Talk:Center for Immigration Studies

cleaning up controversial reports

A few things I think should collectively be done:

1) These should be re-posted chronologically. I.e. why is there a comment on a report from 2017, then one from 2003, one from 2008, and then back to 2018?

2) Some of the points are redundant or unnecessary. For example, citing Alex Nowrasteh (who debates Krikorian on CSPAN, on Twitter, etc.) doesn't belong in this section. The only real commentary that should belong here is from the fact checkers like PolitiFact or WaPo's Pinocchio ratings. Anything else is just opposing debating opposing viewpoints. Thoughts? Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like this was ever addressed. Sounds reasonable to me. Not sure why anyone would object to chronology, and I agree on Nowrasteh. Haven't looked through all the other commentary yet but certainly his wouldn't fit. Definitely should keep the criticism from fact checkers as that's objective. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nowrasteh should absolutely not be dropped. He's frequently cited by RS, and has frequently debunked the shoddy research that CIS produces. The desire to whitewash CATO from this article is puzzling given that you yourself dispute that a wide range of think-tanks have criticized CIS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is currently 3219 words. The controversial reports section alone is 1840 words. Does anyone seriously think that's not extremely excessive? Drmies added an overly detailed tag, which pretty obviously was reasonable to do. Now let's reach some kind of consensus regarding what details in this massively bloated section don't belong. Not sure why you're so resistant to that. Perhaps Darryl.jensen can weigh in as well so we can decide which criticism belongs and which is excessive. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This whole thing should be seriously pruned, there is no doubt about it. Including every criticism from every organization or person is just overdoing it. Serious pruning and rewriting the text to make more generalized points with strong references is, IMO, mandatory here. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Add in "criticism" and we're up to 2642 words, or 82% of the entire article. I propose we combine controversial reports and criticism into a single section, and then prune it. Seems really redundant to separate them and an easy place to start if we need to cut trim this thing, no? ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies and ModerateMike729, there is no reason to include every minute criticism that has ever been lodged at the organization. A single, concise "Criticism" section is all that is necessary. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the changes accordingly. I'm preserving the parts of controversial report that I pruned below. The ones I pruned were done so on the basis of either 1) Biased author/lack of npov, or 2) Not a controversial report (e.g. there was one paragraph about the Trump admin. that was only tangentially related to CIS and didn't cite any specific reports...). Would be glad to discuss if yall think that there are some I'm missing, or something that should be added back to the sub-section:

In August 2008, the CIS published a report Immigration to the United States and World-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions saying that, although immigrants to the U.S. had, on average, 18% lower carbon dioxide emissions than native-born Americans, they "produce an estimated four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin." Amanda Peterson Beadle in ThinkProgress said that this conclusion was "simply absurd" because it had used the "deeply flawed methodology" of taking income in the U.S. as a surrogate for CO2 emissions. Andrew Light of the Center for American Progress did not take issue with the report's methodology, but argued that there were better and more direct ways of limiting U.S. emissions than reducing immigration.

Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute has repeatedly criticized CIS for "a history of using poor methodology and data in their reports".

A September 2015 report by CIS asserted that "immigrant households receive 41 percent more federal welfare than households headed by native-born citizens." The report was criticized on the basis of poor methodology. Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute said that the reported opted not to examine how much welfare immigrants use, but to examine households led by an immigrant so that the report could count the welfare usage of the immigrant's US-born children, which leads to a misleading estimate of immigrant welfare use.

CIS has claimed that giving birth on U.S. soil gives immigrants access to welfare and other social benefits, and that this gives rise "birth tourism" (the practice of foreigners traveling to the United States to give birth to U.S. citizens). CNN wrote that "Politifact has mostly debunked those claims, concluding that US-born children do little in the long term to help their immigrant parents. Citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until the young person turns 21 and any social benefits would be given to the child and not their undocumented parents, who would not qualify. The Pew Research Center also has found that the number of babies born to unauthorized immigrants in the United States has been declining steadily in recent years."

In 2018, CIS defended the Trump administration's decision to separate undocumented immigrant children from their parents. CIS argued that the policy deterred immigrant families from crossing the US border and said that the policy "actually protects foreign nationals". At a June 2018 event hosted at CIS, outgoing Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, defended the policy.

Elliott Young, Professor of History and Director of Ethnic Studies at Lewis & Clark College, criticized CIS as "a crackpot organization with a website filled with xenophobic racists who twist data to spread lies about immigrants". He criticized the organization for promulgating the false claim that 72 people from Trump’s seven banned countries were involved with terrorist activities. He argued that it was unwise for Lewis & Clark College students to invite Jessica Vaughan of the CIS to speak at the college, saying that "Vaughan’s reports are chock full of data, these data don’t withstand scrutiny and her conclusions are based in her nativism and not in facts."

In September 2017, the Trump administration defended its claim that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs" by citing editorials written by members of the Center for Immigration Studies. However, economists consulted by PolitiFact rejected the claim, noting that the job market is not fixed or zero-sum.' ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine as a start. But frankly we need to remove a lot more, and more strongly source what we do keep. As I've said, the only thing that really belongs here is fact-checkers rather than just opposing viewpoints. I will help work on this soon. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course opposing viewpoints belong here. While I agree with trimming bloat and repetition, there is obviously a place here to discuss people who reject the CIS, and explore why they reject the organization. Just as we discuss the many people who believe the Southern Poverty Law Center has lost its way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think NorthBySouthBaranof is right here. If we're going to talk about controversial reports, it's fine to talk about experts who find them controversial and why. That includes other think tankers and policy analysts, most of whom I kept in the criticism section in my above changes. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely possible to trim text without losing a lot of substance in the 'controversial reports' section. Some of the paragraphs go into too much detail. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't remove anything you added back, but just trimmed some of the longer paragraphs. I left Nowrasteh's stuff in tact as it was pretty concise. Take a look. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Could use some help here. If you disagree with those cuts that's fine, but some other input would be appreciated. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there are two areas that can be reasonably trimmed from "controversial reports" because they are excessively detailed, and as we've agreed we need to start cutting.

1. Remove the following from the February 2017 paragraph: "FactCheck.Org found that most (44 of the 72) had not been convicted on terrorism charges, and that none of the 72 people were responsible for a terrorism-related death in the US.[68] Snopes mirrored the FactCheck.Org assessment while noting that the CIS report also omitted needed context, as the CIS report tried to frame those countries as particularly terrorism-prone when they were not: "The omitted context was that persons from many countries that were not on the entry restriction list were involved in vastly more terrorism-related convictions than some of the countries that were on the list."[72] The Washington Post Fact-Checker said that the report was "pretty thin gruel on which to make sweeping claims about the alleged threat posed to the United States by these seven countries" because of its inaccuracies.[71]" It's quite excessive to go through the specific rationale of every factchecker that debunked CIS here. Makes far more sense to just list the fact-checkers who debunked them, and include the short summary as to why. This is clearly too detailed to add much value.

2. Remove the following from the March 2007 paragraph: "Cornelius noted that CIS "offers a relentlessly negative view of the most recent wave of immigration to the United States. The economic benefits of immigration – even illegal immigration – to the average American are barely acknowledged, while the costs are estimated in such a way as to provoke the maximum degree of public anger and anxiety."[51]" My rationale for this one is that the first half of that paragraph already explains why Cornelius disagrees with the CIS study about welfare use. The extra color commentary isn't needed. I'd appreciate some feedback on these changes, as when I've tried to make cuts in the past, the usual suspects have just reverted my changes without any feedback in the Talk or rationale. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there's no issues or push back here so according to WP:BOLD I'll go ahead and make those changes. Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a few more suggestions to trim this section while retaining most of the substance, and would appreciate feedback. I focused on the 2011-2014 period, where both the criticisms and the subsequent Center responses were far too overly detailed/wordy. I also cleaned up some awkward grammar/tenses/wording issues. My draft here:

In September 2011, CIS published a report Who Benefited from Job Growth In Texas? saying that, in the period 2007-2011, immigrants had taken 81% of newly created jobs in the state. Chuck DeVore, a conservative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation said that the report "relied on flawed methodology".[55] CIS subsequently replied to DeVore's criticism.[56] Politifact weighed in, saying that Devore was correct to claim that "trying to draw conclusions about immigration and employment in Texas in isolation from other factors is problematic at best" but that they agreed with Krikorian that "even if DeVore prefers a net-to-net comparison, immigrants still got a disproportionate share of new jobs."[54][57]

Norman Matloff, a UC Davis professor of computer science, wrote a report for CIS arguing that most H-1B visa workers, rather than being "the best and the brightest", are mostly of average talent.[58][59][60] James Shrek of the Heritage Foundation argued that the existing data shows that H-1B workers are more skilled than the average American and are "in no way average workers." [61] Matloff, in his reply, said that H-1B workers were not supposed to be compared to median workers and that Sherk's argument is "completely at odds with the claims the industry has made concerning the "best and brightest" issue" and that comparison to O-1 visa wage data showed that H-1B visas were being used by employers to undercut wages.[62]

In May 2014, a CIS report said that in 2013 Immigration and Customs Enforcement had "freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings... [and t]he vast majority of these releases from ICE custody were discretionary, not required by law."[63] An ICE spokesman said that many such releases were required by law, such as when a detainee's home country refuses to accept them or required by a judge's order.[64] The Associated Press, however, backed up CIS' claim, and said that "the releases that weren't mandated by law, including [the] 28 percent of the immigrants with homicide convictions, undermines the government's argument that it uses its declining resources for immigration enforcement to find and jail serious criminal immigrants who may pose a threat to public safety or national security."[66] ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there's no objections, so per wp:bold I'll go ahead with this. As always feel free to discuss. ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A complete disaster. This is mass-scrubbing of a large number of expert analyses and critiques of shoddy research by CIS, and gives readers the false impression that only a limited orgs and experts have identified errors in CIS "research". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous characterization and I invite anyone to compare my changes to the text as it currently stands, which I archived above and which you didn't object to until now. The page has an overly detailed tag, and including a laundry list of every expert who has commented on every CIS report is ridiculous to the point of parody. In my edits, I kept the substance of all the complaints--the question of sample size and extrapolation in the 2011 study, the question of H-1B qualification in the Matloff paragraph, and the question of ICE requirements by law in the 2014 paragraph. If you have your own suggestions for trimming this section--which consensus has agreed is massively bloated--I'm all ears. But all you've done is undo any attempts to trim the fat, and characterized every single accusation as crucial to the article. I'm trying to work with you here, but you've signaled that you're totally unwilling to trim any content whatsoever. Let's reach an answer here. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

IMO this has needed to happen for awhile. Its not "mass-scrubbing". Content has needed trimming and this maintains the spirit of credible criticisms while removing every single critique ever lodged at the organization. Darryl.jensen (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's weird how you in one talk page discussion dispute that a "wide ranger of think tanks" have criticized CIS[1] while now in this particular talk page section you are totally in favor of removing criticisms from a wide range of think tanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not "totally in favor of removing criticisms from a wide range of think tanks." I'm in favor of trimming down the section so its not paragraph after paragraph of every criticism that's ever been lodged against the organization. I've never advocated removing the criticisms entirely, that is a bad faith argument and you know it. The way it is written now is in your words a "complete disaster." Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd like to hear some new voices so we don't talk in circles here. Any suggestions from anyone else as to what can be trimmed/thoughts on my proposals to trim above? Drmies added the overly detailed tag, perhaps they have a suggestion? Or K.e.coffman?ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

ModerateMike729I just realized that there's a discussion going on here.. I want to edit the controversial report. Do I have to post my edit here first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdelfoMontanez (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Be bold! Alison Alice (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Location of critic accusations

Would like to reach consensus regarding where the the critics' accusations of CIS being connected to "extremist nativist and ties to white supremacy groups" should go. Right now the majority of the lede is criticism which seems hard to reconcile...While I think it's appropriate to keep the range of groups attacking their research, the rest of the criticism would fit better in the criticism section. Right now it's basically being repeated twice almost verbatim. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But then the accusation that the CIS has nativist ties needs to be added to Criticism SoccerSalvatore (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Agree I agree, the information belongs in Criticism as User:SoccerSalvatore said Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's important that the lede include mention that these guys have ties to nativism. Since they do. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• It seems there is enough criticism to warrant that statement, no? and if so, why wouldn't it be leadworthy? Drmies (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Guess we never resolved this. To elaborate, I do think there is valid criticism connecting them to individual nativists, but I don't think that's the case for white supremacists. The closest argument you could make, and the one always cited, is their relation to John Tanton, but even that is in the past (at their founding) not present tense. The Center disputes that relationship, but even to the degree it is there, Tanton isn't a supremacist; that is quite a big stretching of the definition. I'm also in disagreement with use of the word "groups". Tanton is an individual, not a group, and CIS has no relation to any white supremacist groups, though you could say the connection to FAIR could be a "nativist" tie. Finally, this is nitpicky but it's "CIS" not "the CIS"--not sure how the extra "the" has crept into the page. Given all those suggestions, more fitting language would be "Critics have accused the CIS of promoting and having had ties to nativists, which CIS denies." I'm fine keeping that where it is--in the lede. Thoughts User:SoccerSalvatore Drmies Darryl.jensen? ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The white supremacy label is a ridiculous accusation that draws away from any legitimate and needed criticism of the organization. Its inappropriate to include such a label in the lead. Darryl.jensen (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Due to the only response to the proposed compromise above being what seems like agreement from Darryl.jensen, per WP:BOLD I'm going to go ahead and change that line accordingly. Preserving old version here: Critics have accused the CIS of promoting extremist nativist views and of having ties to white supremacy groups, which the CIS denies. Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This line of the lead after today's revert is currently vague and uncited. It does not specify who the critics are, or exactly what the accusations are. Political opinions on CIS aside, the current lead page does not do an effective job at communicating to the reader the nature of the criticism of CIS. The leading bulk of the criticism section deals with the SPLC's 2016 report on CIS and secondary reporting of that publication, and as such comprises 'notable controversy' (as opposed to the accusations of inaccurate research methodology) and should be the main source of information presented in the lead. Per the style guide the lead must present a summary of each section of the article, consist of well-written paragraphs, and neither suppress nor provide undue attention to controversies. Please present why you feel it should be kept vague and short, citing criticism independent of the SPLC and accusations either besides or specific to Nativism, which are separate from accusations of eugenicism and the SPLC's much more specific/official/publicly-discussed 'hate group designation'. Please also present some alternative summaries with more detail so we can decide together on a better lead than this. --TheMiddleWest (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on description: anti-immigration, low-immigration or both

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead describe the Center as a) favoring low-immigration, b) as being anti-immigration, or c) use both? Doug Weller talk 19:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

a) favors low-immigration

• Support: Darryl.jensen (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I support describing it favoring low-immigration. This is not only what the Center describes itself as but also what a variety of reputable sources describe it as. We need to reflect what reputable sources describe the org as, which is never "anti-immigrant".

LA Times: "... the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which advocates for limits on legal migration"

Politico: "The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates lower levels of immigration..."

Huffington Post: "at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower levels of immigration"

Pew Charitable Trusts: "the Center of Immigration Studies, which favors lower levels of immigration"

CNN: "the Center for Immigration Studies, a research organization that favors lower immigration levels"

NPR: "he did speak last month to the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower levels of immigration."

Time: "at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower immigration rates,"

Univison: "studies at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which favors lower immigration, says she opposes sanctuary policies"

Washington Times: "at the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that favors lower immigration levels,"

• Support:

Support. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose:

• No RS refer to the organization as a "low-immigration" organization. The term "low-immigration" is a WP:WEASEL term that the CIS crafted for itself, so that it would not be called "anti-immigration" which is the term that RS actually use to describe the organization. On the other hand, there would be no problem with describing CIS as an "anti-immigration organization that favors far lower immigration numbers". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Seems pretty nitpicky. Just remove the hyphen and say "favors low immigration", as every RS listed above did. Boom, "weasel" word solved and we reflect RS. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Anti-immigration organization that favors far lower immigration numbers" reflects what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Again, more sources cite lower immigration than "anti-" and I made an argument above as to why the former is more precise and NPOV but at this point we're just arguing in circles so I'll let the RFC period play out. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Where to start? The Pew source and the Huffington Post source are the same article republished on different sites, which is an indicator of the real problem. Not all sources are equal, so instead of playing games trying to count how many sources use one phrase over another, we need to summarize what sources are saying in our own words. "Favoring low-immigration" is not particularly informative, and it's also evasive and promotional when taken out of context. CIS can place their preferred public relations language on their own website, but Wikipedia should rely on reliable, independent sources, and we have to do the work of trying to summarize what those sources are saying, not just what words they use in passing while discussing a tangential issue. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, if (as the discussion above implies) this would mean using this term without mentioning "anti-immigration" - doing so would be, as others have said, evasive and promotional. "Anti-immigration" is well-sourced and is the commonly-accepted neutral term for this position; none of the sources above contradict that. Moreover, the sources above describe the group as "pushing for lower immigration", which is very different than using "low-immigration" as a broad political descriptor the way this is requesting. Caveat: I am not opposed to mentioning that they push for lower immigration provided we lead into this by describing them as an anti-immigration group; both things are true. They are an anti-immigration group that pushes for lower immigration; this accurately summarizes all the sources presented. --Aquillion (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose We're not in the business in providing ideological cover to political advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion:

b) anti-immigration

• Support:

• Peer-reviewed academic sources that describe CIS verbatim as "anti-immigration": Chapter 4 book[2], Page 116[3], Page 58[4], Page 285[5]. Reliable news outlets that describe CIS verbatim as "anti-immigration": NY Times[6], ABC News[7], NBC News[8], CNN[9], New Yorker[10], Politico[11], The Hill[12], Daily Beast[13]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• When it is supported by reliable sources, we should use direct language. The alternative smacks of being a WP:EUPHEMISM, or violating WP:SOAP by regurgitating CIS's public relations. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• The issue we're having is that reliable sources (often the same ones, in different pieces, depending on author, etc.) describe the org as both "anti-immigrant" and "advocating for low-immigrant". So I'm not sure what your point here is. "When it is supported by reliable sources, we should use direct language" adds nothing to this discussion when both Snooganssnoogans and I have provided lists of reliable sources describing CIS in both terms. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to sources above, Modern American Extremism and Domestic Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Extremists and Extremist Groups describes the org as part of a "network of anti-immigration groups". Separately, "low-immigration" is a euphemistic descriptor preferred by the group. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. First choice. Well-cited, and no sources contradict it. Note that none of the oppose comments have given any rationale at all. I certainly don't feel that "sources that say they support low immigration exist" is a meaningful argument for excluding the term "anti-immigration" when that is also so well-cited; at best, we can mention both. --Aquillion (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support They can hair-split and quibble all they want about "reduced" vs "anti" but the truth is they want to prevent immigrants from entering the USA. They're anti-immigration by definition. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The sources are sufficient. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose:

• ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• griffy013 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Anti-immigration" is not neutral and the reliable sources most frequently say that CIS supports “lower levels of immigration”, especially recently. "Anti-immigration" implies they are flat-out opposed to immigration, which is less precise than their actual position which is just lower levels of it.

Threaded discussion:

I definitely oppose "anti-immigration" because it's not NPOV. I suspect the argument in favor of using "anti-immigration" would be to say that CIS goes beyond just being low immigration and in fact uses its research to make immigrants look bad in general. That seems quite nitpicky to me and doesn't reflect RS. Krikorian himself has made the frequent argument that lowering levels of immigration would lead to a "warmer welcome" (see here) for the immigrants already here. Their research director put out an op-ed saying that lower levels of immigration would help the immigrants already here to better assimilate and succeed (see here). Further, it's not as if CIS has advocated for no immigration. Rather, they've advocated for a shift to "skills based" immigration instead of family-based migration (see here) In other words, they may want to change immigration as it exists in its current form and quantity in the country, but that certainly doesn't mean they're just "anti" immigration in general, and making that rhetorical leap to "anti immigration" is not encyclopedic; it's editorializing.

"Low-immigration" is more precise, more indicative of what the RS say, and more neutral than "anti". It more accurately describes their policy positions, all of which are ultimately related to advocating for lower levels of immigration than what we have now.ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not fair to say we've provided no rationale at all beyond just RS, when I lay out my logic pretty clearly below in the threaded discussion regarding how anti-immigration is not accurate. Further, this source says CIS was "founded as part of an anti-immigration network", language which has popped up a few times in slight variations. So be it, but the intentions upon founding the group in 1985 are not necessarily indicative of the group currently, 30+ years later. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

c) both

• Support:

Weak support for describing them as an "anti-immigration group that pushes for lower immigration" or something of that nature. Second choice. No valid arguments have been presented (in fact, no arguments at all) for excluding "anti-immigration", which is well-cited and a commonly-enough accepted term that it seems hard to justify avoiding it or treating it as non-neutral. However, there is certainly no harm in also mentioning that they push for lower immigration. Note that I only support the term "lower immigration" in the context of saying that it's something they push for - "low-immigration" as a descriptor isn't backed up by the sources presented above. But we can mention that they do push for lower immigration, which is what many sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose:

Threaded discussion:

General discussion

The organization of this RfC is a complete mess. It's a complete pain in the ass to write a comment and provide sources to defend one's position. It doesn't help that the two editors who have already commented can't format things properly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"It's a complete pain in the ass to write a comment and provide sources to defend one's position." This is an A+ comment. Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Snoogs' Definition of Non-Partisan

Snooganssnoogans take a look at Nonpartisanism in the United States. Any organization in the U.S. that is non-profit is non-partisan as long as they don't endorse candidates. That doesn't preclude them from taking political stances. Its not really a matter of opinion. In case you weren't aware, plenty of political orgs can be described as "non-partisan" because they don't donate money or endorse candidates. A similar example is the Center for American Progress - they clearly advocate for a certain political viewpoint, but because they do not endorse candidates they are nonpartisan. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The "non-partisan" label needs to be sourced. This is very simple. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Snoogansnoogans is correct. I added it back in, sourcing it from ABC News. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's confusing, as they are certainly partisan as the woman in the street is likely to understand the word. 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, that was me I think. It means they don't support a political party, that's all. I'd prefer not to use the word. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's stick with what RS say. They don't take a partisan stance. Doesn't mean they're unbiased. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

New Edits

Every time I'm trying to discuss the kind of edits I want to make nobody replies. I am not sure if should just go ahead and do it.AdelfoMontanez (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:BB – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Should hate group designation be mentioned in the lead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There seems to be disagreement about whether or not mentioning the SPLC's hate group designation in the lead is UNDUE or not. I did a Google search and found the following reliable sources that mention or discuss the CIS hate group designation. (Note that not all of these sources are neutral, but that's a different matter):
Primary topic of article is CIS's designation as a hate group:

• Southern Poverty Law Center (obviously)
• Washington Post (opinion piece)
• Washington Post (counter-opinion piece)
• PolitiFact Florida (apparently a partnership between PolitiFact and the Tampa Bay Times)
• America's Voice (probably a border-line reliable source)

CIS's designation as a hate group is mentioned in article:

• Newsweek
• USA Today
• U.S. News and World Report
• NBC News
• CBS News
• CNN
• Bloomberg
• National Review
• NPR
• Huffington Post
• New York Magazine
• The Hill
• Daily Beast
• Politico
• Daily Caller
• Vice News
• Salon.com
• Los Angeles Times
• Heritage Foundation
• Media Matters for America
• The Week
• America's Voice
• Right Wing Watch

...and maybe a dozen local news sites I'm not going to bother listing. Regardless of how biased or unfair the SPLC's designation might be, it seems to be commonly brought up in media coverage about CIS. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Include as highly relevant to the notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include of course we should also include the fact in the lead that the group rejects the designation, but the SPLC's designation has been widely reported on and regularly cited when talking about this organization, making it WP:DUE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude This page already has an excessively detailed tag, and already has serious issues with WP:NPOV as it is, as we've discussed ad nauseum already. It basically reads like a hit piece and we're treading into WP:LIBEL territory here. Due to the controversial nature of not just the SPLC generally but of CIS being designated one specifically, I've found that RSs have been far less likely to include the designation in the last year or two. I could draw up my own long list with dozens of RS but just as a few examples the NYT, Bloomberg, NBC, LATimes, Boston Herald, WSJ, etc. are all examples of the most reliable sources in the past year NOT including the designation. As evidence of how contentious it is, just see the recent "counter opinion" piece above where the WaPost reporter questions the validity of CIS designation as a hate group. Or here's a piece in realclearpolitics casting doubt on CIS designation. And here's a WaPo long form piece from several weeks ago where the author doubts that CIS is a hate group. Important to note that not only CIS but also a range of critics have disagreed with the designation. Our job is to be encyclopedic, not to repeat the word-for-word accusations of the SPLC, which have evidently declined in both relevance and validity lately. That said, I'm glad we're having this discussion and am confident we can reach consensus on the placement of this. ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @ModerateMike729: The articles you cite seem to support my argument that the designation is notable. The reason you cited for removing it from the lead was WP:UNDUE, not WP:NPOV. We can address NPOV concerns by drawing attention to the sources that dispute the designation, so I don't see how that's an argument against mentioning it in the lead. Regarding excessive detail, I would argue that the "hate group" designation is certainly more widely discussed in reliable sources than the fact that Trump cited CIS in a tweet, which we currently mention in the lead. Do you think we should remove the mention of Trump's tweet? Kaldari (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This page already has an excessively detailed tag, and already has serious issues with WP:NPOV as it is, as we've discussed ad nauseum already. It basically reads like a hit piece and we're treading into WP:LIBEL territory here. Due to the controversial nature of not just the SPLC generally but of CIS being designated one specifically, I've found that RSs have been far less likely to include the designation in the last year or two. I could draw up my own long list with dozens of RS but just as a few examples the NYT, Bloomberg, NBC, LATimes, Boston Herald, WSJ, etc. are all examples of the most reliable sources in the past year NOT including the designation. As evidence of how contentious it is, just see the recent "counter opinion" piece above where the WaPost reporter questions the validity of CIS designation as a hate group. Or here's a piece in realclearpolitics casting doubt on CIS designation. And here's a WaPo long form piece from several weeks ago where the author doubts that CIS is a hate group. Important to note that not only CIS but also a range of critics have disagreed with the designation. Our job is to be encyclopedic, not to repeat the word-for-word accusations of the SPLC, which have evidently declined in both relevance and validity lately. That said, I'm glad we're having this discussion and am confident we can reach consensus on the placement of this. ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per ModerateMike729. Particlarly the articles from WaPo and RCP cast doubt on this label. Including their designation in the lead would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. It is however right to include it in the Criticism section. Mkwia (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include extensively discussed in sources that discuss subject of article. If we want to add "a label that CIS rejects" or somesuch, I'm fine with that. Neutrality^talk 19:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Strongly exclude. Egregiously non-neutral article—the majority of the text (over 50% of the total word count as calculated before)is currently criticism in the lede and criticism section. A designation that is highly suspect among reliable sources (and only mentioned in a minority of stories about cis which were handpicked above) absolutely does not belong in lede. Serious balance and impartiality issues as said above. I’m not sure it even belongs in body but for the sake of reaching consensus inclusion in the Criticism section is fine as long as it has the caveat that CIS and others have challenged the label. Darryl.jensen (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include per WP:WEIGHT as demonstrated by the media sources listed above. Unless someone can demonstrate that this group is not discussed as a hate group by sources, we need to include it and note the source of the label. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude this from the lead. There are a TON of news articles about the CIS, both as a subject and for quotes from their "experts" (I use quotes because some of their work is quite shoddy, as we know). But I just went through the first few dozen on Google news on both time and relevance and didn't find a single one that mentioned the designation. While it has been discussed before, there are definitely WP:WEIGHT issues to inclusion. Please familiarize yourselves MOS:LEAD. I'm surprised there is no consensus here--it seems pretty clear cut that this belongs in Criticism in the body (duh!) but not the lead. And that's not even touching on some of the aforementioned issues with neutrality. Alison Alice (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude The SPLC is a non-neutral source for the designation of hate groups. They have designated groups as "hate groups" which simply go against the Left-Wing ideology of SPLC, and are not actual hate groups. Also, many of the articles referencing CIS designation as a hate group are highly biased to the Left. Unless CIS issues a statement specifically espousing hate for a protected group (which illegal aliens are not), then their designation as a hate group is completely against WP:NPOV. I agree with everything that ModerateMike729 says above as well. Smokeybehr (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This account has under 100 edits and last time they made one was ... more than two years ago. Volunteer Marek 20:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Include - well sourced. Volunteer Marek 20:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include - Extensive discussion in reliable sources of this designation; it's an expert-voice opinion which merits prominent inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include - Relevant and well sourced. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Three ultra similar comments in a ten minute span? come on guys. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@ModerateMike729: What'd I do? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Include - Relevant, well sourced, etc. There's not much else that needs to be said about it, so... Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment All of these "well sourced" pieces just cite back to the original SPLC piece. Its not as if multiple sources are, independently, accusing CIS of being a hate group. How much weight is given to a single claim, by a single organization, that a group with which the SPLC disagrees with politically is a "hate group." I don't see that as something that belongs in the lead. For the sake of consensus, this should belong in the already extensive "Criticism" section. Darryl.jensen (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The lede should be a summary of the body of the article. Many reliable sources consider this designation significant enough to mention. Due weight is already demonstrated by reliable sources, and it is not up to editors to decide something isn't significant when sources say that it is. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Violates neutrality of article, prominence in lead is designed to bias reader. VeritasVox (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV. Just because it's been mentioned in a small % of sources that talk about CIS in no way means it belongs in the lead. Mohancy (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Include Due weight, well sourced, etc. Of course the sources go back to the SPLC, we're talking about including the SPLC's view in the lead. I'll note that all the "exclude" voters have less than 500 edits, all the include editors - have far, far more. And this isn't an RfC, right? Noting ModerateMike729's comment above, come on, where are these editors coming from? Doug Weller talk 19:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Per Mike, Darryl.jensen and Mohancy. The list includes a lot of opinion pieces that aren't usable so I don't know why they're included. Trim it down to RS and I'll reevaluate. D.Creish (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include Overwhelming support from sources on the notability of such designation. It can be explained neutrally in lead. Weight is due. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude As D.Creish noted, this is pretty opinion-heavy. When you just look at RS, it’s a much smaller number—and there are a far larger number of reliably sourced articles that don’t mention the designation at all. This contrasts with most other SPLC designated hate groups where the designation is a staple of RS content. As Alison Alice sort of suggested, I went through the last hundred or so articles on CIS via search aggregators and not a single one mentioned the designation, neither local nor national sources. Seems highly undue for the lead, regardless of whether you include some throwaway line that CIS and others dispute the designation. Besides, I’ve been on here long enough to remember that all the above arguments in favor of inclusion have already been addressed in the past, in the archive. Griffy013 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include It's clearly notable, it's clearly due. Arguments against boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Include The criticism qualifies as notable due to its widespread discussion in highly public and qualified sources. It furthermore acts as a key descriptor of the body paragraph on criticism; per the style guide the vague "critics have accused CIS of nativism" line without reference to the specifics of the critics or accusations is an insufficient summary of the section. --TheMiddleWest (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude Highly undue, current version doesn't accurately characterize SPLC charges, ignores lawsuit, and belongs in body only. --Bluewolverine123 (talk) 9:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Another brand new WP:SPA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a proper RFC

It appears this was formatted as though it were going to be a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but it never received the templates needed to make it official. Right now, there is no path to consensus, and no expectation that this will be resolved by an impartial outside editor. Any editor closing an RFC would be expected to be aware of WP:SPA irregularities, and would judge the discussion on quality, not quantity. My concern is that without this process, this has become de facto filibustering, because it's being treated as a vote, but polling is not a substitute for discussion.

So, is there a reason not to add the proper template:rfc to this section? This would potentially invite more uninvolved editors to comment, and would eventually lead to WP:RFCEND. Am I missing something? Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC Reboot: Should hate group designation be mentioned in the lead?

As noted by Grayfell, there was not a proper RfC for this. I am recreating Kaldari's attempt with the proper RfC template.

To reiterate, Kaldari's question was: "Should hate group designation be mentioned in the lead?". At issue is whether or not such a mention would be WP:DUE.

Above is discussion and links regarding this discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

• Include. Relevant, sourced, due weight.--Jorm (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - To reiterate my !vote above, I believe this should be included per WP:WEIGHT as demonstrated by the media sources listed above. Unless someone can demonstrate that this group is not discussed as a hate group by sources, we need to include it and note the source of the label. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. To reiterate my own vote, the overwhelming majority of RS (particularly the best secondary sources out there--NYT, WSJ, NBC, etc.) don't rely on the SPLC for CIS but rather describe it in the language in the lede now. Sticking with the current more NPOV language is appropriate. It's highly undue for the lede for three reasons: depth of detail, quantity of text, and prominence of placement. There was a long discussion and ultimately the SPLC designation was placed in the body, which I felt was appropriate. It's clearly not for the lede, and feels like a total hit job. Further, CIS is now suing the SPLC over the designation. Let's keep in mind we're dealing with a highly disputed and controversial designation and treat it as such, which we haven't up to this point. Also, per RS noticeboard, SPLC is considered "biased and opinionated" in its role as an advocacy group and when dealing with hate designations. It's only reliable on certain topics. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. Seems highly undue for the lead, regardless of whether you include some throwaway line that CIS and others dispute the designation.Griffy013 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. Per my earlier comment, it is highly undue, the current version doesn't accurately characterize SPLC charges, it ignores the lawsuit, and belongs in the body only. Also, in response to Volunteer Marek, I am a new user, let's WP:AGF please. Don't bite the newcomers. --Bluewolverine123 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. Undue. This question has been debated ad nauseum and reaches the same conclusion every time: there is no consensus for this change. Darryl.jensen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Southern Poverty Law Center, the SPLC is widely accepted by other reliable sources as having expertise in hate groups. Per Kaldari's original comment, this designation has been cited as significant by an overwhelming number of additional sources, including sources which ideologically disagree with this designation (such as the Daily Caller). Any overview of this topic which doesn't mention something as widely reported and significant as this would be incomplete, and the lede should, ideally, work as a stand-alone summary. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentThe SPLC is considered reliable on some topics, but "biased and opinionated" on others. To quote from the reliable sources noticeboard that you cited: "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on far-right politics. As an advocacy group, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed per WP:RSOPINION." ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, which is why this should be attributed. I don't think that was in question. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The SPLC just lost over a $3m defamation suit for falsely labeling someone racist and a hate group. There are another 60 lawsuits for defamation against SPLC already pending and another 200 in the works. SPLC is objectively not reliable and there's even a court judgment proving it. https://pjmedia.com/trending/update-on-the-60-separate-defamation-lawsuits-against-the-splc-under-consideration/ They're a hate group themselves, defaming anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their radical politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — 4.34.50.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • This has already been discussed elsewhere in tedious detail, but in the hopes it will prevent this from being rehashed again here:

This lawsuit is significant, but it's not directly related to this case, and should be properly explained at the SPLC article. Being sued doesn't make a source unreliable, because if it did, almost every large organization in existence would then become unreliable. The SPLC has issued retractions and corrections in the past, and this is a good thing, because this indicates that they take themselves seriously. I source which never admits it's wrong is not credible.

Also, PJ Media is not a reliable source for factual statements, if that was in question. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• That SPLC has repeatedly been accused of defamation and faced multiple lawsuits for it is already evidenced on the Wikipedia article itself. The lawsuit is relevant to the discussion in that it illustrates the bias of the source; it's demonstrably part of a pattern of the same source being sued for the same, specific reason, which directly relates to the reason why they would be cited here. 74.14.100.97 (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)— 74.14.100.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The mere existence of a defamation lawsuit is evidence and proof of nothing more than that someone has a lawyer capable of filing paperwork. The question is, how many such suits has the SPLC lost in court? As far as one can tell, the answer is zero actual trial losses. Maajid Nawaz never actually filed a court case - the SPLC acknowledged its error and apologized first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include per due weight. See list of sources in previous discussion. Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - as per due weight and the extensive discussion of this matter in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would further note that the sourced fact that the CIS is suing the SPLC over the listing arguably makes the fact *more* notable and lede-worthy; it's a very current event in the organization's history which may lead to a significant legal decision one way or the other, and has brought more notoriety and reliably-sourced discussion of the proffered reasons for the listing. If there is a legal ruling that the SPLC's listing was libelous, that would also be lede-worthy when and if it occurs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Use non-primary sources – put simply, remove the citation to SPLC's website. This designation can be included in the lead section, but it should be sourced to something other than SPLC itself. The two secondary sources cited (Daily Beast and NY Post) are an improvement over citing the original SPLC classification, but they are not particularly high-quality RS either. Adding a citation to a higher quality non-primary source that reports on SPLC's classification of CIS as a hate group would be very helpful. feminist (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include. A whole paragraph is undue, but a brief mention of the designation and CIS's lawsuit is perfectly merited given the number of reliable sources that have reported it. There is no requirement that all (or some overwhelming number) of sources mention it; that would be ridiculous and has never been the standard here. Also, the fact that the designation has been somewhat controversial isn't a reason to deemphasize it. The relevant guideline is quite clear that prominent controversies belong in the lead. R2 (bleep) 09:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I've been thus far strongly opposed to inclusion in the lede, I could be amenable to a brief mention of the designation and CIS' dispute of it as long as it's tight and not a whole paragraph. The various details of the designation's justification and of CIS' justifications for the lawsuit are due for the body, but undue for the lede. Would editors support tighter language, along the lines of "In 2016, The Southern Poverty Law Center designed CIS an anti-immigrant hate group. In 2019, CIS announced it was suing the SPLC over the designation and alleged that it was false"? Would love to work to a WP:MIDDLEGROUND as there are a lot of editors who've been making a sincere effort to improve this admittedly messy page. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment. This "reboot" of the original RfC is a complete farce, as is this page. No consensus on the first RfC? No matter! Invite your WikiFriends to join the bandwagon for the second go-around! The SPLC is an unabashedly controversial organization in 2019 - not unlike this group in that regard. The SPLC operates a 501(c)(4) political action fund. That in and of itself is not a bad thing. But to act like the SPLC is the final arbiter of a complex political matter is completely absurd. They are a political organization with a political agenda. I strongly oppose its very mention in this article whatsoever. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment For better or worse, per WP:RSP the SPLC is reliable (although it is considered "biased and opinionated" on this topic, as I've noted and as should be addressed). I get where you're coming from, and I've argued that this is undue for the lede... I continue to believe that. However, in the spirit of WP:COMPROMISE, I thought the tighter wording I provided above was tolerable for the lede, with the other details in the body. As such I disagree with your hardline stance here. Would appreciate thoughts from other editors too. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include Weighing the number of sources we have, how reliable they are, and how prominently and in depth those that do talk about it talk about the group's status as a hate group, I believe this is WP:DUE. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include per PeterTheFourth. I'll add that the exclude voters are all fairly inexperienced (not an attack, just a comment, we don't expect inexperienced users to understand all our policies and guidelines, not even experienced users understand them all) and the two IPs haven't edited anything else, with 74.14.100.97 adding this dishonest edit allegedly sourced from PJ Media although the bit about the court ruling isn't in the source, and as far as I know there hasn't been such a ruling. The Nawaz case didn't get that far. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - The extensive coverage in reliable sources is a strong indicator that this is a significant point about the organization that should be mentioned in the lead. - MrX 🖋 02:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - Relevant and not undue weight. SPLC should remain in, as primary sources can be used for the opinions of the primary source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - both the designation and lawsuit are relevant and there is sufficient coverage on the topic in sources. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 22:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude per ModerateMike729. Particlarly the articles from WaPo and RCP cast doubt on this label. Including their designation in the lead would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. It is however right to include it in the Criticism section. Mkwia (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume "RCP" refers to RealClearPolitics, which is republishing the opinion of syndicated columnist Debra Saunders. Opinions are not usable for plain facts, but these opinions help demonstrate that this is significant, otherwise they wouldn't be talking about it. No reliable source is casting doubt on the fact that the SPLC designated this org a hate group. Intentionally downplaying significant info by placing it in a WP:CSECTION is non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include, particularly the language citing the organization's publication of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, as well as its alleged ties to the American nativist movement, which is central to the topic and its coverage; substantial coverage, sufficient for a bare mention in the lead and later in the article. The fact that they dispute it isn't, itself, enough to remove it from the lead, and in fact the additional coverage of that only adds additional weight (and is something else that belongs in the lead, of course, given the coverage.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include: relevant to the subject at hand; WP:DUE is satisfied. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• Comment: I voted exclude but would support include if we use ModerateMike729's tighter wording above, as the current version is due based on the text's location but undue based on depth of detail. A short sentence simply stating that the SPLC classified CIS as a hate group and that CIS is suing is sufficient for the lead as the designation has been pretty widely covered. I also agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that CIS suing probably makes this more relevant, not less so I don't think Darryl.Jensen's argument really makes sense. Bluewolverine123 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude unless: exclude unless it’s much tighter, in which a brief mention at end of lead is probably due. My edit was NPOV. WP: RACIST, WP:UNDUE. 2601:140:8B80:18C0:E40D:B02F:1BDF:B57A (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC) — 2601:140:8B80:18C0:E40D:B02F:1BDF:B57A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Include and speedy close I actually triple-checked to see if I'd supported inclusion on yet this new version of the same RFC. There's been a WP:TEND trend to try and tie up use of SPLC as a source in constant RFCs. Whenever we might include the clearly notable opinion of this storied anti-racist organization somebody pops up with yet another slightly differently worded objection that MUST get formal consensus before we can proceed. I'm frankly frustrated by what increasingly looks like attempts to soften the encyclopedic perspective on racist organizations. Wikipedia must not be in the business of protecting white supremacy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't really speak for anyone else, but my issue in this RfC isn't whether the splc is a reliable source--it is. The question is over what aspects of their article about CIS are due or undue for the lede, and which are due or undue for the body. I want to be very clear before I continue my response--are you alleging that I'm a Nazi or white supremacist because I disagree with you on this RfC? That is wildly offensive and ridiculous--particularly given that I am a trans Jewish woman of color--, and I've spent much of my editing on this site adding content describing racists as such. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Inclusion or non-inclusion in the lede does not seem important to me, but in whatever part of the article it appears it should follow WP:SAID by replacing the verb "designated" with something less connotative of authority, perhaps "called." It's simply the opinion of a participant in a dispute, which Wikipedia should not participate in. The existence of the dispute seems to be one of the most notable things about this article topic, so it's reasonable to entertain its inclusion in the lede (whereas SPLC's opinion might not be so due in another topic.) Rhoark (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead rewrites

ModerateMike729 WP:BOLDly rewrote the disputed paragraph of the lead here. I object to most of the changes made here. First, the source goes into more detail, specifically naming white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, as well as its alleged ties to the American nativist movement. Second "Circulation ... in weekly newsletter" parses to publication in this context (and stripped of the second part it's misleading, since it makes it sound like they were just circulating it internally.) Note that the rationale ModerateMike729 stripped out is the one specifically described in the Daily Beast source later in the paragraph, indicating that it's what secondary sources have found significant about the designation. I also strenuously object to Bluewolverine123 edit warring in an effort to push through a plainly-controversial WP:BOLD rewrite that substantially changes the meaning of a disputed paragraph in the lead, after it's clear someone has objected, in the middle of an WP:RFC. WP:BRD, people! --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging all parties who edited today: @ModerateMike729, Aquillion, Beyond My Ken, Bluewolverine123, Darryl.jensen, Jorm, Simonm223, NorthBySouthBaranof, MrX, and Grayfell:. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Since it has come up: While attributing these views directly to the SPLC is relatively new, the mention of white nationalism / white supremacism in the lead dates back to at least 2017 (and ModerateMike729 is entirely aware of that, since much of her contributions to this page have focused on trying to remove that line.) It is longstanding and removing it, which was the primary focus of her most recent edits, was a WP:BOLD change that in no way reflected any sort of status quo - this article has not had a stable version that reflects ModerateMike729's preference for omitting that material from the lead for years. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• But "the mention of white nationalism / white supremacism" comes entirely from the SPLC's article, so whats the point being made here? Darryl.jensen (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just to note, I have requested at WP:RFPP that the page be locked down to stop the edit warring and promote discussion here instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• * Aquillion reverted me claiming that some form of "white supremacy"/"white nationalism" has been in the lead since 2017. That is objectively false. I have been editing this page for the better part of a year and it has not been in the lead until now. Here is how the page was in January. Here is how the page was in December. Here is November. Here is October. Here's September. I could keep going back but you get the point. I totally agree we should keep it at WP:STATUSQUO until the RfC is over. The status quo very clearly DOES mention ties to nativism, but does NOT mention ties to white supremacy or anti semitism. Yes, there were points 2+ years ago where it was in here, but for the vast majority of the past year and longer, it has not been in the lede. And the notion that I've spent long trying to remove it is silly, most of my edits on this page have been about disputes in the body over CIS' positions, its founding, and the length of the criticism section. Please don't falsely accuse me. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Rather than focus on what the lede did or did not say in the past, shouldn't our focus rather be on what it should say? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. We're just debating what should be in the lede while the RfC is ongoing. My proposal is quite simple: The RfC is about whether or not to ADD content, so until it's resolved, we should keep the lede's content in its prior, longstanding form. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• The material was removed from the lead by an IP in the edit immediately prior to your first edit on this page; since that was just prior to your account being registered, I presumed that to be you (if it wasn't, I apologize and can understand you not realizing you were edit-warring against longstanding text that had coincidentally been removed immediately prior to your arrival; but the rest remains true.) At no point was that aspect of the lead stable after that - mostly because because you have been revert-warring to keep it off. See here, here, here, here, here (after which the discussion shifted towards the SLPC-specifying version.) Note the misleading edit summaries in many of those edits, as well as, here where you incorrectly claimed (as you are now) that the version you were edit-warring for was the stable consensus version. At no point did you manage to make it stable, and at no point has your proposal to remove that part of the lead ever enjoyed consensus (indeed, going over the history it's clear your the only one who objected to it - I was able to find every removal prior to the shift to the SPLC version simply by reviewing your edits. And, yes, edit-warring to try and keep that sentence off the lead was indeed a significant part of your contributions to this page.) The only stable version of the lead is pre-August 2018, immediately prior to your arrival on the page. EDIT: Also, you linked to a version from the 25th, claiming it was the "longstanding form", but here is a version from the 20th. (I didn't go back extensively, since my edits above trace the evolution of that section and the debate over it - I don't think the lead has ever been fully stable since August 2018 - but it's absurd for you to claim a stable version when the other version was live mere days earlier.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) I think an important point in respect to that is the RfC just above this one. Although it has not been closed, it appears to me that the consensus is that the SPLC "hate group" designation should appear in the lede. If this is the case, then further explaining why it has received that designation is merely providing additional context to the reader, and is a legitimate addition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel like I'm trying really hard to WP:COMPROMISE here and would appreciate some degree of people working with me here. I myself shifted positions--and agreed that the SPLC designation is due in some form in the lede, whereas I previously argued it was due for the body but not the lede. But to simply say you are "merely providing additional context" is unfair. We're selectively picking contentious WP:RACIST labels from the splc. If we were to say that the SPLC designated CIS a hate group due to their anti-immigrant views and/or their links to nativism, in the spirit of reaching middleground I'd be amenable to that. But I'm getting frustrated by a lot of bad faith accusations here and cyclical arguments. Can we work together on this? I'm amenable to the following wording: The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as an anti-immigrant hate group in 2016, citing the organization's ties to nativism.[12] In 2019, CIS announced it was suing the SPLC over the designation.[13][14] It's tighter, it's due, it's neutral, it succinctly summarizes the SPLC's position. This page has been a mess but I'd be glad to finally drop it if we can agree to that wording, as I do think the designation is due for the lede. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. The sources emphasize "white supremacy" or "white nationalism", and although you've removed it from the lead repeatedly, you have not provided any actual reason to omit that aspect. A "compromise" that removes it is no compromise at all - again, look over my list of reverts by you showing your efforts to remove that longstanding part of the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I read it. Yeah, out of the hundreds of edits I've made on this page, several times I've removed either poorly sourced or highly contentious content that included the word "white." You're as guilty of trying to ram that content in as anything you've accused me of. Every attempt at good faith or compromise I make toward you is met with contempt and refusal to cooperate. It's rude, it's sexist, it's getting incredibly redundant. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
        • You have repeatedly removed the same sentence (one that was longstanding on the article before you arrived.) My point is merely that it's silly for you to suggest that the version without that sentence was "stable" when you, yourself, have consistently destabilized the article by trying to remove it over and over again; and I'm baffled that you could claim that the versions in the months you linked were stable, knowing you were repeatedly reverting to try and keep the contested text off the page that entire time. I understand that you object to those words (as, it is clear, you have since your first edits on this page, given how consistently you've tried to remove them), but you also have to recognize that at least up until now your efforts to remove them have failed. If you want to keep them off the page, you need to stop revert-warring, stop trying to claim your preferred version enjoys some sort of consensus or stability, and actually present a compelling argument for taking the wording you object to out. Currently I am not seeing it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
          • I won't revert war, I apologize for doing so in the past, and I ask that you don't either. No problem. My actual argument is quite clear: There are some secondary sources that repeat the SPLC's claim about CIS' designation, which leads me to believe it should be in the lede. It is far harder to find reliable secondary sources that repeat the SPLC's claim that CIS is publishing antisemities/white nationalists, which is a far more contentious claim. Given how incredibly contentious the "white nationalist"/"anti semite" labels are, I don't think they belong in the lede if they're not well backed up by secondary sources. Nativism, on the other hand, is much more reliably backed up by secondary sources, so I'm comfortable including it. That's it. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
            • I understand your objection now. I think the previous sources were sufficient, but I've found two more sources to back that specific line and added them to the article ([14], [15]). One of them even specifically uses the word published. Do you have any further objections? (If you don't think they're enough, or if you have problems with those sources, I can find others - eg [16].) --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Without looking at whose version this is, the current text upon time of writing this comment, "The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group in 2016, citing the organization's publication of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, as well as its alleged ties to the American nativist movement.[12] In 2019, CIS announced it was suing the SPLC over the designation, alleging that the label was false.[13][14]" seems to best-reflect the reliable source, and in addition encapsulates what reliable sources say - that it's an extremist anti-immigrant groups with ties to FAIR that has given platforms to nativists, white nationalists and anti-semites. I think this is WP:DUE, sourced from an WP:RS, avoids inflammatory language sufficiently for WP:NPOV and provides a clear encapsulation of what the article should describe. Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  Furiously concur with Simonm223.--Jorm (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)