies. I am very stressed out in general, and as such am more on edge than I should be. David A (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Your statement of "If he was acting in a private capacity at a private event that is what it was." is false. There's nothing on the invitation page at CSP that claims the event was "Private" [33]. Expensive, Yes. Private, No. If it was "Private" it would not have been publicized and reported on prior to the events occurrence.

Private in the sense of "not a state function". As is "private" as opposed to "public" finaceSlatersteven (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious with this? The funding of event is not criteria for whether or not an event is Private or Public. The Armchair General (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

How the hell do I answer this and not insult you? Public as in "the state", private as in "not the state". Really do you genuinely not understand this? It was not a "state" function in which he was operating in his official capacity.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please watch your tone. Again, you're not correct. Whether the function was a "state" function or a function sponsored by a "private" entity is irrelevant. Private think tanks have diplomats speak at their events all the time. When they do, they are still speaking as the representative of their country. He was at an event open to public attendance and reported on by several RS news sources. The Armchair General (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@TFD, it's not my job to explain why why major mainstream U.S. news outlets don't do their jobs. And the fact of the matter is IT WAS covered in several RS news sources and the coverage fits with Notability guidelines The Armchair General (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability is about articles existing, not content of those articles.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The notability guidelines Armchair linked are indeed irrelevant. What is relevant can be found in the NPOV guidelines. A couple of quotes from the guidelines:

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."

Derner, as a party of one, certainly falls within "small minority". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Dermer as an official representative of a nation state does not constitute a "party of one."The Armchair General (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Only when functioning officially in that capacity, was he?Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

In order to believe he was speaking on behalf of Israel, you would have to believe that Israel, for some reason, would want to announce an official policy attacking the SPLC, a leading opponent of anti-semitism in the U.S., while supporting Gaffney's extremist anti_Muslim group. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, (your hatred for Gaffney, and his group, aside) as an major diplomat, whenever a diplomat speaks at an event that is open to the public, within his host country he is to conduct himself as a representative of his government. The Armchair General (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So you say. And yet none of the few sources you cite make that connection, do they? "Israel Attacks Southern Poverty Law Center" would have been a great headline -- how come nobody used it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You're logic is flawed. The articles repeatedly say the "Israeli Ambassador to the US" and "Israeli Ambassador, Ron Dermer," not "Mr. Dermer," or "some random guy." The Armchair General (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course the few references to this event would want to tell the readers why they're even mentioning this guy. The fact that you ignore is there is no evidence at all that his intended audience was the U.S. government or that his comments on the SPLC were relevant to either the U.S. or Israeli governments. You have the burden of proof since you want to add material and "because you say so" isn't good enough. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@User:The Four Deuces, Your earlier point about Nawaz and Hirsi Ali not being in one of the SPLC's listed hate groups is rather irrelevant since both the topic and subtopic of under discussion here are about the SPLC's "extremist" labelings not just its hate group listings. Again, when it comes to the SPLC being the subject of a news story rather than a source of information about a news story, this is a pretty big deal. Motsebboh (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tom: The "flat earth" comparison is absurd on the face of it. We are not talking about established physical facts; and we actually do NOT know what the majority of informed opinion thinks specifically about the SPLC's naming of the CSP as a hate group, or its inclusion of Pipes, Nawaz, and Hirsi Ali as extremists. The fact that a lot of people such as yourself have a high opinion of the SPLC is irrelevant. So, apparently, did Ron Dermer until recently. What we DO know is that the Israeli ambassador recently strongly criticized the SPLC in remarks that were substantially reported by reliable sources. By the standards you have been espousing here, Wikipedia could never report controversies that tended to show a particular entity in a negative light as long as most "experts" might side with that entity were they asked. Motsebboh (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"Substantially reported"? Defining "substantially" as "to a great or significant extent", it seems like you're engaging in that "insecure rhetorics" referred to below. What we actually do know is that the story has not been "substantially reported" in the major national and local news outlets. The section I referred to requires wikipedia editors to make a distinction between "small minority" and "tiny minority". It's not an easy distinction in many cases, but this is an easy case since you're stuck on a minority of one person's opinion. You want to make this all about one man's opinion, yet the few sources cited make it clear that among the issues relevant to the story are the specific criticisms against Gaffney et al. Why exactly does the material that you three folks keep trying to add fail to even hint at why the SPLC is criticizing those folks. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"why the SPLC is criticizing those folks" is irrelevant. What is important is a notable person criticized the SPLC's extremist list and it was covered in several RS sources. It belongs in the section labeled "Controversy over hate group and extremist listings." There have been enough RS sources provided, to prove you're statement that this was not "substantially reported" is false. The idea that a story need be blasted across every (or nearly every) major national and local new station would be an untenable demand that most Wikipedia citations would fail to live up to. TAG (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Motsebboh. There do seem to be insincere rhetorics in play here. David A (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"Insecure rhetorics" -- like when you started this discussion by asking a question, then decided to implement your POV despite the fact that the majority of responses went against you -- claiming the non-existent "self-evident" exception to our policy on consensus? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Stop it now or you may get blocked. You need to discuss that edit. The consensus is against you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi! Would you please be so kind to keep an eye on this article, I have to go shopping. Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Motsebboh, The Armchair General, and myself all agree that it should be included, and yes, it is self-evident that this information should be included, regardless of censorship attempt gangups through sheer numbers. David A (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Most editors commenting here disagree with you. Also, can you please quote the policy or guideline that says it is self-evident that Dermer's comments should be included. TFD (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No. I am not well-read enough on Wikipedia regulations for that. I am too busy being the manager of one of the world's largest entertainment wikis to focus much on Wikipedia nowadays, but it definitely seems extremely notable, given the stature of the person making the claim, and that several major newspapers referenced it. David A (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You are both edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There are specific policies and guidelines that editors must follow for all articles. In the case of reporting opinions, it does not matter whether you or I think something is notable. I will post a "Welcome" notice on your talk page and ask that you acquaint yourself with basic policy and guidelines before participating further in this discussion. TFD (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BRD is not WP:BRBRBRBRBRBRD. Protected for 14 days. Now discuss. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)