Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Criticism coming from conservatives

I have reverted this edit because it does not accurately describe the criticism. Both cited sources for criticism related to the classification of anti-gay-rights groups discuss that criticism as coming exclusively from conservatives — The episode prompted fierce condemnation of the SPLC from social conservatives, who view FRC’s stances on homosexuality as legitimate and consistent with Christian teachings. (Politico) and Tension erupted recently between the SPLC and a slew of Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota (who tops the SPLC's “militia enablers list”), who protested the SPLC’s listing of the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group. ... While the SPLC's investigations and studies are used by some law enforcement agencies concerned about domestic terrorism, its overall work, its critics on the right say, has taken on an overtly political dimension by giving ideological cover for attacks primarily on white conservatives and by turning the word “patriot” into a euphemism. (Christian Science Monitor). It is appropriate to note this criticism, but it must also be stated that the sources which note this criticism also note that it comes from sources on the political right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, so now over to the other side to produce a source saying it is not just conservatives?Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

[1] Arkon (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the same source already cited. I quoted that source above, and the source says the criticism was from conservatives. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to preview the whole article, which would include a summary of all criticism of the SPLC found in the article not just one aspect of it. That criticism is only partially about the SPLC's labeling of anti-LGBT rights groups as hate groups and only partially comes from politically and/or socially conservative sources. The article also includes criticism of the SPLC descriptions of groups and individuals by academics Dobratz and Shanks-Meile, and J.M. Berger; hate-group researcher Laird Wilcox; journalist Ken Silverstein writing in the politically liberal Harper's Magazine; and the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice. None of these sources are notably conservative and none are primarily concerned with the SPLC's treatment of anti-gay rights groups. Let's cut the crap and write a lead which comports with the body of the article. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, you need to bear in mind weight. A commentary by the founder of a controversial left-wing magazine (i.e., well to the left of the Democratic party) written long ago is not representative of liberal opinion. And in fact the "conservative" critics are not representative of conservatives either, but of the conservatives to the right of the Republican mainstream. The republican party for example does not promote views that Islam is evil, homosexuals should be imprisoned or blacks as less intelligent. Incidentally, CounterPunch is frequent target of the same sort of people who target the SPLC. TFD (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's very simple. The criticism is from the far right because the SPLC calls far-right positions (gays should not be allowed to be married for example), "hate". If the SPLC were to label certain far-left positions (death penalty for denying climate change, for example)[2] "hate" then the far left groups that hold that position would be criticizing the SPLC. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If a professor of musicology at the University of Graz ever was able to gin up a significant pressure group which advocated for the judicial execution of climate change skeptics/deniers, I'd agree it should be labeled a hate group. Oddly enough, he hasn't been able to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Why the double standard? Nobody at The Amana Colonies (see section above) ever "gined up a significant pressure group", and neither did Mobtuse and borderline disruptiveaajid Nawaz or Ben Carson. But that didn't stop them from being listed. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This line of argumentation is becoming a bit obtuse and borderline disruptive. The SPLC retracted the Amana and Carson listings, that is what responsible organizations do, shy of inventing time travel and preventing it from ever happening. When fringe outliers like Breitbart are the ones complaining about the Nawaz listing, it's pretty certain that the SPLC did something right. You dug up a professor's 5 year-old blog posting as a purported example of "why don't they go after hardcore lefties too!?", apparently failing to comprehend that it was less a genuine call to execute deniers and more along the lines of A Modest Proposal. TheValeyard (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Riiight. In this whole wide country, a country where the SPLC is easily able able to find Nazi hate groups that others cannot verify the existence of, they somehow cannot find any communist hate groups, muslim hate groups, LGBT hate groups, etc. Not a single group of radical Islamist exists that want to kill all the unbelievers. And no, responsible organizations don NOT label people with zero evidence, stand by the labeling for years, and only reluctantly retract when the public pressure becomes too great. And anyone who want this article to correctly state that the SPLC mostly labels far-right groups (as they should) while ignoring far-left groups (by an amazing coincidence, most of the SPLC's donors are somewhere on the left) is being "obtuse and borderline disruptive". Riiight. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Whaaa??? "Communist hate group"? "LGBT hate groups"? You serious Guy? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I am completely serious. There are people who form hate groups for all sorts of reasons. Some hate all blacks and jews. Some hate all whites. Some hate all gays. some hate all straights. Some hate all who have not accepted their religion, and the religion may be christianity, islam, hinduism, or scientology. Some hate all who have accepted various religions. (I have not found a pastifarian hate group yet, but would not be surprised). There are people who hate and actually murder in the name of all sorts of political ideologies, from far-right to far-left. And yes, I am completely serious and accurate in my claim that the SPLC is really good at finding and identifying some kinds of hate groups and pretty much blind to some other kinds. Pretending that nobody ever commits hate crimes in the name of Islam, Marxism, etc. is not helpful. In most cases,such as Islam, we have a vast majority who simply hold a particular opinion and who would never think of hurting anyone, and a tiny minority who form hate groups -- but the tiny minority does exist, no matter what the SPLC says.

Another example: [List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups#Racist music]] They managed to find all of those idiots, but somehow missed the many Drill music and Narcocorrido artist in the US. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, this discussion is way off the rails now. Please focus on the article and on RS, your personal opinion about what is or isn't hate speech is not relevant here. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Well See Mrs. Bindel on the radfemcollective. According to that interview, men aren't even human and should be in camps. Then there's the TERF, movement, which is, in common parlance transphobic (and full of "political lesbians"). Strange as it seems, us LBGT's are human, too, and susceptible to the same kind of radicalism other people are. Never heard the term "cishet white scum"? Communists groups are ipso facto hate groups. Given the history of communism, they're no better than actual nazi's. Kleuske (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the SPLC? You guys should not need a reminded of WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM but apparently here we are... Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that Communism has just as genocidal history as Nazism, I agree that it is objectively not any less satanically evil. And considering the actual statistical support for Islamic terrorism among the Muslim populace, focusing more on that, and less on its critics, would give the SPLC an awful lot of credibility. David A (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that we are not SPLC then this is not the right place to raise this, contact SPLC and suggest it. This is not a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I was just trying to explain why it is perfectly reasonable to have legitimate concerns about the SPLC without being some kind of extremist. David A (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is also irrelevant as we go with what RS say, not what we think is true.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC tracks U.S. hate groups, which excludes the the Soviet Communist Party and the German Nazi party for that matter. While an argument could be made that some Communist mass killings were motivated by ethnic hatred, no left-wing group in the U.S. victimizes minority groups. See for example the Communist Party of the USA's recent article, "White nationalism in Trump administration," where they openly denounce "scapegoating of racial and religious minorities, and homophobia." The SPLC does not track organized crime groups, serial killers, fraudsters, polluters and many others who carry out anti-social activitiees. TFD (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, can we have some links to this criticism of their labeling?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The only non-conservative listed in the controversies section is Nawaz. And even there, even though he himself is not a conservative, he's hella popular with some far-right circles, who use him to dress up their bigotry and Islamophobia in respectable clothes, then discard him when he's served his purpose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: if there is criticism levied by reliable sources (Politico, for one), it should be summarized neutrally in the article. Dismissing sources based on a (perceived) political stance (or, worse, popularity within a certain political group) is in direct conflict with the goals of the project. I object in strong terms to the attitude taken my VM, since it undermines the credibility of the project. Kleuske (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not dismissing anything. The dispute is regarding the word "conservative" in the lede. I believe you're misunderstanding things here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Shadilay, my dear... I may have totally misunderstood "he's hella popular with some far-right circles, who use him to dress up their bigotry and Islamophobia in respectable clothes, then discard him when he's served his purpose.", since it sounds pretty dismissive to me. The minute your political leaning show that much, I feel obliged to remind you of what the project is about and urge you to leave your political convictions at the doorstep. Praise KEK. See how that works?

If you wanna discuss the term "conservative" and whether or not it's appropriate, do so. If you want to discuss your political convictions (or those of others), go to Reddit. Kleuske (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Shady-what? And you're gonna go lecturing ME about my "political convictions"? Go to r_Donald or wherever you got that cute little saying from. And these awful "political convictions" of mine that you are objecting to essentially boil down to "far-right circles contain bigots". And I am discussing whether the term conservative is appropriate - it is because, to repeat myself, all but one of the criticism listed can be ascribed to conservatives, and even that last one sorta fits. Capiche? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's "Shadilay", my dear, and I see you are not afraid of a few assumptions about others. So... the rant about bigotry, islamophobia and what far-right is going to do to poor mr. Nawaz was completely facetious and devoid of any bearing on the discussion at hand? Kleuske (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

English translation? Ikmxx (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It's apparently connected to Pepe the Frog. TFD (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah... Lest I forget... The characterization of Mr. Nawaz as a far-right purse puppy (even if it's only implied) is moving dangerously in the direction of WP:BLP and violations thereof. Kleuske (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

First, cut the "my dear" crap. It's stupid and obnoxious and an obvious attempt to be incivil and condescending. And yeah, I know where "shadilay" comes from. Just like I know where your little Nazi-flag-based-flag on your user page comes from. I know, I know, "it's just a joke" hah hah, because prancing around with Nazi symbolism is so fucking funny. But thanks for explicitly labeling yourself as as troll that no one should take seriously. On that note, bahye.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: So you not only ignore a warning about a possible WP:BLP issue, you also do not shirk away from personal attacks. Thanks. That's what I needed to know. Kleuske (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I notice on your user page that you express support for Jordan B. Peterson, the prominent opponent of Bill C-16. It seems to me that the reason for criticism of the SPLC including by yourself is that opponents disagree with the definition of hate speech categorically. I think it would be more accurate to say that the main criticism is that there is nothing wrong with the statements described as hate speech and in some cases these statements must be made, for example the threats of Islam and homosexuality to society. By vilifying this speech, the SPLC threatens our way of life and villianizes people for exercising their right of free speech. TFD (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh there's plenty more criticism coming from other groups,[3][4] specially after the shootings at FRC and to the mobs at Middlebury.[5][6] it's just usually white-washed away from the article. I remember once mentioning these [7][8][9][10], and though I agreed back then that it wasn't a necessary addition to the article it serves as an example to this discussion. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The second link isn't to a group, it's to a piece by Ayaan Hirsi Ali who of courses didn't like what the SPLC said about her. Reason.com isn't a group either. Nor is the author of the Middlebury article. I'm not sure why the word groups is being used here. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see your point. It was said that only homophobic conservatives were critical of the SPLC for being labeled so. That is not the case. Do you disagree? No? Good. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No. The article stated that only conservatives were critical of the labeling of anti-gay groups as hate groups, because that's what the sources said. If we're agreed that we can avoid that level of detail, then we can all move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we please assume good faith, not cast aspersions as to motive and not comment on users please.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Another critical article. WSJ: Fake News From the SPLC. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • While you're busy suggesting that the SPLC invented that church burning in Greenville, MS, as a hate crime, I'll just add that this is how the FBI saw it at the time. The SPLC report was from November 2016? The arrest of a member of the church's congregation was announced on 21 December. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Once again, we have an editor who cannot distinguish between an op-ed column and a news article. Good god, man, did you not see the words "OPINION" and "COMMENTARY" above the headline of the opinion column? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Negative commentary from an opinion piece in a BLP was recently restored by Drmies, who commented above. It was on that basis I offered an opinion piece here. Unless the standard for criticism of an organization are more stringent than those for a living person you may want to reconcile your interpretations of RS. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

So in other words you're editing to make a point? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If that is the term for revising one's understanding of sourcing requirements based on the actions and comments of an experienced editor then yes but I do not see how your question here is relevant to the article or in any way helpful. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

James, who besides you says that the Hannity article in the Washington Post was an opinion piece? It has a byline--that doesn't make it an opinion piece. False equivalency, sir. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear what the discussion is about, but if you want criticism of the SPLC from a non-conservative source, you can see this 2000 article in Harper's Magazine, titled the Church of Morris Dees. There are many criticisms leveled against the SPLC and its founder, primarily the use of deceptive advertising and direct mail campaigns, and its alleged misuse of funds. It built upon a series of articles in the 1990s in the newspaper the Montgomery Advertiser.

It is of course true that the vast majority of criticism of the SPLC comes from conservatives. That will not change if one finds a few non-conservatives here and there. So I don't get the point of this discussion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

SPLC finances

This is noteworthy and should be added in this article under Finances. It has been reported on by the Washington Times and the Federalist. --2001:8003:4B8D:2C00:353D:99EA:8C8D:518E (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Federalist is a polemic right-wing source that should no more be relied upon here than Media Matters for America should be relied upon in Donald Trump. The Washington Times article cited is simply a regurgitation (with no apparent independent reporting) of yet another unreliable polemic partisan source, the "Free Beacon". We can afford to wait to see if any of this has any substance as reported by mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times is also non-reliable. Don't confuse it with the Washington Post. Volunteer Marek  04:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times and The Federalist article on this matter is accurate. But I can wait to see if anything further is released on this topic. And if it is I'll be reverting the edit and adding further citations. --2001:8003:4B8D:2C00:353D:99EA:8C8D:518E (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, what you should do is discuss your proposed changes and gain consensus on the talk page before re-adding disputed material. Otherwise, you'll be edit-warring and that's frowned upon here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that the IP attributes the WT source to the WP. Doug Weller talk 05:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times did not critize the SPLC, it said it was criticized by a report in the Free Beacon. That does not establish weight and you need to mention the political position of the authors of the report. It appears that the SPLC invests part of its money in equity funds managed by an American company, and a small part of that is invested overseas with the funds registered in the Cayman Islands. The implication in the report is money-laundering or tax evasion, but that is a disingenuous explanation since the investment was reported to the U.S. government. That's why articles require reliable sources. Mainstream media has chosen to ignore this misleading report and if it did mention it would also carry out some kind of investigation to determine the actual facts. TFD (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

New York's NPR affiliate covered the Free Beacon report: [11] James J. Lambden (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a talk show and no different from any other. How do you think they fact check a discussion? TFD (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got a point there about fact checking. For example ([12]), Ben Schrekinger, who should have known better, says that the SPLC's endowment "may be north of $200 million" when it is actually well north of $300 million. On the other hand, it does include an interview with SPLC president Richard Cohen who is pretty close to the horse's mouth. Interesting that he didn't correct that endowment figure. Also interesting that he said the SPLC will be spending "close to $60 million" this year. That would be a lot more than it spent in 2016; a jump by about a third. Their annual report should be coming out soon and with it some useful information about their current financial picture. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I notice that there is presently nothing in the lede about the SPLC's finances even though Finances is one of the major subtopics of the article. The criticism from "conservatives and others" hasn't just been about the SPLC's lists of hate groups, it has also been about what some see as its love affair with money. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I recommend a closing sentence to the lead reading something like this:

Some critics have said that SPLC reports and fundraising appeals exaggerate the threat posed by hate groups.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.225.34 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We cannot say that per WP:WEASEL. Some people also say that hurricanes are God's punishment for sin, but we don't give it equal validity with scientific explanations. TFD (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, we certainly can say that per WP:WEASEL since Weasel says that such wording may be used in the lead section of an article or in the topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. As for hurricanes being being God's punishment for sin, I really don't see the analogy. However, if Wikipedia's article on hurricanes featured God's punishment for sin as an explanation for them then, yes, it would be proper to mention that in the lede. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Net assets and compensation of executive officers

To promote transparency, every article of an organization should include its net assets and how much the executive officers are compensated. You can get this from the organization's IRS Form 990 using GuideStar.

• Tax form 990 from 2013.[13]
• Tax form 990 from 2014.[14]
• Tax form 990 from 2015.[15]

Waters.Justin (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

We would only cover this if those things recieved substatial coverage in reliable secondary sources - our job is to summarize what RS say not to "promote transparency." And posting individual's salaries using a primary source probably runs afoul of several core policies/guidelines... Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, troll (not you, Fyddlestix), but the article does show the group's net assets. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to find them. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz, nothing about what I wrote could reasonably be interpreted as being a troll and your comment is belittling. I suggest you read. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? What do you call it when an editor takes the time to search for government filings but doesn't bother to look at the article? I call it what it is: politically motivated trolling. And I suggest you read WP:No original research and WP:BLPPRIMARY. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I read the section on the SPLC's finances, but the links I posted also give the exact salaries of executive officers and give more details on the organization. You have no reason to assume this was politically motivated trolling. In fact, I added this same information, from a 990 Form, to the article on the right wing group Stop Islamization of America. See edit[16] Wikipedia:Assume good faith Waters.Justin (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I would ask people to AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

To the OP ... What would you suggest we do with organisations that do not file IRS Form 990 forms? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this information is available from secondary sources. Searching for it online may result in other sources if the 990 form is not available. Charity Navigator gives a lot of information on finances, so WP:No original research and WP:BLPPRIMARY is not really an issue. We can only do our best to include relevant information. If the finances of an organization cannot be discovered, then it can't be included, but that is not an excuse to avoid including information into articles that have publicly available financial information. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the reason for inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources report on the finances, then that is enough of a reason to include it. If secondary sources do not report on the finances then the net assets are still worthy of inclusion because that is relevant to how influential the organization is capable of being. If secondary sources do not cover the salaries, the salary of executive officers is less relevant than the net assets, but it is still relevant in the same way that basic info on the organization may be relevant, like where it is principally headquartered, who runs the organization, its founding date. These details, added together, give an honest profile of the organization. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The salary of executive officers ... is still relevant in the same way that basic info on the organization may be relevant .... No, it most certainly is not. Without independent secondary reliable sourcing on this information, it is contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If Waters.Justin thinks that every article should contain information about executive compensation, I suggest they get Wikipedia guidelines developed so that we can apply it across every article. Is there any reason you chose this article to launch your campaign TFD (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I first suggested the idea that every article on an organization should include a section on finances over two years ago.[17] Last year, I had a conversation about this with another editor.[18] Waters.Justin (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It is clear from your discussion here and the previous discussions you linked that your sole focus is on organizations that attack what they call hate groups and even cite Stop Islamization of America as a source. Furthermore you said this information would reflect badly on them, which is an invalid reason for inclusion. Incidentally you mention organizations. The salaries of top paid executives are in the 10s of millions, well above those of the SPLC and ADL.

In any case, if your suggestion went nowhere, accept it and move on.

TFD (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your criticism of me is unjustified. I never cited Stop Islamization of America as a source. You may have misread the above comments. I mentioned Stop Islamization as an example of how I also posted financial data on an organization the SPLC criticizes. You can see I posted the financial information in Stop Islamization's actual article, See edit [19] but I only posted the financial information in the SPLC's talk page. If I have any bias towards the SPLC it's in favor of the SPLC compared to my treatment of the organization the SPLC criticizes. I never wrote "this information would reflect badly on them." Please don't misquote me or assume bad faith. Your criticism does not even make sense because I gave the same treatment to a group the SPLC criticizes, and posting a suggestion on an article's Talk page does not deserve such personal criticism. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Waters.Justin (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Waters.Justin, I don't find your suggestion about executives' pay compelling, however, I don't see any anti-SPLC bias in it. (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your reference to the SIoA. However, in order to include information we need to demonstrate weight, see "Balancing aspects." we all have different views about what is important so instead of arguing among ourselves we agree to consider important what reliable secondary sources find important. TFD (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No, TFD didn't just "misread" Waters.Justin's reference to SIoA, he completely misrepresented it. He also said, on no evidence, that W.J's "sole focus is on organizations that attack what they (the SPLC) call hate groups". TFD then claimed that W.J "said this information (about the SPLC's executive compensation) would reflect badly on them". W.J said nothing of the sort. Characterize this as one may. TFD should stand down from the article. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The charity evaluations are sufficient. (After all, big organizations have corporate officers that get paid big money in all sectors of the economy.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The salaries of CEOs of public companies are publicly available but I don't see them frequently reported in Wikipedia articles. If you want to have a policy that all CEO salaries should be mentioned in articles, then you should push for a policy change. TFD (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There's not, and is never going to be a policy or guideline which requires that net assets, salaries or any thing of the like be included (or not) as standard in articles about organizations or companies. If the info is relevant and can be reliably sourced, go ahead and include it. If not, leave it out. Comparisons between this article and others are meaningless. Information is included in the project when it can be sufficiently sourced and is verifiable. If the information is included, templates which assist the inclusion of such info in info-boxes etc may be used. People who see political opponents when assessing the suitability of the inclusion of info are probably not viewing the source of the information as dispassionately as a wikipeidan should. Edaham (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The compensation of all CEOs of publicly traded companies and not-for profits is available. Rex Tillerson's (CEO of Exxon) in 2015 was $27.2, or about 100 time higher than the CEO of the SPLC. But the salary was not mentioned in the Exxon article.  :::::Relevance is not the policy for inclusion, it's weight. Presumably information gets attention in reliable sources because it is relevant, but it is not up to editors to determine what they consider relevant.

TFD (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me clarify, because I may have chosen a poor word when saying relevant. - relevance is weight. If something satisfies WP:DUE, then it's worthy of consideration for inclusion. To meet this criteria for relevancy, the information you want to include should be not hard to find in mainstream reliable sources and be a contributing factor to an understanding of the subject of the article, not merely a trivial mention in an individual source. Comparing two sources as you did in that example would be WP:SYNTH unless the comparison was made by a reliable secondary source, in which case it would probably require attribution. Edaham (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Weight means "to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It does not mean that every fact that can be reliably sourced and you thin contributes to understanding the subject should be added. It is synthesis for you to determine what is relevant. Incidentally it is not synthesis to compare two sources as I did, it is only synthesis if that information is added to an article. You can't explain why SPLC salaries should be included while Exxon salaries should not. TFD (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you might be talking to the wrong person or be slightly confused about my suggestion. In either case, I am definitely talking to the wrong person as I'm not arguing for the inclusion of this information, I'm suggesting/requesting that the editor who proposed the original edit demonstrate that it belongs there based on due weight and high quality sources rather than provide subjective rationale based on preference. Incidentally the auxiliary verb, "would" (as opposed to "is") in the partial second conditional sentence, which I wrote expresses the hypothetical (future) sense as in: were you to combine sources to infer a relationship in an article it "would" be synthesis. So I'm glad we agree there! Edaham (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to lede

EXISTING: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is noted for its successful legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance.

NEW: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is noted for its successful legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of groups as hate groups and extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance.

By doing as I suggest, we incorporate the idea that SPLC is not infallible in their determination of what is a hate group. In other words, as the lede stands now, as I read it, all these groups are indeed hate or extremist groups and SPLC is simply classifying those hate groups. Whereas in the new version we open the possibility that groups as classified by the SPLC may or may not be hate or extremist groups. I believe this slight alteration is warranted due to the controversy surrounding some of their determinations and the fact that they are not infallible such as the case of Ben Carson etc. Glennconti (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. I think that this seems like a good idea, given its inaccurate categorisation of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. David A (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: because the particular changes are subtle, I've now marked them out in bold strike-out and italic texts. And I endorse David A's recommended change. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The reality is though that their categorizations are routinely used by by mainstream news media and academic sources without qualification. To be reliable does not mean 100% accuracy. We say for example that biologists classify plants and animals by species etc., yet some classifications have had to be revised or are in dispute. This is an attempt to inject doubt into the reliability of SPLC classifications, which is not supported in reliable sources. With a very few exceptions, these doubts come from the groups that the SPLC classify as hate groups. Their argument is not that the SPLC has incorrectly applied its criteria, but that the concept of hate is itself wrong. Depending on their classification, they see minority groups such as Muslims, Jews, or blacks as posing an existential threat to America and are merely telling the truth about them. TFD (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to inject doubt, I am trying to be more precise in the language that we use. I am not disputing the good work that the SPLC does. I have noticed that news media is starting to qualify support for the determinations of the SPLC especially when reporting on the more controversial determinations. Glennconti (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how this is more precise, rather then being an example of redundancy?09:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, let me see if I can be more clear but I cannot be as brief. I take issue with the current wording in that it does not precisely represent the current reality as concerns what the SPLC does when it classifies groups. I my mind there is a theoretical universe of all groups that exist. What the SPLC does is analyze those groups and based on a criterion or a standard deems some of the groups as hate groups or extremist groups creating a subset of the universe of all groups i.e. they put them into hate group lists. For some reason, the SPLC is not infallible in this process of selection and they have had to rescind such selection. Also, there have been charges by conservative groups that such selections are overreaching. Reliable sources are now footnoting that some people disagree with the SPLC's determinations. This wiki article when read in total, accurately reflects the current state of affairs excepting the sentence in the lede which I would like to modify. When I read the sentence in question which summarizes the works of the SPLC the portion in question says its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations, it implies to me that the groups on SPLC lists are hate groups that already exist as such, other extremist groups that already exist as such and what the SPLC is doing is merely organizing or classifying those hate or extremist groups. For example, insects exist and we the SPLC just categorize them. When in fact some times creatures make it on to the SPLC lists that are not insects at all. The current wording in this way presupposes that any group classified by the SPLC is indeed a hate group or extremist group. To be precise, the SPLC is selecting groups and putting them on a list based a criterion that is at times flawed and at times controversial (and at times quite correct). My wording is better. It is a small change I don't understand the controversy over my wording. Unless some editors do not agree the the SPLC in not infallible. To them I say it is an organization of humans and as such by definition is not infallible. I hope this is more clear. Glennconti (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It makes it clear that this is SPLC definition (as in "its classification"), I fail to see how your saying groups twice alters that. Indeed your edit say what you oppose far more clearly, by using redundancy by saying "the groups they call hate groups are hate groups (this is getting very pythonesque now).Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I am proposing to say SPLC is noted for its classification of groups as hate groups and extremist organizations. Notice the possessive its. This now means that the classification belongs to the SPLC and is not necessarily everyone's definition. When you say as it does now its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations it implies a certainly that the groups classified by the SPLC are indeed hate groups and all the SPLC is doing is organizing those hate groups. I hope you can see the difference between the two sentences. Glennconti (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it says the same thing, just with an extra reference to groups (by the way your suggested text needs editing to remove (rather then strike out) the first use if hate).Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree about that it is POV to attempt to present the SPLC as infallible in their selection process. David A (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven In my mind the two sentences do not say the same thing. If you believe that they do then why object to the change if it is equivalent? As far as the strike outs some one edited my post and apparently it is causing some confusion. I have just tried to fix. Glennconti (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Whooahhh, do not use that line of argument please, this is not about me. I object because it is a redundancy, it adds nothing. We do not say "they call Cheese hate groups" or "that annoying bloke down who talks too loudly about his socks the pub hate groups". So there is no reason to point out that they call Groups hate groups. It is unnecessary (redundancy) verbiage. It is not equivalent, it just says the same thing in a different way.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not calling you out as a person when I said you, I meant your logic. You are losing me same thing in a different way says the same or equivalent to me. So why object? You references to Cheese etc and pubs or whatever I am totally unable to follow. Glennconti (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have explained why I object, I shall say it again, however, We do not say what they say is true, we just say they say it. Your proposed edit does not substantively change that statement it just says it with more words (and a more tortured use of English). This is why I say it is not equivalent, it may say the same thing, but take longer to say it. As to my point about cheese, your edit only make sense if we are tying to say they call anything other then Groups hate groups. As we do not your is addressing an error that does not in fact exist. Any one reading this will think "So they call groups hate groups, well what else would they be calling hate groups?".Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you will understand if I say its classification of some groups as hateful and extremist organizations. Does that make you more comfortable? There are many ways to skin this cat. Glennconti (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I do understand, it is still, saying the same thing with different words, so how does this alter what the article already says? What are you trying to get the article to say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the way the lede is written that the sentence its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations presupposes that any group selected by SPLC is automatically and infallibly a hate group. This is in error. They have established their own criterion and it is some time flawed. We don't need to specifically point out that they make errors but just that SPLC owns their determinations for better or worse. Glennconti (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how your suggested edit changes that. And we do not say "they classify hate groups as hate groups" we say (really very clearly) this is their designation. It is really hard to see how "its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations", is not us saying that SPLC owns it's designations.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations" I still have a problem with this sentence. It is not accurate and needs work. SPLC does not classify hate groups. They classify groups into what they consider as hate groups. I don't know how more clear I can be. We need to more precisely say what they do in this regard. Glennconti (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

They classify them AS hate groups. They may group them into a single classification (in the same way that Spiders are group in the classification Arachnida, but are not the only Arachnida (and not all spiders are the same species of spider)). But that is also not quite what you are saying (I think). But (again) we are saying that it is their designation. I think this should be closed now as I do not think it means what you think it means.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree they (SPLC) classify them AS hate groups, BUT we do not say that. We say they classify hate groups, in essence giving wikipedia's seal of approval that any one the pick is indeed a hate group. Do you not see the problem? Glennconti (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No, and have explained why.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned, biological classification is not infallible either. See for example Giant panda#Classification: "For many decades, the precise taxonomic classification of the giant panda was under debate because it shares characteristics with both bears and raccoons." Classification in social science is even more subject to dispute. Is Trump a conservative, Clinton a progressive, Sanders a socialist? SPLC categorizations are routinely reported in news media and academic papers without any qualification, meaning they are seen as authoritative as any social science categorizations. The only real opposition comes from the subjects of categorization themselves. However, even they do not challenge the classifications in their entirety, only in their own case. So they say things like, "the SPLC does a good job in classifying white supremacists and anti-Semites, but err when they classify anti-Islamism as hate." TFD (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheFourDeuces so we agree that the SPLC does at times err in some manner when classifying hate groups and other extremists. In the case of Ben Carson they apologized for miscategorizing him and this was no small error. I believe there is also a tendency to attract very much controversy on the part of the SPLC as concerns traditional religious groups and their attitude that gays are sinners. If we are in agreement that the SPLC makes controversial determinations and it is possible for them to err then they are not as infallible as the current wording would make it seem. Glennconti (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - awkward and unnecessary. Newspapers sometimes have their reports challenged or have to retract them, but we still say they report news, not that they "report things as news." Same goes for authors, academics, etc. This is silly. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Or more in keeping with the OP's suggestion "New events as News".Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

All classifiers whether in natural or social sciences err. Even theories about star classifications have been amended. However, only young earth creationists would insist on putting in that proviso in all astronomy-related articles. Reliable sources are not considered reliable because they are infallible but because they are generally accurate and errors are corrected. While the SPLC said Carson should not be considered an extremist it noted that he had made comments that most people would see as extreme.[20] Conflating homosexuality and pedophilia for example. Note that this issue got lots of coverage in what the SPLC describes as hate groups as well as fringe right-wing websites, but little or no coverage in mainstream media. If people want to know what these people think they can read Wikipedia articles about them or go to their websites. It is contrary to weight however to inject their views into this article.

Incidentally, mainstream media itself has been highly critical of the Trump administration, in which Carson serves, for their LGBT policies. Whether or not they are right, the SPLC is certainly not outside the norm.

TFD (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and alternate suggestion The SPLC doesn't "classify" hate groups, it monitors them. We should fix the lead accordingly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the apology [21] of the SPLC for their characterization of Ben Carson it seems that what the SPLC does is create a "profile" of a person or group then compares that profile to an internal "standard". Based on that comparison they then characterize that person or group as a hate group or extremist. It seems the SPLC does more than just monitor hate groups but they define them. Glennconti (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to your interpretation, but reliable sources describe what they do as monitoring hate groups. Sources that include Fortune, The Christian Scientist Monitor, Al-Jazeera, CBS News, and Britannica. It's also the word the SPLC uses to describe what it does. On the other hand, I don't believe any reliable sources describe the SPLC as "classifying" hate groups. That's probably original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This [22] Politico article says what the SPLC does is "label" groups as hate groups or extremist groups. I didn't make this controversy or critisism of the SPLC up. The CSMonitor source you cite also says the SPLC "labels" groups. Glennconti (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

concur with Malik Shabazz per BBC.

• 1) in Spotify report
• 2) on Richard Cohen
• 3) on Charlottesville

and many more Edaham (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"Label" is a loaded term that suggests bias. Glennconti, I appreciate your position: the homosexual agenda is to molest children and the SPLC aids them. But no reliable sources support it. You need to take your view to the court of public opinion. TFD (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Label" is the term used by the sources I quoted; it is not my term. Take it up with Christian Science Monitor and Politico if you don't like the term they use. Also, my position has nothing to to with the homosexual agenda. You are WAY in the weeds. Please focus on what I am saying. Namely, the SPLC does more than "monitor" hate groups. Indeed as per the sources I quoted the SPLC classifies or defines or "labels" some groups as hate groups or extremist groups. Glennconti (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on the general principle of voice. Wikipedia should always strive to use attributed voice to express positions. Whether its "terrorist organization" or "hate group," it's an attributed description. "Attributed" does not mean writing as if it's doubted per WP:WEASEL or WP:SCAREQUOTES. Wording like "the SPLC monitors organizations on its list of hate groups" is an example of attribution that doesn't require Wikipedia to adopt any positions. Rather, it's source based. It could also be something like "classifies organization through its creation of lists of hate and extremist groups." These are both preferable to saying "it monitors hate groups" and other non-attributed statements. It should always be our goal to use attributed phrasing without weasel words or words to watch. --DHeyward (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

We do not say that, we say "its classification of hate groups", it is hard to see that as not being a clear statement is is them classifying them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Does SPLC say they classify or monitor hate groups? If they do not say they classify them, then this is not what they say they do. As therfore thye lead must reflect who says what it should not imply this is their claim. Thus it must read "what some sources claim its classification of groups as hate groups and extremist organizations", otherwise we are saying (in Wikipedias voice) they are saying this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

From their websites and an enormous number of reliable sources, many of which have been listed above, "We monitor hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States". Can't really see a reason not to word it similarly, as in the proposal made by Malik Shabazz. Attribution in the form of lede citations would be fine too. There's no need for added verbiage about where this text originates with so much due weight. As has occurred frequently, single source attribution when there are many sources saying the same thing is misleading the reader by failing to acknowledge the widespread use of the term. Edaham (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

proposed text

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is noted for its successful legal cases against white supremacist groups, its monitoring of hate groups and other extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance. Edaham (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that we need to mention the fact they have been accused of labeling.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Slatersteven. Glennconti (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Edahams proposed text us fine. I oppose shoehorning "labeling" in there though, as I don't see a basis for that in the article or in RS. Seems to me this is really about the fact that some people take exception to bring monitorered/listed as a hate group by the SPLC - but that is already discussed in the lede and at length in the article itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

True, but it is also true they are noted for this as much as monitoring, maybe just remove the line about what they are noted for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's true - lots of attention is being given to accusations of listing people incorrectly (which is what we're really talking about here, isn't it?) right now, yes, but given SPLC's long history we shouldn't overemphasize current controversies. We've also discussed this at length in other talk page sections and in the archives, how the article handles criticism of the SPLC right now is the result of considerable discussion and compromise. Focusing on one word seems like an odd and unproductive way to try to rehash those discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It just seems to me we need some sort of nod to the controversies in the lede rather than obscure them. Plus, we don't want to have the lede look like we, that is wikipedia, endorse any selections (labeling) made by the SPLC. Glennconti (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the fourth paragraph of the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I see that. But I was thinking the nod belonged in the first paragraph then more specifics in the fourth like we have. Glennconti (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph is inherently contradictory. It states that SPLC's classification and listings are deemed authoritative by academic and media sources, then notes that conservatives and others criticise them. Are there no conservative or others in academia or the media? I also think it should be noted that the SPLC's focus is on what it deems the American radical right - something not mentioned in the lead. Are there no left-wing hate groups? 人族 (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, Antifa certainly qualifies, but the SPLC ignores that, much like it ignores the hate-preaching of Salafism/Wahhabism, and would rather lambast Ayaan Hirsi Ali for criticising Islamism, than the people who have placed multiple fatwas paying for her assassination. David A (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not for us to judge, just report what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

SLPC and FBI

" The SPLC has provided information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies.[8][9]"

Anyone can provide "information about hate groups to the FBI" It should be defined that,

The FBI and the U.S. Army have removed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a “hate crimes” resource on their websites. Should it not be noted?