Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Philosophy Roundtable

"In 2017, Karl Zinsmeister of Philanthropy Roundtable criticized the SPLC, calling it a "political tool"."[1]

An editor added restored the above text with a note, "P Roundtable is a mainstream organization; restore, but omit quote." While the phrasing implies that, the group is not. It is funded by right-wing donors and its members provide donations to climate change denial, islamophobic, homophobic. anti-public education and other right-wing "charities." Zinsmeister was in the Bush Administration and Betsy Devos, the controversial education secretary and Amway heiress is another director. It also has ties to right-wing think tanks.[2] If we include this criticism we need to say where it is coming from. As a general rule, criticisms should only be added if they have been reported in reliable secondary sources, which establishes their significance and degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If ever there was an RS/mainstream organization, the Roundtable is one. If it were such an evil organization, I'd think the SPLC would categorize as such in one of their evil categories. Relying on rightweb.irc-onlne.org to determine its acceptability for Wikipedia is like the pot calling the kettle .... – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we use Right Web as a source, but it is helpful in providing links to reliable sources. Since you claim that the PR is mainstream then please provide a source. They by the way are an associate member of the State Policy Network.[3] The other D.C. associate members are all right-wing think tanks and pressure groups. The Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute and the American Enterprise Institute are there, but not Brookings. There's a new book, The Givers by David Callahan, the founder of Inside Philanthropy, which says PR was set up by conservatives who thought the Council on Foundations was too "liberal." Anyway all you have to do is read their website to see that they have a distinct political bent which should be explained if their opinion is provided. TFD (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Just because they are RS (are they?) does not mean their opinions of any subject are worthy of inclusion, nor does it say SPLC is a political tool it says "The Southern Poverty Law Center's extremist list isn't a Consumer Reports guide. It's a political tool", so lets at least try and represent what it says accurately.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

C-Fam

The comments from the founder of C-Fam are entirely appropriate. After all, Center for Family and Human Rights enjoys Special Consultative Status with United Nations Economic and Social Council. Need verification? See this listing. The fact that SPLC disparaged C-Fam and C-Fam's response is quite WP:NOTEWORTHY. Was the comment from Austin Ruse undue? Well, if so, it can be balanced by adding SPLC's own take on C-Fam. – S. Rich (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else getting pretty sick of this drive to add any-and-every source critical of SPLC that Srich can find? Incredibly transparent and not improving the article. No, Cfams view is UNDUE here. So is the Philosophy Roundtable, and a lot of the other stuff you keep repeatedly coat racking in. It's getting really old. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree that including this commentary is undue weight. We really don't need to include every single favourable or negative comment by every interest group, think tank or random political observer. There is justification for a few pars indicating the schools of thought supportive or against the SPLC, and maybe a representative example or two for each. But not more than that. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The NGO listing says, "A profile in this database and on this website does not in and of itself connote any affiliation with the United Nations, unless such affiliation is expressly indicated." Reuters ran an article about them last month, which is on the NBC News website, "U.S. Sends ‘Anti-Gay Hate’ Group to U.N., Fueling Fears Over LGBTQ Rights." "C-FAM's longtime leader Austin Ruse is often quoted saying he supports the criminalization of homosexuality, which he calls "harmful to public health and morals," Beirich said....Articles by Ruse have accused the administration of former President Barack Obama of promoting a "homosexual agenda."" It comes down to the supporters of the groups listed as hate groups dislike their inclusion. And "noteworthy" is determined by the coverage something has received in reliable third party sources - this has received none. TFD (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If this article does not mention C-farm why should we include their counter criticism? Again why is this worthy of note?Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Counting the whole sentences throughout the article, I see ≥100 which are supportive of or which relate to the successful history of the SPLC. (This count does not include the lede or history sections.) About 20 sentences have critical comments (and this count includes the Florida sheriff case sub-section which was decided against the SPLC.) For a long time this article was POV-laden in favor of the SPLC. (In fact, the "Notable cases" section was once titled "Notable victories".) Much has been done to achieve some balance. But back to counting – we have 3+ liberal sources (Silverstein, Cockburn, Wypijewski, Signorile, plus Milbank(?) and Egerton(?)) which are critical. Dees' and Potock's responses are noted, and can be expanded upon. Other sources/critics are non-partisan. And I leave it up to others to do the conservative source count. What's the bottom line? Really none when we are all pushing on the WP:POLE. But the addition of this very recent Roundtable criticism and the less recent C-Fam criticism serve to show that the SPLC is subject to on-going concern. If more balance is desired, then interested editors should come up with kudos. Anything that is WP:NOTEWORTHY is welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

POV does not mean balancing positive opinions with negative ones, but providing the same balance that exists in reliable sources. Comments are only "noteworthy" if they are covered in reliable third party sources. Your complaint about the SPLC is that they oppose groups that promote discrimination against LGBT people, but your edit pretends the criticism comes from a "mainstream" source and hides the reason for the criticism. Also, there is no way in hell that you would ever care about the opinions of Silverstein and Cockburn and are only presenting them because they make the SPLC look bad. TFD (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Also we would balance "positive" material not with random criticism but with specific counter points to the material we have here, not refutation of material we do not have here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed New Section: Links to Mass Shooters

Corkins' attack on the FRC has already been mentioned, but now it's been revealed that Hodgkinson has also been connected to the SPLC. I've not been tracking mass shootings, but the fact that 2 mass shooters are affiliated with SPLC may be noteworthy. Even the Snopes defence is a no but yes: [4]. The piece assesses whether the claim that SPLC is a left-wing smear group that incites hatred and violence against conservatives is valid but naturally finds the claim false. In its defence however it acknowledges that Hodgkinson appears to have approved of the work they did. True there's no suggestion that he used them to source a target list, as with Corkins, but the association is disturbing and raises the possibility of a trend. 人族 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well as Snoopes say it is false, and the link appears to be nothing more then the shooters liked SPLC on titter, no I do not think there is enough here to have a section.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that everyone who follows a person or group on Twitter is "linked" to that person or group in a meaningful way? Because that's quite literally the most absurd thing I've ever read on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems to me a no-brainer. Of course not. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What is Titter? O.o And there was no mention of Twitter in that article. The argument proposed by a number of articles I've seen is that SPLC equate political disagreement with hate speech and demand their supporters eliminate hate. No I'm not suggesting SPLC advocates violence. The fact 2 fringe followers of SPLC went on shooting sprees raises questions though. If SPLC adamantly oppose violence, then why did 2 of their followers commit one of the most horrific acts imaginable? The fact that they share views may be significant whereas the fact that Corkins and Hodgkinson both like the same brand of porridge - yes I'm making this up, would be irrelevant. 人族 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide why they do it, it is for us to repeat what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious that Hodgkinson was a violent man, perhaps because of the problems in his past, we can't say. But he had a history of violence that you can't blame on the SPLC. Corkins was mentally ill. What reliable sources have actually said the SPLC was the cause of their violence? I'm also curious about the argument that the SPLC demands its supporters eliminate hate - can you point to SPLC statements making this demand? Doug Weller talk 18:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, who was saying why? I merely pointed out a widely noted link. The FRC [5] said an SPLC fan tried to kill as many Republican members as possible, and that SPLC hate labeling is dangerous but since SPLC deems them a hate group, and since you want RS I guess we'll just have to go with [6] instead which says that the "SPLC should not be held responsible for their speech that led to this attempted assassination ..." Can't say I consider it an RS, but it seems my views are a minority here. 人族 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No, we are saying we need RS saying there was a link, not some random bloke on the internet (an Ernest Hemingway) saying there is a link. Moreover just because he was a fan of the SPLC does not mean it is relevant to them what he did, and more then Robert Lewis Dear can be included in articles about groups he supported.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Liking" on Facebook is a trivial connection. we have no evidence that the shooter had read the SPLC article on Scalise or that he was aware Scalise was one of his victims. In any case, the SPLC did not break the story that Scalise had addressed a white supremacist, anti-Semitic group founded by former KKK boss David Duke, it merely posted it to its website after it attained widespread coverage in mainstream media, including right-wing media. TFD (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this should be included in the article, but there is some sourcing related to this from conservative media saying the FRC shooter and the congressional baseball shooter were both in some way connected to SPLC and allegedly were influenced by their hate group listings: [7], [8], [9]. SPLC has responded calling the shooting an attack on democracy and condemning such acts of violence [10] and Snopes has published an article saying SPLC is not a a left-wing smear group that incites hatred and violence against conservatives: [11]--DynaGirl (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this ridiculous, and obviously bad faithed, proposal? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems we are discussing it because it's related to a current event and it's getting some coverage in sources, although I"m not sure the quality and quantity of the current sources supports it's inclusion in article. It certainly wouldn't warrant an entire section, as the proposer suggested, and I'm not sure it even warrants mention unless stronger sourcing emerges. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues – tagged at the article lede

Criticism has been white washed away from this page over and over, and yet another edit war seems to be in place over it. There have been numerous editors who contested the neutrality of this page or at least hinted at possible NPOV issues regarding criticism being removed from the page (just to cite the most recent sections and archives: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]), and this issue seems to persist. I am tagging it until such disputes and concerns are resolved. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Are there any of these previous discussions that you feel resolved inconclusively, or are you just unhappy with the conclusions? "I insist this tag remain until the page looks how I want it to" is a non-starter and not how the NPOV tag works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the issue has not been settled, look for instance at the discussion spawned from this section. For specifics, the only think that has been resolved via consensus is the wording on the lead section. Other issues are still at hand, as I pointed out by the same issues being raised again in the talk page (e.g. [23]) and in the article itself (see the recent edit war principle over a matter of undue weight being given to some controversies). I believe Aquillion raises good points on how articles criticizing the subject should be selected though I agree with Srich regarding the WSJ, as I mentioned below it seems to me that sometimes it doesn't matter how relevant a source is. I think there is room for a constructive discussion on a possible re-sctructuring of the section or at least we can try to reach some consensus on how we should select the sources to be listed in it (and consequently how we could address the issues at hand). Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please point to specific issues as directed by Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Simply believing there needs to be discussion about restructuring a section is not an NPOV dispute, it's an editorial discussion. Tags are not scarlet letters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are things you should use embedded lists for, but the entire criticism section is probably not one of those things, If it was written in prose of a suitable length, then it might convey the information better and with enough context to add some balance to the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

As I have stated many times, the criticism comes almost entirely from supporters of groups that the SPLC lists as hate groups. Mainstream media, academics, law enforcement and courts routinely report SPLC listings without any mention of "controversy." Per neutrality, we are able to mention if groups contest their listings, but only if we actually mention they are listed, i.e., not here but in articles about those groups. Some editors continue to mention comments made by the founders of a left-wing "radical" magazine, CounterPunch, eight years ago and other isolated opinions that have not been reported in secondary sources, contrary to "Due and undue weight". Most of this criticism comes down to a view that the claims of racists, homophobes, Islamophobes and anti-Semites are correct and therefore calling them "hate speech" is wrong. TFD (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling it doesn't really matter what mainstream media say. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the tag; it is not a scarlet letter and no specific issue has been identified for discussion here. As Roscelese astutely notes, "Tag this article until it reflects my POV" is not an acceptable use. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And I have re-instated it, please read this. There is no clear consensus on the subject, the issue at hand is due weight not given to so called controversies involving the article of the subject, and the discussion certainly is not dorment - you didn't even wait 24h to remove the tag. Some people have jobs, you know... Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it again, because it's not a scarlet letter and you have failed to identify any specific issue you believe needs remedying, as directed by Template:POV: The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. You have failed to identify any specific NPOV violation, instead pointing to some generalities about "restructuring." A desire for "restructuring" does not justify a giant scarlet letter tag on the entire article. If you don't have time to identify your specific claimed NPOV violation and open a discussion about that specific violation, then why do you have time to plop a tag down and walk away? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have identified the specific NPOV issue: Criticism of the subject of the article is consistently not given the due weight it deserves, as pointed out by multiple editors in a recurrent fashion (aforelinked), and there has been no consensus over this due weight allegation for a number of the various articles that keep going back and forth in the criticism section. Thus there is a need for discussing the criteria with which criticism is added/removed from this page - I and a number of other editors have questioned the neutrality with which it is done. Finally, it's not that I don't have time to discuss the matter - if it was the case I would not have started this section - I clearly said that you didn't wait enough time and promptly removed the tag less than 24h before the discussion even started. You did not gave an opportunity for discussion - look at the number of comments that were added after your speedy removal. I am re-instating the tag as I believe I have (again) identified the issue, there is relevant discussion on it, and no clear consensus on whether the matter has been resolved or not. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This is still way to vague to justify the tag. What specific changes do you think are needed to make the article npov in your opinion? Which criticisms are missing? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well the problem is a generic one (though not vague at all) - RSd criticism or labeling is constantly prevented from being added to the page, making it POVd. But let's go over the sources if you want to get specific. I won't do an exhaustive list because I suspect next it will be "although specific, that has already been discussed..." Yes, that is precisely the point. Multiple editors have already pointed out NPOV issues in multiple occasions, precisely because the problem is widespread and not specific to a punctual change.

• Criticism regarding hate group listings in general has been brought up in numerous occasions. It has received such ample, mainstream coverage that I'm afraid to overcite...
• Charles Murray - also mentioned several times in the past in this talk page - has received mainstream criticism.
• ... Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@TFD: Untrue, SPLC has been around a long time—they've done good work and have generally been respected, but recently I have seem more criticsm about them. It is recent but I have seen it in mainstream media and in published books, including the Atlantic. Fans of the organization can continue to deny it but there is no going back from this, their reputation is irreperably damaged from targetting writers, academics and libertarians. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The latest bit of criticism was published June 22, 2017, in the Wall Street Journal. The op-ed by writer Jeryl Bier is titled "The Insidious Influence of the SPLC" and spans 15 paragraphs. As far as I know, Bier is not associated with any of the "hate groups". – S. Rich (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal's editorial section printed a screed by a blogger for the Weekly Standard, and they share a dislike for the SPLC?!? I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather. I'll bet they also both hate Barack Obama and approve of Donald Trump, right? And in other news, water is wet. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the organization's prominence, having a wide range of op-eds about it are normal; it would be silly to try and list all of them.We should cover ones that are most prominent, ideally in cases where we can find secondary, high-profile, mainstream non-opinion sources citing or describing them. But "here's a thing someone said in an opinion piece" clearly isn't enough to include in an article for an organization this high-profile, no more than we would eg. include random opinion pieces in the page for a high-profile politician. Since the SPLC is well-known, prominent criticisms should be citable without going to op-ed pages and the like. EDIT: Also, since you said they weren't affiliated with any hate groups... a quick glance at Jeryl Bier's blog reveals that they seek to bring a "unique perspective on conservative politics and culture grounded in Biblical truth"; skimming their other posts there, it's pretty clear that their criticism of the SPLC is indeed rooted in sympathy with the politics of some SPLC-labeled hate groups - they seem especially critical of homosexuality and gays, which makes their claims of particular indignation at the labeling of the Family Research Council as a hate group extremely suspect. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

here "The propensity for violence is not a criterion for listing as a hate group. So sometimes groups that really have no propensity for violence, although their rhetoric might foment it, object to be listed with the Ku Klux Klan. I understand that." — I think they started losing support around the time it become clear they had crossed the line to attacking people for speech, any kind of speech, and they have been criticized in various sources for doing this for donations. I don't think it will be easy for them to recover from this, since it has reached the mainstream media. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep interjecting this unsupported claim that "they started losing support" — it's not clear that right-wing groups or libertarians ever supported the SPLC in the first place. Regardless, this isn't a general-purpose discussion forum to talk about the SPLC, so unless there's some specific changes that anyone's proposing to the article, we should probably close this thread as per WP:NOTFORUM. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I mean that it is clear that the media has recently started to pick up on criticsm of the SPLC which to me is highly unusual, but the nature of criticism in the press is quite different then the nature and substance of the criticism in book sources. Some editors have raised the issue that this criticsm is not discussed in any sources beyond the personal primary statements of organizations, that is simply not true: [24] [25] [26] and that is just what I was able to pull up casually searching Google Books. It looks like the only lawsuit they are going to be involved in is the one that is filed against them. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The first source you cite is a pretty straightforward discussion of the SPLC's methodologies for determining what is and is not a hate group, noting that some of its targets disagree with their classification. The second source you cite discusses the SPLC's office building, and I'm not really sure it's encyclopedic to include the book's recounting of third-hand unnamed criticism that... their offices are too nice? I suppose you're welcome to propose an addition of that material and see if there's consensus. The third source you cite is literally a lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist ranting that the SPLC is participating in a government coverup of its perpetration of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I don't for a minute think that "the world's leading conspiracy writer" would pass muster as a reliable source, but you're also welcome to propose an addition of such material. Otherwise, you're just soapboxing. Moreover, your inability to distinguish between reliable sources and utter nonsense suggests that you should review our guidelines for source reliability, particularly WP:FRINGE. Experienced editors should know better than to propose the inclusion of 9/11-truther garbage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the WSJ should return some of the 40 Pulitizer Prizes it has received over the years for printing screeds. Like the one received this year for Op-Ed contributions. And, BTW, the WSJ has been very critical of Trump over many, many months. The point is that SPLC is subject to criticism from a variety of quality sources. The SPLC's work should be able to stand up to criticism, but to often it does not. When it does not, WP should provide such criticisms to the readers so that they can decide. – S. Rich (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that attempt to POV-gloss over the content of the source but the second (Routledge) source is actually noting criticscms of their funding practices, and the office building is given as an example. Exact words, "spends a low percent of its income on its primary missions relative to most other non-profits" — The third source is not really making a WP:FRINGE statement with respect to criticscm of the budget, for which you can find numerous other sources if you were inclined. It depends on what you use the source for, if it is supported by other secondary sources, it is obviously not WP:FRINGE a policy which refers to ideas. "The SPLC has a very large budget" is not a WP:FRINGE claim and neither is the fact that it has been criticized for it. I would not need this source though, because the Routledge source is entirely sufficient for the same proposition. Or this secondary source discussing lawyers that used to work with them from Louisiana University Press. So yes, I'm familiar with our policies, the lecture isn't necessary. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As a law student, I actually researched some of Dees' cases, his "agency theory" work is quite interesting I'm not sure why it isn't covered in this article. But as you can see they have been criticized for how they handle money, Fuller is not the only attorney who has worked with SPLC who has been critical of this. (That is hardly criticism from a hate group.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

the second (Routledge) source is actually noting criticscms of their funding practices, and the office building is given as an example. The source is a book about buildings and the author (an architecture professor) can hardly be cited as an expert on funding practices of non-profit groups. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a good thing Dees' partner didn't have to file a lawsuit to get paid because he took on twenty cases instead of four and then quit because that would be pretty damning, when combined with criticisms from multiple other staff attorneys. It's unfortunate the Routeledge source doesn't provide a source for the statement, or any others in the book. However, the books that have been written about Fuller and the internal conflicts do provide citations. At this point, confronted with this kind of secondary source WP:RS it really is starting to seem like there may be a POV issue here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as they are talking about SPLC, and not just people who work for them. So can we have a quote?Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Re the {{npov}} tag added three times by Saturnalia0 (1 + 2 + 3): I have never seen a case where someone edit warring to add a shame tag to an article had a valid case, and this is no exception. If there is a specific issue, backed by a reliable source, start a new section on this talk with the issue and forget about the tag. If dissatisfied with the response, try a noticeboard such as WP:NPOVN. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Would those focused on adding the tag please review its documentation which includes the fact that the tag is removable if "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." This article is widely watched and the talk page is active, so attracting other editors is not necessary. If there is a specific NPOV problem, start a new section and identify it, with a source. If dissatisfied with the response, start an RfC to change specific wording—that is the way to attract third parties. Erecting a flag on the article cannot resolve a dispute based on an unhappiness with current wording—specific issues have to be addressed, possibly with the assistance of WP:NPOVN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The tag has been posted so that interested editors can comment as they wish. And we can assume they have looked at the archives. Removing the NPOV tag only serves to stifle the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's funny. Every time I have seen an edit war over a tag, it has been an attempt by one side to force a badge of shame on the article because presenting a specific issue is too hard, and presenting a case at WP:NPOVN does not attract their wanted outcome. The above comment by Srich32977 is deflection because it pretends to address the issue while saying nothing about a specific issue. Is there a specific issue? Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The side that was pushing in this case was the removing one. As I have already mentioned, the tag was instantly removed, there was no wait for this section to be populated with replies. It was removed again even if criteria for removal was not met and responses were supplied, as I have already explained above. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The tag is not to be emplaced so "interested editors can comment as they wish." The tag is to be placed when editors have specific, identifiable NPOV problems; preferably, in fact, editors would use the specific NPOV-section tags to specifically identify the areas they are concerned about. As the tag's own documentation states, any editor may remove the tag if no specific issue is raised. None has been. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, tags are placed as a warning to readers not to editors, otherwise they would be on the talk page. The same concern that some editors have about this article is common across the project. Neutrality does not mean balancing mainstream opinions with views common on right-wing blogs, but presenting views in proportion to their presentation in reliable sources. In a world with thousands of academic journals, 10s of thousands of publications and millions and millions of books, there are multiple opinions on everything. We cannot present every fringe view that appears in them, but only to the extent they receive notice. The SPLC lists as hate groups groups that claim gay people molest children, Islam is an evil religion, minorities are genetically inferior, etc., which consensus view sees as hatred. TFD (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I also think that the SPLC have diverged from its noble beginnings, and has started to target free speech and human rights activists such as Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. As such, the organisation is running the errands of Islamists, which is in no way any better than actively helping Nazists and the KKK. Maajid Nawaz sueing them for defamation, and criticism from reliable newspapers such as the Washington Post, should be notable enough for inclusion, yet seem to be systematically removed from the page. David A (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Soapboxing aside, I think we could expand Mr Nawaz rebuttal, and add any from Mr Ali. But we should not just add random criticism when the issue being criticized is not even covered in this article. If (after all) we have the criticism we have to also have SPLC's version, and the article becomes a bloated tit for tat catalog of a he said what to who.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

For example, if we have a criticism we should have SPLC's response to it, that is what NPOV means.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz has claimed that he will sue the SPLC at some point; no reliable source has reported that any such lawsuit has actually been filed in court. When and if one is, we can include it. The rest of your post is soapboxing and Wikipedia talk pages are not a place for you to work out your frustrations or personal conflicts with organizations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

And no reliable source except Fox has reported even that. I will be happy to see the article cover the case, if it appears in ABC, NBC and CBS, because then it will attract a range of reactions, so that we can present the information in a neutral manner. But I see no reason to accelerate something that has received no coverage outside the fringe into the mainstream. I would also suggest that anyone who wants to contribute in a neutral manner to stop reading the Daily Caller, Breitbart and similar sources because they are not reliable sources and do not represent the weight that articles require. TFD (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"The SPLC lists hate groups" — great, but they're a public interest law firm, and they have been criticized for this for decades. They have a huge budget, presumably to fund public interest legal work in towns like Montgomery, yet they don't do much but "monitor" hate groups. The disconnect between these two things is not very hard to see. The entire legal staff resigned over this in 1986, with the exception of Dees. You can check this source The most significant critiscm of SPLC has come from its own stadd. The fact that the article doesn't discuss it at all is a legitimate NPOV issue, and enough reason to tag the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

1986 was more than thirty years ago. The SPLC has done many other things in those intervening three decades, as this article amply documents from the reliable sources. Your opinion that "they don't do much" is just that, your unsupported personal opinion, and it has no place in this encyclopedia. Stop using this talk page as a soapbox. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Later that year (2003), SPLC, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and local attorneys filed a civil suit, Leiva v. Ranch Rescue, in Jim Hogg County, Texas, against Ranch Rescue and several of its associates, seeking damages for assault and illegal detention. In April 2005, SPLC obtained judgments totaling $1 million against Ranch Rescue member Casey James Nethercott and Ranch Rescue's leader, Torre John Foote. Those awards came six months after a $350,000 judgment in the same case and coincided with a $100,000 out-of-court settlement with Sutton. Nethercott’s 70-acre (280,000 m²) Arizona property, which was Ranch Rescue's headquarters, was seized to pay the judgment. There, I have just disproved your claim in 5 seconds of reading this article. Either propose a specific edit you think needs to be made or stop using this talk page as a forum to vent your displeasure with the SPLC. That's not what this talk page is for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No you haven't, I'm very much aware of what they do, they file occasional civil cases for damages. If you actually read the source I provided, you will see it is not my unsupported opinion. The fact that you think it is not relevant for WP:NPOV because it happened in 1986 is your unsupported opinion and WP:OR. The entire legal staff resigned because the emphasis of the group on monitoring right wing groups detracted from work like death penalty cases and other civil rights cases—obviously, these types of cases are often criminal/constitutional cases, not civil cases, and there are no money damages involved. Here is the page [27] I support restoring the NPOV tag, and it should be restored because there is no consensus to remove it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The article's history section already mentions that some employees left 30 years ago because they disagreed with the direction of the group, so it's unclear what you think should be changed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be added to the controversies section, as there is more to say about it then that. The critiscm was not only from those attorneys. [28] Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to pigeonhole part of the organization's history into a "controversies" section; if there's a decision made in the organization's past that has been criticized, it should be fully discussed in context of the growth, development, change and activities of the organization. Of course, to ensure there's not undue weight, we'd need to fairly comprehensively expand the "History" section as a whole. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, see: "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies": "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." TFD (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but a lot of articles have criticism sections, so I don't think that essay is widely followed. The benefit of criticism sections is that it helps readers identify the information they are interested in and keeps the article organized and the sections on topic. Would you support removing the criticism section from the Hamas article? There was significant objection to that and no one seemed to be aware of this essay. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Good articles don't have criticism sections. In Hamas for example, the "Children as combatants" is in the criticism section while the "Military wing" section does not mention that it has child soldiers. Wikipedia articles are written by editors who have varying levels of ability. Mostly these sections are written by people who have no desire to work to improve the articles, but merely want to add negative comments. But serious published tertiary sources do not have criticism sections. TFD (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The benefit of criticism sections is that it helps readers identify the information they are interested in— If someone is interested only in negative attacks on someone or something, we have the opportunity and responsibility to educate them by presenting criticism, praise, defense and neutral commentary in context and with due weight to each point of view as relates to their prominence in reliable sources, providing them with an opportunity to understand all sides and perspectives of the issue. We are writing an encyclopedia, after all, and our goal should be to provide readers with a balanced understanding of a subject, not to provide a one-stop copy/paste shop for everything negative ever said about that subject. We don't separate supportive views into a "Praise" section and we shouldn't separate opposing views into a "Criticism" section. That defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

In that case the existing controversy section should also be worked into prose that deals with the issue in a more detailed way. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So how about giving it a try and posting your suggested text here. The Criticism section exists in the way it does because of the NPOV warriors desire to just have a list of criticism with no desire to actually create a neutral or well written encyclopedia entry. Hence the reason it was unbalanced and (in many instances) made no effort to put SPLC's version of the story.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here to see what the SPLC's reaction was to being sued by Majid Nawaz, only to find that the the section is even more absurdly POV than it was when I last read it a year ago. I totally agree with Saturnalia0 and Seraphim System and their points here. At the moment this page is a bit embarrassing by the obvious lack of any discussion at all on the issue, other than in the "Criticism" section where - bizarrely - it is used just to field quotes from SPLC attacking the integrity of Nawaz! The NPOV dispute tag is definitely warranted. Fig (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Then draft some text for us to look at that source RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Having read through some of the debate history of the talk on this issue right here...I think we all know that's a complete waste of my time (which is precious - I'm not a wiki-bot...I have a real life), as you guys clearly have no interest at all in actually advancing this debate - only in obstructing it. Fig (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As to the legal action, as far as I( can tell no case has been launched and Mr Nawaz is fishing for crowdfunding donations to pay for the case. So about NPOV?Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says Nawaz has actually filed a lawsuit? Because we can't say Nawaz has sued the SPLC if he hasn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a bit more grist for the Criticism section: Ben Schreckinger writing in Politico today asks "Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way? The Southern Poverty Law Center -- led by charismatic, swashbuckling founder Morris Dees -- is making the most of the Trump era. But is it overstepping its bounds?" (Point is that the article needs these critical pieces so that readers can decide for themselves whether the SPLC is, today, such a great institution. Without such (ongoing) criticisms, the article is POV'd.) – S. Rich (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

[29] [30] – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's basically a re-hash of what's already in the article. For example, its first mention of criticism is from J.M. Berger, which is already in the article. Then it mentions Nawaz - already in the article. TFD (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Notes