Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Criticism Mysteriously Disappeared

One kind of obvious criticism here..they seem to only observe white hate groups. I sort of doubt that caucasians are the only people that organize to further race agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not such an obvious criticism, when one considers their hate map includes an entire section of black separatists.--97.112.60.202 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is article is a joke. The criticism of the SPLC is widespread on both fundraising and other grounds. This article has clearly been hijacked by the organization. Look at this article:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.160.255 (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

USA Today is hardly a credible source for anything. On what is your opposition to SPLC based, really? The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation consults regularly with SPLC when investigating hate crimes, apparently believing it is a credible source of information. Is that what disturbs you? Please sign your posts. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely you know that Mark Potok - director of publications and information for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) - is described in his article as "an award-winning reporter at newspapers including USA Today." If the excuses for deleting this section are that weak we need a trip to WP:NPOVN or whereever it takes us. Today is first time I noticed the criticism section missing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd this article dosen't have a criticism section. Dosen't seem in line with a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.28.133 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism is can be and usually should be integrated into the article (as is the case here), not separated out into its own section. See WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CRIT (an essay, not a guideline). Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I mispoke. I didn't know section meant seperate page. I've reread the article there is no criticism whatsoever. I find this very strange, browsing over wikipedia organisations from the Chatolic Church to Greenpeace have criticism sections. There is even has some criticism disperesed in the page on Democracy! How does one go about taging an article as having disputed neutrality? This one seems to deserve it. I find this kind of scary since I've come to rely on wikipedia for much of my information.

I read this entire article and I can't see where there is any critism ANYWHERE!!! It's not in its own catagory and it is not dispersed within the article. It seems that the SPLC is NOT TOLERANT of anyone that doesn't agree with them 100%. I encourage anyone reading this to see for themselves who the people are who hijacked this website! I know who they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.202.237 (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is very biased. It has been locked for "excessive vandalism", and while some of the edits could be characterized as such, most are legitimate criticisms, which should be included to produce an unbiased description. The organization has targeted groups with legitimate political concerns, such as the John Birch Society and "Oath Keepers" [[2]], and listed sitting congressmen, presidential candidates, and even entire political parties as dangerous, associated with violent militias, and spreading false conspiracy theories (see [[3]]). Squ1rr3l (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is biased. The SPLC is often presented as an objective, unbiased resource (by liberal media, go figure), yet in truth it is a radical, fringe, far left wing group masquerading as mainstream, as radical left wing groups often try to do. Jkhamlin (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else notice the irony there? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism

I haven't looked at the "reliability" aspect, but I gathered plenty of mainstream news sources that preface mention of the SPLC as "progressive" or liberal. My browser quit the other day, so I don't have them, but I'll gather them again and introduce them. I also think it's a bit inappropriate to copy verbatim from their website, that the center is "internationally known for its tolerance education programs, legal victories against white supremacists, and its tracking of hate groups." This source copies it directly, also, but does that make it balanced or appropriate for use here?—DMCer™ 04:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's curious how news sites are OK when they agree with your opinions, but not when they disagree. Tthe fact that the SPLC is daily quoted by news organizations all across the country is significant to the consensus view of its reliability. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Care to cite an example of instances where news sites are OK when I agree with them, but not when I disagree? I suspect you don't, which is fine because I in fact do not believe such a thing. As for your concern, I'm not sure what your referring to. I never said it wasn't reliable; by "reliability," I was referring to the long discussion in the section right above the one you're reading (and that I had not "looked at" it). Back to what I raised: I was simply stating I didn't think the article was complete without mentioning its progressivism. Not once did I say this is a criticism or a negative aspect, in fact progressivism and social reform typically go hand in hand. I often think of how an article would be characterized if it were published in Britannica or Encarta. "Progressive" seemed to me to be missing. I'm not sure why you're getting defensive, but I was simply stating something in passing. I mentioned it here before doing anything so it could be discussed.—DMCer™ 07:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to your objection to the news source that spoke positively of the SPLC. I fail to see the qualitative difference between its description of the SPLC, which you apparently object to, and the type that you wish to add. This has been a controversial article and one of the tactics used by supporters of the groups that the SPLC criticizes is to label its efforts as biased because of its alleged liberal agenda. While I don't object to the discussion of the SPLC's politics based on reliable, secondary sources that specifically write about the SPLC's politics, I do object to the use of sources that simply throw in the term "liberal" without analyzing what that means. In the few cases I've seen, the context seems to be nothing more than recognizing that opposition to hate groups has traditionaly been of more importance to liberals than conservatives.

For example, lets assume we are looking at one of the numerous articles written that is primarily about the increase in hate groups. It seems that virtually all of these articles will have a quote or statistics from the SPLC. If this attribution is written, "According to the liberal SPLC, the number of hate groups ... ", and there is no further discussion of the SPLC's politics, then I would contend that this reference is too ambiguous on what "liberal", in that context, means to be of value in claiming, in the wikipedia article, that the SPLC is a liberal, political organization. When you wrote that there are "plenty of mainstream news sources that preface mention of the SPLC as 'progressive' or liberal", I interpreted it as meaning that you intended to use this type of sourcing. I get a daily news feed from Google on the SPLC and my experience is that characterizations of it as liberal are very rare -- of course my interpretation of its frequency, just like yours, is simply OR and irrelevant to the editing of this article.

What I would consider relevant would be a scholarly journal article titled "The Politics of the SPLC" that explains in detail exactly what its political agenda is and is not. If such an article exists, then wikipedia should use it to add a paragraph or two describing the main points of the article. Wikipedia should not use the article out of context to simply label (or dismiss whch has been the pattern in the past) the SPLC as "liberal" without any other discussion.

If I read WAY TOO MUCH into your original post, then I apoligize. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the word "liberal" in the first sentence because the article footnoted does nothing to demonstrate the liberality of the SPLC. See article here: [4]

The footnote links to an article about a charge made by the SPLC against the "Council of Conservative Citizens." They accuse CCC of having ties to extremist organizations like the KKK. The mere fact that the CCC is a self-described "conservative" organization says nothing about the ideology of the SPLC. It's just as likely that a mainstream conservative organization would call-out the CCC over these ties in order to maintain the integrity of conservatism. Conservatism is not an ideology of racist hate; therefore, the SPLC's mission to document racist hate gives no reason to believe that the SPLC is anti-conservative.

If anyone can find better evidence of the SPLC's liberality, by all means do so and return the word "liberal" to the text, but until we have some decent evidence, I think that we should assume the neutrality of the organization. It's not proper for an encyclopedia article to brand an organization as politically biased, unless that bias has already been clearly demonstrated. --Brijohn6882 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Racial Profiling in Homer, La.

I was appaled whenI read that account of racial profiling just because of ones skin color and, considering the ineptness of the sheriff, I wonder why the State Department, Attorney General or FBI was not contacted. Surely one of those entities could enforce proper treatment of the citizens. In the least, for 61% of the populatiion to succumb to the fear tactics without some rising is really sad. Perhaps if they knew fear is 'false evidence appearing real', they would remember Dr. King and act accordingly. (99.182.21.1 (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)) Lynette Grismore, onetwo4two@sbcglobal.net

Reporting on the SPLC in the Washington Post

Two separate editors have reverted my addition of material well-sourced to reporting by Thomas Edsall in The Washington Post on the basis that it was not neutral. The article in question refers to the SPLC as both "controversial" and "liberal" and is a work of reporting, not opinion. You need to take up your complaints with Mr. Edsall because those were the exact words he used. We're talking about The Washington Post, not some conservative source.--Drrll (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because something has been published by a mainstream and generally reliable news source does not mean it meets the criteria for neutral point of view. Wikipedia's explanation of this policy states that:

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view.

It is my contention that your edits violate this neutrality. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the terms, if accurate and well-sourced, are not neutral or "loaded."--Drrll (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way of handling this is to move the assertions to later in the intro or the article, and to attribute the POV. Something like, "WaPo has called the SPLC 'liberal' and 'controversial'".   Will Beback  talk  16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of moving "controversial" to outside the lede, but not "liberal," given that mainstream organizations like the American Enterprise Institute have "conservative" in their lede.--Drrll (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The work of the SPLC is to provide legal advocacy for civil and equal rights, not to promote a partisan agenda. If you are willing to concede that civil and equal rights are a liberal bias, then I will be willing to concede your point. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The work of the AEI is to "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism", not to promote a partisan agenda. The SPLC occasionally drifts away from just its advocacy for civil rights and into tarring conservatives and conservative groups that don't fit into "hate" groups, just because the person's/group's views of civil rights are not left-wing. They similarly don't tar liberals or liberal groups that way. Additionally, Morris Dees is known for his liberal politics and political involvement.--Drrll (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsolicited bystander opinion: I think you're challenging the wrong article text, Drrll - I would support the removal of "conservative" from the AEI lede, since its political stance is well-described early in the article. AV3000 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't have a problem with that being included in the AEI lede, even though they have a liberal fellow on staff (Norman J. Ornstein) and do cooperative projects along with the liberal Brookings Institution. On the another hand, I would be quite surprised to find out that the SPLC had a prominent conservative on their staff and I seriously doubt that the SPLC ever collaborates with conservative or libertarian legal advocacy groups. As an example of their liberal bent, see the Richard Cohen article featured on their home page and hosted on their site. It refers to Tea Party protestors as haters, racists, demagogues, and a mob.--Drrll (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, my real point is that one-word descriptions of organizations often aren't appropriate. It doesn't serve the encyclopedia well to say "X" in the lede and then clarify just below "well, sorry, it's not really X, it's more complicated than that." "Conservative" and "liberal" are uselessly imprecise, IMO. If I were writing the AEI lede, I'd let their stated mission stand alone, and likewise with the SPLC lede; let the article text expand and detail points of view. AV3000 (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about the article body not describing something in the lede. I think that the real problem lies with the article body having so little criticism included. It is in fact a controversial organization with a lot of criticism directed toward it (and I'm not talking about criticism from the true hate groups).--Drrll (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Full agreement that the article should have criticism. Suggestions for content: “Hate,” Immigration, and the Southern Poverty Law Center & Report: How Southern Poverty Law Center Smeared Immigration Group. (My above complaint about simplistic descriptors also applies to the SPLC's "hate group" moniker!) AV3000 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like some promising sources there. They do throw around "hate group" awfully easy--against their political/ideological enemies and not just against the true haters.--Drrll (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have fewer problems with the addition if it were put in a more appropriate place than the article lede, provided that neutrality is maintained and the use of loaded language -- no matter how well cited -- is avoided. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The addition may well have a rightful place in the article, but definitey not in the lead sentence, which is supposed to provide an objective overview of the subject.--JayJasper (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources describe an organisation in a certain way, that can be in the article and thus in the lead as a summary of the article. If you have only one or a small number of sources, then although that might go somewhere in the article it still shouldn't be in the lead. I disagree that an organisation's own description is automatically what should go in the lead, by the way, the lead is always a summary of the article and if the thrust of the article is that an organisation is liberal, right-wing, whatever, then that should be in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that multiple sources do describe it as liberal, but I would have to recheck. Your standard about what should go in the lede makes sense.--Drrll (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)
I've reverted the liberal/controversial change yet again. You've found one 1998 article on which to base this description, which suggests WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please continue discussing; I don't think the change has found consensus. AV3000 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I believe that multiple sources describe it as liberal, but I'll recheck. I think I'll defer re-adding the liberal/controversial descriptors at least until a decent amount of explanation is in the article.--Drrll (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't really much gained by placing the labels "liberal" and "controversial" on the group in this article. We can presume that readers of this article are smart people and that they can make their own conclusions from the context. When we put labels like that on the group it makes the encyclopedia seem like it is taking sides. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As the article stands now, the reader would have little if any clue that the group is "liberal" and "controversial", just that it is some noble organization fighting hate.--Drrll (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article gives plenty of context and I think we can give the readers more credit for being perceptive about where the SPLC stands. --SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial" is a fairly meaningless well poisoning term. It's obvious that the term "liberal" is being used here in the same way. You could describe every 20th and 21st century American president as "controversial", but we wouldn't describe them in the leads of their bios that way: "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton was the controversial 42nd President of the United States...", "George Walker Bush served as the controversial 43rd President of the United States...", "Barack Hussein Obama II is the controversial 44th and current President of the United States..." Similarly, you could describe The New York Times as "liberal", but you wouldn't start the lead of its article "The New York Times is a liberal American daily newspaper..." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "controversial" shouldn't be used in the lede. Do you also feel that the use of "conservative" in the lede of the American Enterprise Institute is "poisoning the well"?--Drrll (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the Southern Poverty Law Center article, not arguing over improvements for other articles. Your question is better directed to the talk page for the American Enterprise Institute. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 12:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thus far there is no substantial reason provided NOT to describe the SPLC as "controversial" as stated by Washington Post. The Washington Post states this, matter of fact, not as an opinion. Complains that the term should not be used because "people can infer it for themselves" or that it "poisons the well", are not relevant. Nor is the Washington Post disparaging towards the SPLC. The SPLC is what it is. The NOLA article however, is clearly biased in favor of the SPLC as it fails to even mention half of what the center engages in. Additionally, the opening sentence on this wiki used to say "groups it identifies as hate groups" now it only says "hate groups. The old wording seems to be an alternative way of stating that SPLC is controversial, however someone changed it and perhaps rightly so as it is not what the NOLA source has to say. I have gone ahead and blended the NOLA line and the Washington Post line, though if anything, the Washington Post line should take precedence as it is the more reliable and more notable of the two. To put the Washington Post info in the criticism section for the line "liberal and conservative" is absurd.

"Tracking of hate groups" in the lede

For at least two years, the lede wording was "tracking of organizations it calls hate groups" or some close variation. Someone removed "of organizations it calls." The fact is, as the article on Hate groups describes them ("maintain a list of what they deem to be hate groups"), the definition of hate groups is subjective and occasionally disputed. The SPLC doesn't track hate groups, it tracks organizations it DEEMS as hate groups.--Drrll (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The disputes about which group is a hate group usually arises from the group that is so classified or from folks who object to the whole concept of hate groups and hate crimes. I am unaware of any significant dispute between the SPLC classifications and scholars, news sources, government, or other classifiers of hate groups. The SPLC is not out there by itself, as the POV term "deems" would suggest, but is in fact the leader in identifying and following such groups.

The body of the article contains the criteria that the SPLC uses for defining hate groups. It says, "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. ... Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. ... Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity." Inclusion of this info. in the lede would clarify how the SPLC reaches its decisions and would improve the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that most of the groups they classify as hate groups are noncontroversial and not covered as controversial in the press. There are some exceptions though. The anti-illegal immigration advocacy group FAIR, for instance, was characterized as a hate group by the SPLC. There were articles discussing this dispute, such as [5]. I don't see the use of "deem" as POV--I don't think anyone, including the SPLC, would disagree that the SPLC does not deem groups as hate groups. The same article referenced above talks about the ease with which the SPLC labels groups as hate groups: "[the SPLC] has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” (Which doesn’t mean that some of the groups it criticizes aren’t reprehensible.) In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate, stifles free speech..."--Drrll (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article you cite is an opinion piece by a single journalist who apparently has had a bee in his bonnet about the SPLC for the last decade. His opinion is a minority one -- one that I imagine is not shared by even the majority of contributors to Harpers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That article is by a journalist who largely shares the SPLC's political views (such as on immigration). He has been a contributor to such liberal publications as Mother Jones, The Nation, and Salon. Despite being an opinion piece, that source would almost certainly be considered reliable for facts on the RSN, as similar notices have been regarded as reliable. In addition to this article, I have other sources--news articles--that use the phrase "what it calls hate groups."--Drrll (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue here, I think involves trying to make the article match the sourcing. When I look, it is nearly universal in the mainstream press that when reporters are looking to cite their article about "patriot groups", "hate groups", "militia groups" that they look to the research of the SPLC as their main source. That indicates to us at Wikipedia that our article should also do this, per WP:NOR policy. Looking at how the mainstream press describes SPLC, they rarely use the qualifier "deems". Instead they simply make unqualified declarative statements like CNN did in this article from today: "The Southern Poverty Law Center -- which keeps tabs on hate groups" Wikipedia should be doing similar to CNN, making simple declarative statements. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The RS article referenced above does not accept the SPLC's use of the hate group characterization as unassailable. Until the SPLC can claim the term as their own, the term should be used with qualifiers.--Drrll (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr makes a good case. Is it your assertion that, until the media is unanimous in how it describes the groups tracked by the SPLC, your personal opinion should reign supreme? That is is irrelevant that most media outlets use "hate groups" without qualification? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As the article body points out, one of the major activities of the SPLC is the issuance of their list of hate groups. Their report is a report of groups THEY consider hate groups, not any other list or definition of hate groups. Use of the word "deems" or "considers" in the lede summarizes what's in the article body (that they come up with the list) and that is reflected in the Harper's article, as well as other articles.--Drrll (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Two years in the article's nearly nine. Color me unimpressed. Since you claim to have done the research, you know that the first version of the article, written 2001-07-16, was poorly written and quite biased. The article has been steadily improved since 2004. Why are you so insistant on going backwards? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I went back further and found that similar wording goes back at least 5 years. It's not going backwards, it's going back to superior wording, for the reasons I outline above.--Drrll (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that an edit of this type requires a legitimate unbiased source. SPLC's own statement that it is "known for tracking and exposing ... hate groups" is not an objective description - it's the organization's own description. If there is no objective definition of a "hate group", and there are significant objections that some groups should not be categorized that way (there are many sources of those objections), then SPLC's own classification of itself cannot stand alone and requires some objective criteria. It seems the removal of "organizations it calls" falls clearly into the class of a "POV edit" and should be reversed. Squ1rr3l (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are at least a dozen newspaper articles in the last 24 hours[6] making statements like "The Southern Poverty Law Center (which) monitors hate groups", and similar. This not a matter of relying on the SPLC's own statement of what they are doing. An extremely broad array of reliable secondary sources that confirm that the SPLC is doing this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How utterly terrifying that this extraordinarily controversial group is able to tar groups with which it disagrees politically as "hate groups" and Wikipedia serves as its unquestioning echo chamber. 60 years ago, newspapers repeated allegations of communist affiliations in much the same manner today's publications regurgitate the SPLC's slurs. An extremely broad array of sources object to the SPLC's witch-hunts, and the lede should not have been changed from "deems hate groups." FAIR is a "hate group" because the SPLC says so? Disgraceful and open bias.HedgeFundBob (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism of right wing rhetoric" section

This section may appropriately belong here, but the sentences currently there seem to violate WP:Primary: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." Do you have a secondary source for this or direct quotes of the primary source?--Drrll (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The cited source is secondary (an NPR news program), reporting the views of the subject (SPLC). There is no issue here. AV3000 (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, On the Media is actually a WNYC production (which is widely syndicated on NPR). Being a Peabody Award winning show, I think it solidly qualifies as a reliable source per policy standards here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not reporting if you look at the transcript. It is a straight interview (not clips within a news story) with Potok, which would be a primary source just like a transcript of a TV discussion program is a primary source. If used directly without a secondary source, it should be quoted, instead of analyzed, interpreted, explained, or evaluated.--Drrll (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Interviews are a form of reporting, per dictionary definition (& even its wikipedia article). AV3000 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is not the same thing as making "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Besides, the same material is available here [7] on the SPLC's own website -- a reliable source as to what its own views are. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Another editor, without discussion, changed the title of the section -- objecting to the use of "right -wing". In fact, the cited source supports the use of right-wing. From the intro to the source:

The arrest of members of a so-called Christian right-wing militia last weekend capped a week of anger and violence that ricocheted around U.S. politics. Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which recently published a census of such groups, discusses the alarming rise of U.S. hate groups and the rhetoric that feeds them.

In the article itself Potok is quoted as saying:

Really, I would say that the problem is, is that much of the hate speech and especially the kind of defamatory propaganda and conspiracy theories that come out of these radical right wing groups, hate groups and patriot groups, so called, is making its way into the mainstream. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the section could be relabeled to Criticism of radical right wing rhetoric? The SPLC does not condemn all right-of-center rhetoric, only the radical fringe. Or perhaps Criticism of extremist right wing rhetoric. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Either works for me although the first one seems to follow the source more closely. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The source itself says "so-called." That pretty much clears up the issue. What is "so-called" in the source is not fact to be reported in an encyclopedia. That's POV/OR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true. We are speaking of the SPLC position -- this is after all an article about the SPLC. The SPLC very clearly calls them "right wing" and any number of news accounts use the same language. Hopefully you'll wait for a consensus here before making further changes to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been much involved here, but your statements appear to be made from a WP:SOAPBOX, and your favored wording may violate WP:SYN, among other policies. Further, the issue is not only "right wing," but also "rhetoric." This is Wikipedia, not NorthShoremanopedia. If you wish to falsely label people, do it on your own blog, not here.

Directly addressing what you said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say either you did not understand what I said or I did not say it clearly enough. It is true that the source says what I say it said. What is also true is that you chose to highlight certain words but you did not highlight the qualifier, namely, so-called. One has to wonder if that was inadvertence or WP:SOAPBOX.

And I love what you said: "The SPLC very clearly calls them 'right wing' and any number of news accounts use the same language." So you yourself use the term in quotation marks for the very same reason it needs to stay in quotation marks in the main page -- it's a quote, not a proven fact simply because SPLC deems it to be true. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How about putting "right wing" in quotes for the section title since we are talking about how the SPLC labels them. Besides, using right-wing without quotes may be a WP:BLP violation since it's referring to living people.--Drrll (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Let's be clear. The title nows says "Criticism of right wing rhetoric" while I suggest "Criticism of 'hot rhetoric'" is better since "hot rhetoric" is a direct quote of the SPLC source. Maybe it is not the best, but "Criticism of right wing rhetoric" is POV/OR/SYN, etc.

Now Drrll suggests "Criticism of 'right wing' rhetoric." Better. Perhaps "Criticism of 'right wing rhetoric'" is best as the problem is not only with "right wing" but also with "rhetoric".

Could you imagine what a mess Wikipedia would be if every article was written as if the subject of the page was considered to be above reproach? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A strawman argument. The article does not say that the SPLC is "considered to be above reproach". It is very much a purpose of ths encyclopedia to tell people what the SPLC says, especially when the SPLC is considered a reliable source by academics, government, and news organizations. The SPLC itself is an appropriate reliable source for other wikipedia articles within its field of expertise, so why shouldn't it be so considered here.

Other than your own pronouncements, do you have any reliable sources that would dispute that the groups the SPLC is referring to fall on the right wing of the political spectrum?

To be more accurate, the section should probably be expanded. The quote currently in the footnote could be added to the article or either of the following quotes from the SPLC website I linked above can be added:

The radical right caught fire last year, as broad-based populist anger at political, demographic and economic changes in America ignited an explosion of new extremist groups and activism across the nation.

We are in the midst of one of the most significant right-wing populist rebellions in United States history,” Chip Berlet, a veteran analyst of the American radical right, wrote earlier this year. "We see around us a series of overlapping social and political movements populated by people [who are] angry, resentful, and full of anxiety. They are raging against the machinery of the federal bureaucracy and liberal government programs and policies including health care, reform of immigration and labor laws, abortion, and gay marriage.

If you want to use quotes for the title, then the title of the SPLC Website article, "Rage on the Right", may make a more accurate heading. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

North Shoreman may be violating WP:BATTLE. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. So you find personal attacks help to build consensus? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get over-wrought in our rhetoric arguing over this section on heated rhetoric. Let's try to find common ground and work towards consensus. It seems like you guys are fighting over a couple of words.   Will Beback  talk  05:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny! True. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I put the question of whether the interview is a primary source or not to the WP:RSN and the consensus was that it is a primary source. In addition, some of the material summarizes what the interviewer said, instead of the SPLC interviewee, Mark Potok. For example, the first sentence "In the last year the SPLC has also expressed concern that hot rhetoric and disinformation is causing a dangerous increase in paranoia and confrontation within the political landscape" was uttered by the interviewee:

"BROOKE GLADSTONE: Now, we've heard a lot of hot rhetoric since the campaign and an increasingly paranoid and confrontational political landscape since Obama’s election, how do you separate the overheated speech of pundits and politicians from the hate speech of groups that pose a viable threat?"

Perhaps it would be better to use the the article on the SPLC website that Tom mentioned above instead of this primary source.--Drrll (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Take another look at WP:NOR, the issue here is whether the publisher of the interview is "a reliable, published source". The source[8] of this interview is WYNC, and there is little doubt that they are reliable published source. It is irrelevant whether or not the publisher used direct quotes and the interview format in their journalism. I think you may be confusing the use of direct quotes with the issue of whether the publisher is reliable. That interview after being published by WNYC is not considered a primary source by Wikipedia policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur with SaltyBoatr, who beat me to the punch. A published interview by a reliable source (in this case, WYNC) is perfectly complaint with Wikipolicy and practice. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that WNYC is a reliable published source. I just dispute whether the transcript of a radio show interview is a primary source or a secondary source. I don't think that there would be any question that this would be a secondary source if the context was a straight news story with small clips from the interview. I'm open to the possibility that it is a secondary source, but an interview seems to fit more closely with examples of primary sources from WP:Primary and Primary source. Don't you agree, though, that the first sentence in the disputed section needs to go since it isn't summarizing what the SPLC said; it summarizes what the interviewer said?--Drrll (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. It is summarizing what the interviewer said, but "what the interviewer said" about the SPLC is secondary sourcing about this topic. I guess I am not following your complaint. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The new section is about the SLPC's criticism of rhetoric, not the interviewer's. The first sentence in the section now reads like it is the SPLC's criticism: "In the last year the SPLC has also expressed concern..." and then goes on and uses the interviewer's phrasing.--Drrll (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the issue here -- this seems like arguing over semantics; there is no challenge to the interviewer's characterization of the SPLC's position or actions, and by its very nature it's reliably sourced/published. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Hot rhetoric" and "increasingly paranoid and confrontational political landscape" are Brooke Gladstone's characterization, not the SPLC's characterization as the sentence suggests, regardless of whether the SPLC (Potok) challenged the characterization.--Drrll (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. So I withdraw my recommendation to use "Hot rhetoric" in the section title instead of the current POV/OR/SYN title as it exists now. Still, the title needs to be changed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, On The Media's journalism here is summarizing the SPLC position about the state of affairs, see the introduction to the radio program which states clearly "(The SPLC) discusses the alarming rise of U.S. hate groups and the rhetoric that feeds them." This is a secondary reliable source giving a summary of the SPLC's position, and the article sentence that starts with the words "In the last year the SPLC has..." neutrally summarizes this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the intro to the segment is a secondary source. What about using something like "Mark Potok of the SPLC expressed concern that the rhetoric of certain individuals is feeding hate groups" since it more closely follows the intro and avoids using phrases of the interviewer?

Also, since both WP:No original research/Noticeboard and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard consensus (at least so far) was that the interview material was a primary source, the later sentences should be changed to quotes or near quotes rather than a summary.--Drrll (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

<unindent>Let's put the criticism of fundraising with the "fundraising section," and the description of political leanings and purposes in the history section (its origins and political leanings overlap). C56C (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Potok did not "specifically single out" Bachman et al. Gladstone did. Regarding "inflaming hate groups" Potok said, "it's difficult to say if Glenn Beck is responsible for this or that killing." Hardly definitive. "Failing in their moral responsibility"? Will whoever wrote that tell us how you really feel? Not that it matters that it's not in the source. The lone quote is not even in the source: "inflammatory effects of their rhetoric on hate group violence." Aside from POV this should be removed post haste per WP:BLP. Lionelt (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Organizations it classifies as

"Organizations it classifies as" hate groups is a phrase in contention at this time. Some feel it is not wikiworthy. Other say it is in all the reliable sources so it should stay. Let's discuss it here.

I say the media clearly supports SLPC politically on this issue but the reality is that only SPLC classifies them as hate groups. In reality, they are not hate group except to the extent that the SLPC says they are, and the main stream media parrots SLPC's claims.

I say we need to find reliable sources showing they are hate groups for reasons x, y, and z that really prove they are hate groups. RSs saying they are hate groups because the SLPC says they are or just because the sources say they are without adding any real evidence in not sufficient.

Wikipedia is not to be used as the loudest echo chamber to echo false claims of the SPLC that the main stream media supports uncritically. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the section above labeled, "'Tracking of hate groups' in the lede" is directly relevant to this discussion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is more than the media -- if you read the section of the article titled "Intelligence Report" you will find that academic sources also make classifications of hate groups that correspond with SPLC determinations. You claim that the SPLC makes "false claims" -- all you lack is ANY reliable source that backs you up. You claim that reliable sources "say they are [hate groups] without adding any real evidence" is inaccurate. Again, I would refer you to the sources in the "Intelligence Report who do discuss the nature of hate groups as do most news articles. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not much to add here, I agree with Tom. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's opinions of reliable sources are not relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Legitimate here. There are official classifications of hate groups by the U.S. government and without evidence of them backing up the SPLC's list of "hate groups" I think we must make the distinction that they are monitoring what they consider hate groups and not what known hate groups are. Ink Falls 00:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your OPINION. Perhaps you can provide reliable sources that either (a) use the qualification that you folks want to add or (b) claim that there is a significant difference between SPLC classifications and "classifications of hate groups by the U.S. government." The fact is, that reliable sources do not seem to have a problem in reaching such a consensus and no evidence has been presented that such a consensus does not exist. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Dougweller and North Shoreman have both warned me for 3RR violations despite reversing libel being an exception to 3RR. (Dougweller removed his as it was duplicative.) It was amazing how fast and how multiple SLPC soapboxers jumped to warn me despite my reasonable request to discuss in Talk something that had not yet achieved consensus. See my Talk page for my response.

In summary, I will continue to revert libel. The label "hate group" is libel without proof beyond SPLC statements and media reports reporting on SPLC or making mere conclusory statements or making statements that simply have nothing to do with hate.

Wikipedia must not be used as SLPC's echo chamber. It is for factual information, not SLPC pronouncements. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to use your expression, wikipedia is an "echo chamber" of reliable sources. Your claim that the SPLC commits "libel" is simply not supported by reliable sources, is it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not say SPLC is committing libel. It is libelous for editors here using Wikipedia to be labeling them as hate groups without adding the qualification that it is the SPLC that has arrived at this conclusion. By including "organizations it classifies as", we add in that necessary qualification while at the same time reporting what the SPLC says. By leaving it out, the SPLC claim appears to be the honest to goodness truth, which it is not, especially based solely on the word of the SPLC or any of the many media outlets that report what the SPLC says uncritically. Us creating a Wiki page that definitely nails these groups as hate groups under the circumstances described above is what is potentially libelous.

Wikipedia is a highly visible source for what is believed to be unbiased information. We should not be making any mistakes that err on the side of labeling people or their groups as hate groups based solely on SPLC or media sources that echo SPLC. We are responsible for accurate content. This is not a soapbox to use Wikipedia to claim these groups are definitely hate groups. If you have to make that case, you can go to various sources to do that, such as MMfA, SPLC, etc. Wikipedia is not to be used for that purpose. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, this is absurd. The article is about SPLC and it is a well respected organization that teaches tolerance and tries to fight hate, while keeping track of hate groups in the United States. This POV pushing editor/s trying to construct an article to fit their own POV. It's an absurd accusation to cite BLP violations. Dave Dial (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What is most absurd is that all this is over the words, "Organizations it classifies as." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. SPLC is one organization. Its opinions are its opinions, and well-respected by other mainstream organizations... but it still doesn't dictate objective reality. Referring to the SPLC's classifications as its classifications is correct and inline with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens. If the SPLC describes some organization as a hate group, it is objectively true that they were described by the SPLC as a hate group. It is not necessarily objectively true that they are a hate group. The more conservative wording is warranted here. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

^^Agree with you three, we need to make the distinction that it is their classification of them as hate groups and not objective fact. Ink Falls 04:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's comment, "Wikipedia is not to be used as the loudest echo chamber to echo false claims of the SPLC that the main stream media supports uncritically". Well actually it is. If the mainstream media accept the classifications used by the SPLC, which are also accepted by the academic community, then it is not up to us to question them. Remember that we are guided by WP:V and WP:NPOV, not WP:Truth. Stating that something is someone's opinion is inferring that there are acceptable differing opinions, which is not the case here. If you want to challenge SPLC's categorizations, then you need a reliable source that does this. TFD (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa there, did you just say "which are also accepted by the academic community", when was this established? Also, while we may have sources saying that some of the hate groups labeled by the SPLC are hate groups(and indeed most of them probably are) we have no references stating that the SPLC only goes after groups generally labeled hate groups. We know nothing of their criteria for hate groups and it could very well be that some of the groups they consider hate groups aren't typically considered hate groups. Unless you can find a source for each and every group considered a hate group by the SPLC backing up that it is a widely considered hate group, I move for the current wording that makes the distinction that what they consider a hate group isn't the golden standard that everyone necessarily follows. Ink Falls 04:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm concerned with the libelous nature of this. Suggest that someone notify Jimbo of the issue as well, as libel can too easily bring libel suits that waste the Foundation's money.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence that the SPLC has been successfully sued for libel? It would seem that anyone suing for libel would target them, the mainstream media and the universities that publish articles and books about hate groups. They have more money. TFD (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that they couldn't be sued for libel(if they haven't already), and Wikipedia along with it. Ink Falls 04:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

By that logic WP should not report anything then could be seen as offensive to anyone. TFD (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue wouldn't be the SPLC being sued for libel, but Wikipedia being sued for uncritically reporting the position statements of the SPLC as objective fact. Having said that, I'm sure Jimbo has better things to do, and the developing consensus here seems adequate to address any legal concerns. Feel free to notify whomever you feel appropriate, though. We are unquestionably allowed to say "the SPLC says 'foo' is a hate group", if, indeed, the SPLC says that. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Geez, the feigned concern over "libel" here is about knee deep. I propose that all the editors that are using BLP and "libel" as weapons in a content dispute either put up some credible sources or stop. The SPLC is a very well respected organization and until someone comes up with a reliable source(not an opinion piece) that verifies any of the concerns listed, this is nothing but shouting others down and using legal threats as weapons. And it needs to stop, now. Dave Dial (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're so diplomatic and understanding, the way you just accuse the sincere concerns of other editors as being shallow ploys to get across their POV. Really, please just continue. Whether or not it is libel, it definitely isn't fact that these are hate groups, but the opinion of the SPLC and no matter how respectable of an opinion, it is an opinion. Ink Falls 05:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, no surprise that it is a bit of a libel lawsuit-magnet. Here is the pending Salyer lawsuit complaint for defamation, and here is the pending Lewy lawsuit for defamation and slander, and it was sued for libel and slander (and prevailed) here, and were sued for defamation and prevailed in Southwell v. Southern Poverty Law Center, 949 F. Supp. 1303, 1311 (W.D. Mich. 1996). Someone w/LEXIS access can easily pull up the others. Dave -- I don't know you, though I know some others in this conversation, but they might be able to tell you I'm not in the habit of feigning concern. I raised a similar libel concern to Jimbo a few weeks ago, and he weighed in echoing the concern. It's a real concern, for the project. No need to be snide -- I've no POV at work here. I think the organization does some good work. I just think that it is prudent for us to draw the line here. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for saying what I said, but much more diplomatically and appropriately, and for backing up what you said with references. Surly, Wikipedia needs more people to post comments like yours. :) Ink Falls 06:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, none(1,23, 4) of those were successful and none of those have to do with "hate groups". All that proves is that anyone can file motions in court to sue someone else. Which I think everyone already knows. I also don't doubt that there are some people who align themselves with the fringes of society that don't like to be called out on it. That does not mean that Wikipedia should alter it's content for fear of lawsuits. The project may as well not exist, in that case. This is about reliable sources and verifiability, not being sued. Dave Dial (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We agree that SPLC is a reliable source for what SPLC says constitutes a hate group. Since a classification as a "hate group" is inherently a statement of opinion, we can't repeat that opinion as if it were The Truth. This is not science, where there's a broad, peer-reviewed consensus for things like the earth being round. Again, I point to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, part of WP:NPOV as the controlling policy here. Nothing of import is lost by acknowledging that the SPLC has an opinion. Go read their take on the Tea Party and similar movements here. Whether or not you agree with their analysis, it's clear that it contains elements of political debate, and that is why NPOV is so important. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, you are making content and NPOV arguments, and decent ones at that. Which should have been done on the talk page in the first place. Not hysterical edit warring with edit summaries full of exclamation(!!!!!) points, shouting about BLP and libel violations. Saying that, it's been decided that the editor is being given the benefit of the doubt, after a short block. As for the content dispute, I will say that 99%+ of the groups listed probably have wide acknowledgement(by reliable sources) of being classified "hate groups", but there are some that could be in question, based on ones knowledge of the group/s or views. SPLC has stringant criteria that it follows for it's list, and classifies groups that people of all ethnic and races the same(for instance the JDL and NOL are listed for the same reasons). In any case, I can see it either way, but prefer not to reward hysterical behavior and what I considered an obvious attempt to circumvent the process. Dave Dial (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am so happy I am getting support here. A few hours back I was blocked for three days as a result of the actions of those objecting to the inclusion of the four words, "organizations it classifies as." I could not comment here (or elsewhere except my own Talk page). That's partly why I have been silent. However, I requested an unblock and the unblock was granted in part based on what I said that is relevant here:

"... Further, you can see that I am making a good faith effort to prevent libelous statements in accordance with Wiki policy. I am not just some annoying editor pushing some POV. Indeed I am attempting to ensure POV is not being pushed in the serious matter of labeling groups or the individuals who run them as hate groups when that simply may not be the case. For example, SPLC labels certain groups as hate groups which are not listed by the USA as hate groups and which are run by single individuals. It has to be wrong to be able to make an end run around WP:BLP by labeling the individual's group as a hate group instead of the individual himself, especially where everyone knows the single individual running the particular group. A photographer was held liable for invading the privacy of a grandma whose underwear was showing due to having her dress blown upwards in a fun house. You could not see the grandma's face, however, as she was facing the other direction. The court held the invasion of privacy was valid because you could see the faces of the two grandchildren she was holding, and thereby connect them to the grandma. That applies analogously here. The SPLC labels the groups but not the individuals, yet everyone knows the faces of the individuals."

The unblock was granted, and I come back to see many people supporting my view that we better be sure these groups really are hate groups before we let Wikipedia join in SPLC's act of calling them hate groups.

And look at all this over four words. Similar words are used all over Wikipedia, but somehow the word of the SPLC becomes the law, the MSM uncritically repeats the law, and poof, suddenly Wikipedia is drawn into the act and the whole world is supposed to hear what SLPC thinks but have it reported as if it were the truth. Well here's one editor that will not let Wikipedia be used in that manner.

That said, if the group is reliably listed as a hate group, such as by the USA authorities, then we can report it as a hate group without saying "the USA classifies soandso as a hate group."

The same goes for terrorist groups. We cannot label groups as terrorist without them being listed by the USA as a terrorist group. If the SPLC listed MMfA as a terrorist group, we can't just go and say MMfA is a terrorist group, but we could say SPLC labels MMfA as a terrorist group. But if the USA says MMfA is a terrorist group, then at that point we can say it. And if 50 newspapers report on the SPLC characterization of MMfA by reporting that MMfA is a terrorist group, that does not make MMfA a terrorist group. Calling the MMfA a terrorist group where they might not be one could be considered a bad move, to say the least. Using Wikipedia to broadcast that bad move worldwide makes it even worse. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with this. The US Government is a big organization, but it doesn't dictate objective reality. If group Z is classified by the U.S. government as X, there's nothing wrong with us saying that, rather than shortening it to "Z is X" and citing the government source. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone deny that the SPLC tracks hate groups? That looks to me as an undisputable statement, except some people seem to be disputing it. Saying that is not saying that all the groups it tracks are hate groups. How can it be libel? What would be wrong is if we said 'all the groups the SPLC tracks are hate groups', and no one is advocating that the article should say that. Dougweller (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A bridge too far

I find it utterly amazing that you people are going to such lengths to defend "groups [that] have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." The "protect Wikipedia from lawsuits" rationalization is utter bullshit -- if it weren't, the reliable sources that reference SPLC wouldn't use the unqualified "hate groups." At least two of the major proponents who are here defending hate groups have stated their purpose here is to advocate conservative viewpoints, and one has been blocked for such -- that they now show up here claiming to have Wikipedia's interests at heart is a bit of a stretch. Will anyone go on record here defending the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, NOI, etc. as anything other than a "hate group"? From where I stand, the argument looks like bias being masked as pedantry. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this post is irrelevant nonsense. Please stop attempting to equate NPOV wording with support for such groups. The reason we have NPOV is so that *no one* is particularly happy, except maybe those with no strong beliefs whatsoever. The groups' own agendas, beliefs, and actions are their downfall--remember, we don't call Hitler a "monster"--not because he wasn't, but because NPOV expects we report facts as facts, rather than opinions and appraisals as facts, no matter how widespread those opinions (again, we're not talking scientific facts here) happen to be. I can't speak to the other editors' motivations, but it's possible that an editor can have "whitewashing" as a personal agenda, yet still have NPOV on his or her side because the article wasn't sufficiently neutrally written to begin with. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, Blaxthos, can we please stick to the subject matter instead of your persistently attacking other editors? Your comments are directed solely to the editors and not the subject matter at hand. That evidences a weakness in your substantive arguments, the few times you focus on them. This Talk page is for discussing issues, not for creating subsections to attack editors.

In fact, I'm going to remove the subsection coding so it does not detract from the ongoing discussion and since this subsection "A bridge ioo far" created by Blaxthos exists only to attack other editors. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that most of the groups they classify as hate groups are noncontroversial and not covered as controversial in the press. There are some exceptions though. The anti-illegal immigration advocacy group FAIR, for instance, was characterized as a hate group by the SPLC. There were articles discussing this dispute, such as http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/hbc-90006753. I don't think anyone, including the SPLC, would disagree that the SPLC does not deem groups as hate groups. The same article referenced above talks about the ease with which the SPLC labels groups as hate groups: "[the SPLC] has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” (Which doesn’t mean that some of the groups it criticizes aren’t reprehensible.) In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate, stifles free speech..." That article is by a journalist who largely shares the SPLC's political views (such as on immigration). He has been a contributor to such liberal publications as Mother Jones, The Nation, and Salon. Drrll (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the very brief article you cite has no analysis at all and simply expresses the opinion of a single writer. The fact that he may make a living contributing his OPINIONS to liberal organizations is really irrelevant. What is relevant is the warning at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations, "When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting." News departments (as I've shown below) seem to have a fairly consistent policy of identifying the SPLC as an organization that monitors hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant. The issue is whether it is a BLP or NPOV violation to say that the SPLC tracks hate groups. As the article has not said that all the groups tracked are hate groups, the only way to claim a violation of BLP or NPOV is to be claiming that none of the groups tracked are hate groups. There is, of course, nothing wrong with making it clear in the article that while the SPLC tracks hate groups, some of the groups tracked may not be hate groups. I don't see any possible libel claims stemming from the old wording and if anyone uses this as an objection again I suggest that they do the right thing and ask our legal counsel. Dougweller (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your missing the point here though. By saying they track hate groups we are automatically saying that anybody they track is a hate group, thus the libel. Also, just because none of the groups were success in their defamation suits doesn't mean the people who won didn't still have to pay lawyers to defend them. Ink Falls 23:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The correct way of resolving this issue is for the complainants to post a discussion thread to the ANI noticeboard.[9] An univolved administrator will then decide whether or not the material belongs in the article and anyone who disagrees may appeal to ARBCOM. Bear in mind that the objection is not unique to this article. TFD (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you couldn't possibly be more incorrect. WP:ANI is for incidents of policy violations requiring administrator intervention. WP:ARBCOM does not, under any circumstance, deal with content disputes. Could we please not just make things up? It's quite unhelpful... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) What we are doing when we say that the SPLC tracks hate groups is simply reflecting what reliable news organizations (among other groups) say about the SPLC. Following is a short list acquired with very little effort to secure that reflects how the SPLC is overwhelmingly described by such sources:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which keeps tabs on hate groups, http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/12/new.york.hate.trial/index.html

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups and other fringe organizations, http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/michigan.militia.arrests/index.html

said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project, which monitors hate groups as part of the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-22-white-supremacist-richard-barrett_N.htm

says Mark Potok, Intelligence Project director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks U.S. hate groups http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-16-militia-movement-on-the-rise_N.htm

said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes. http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/1281749,election-racial-obama111608.article

said Mark Potok, who monitors hate groups for the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/23/slain-miss-white-supremacist-stabbed-beaten/

according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a nonprofit civil rights organization in Montgomery, Ala., that tracks hate group activity. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0330/Hutaree-Why-is-the-Midwest-a-hotbed-of-militia-activity

according to Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors hate speech and extremist organizations http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/08/hate.html Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

//Blaxthos, before you express comments such as "you couldn't possibly be more incorrect" could you please click on the link to the policy that I provided. (Place the cursor over the link and left-click to get there: please post a message on my page if you have any trouble doing this.) The link says: "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents (my emphasis)." That means that if you cannot resolve the dispute here "the correct way of resolving this issue is for the complainants to post a discussion thread to the ANI noticeboard. An univolved administrator will then decide whether or not the material belongs in the article." Obviously if you disagree with an administrator you may resolve the issue at ARBCOM.

I'm coming late to this discussion. What is the name of the living person involved in this dispute?   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The living person? I know of at least two. The living person is the person who is the sole member or the sole member of consequence, or the like, of the various groups the SPLC names. Name the group targeted by the SPLC, plug it into Wikipedia or any other source, and the name of the individual becomes readily apparent.

It has to be wrong to be able to make an end run around WP:BLP by labeling the individual's group as a hate group instead of the individual himself, especially where everyone knows the single individual running the particular group. A photographer was held liable for invading the privacy of a grandma whose underwear was showing due to having her dress blown upwards in a fun house. You could not see the grandma's face, however, as she was facing the other direction. The court held the invasion of privacy was valid because you could see the faces of the two grandchildren she was holding, and thereby connect them to the grandma. That applies analogously here. The SPLC labels the groups but not the individuals, yet everyone knows the faces of the individuals.

But if you can point to a Wikipedia policy that makes what I just said irrelevant, please let me know with a link. Thanks.

And remember, we are just talking about the inclusion of four words, "organizations it classifies as," which would ensure people understand the SPLC's claim is being discussed, not the actual fact that the actual individuals or group are haters. One would think this would not be a problem as it or something similar is done all over Wikipedia, and appropriately so. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You have shown with the posts above and below that you have absolutely not idea about the basics of Wikipedia policies, and are making absolutely absurd claims. I was going to just agree that both your block and subsequent unblocking were both understandable and correct, but now see that you do not have the understanding that what you were doing that lead up to the warnings and blocks were wrong. So here it is. Either give exact names of the people who are endangered from BLP violations, with links(from reliable sources that show a connect to the portion of the article that you were edit warring on, or drop these claims and count yourself lucky that admins gave your claims the benefit of the doubt, no matter how weak they were. The same goes with your claims about the "repeating the SPLC assertions does not make the SPLC assertions true, so we at Wikipedia should not be reporting the SPLC assertions as if they were true". Your claims goes against the basic concepts of Wikipedia. reliable sources are verified, not seeking the truth. Dave Dial (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A clever argument, Dave Dial, but I will not name them here. It is a simple matter to find the groups the SPLC labels as hate groups, plug them into Wikipedia, and see which individuals pop up. Besides, others have essentially agreed with me and expressed that the problem may be broader than just single individuals.

As to the media sources, North Shoreman listed a number with relevant quotes, and they evidence that those sources are merely repeating the SPLC, not actually reporting on any independent investigative journalism.

Allow me to note that while the block attempt was made against me, you personally piled on by purposefully re-adding, twice, the potentially libelous material under discussion to the Wiki page instead of waiting for the conclusion of any of the parallel attacks going on against me.

You, DD2K, have unclean hands to come here and make statements about the block successfully made based on information provided by those who soapbox for the SPLC but quickly reversed when unbiased editors became involved. You'll note my position has been receiving significant support since the block was lifted, despite your claims. I suppose my success in reverting the block and in building consensus is the reason you are coming here now to besmirch me further. "[Y]ou have absolutely not idea about the basics of Wikipedia policies...." "[Y]ou do not have the understanding that what you were doing...." That is not very wikifriendly, it violates WP:AGF, and it evidences you know your substantive arguments are weak. Please try to stick to the issues, not the individuals. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, "the article that you were edit warring on" is also an inappropriate thing to say. Removing libelous material is not edit warring. I will continue to remove libelous material at any time and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It could be argued that your continuing to add the potentially libelous material back in repeatedly under the circumstances of the ongoing matters is edit warring. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim is that by saying the SPLC tracks hate groups, that any member of a group so described has possibly been slandered and can therefore sue Wikipedia. So if you were a member of a Klan group named by the SPLC, the fact that this article says they track hate groups and you are a member of a group they describe as a "hate group" means that you may sue them for slander. The example given was FAIR. The argument given was that all members of FAIR would be slandered if in fact it is not a hate group. TFD (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Then the problem is even worse than what I thought. I see your point now. I would not be surprised if some groups are monitoring this conversation and awaiting the outcome before taking some kind of action. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked for the name of any individual who might be harmed by this article, but apparently no one can think of anyone. If there is no identifiable individual involved, then there is no BLP violation.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a name: Dan Stein. TFD (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He's not mentioned in this article now, and doesn't seem to have been mentioned in it recently. BLP does not apply to organizations, only to people   Will Beback  talk  05:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing the case, merely explaining it. TFD (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP policy states, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." However, the fact is that, as I've shown and others have noted, there are numerous sources that support the language w/o the qualifier. We ARE NOT obligated by any policy that I am aware of to question the accuracy of not just a SINGLE reliable source but of the vast majority of reliable sources that say the same thing. (This edit should not be taken to mean that I agree that this is a BLP situation.) Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are any active lawsuits against the SPLC for libel or slander then the cautious thing to do would be to remove the contentious information pending a resolution. But we should not censor information simply because we think that a group might be offended, or is possibly thinking of filing a suit.   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not "censoring"! We are talking about adding the words "Organizations it classifies as". Simple. I fail to see what is wrong with adding that. Leaving that out makes it look like Wikipedia is declaring various people are hate groups or hate group members instead of the SPLC declaring that. Those simple four words can easily avoid any of the problems numerous people are concerned about, and it is not lawsuits against the SPLC. The long, ongoing efforts to avoid those four words, to ban from Wikipedia those seeking to use those four words, is truly breathtaking. Now it's being called "censorship"! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an NPOV issue, not a BLP issue. Mislabeling it weakens your case. I don't see anything wrong with adding the "four words", and I think they'd improve the neutrality. But BLP has nothing to do with it.   Will Beback  talk  10:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has been able to explain how adding the "four words" makes the article more NPOV. It seems to be a no-brainer that the closer the article language is to the language used by reliable sources the more neutral it is. Of course this presents a problem when reliable sources differ, but there has been no evidence produced that ANY reliable sources find it necessary to add the "four words" or their equivalent. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Organizations it classifies as

Thank you for posting those links and especially for posting the relevant sentences. The information posted evidences my assertion that the media are merely repeating what SPLC says without actually reporting their own investigative journalism. The media repeating the SPLC assertions does not make the SPLC assertions true, so we at Wikipedia should not be reporting the SPLC assertions as if they were true; the language "Organizations it classifies as" would easily resolve that situation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GUESS about the media is totally irrelevant. The legitimate news media is clearly identified as a reliable source. To quote: "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." The best way to determine whether any of the individual articles I cited is reliable is to note the fact of the large number that arrive at the same conclusion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Similar wording to "organizations it classifies as" was present in the article for over 5 years. That shows the wording to be noncontroversial. Drrll (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, the very existence of this discussion demonstrates that the issue is controversial. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. It is not controversial anywhere in the world, except to 3 or 4 editors who have displayed more interest in soapboxing than in following Wiki policy. You yourself, Tom (North Shoreman), filed a 3RR complaint against me knowing the reversal of BLP is not a 3RR violation, and you did not even have the courtesy to inform me that you did so. You, Tom, and a few others pushing the SPLC soapbox, are creating and continuing the controversy by any means necessary. It is not controversial to use language that has been here for 5 years and that is used in Wiki page after Wiki page after Wiki page. Your soapbox is to have Wikipedia pronounce people as hate groups so that Wikipedia itself, being reliable, as opposed to the SPLC, can be used as a reliable source to promote the SPLC's views into even more media outlets until the lie finally becomes the truth. You may soap box all you wish on that issue, except not on Wikipedia. You created the controversy with others and you continue it on and on and on. Someone like you, Tom, who acts in a sneaky fashion, such as by filing dubious complaints against people then not even informing them so they can mount a defense, is not someone people can take seriously. You need to have honest discussions with people on Wikipedia, instead of using procedural techniques then not informing people of that. If you will apologize now for having done that, I will say no more on your actions regarding that issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Compromise solution

It has occurred to me that "tracking" and "classifying" are two separate activities. It is the classification of the organizations rather than the fact that the SPLC tracks such classified groups that is controversial. I suggest the following rewrite of the 1st paragraph of the lede -- it addresses the "four words"(which I have changed to "which it has determined") and provides additional information for the reader on the criteria that the SPLC uses to guide its subjective, but widely accepted, classification:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American legal advocacy organization, internationally known for its tolerance education programs,[1] its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations. The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations which it has determined “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

It is a violation of NPOV to simply state that the classification is subjective without attempting to at least briefly provide the criteria used in that subjective determination. The lede is otherwise short enough that the additional phrase does not effect readability. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me. And that's a good point about the tracking and the classifying being two separate things. Any other opinions?--Drrll (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We need a source for this. SPLC in fact does not just track/classify hate groups, but other groups as well, notably patriot groups. I would not mind saying, so long as it is sourced and uses the same verb as the source, something like "The SPLC tracks hate groups, patriot groups, etc. They classify as hate groups organizations that [state attributes]. TFD (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote is taken from the SPLC website and is sourced in the body of the article in the "Hate group listings" section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know that. But they do in fact track more than just hate groups or groups they consider to be hate groups. For example, they track groups they call patriot groups, which they do not consider to be hate groups. We may want to get a third party source. TFD (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Patriot groups are not mentioned in the lede and do not have their own section in the article, but this [10] is the SPLC link. Since "militias" are included within "patriot groups", perhaps the latter should replace the former in the lede. If I understand what you're saying, then we would just tack on at the end of the sentence "and patriot groups as those that the SPLC judges 'define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order,' engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. I'm not sure what we need a third party source to verify -- isn't the point of this exercise that some folks want it to be clear that the SPLC is making an independent evaluation of its classifications? As far as whether it tracks patriot groups, the SPLC website is a reliable source about its own activities -- especially since the website is the method for reporting its tracking. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the above hair-splitting is solved (and referenced, which appears to be no problem), I think this is likely to be the way forward. I support this approach. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No I would say they track "hate groups, patriot groups [and then mention the other types of groups they track]. Full stop. Then explain how these groups are defined. If you want to inject doubt about the accuracy of the SPLC, then you need a reliable source that questions their assessment. TFD (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I certainly had no intention of claiming that there were doubts (or, for that matter, asserting that there were not doubts) about the SPLC classifications. I don't see where any of the proposed text makes either implication. Is there specific proposed language that you disagree with? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The expression "those that the SPLC judges" creates doubt that these groups are opposed to the New World Order. TFD (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no longer confused. While I believe your suggestion (i.e. leave out "which it has determined" and "those that the SPLC judges") may be preferrable, it does not seem to be a compromise. Your objection is seemingly that people may recognize the possibility that sometimes the SPLC may make mistakes in applying its criteria to a specific organization -- and that this realization is wrong because the SPLC does not make mistakes. It is my belief that you will not get a compromise unless this possibility of error is left open in the text. This does not mean that we should compromise when efforts are made to question SPLC accuracy using non-reliable sources (i.e. opinion pieces).

The current text in the article, as frozen, has a more serious implication -- namely that hate groups are something that exists only in the SPLC's mind. Anyone who reads the proposed compromise MAY have the doubts that you suggest, but as far as the SPLC is concerned they will have the info. on how the SPLC made its decisions -- something they do not have in the frozen version (w/o getting into the body of the text). If you believe that your side (which is very close to my side) gives up too much while receiving too little back, then you either need to come up with SOMETHING else to give the other side or give up on the compromise and take this thing all the way through the dispute resolution process. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit like objecting to the statement, "A postman... is an employee of the post office or postal service, who delivers mail" because sometimes they call in sick, sometimes they lose the mail and sometimes they steal it. (Now I have pointed out that article you may wish to change it.) If you have reliable sources criticising the methodology or accuracy of the SPLC then it belongs in the article. But we should not create doubt where none exists in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A very poor analogy, but you obviously don't want to compromise. Fair enough. Three of us do accept the compromise and you don't. Let's see whether a consensus can be established as others check in. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is better, the difference being the addition of "organizations it classifies as" before the first use of "hate groups":

• The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American legal advocacy organization, internationally known for its tolerance education programs,[1] its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of organizations it classifies as hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations. The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations which it has determined “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

This is better because it avoids having Wikipedia claim the SPLC is classifying actual hate groups, as opposed to what the SPLC views as hate groups. Further, the sentence as originally proposed is not accurate as the SPLC tracks actual hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations as well as organizations that are not actual hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations but that the SPLC classifies as such. In other words, the universe of actual hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations is a subset of the universe of organizations the SPLC classifies as hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations. Our Wikipedia page we are discussing needs to make that distinction, else the problem we are discussing is not actually resolved.

That said, Tom (North Shoreman)'s proposal of a compromise indicates he finally recognizes the merits of the concerns of those seeking to ensure compliance with Wiki policy vis-a-vis BLP, NPOV, libel, etc. Where he previously said there was no problem, he now has offered a compromise to address the problem that obviously exists. Congratulations. We can all finally move on now that we have established there is a problem in the first place that requires a compromise to settle.

I like his compromise, given the improvements I suggest above for the reasons stated above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed change to the compromise language is redundant and not acceptable. Your inability to see the difference between compromise and surrender is sad. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the compromise as well. I think it allows people to understand that the SPLC is the one classifying these people without diminishing the SPLC's legitimacy. Ink Falls 02:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ink Falls.

In response to Tom (North Shoreman), it is not redundant. You are not the self-arrogated decider of what is acceptable here. You yourself said, "Let's see whether a consensus can be established as others check in." Well I checked in and you, acting in the usually bullying manner against me and a number of others, declare my proposed change is "redundant and not acceptable" without even waiting for others to reply as you yourself requested. Indeed, Ink Falls already agree with my "redundant and not acceptable" concern. So not only are you, Tom (North Shoreman), on the SPLC soapbox, you now see yourself as the decider of what is right and wrong here; no consensus needed on Tomipedia. My "inability to see the difference between compromise and surrender is sad"? Tell me, what part of that has anything at all to do with following Wiki policy regarding how to conduct conversation here on Wikipedia. That said, your ad hominem attacks evidence you have no substantive arguments to counter my assertions. That will help people decide how much weight to assign to your pronouncements, Tom (North Shoreman). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sad -- yet funny. Keep up the good work!! Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only is his username ironic (as his arguments are neither legitimate or compelling), but he complains in the edit summary about editors "negatively addressing" other editors while the content of his post does the same. He's not here in good faith, Tom, and I wouldn't waste much time trying to find a compromise solution with him. He's stated his purpose here is to Right Some Great Wrong, which is in-and-of-itself enough to ignore his bitching and work with those editors who are willing to thoughtfully consider compromise. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I going to disregard the Right Some Great Wrong comment which you clearly made up in an attempt to discredit him and which I'm sure you'll be unable to back up(much to everyone else's amusement). You seem to be here only to hamper and impede finding a compromise solution and to attack other editors and the fact that your just mad at Legitimate(for reasons we can only guess) only serves to reaffirm that you have no place in this discussion. There are plenty of other Wikipedia articles you can go crawl back to and attack other editors (which has built you quite a notorious reputation) and leave this article which was well on it's way to compromise before you came to reasonable people.

As for the compromise, I really like it and think it should go into the article. Agree, disagree? Ink Falls 17:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Both LAEC and TFD have proposed changes that eliminate the compromise aspects of the proposal. The compromise is to treat "tracking" and "classifying" differently -- LAEC and TFD want to treat them both the same and have just brought the original debate back down here. I call it a compromise because with "tracking" the group that wants the language to agree with how the reliable sources describe it get what they want and with "classifying" those that want to make the point that the SPLC makes its own, subjective analysis of what is a hate group get what they want. LAEC seems to think that you support his proposal -- if that's the case the compromise is dead, although unless more people check in it is probably dead anyway. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording proposed and bolded is fine. Dave Dial (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Same here, that's the wording I was talking about. Anyone else, agree disagree? Ink Falls 18:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)