Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Southern poverty law center

The Southern Poverty Law Center has gone to extremes in labeling certain groups as hate groups. They label many Christian Organizations as "hate" groups just because they define marriage as between a man and a woman. These groups do not advocate violence against gays in any way. Even Focus on the Family was labeled a "hate" group because of their Christian view of marriage. Surely the term "hate" group should have some definite meaning beyond disagreeing with someone's politics or stand on marriage. They do label some genuine "hate" groups as "hate" groups. But certainly the question of their judgment on this issue should be reflected in the article in Wikipedia so people will realize that they should not trust Southern Poverty Law Centers' labeling as conclusive. Don't take my word for it. Check out these websites about very mainstream Christian organizations: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/civil-rights-watchdogs-hate-map-includes-christian-groups. https://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2017/08/24/southern-poverty-law-center-labels-christian-groups-hate-groups-now-faces-lawsuit/ This article in particular points out the danger of SPLC's reckless labeling of a group as a "hate" group- as their labeling resulted in an extremist shooting someone and attempting a mass shooting at a Group headquarters that SPLC had labeled as a "hate" group. https://lidblog.com/splc-hate-group/. The fact that SPLC is seen by many as a "hate" group itself by labeling as "hate" groups those groups that disagree with them politically; this fact should be explored in the Wikipedia article. As the article stands now it sounds the SPLC can totally trusted to be correct in who they label as "hate" groups. Rogerpkeller (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Violence isn't the only definition of "hate." Would you deny that those groups you mentioned have opposed basic civil rights for LGBT Americans, such as the right to marry, the right to be free from discrimination in employment and public services, and even the right to be free from criminal prosecution? You're right that Focus on the Family hasn't called for violence against LGBT people, but they certainly have called them unworthy of basic civil and human rights and advocated that they be legal targets for discrimination.

A RedState blog is not a reliable source, nor is "The Lid." Our article already discusses the fact that some people disagree with the SPLC's positions. It also discusses the lawsuits, and the fact that the lawsuits have been dismissed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledge that the SPLC is a politically progressive organization

I think we should state at the beginning that "The (SPLC) is an American nonprofit progressive legal advocacy organization. There are both liberal and conservative reliable sources which indicate this. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/something-strange-is-going-on-at-this-civil-rights-institution-it-must-be-investigated/2019/04/05/a08f227c-5712-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/southern-poverty-law-center-apologizes-after-painting-journalists-as-fascists-in-retracted-article https://www.nas.org/blogs/event/peel_and_stick_splcs_reckless_labeling

This should not serve to discredit the SPLC. Wikipedia describes Media Matters for America as a progressive group, and it is still seen as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 00:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Politico source doesn't say that it's progressive, it says that "progressive" has been used by critics as an attempt to undermine its legitimacy. Since the source specifically doesn't support this label either way, it's not usable for this being a defining trait.

The Washington Post is an opinion article which mentions "young progressives" who work at the SPLC, near the middle of a lengthy article. Again the source isn't specifically saying this applies to the organization, and a passing mention buried in an opinion would be a weak source for several other reasons, even if it did.

The Fox News article doesn't say that SPLC is progressive, it just cites (misrepresents, really) the Politico article. It does, however, specifically accuse supposedly progressive journalists of being "framed" by the SPLC. If the assumption is that a progressive group is targeting other progressives, clearly we would need a lot more context for this to make any sense.

As for the last one, it might be worth discussing whether or not the opinion of historian Peter H. Wood should be included, but all sources are judged in context.

Since most of these sources are weak or totally unusable for this detail, this appears to be seeking sources to support a prior assumption. Instead, sources need to be evaluated and summarized, first, and conclusions based on sources in total.

Discussions about other articles belong on those article's talk pages. Wikipedia strongly favors sources over precedent, so attempting to use how some other group is described to prove a point would be false equivalence, at best. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, maybe "progessive" isn't the best-supported term. I found other reliable sources describing it as left-wing, perhaps we should say that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-watches-the-hate-watchers-11553726030 https://www.city-journal.org/html/demagogic-bully-15370.html https://www.foxnews.com/tech/conservatives-call-for-paypal-boycott-after-ceo-admits-splc-helps-ban-users https://capitalresearch.org/article/splc-and-the-lefts-growing-philanthropic-tyranny/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/southern-poverty-law-center/ Drbogatyr (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Out of these sources, I think these two have the most neutral point of view: https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-watches-the-hate-watchers-11553726030

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/conservatives-call-for-paypal-boycott-after-ceo-admits-splc-helps-ban-users Drbogatyr (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, it appears you are googling for sources which support a prior assumption. This is a poor approach, because among other problems, it risks cherry-picking.

Furthermore, "left-wing" and "progressive" are not the same thing. (Many self-described leftists despise progressives and liberals, and these terms aren't particularly good indicators of whether or not someone supports the SPLC). Some news outlets might casually use these terms interchangeably, but this is almost always to contrast them to some ideological opponent. We're not a news outlet rushing to meet a deadline, and we're not specifically trying to contrast this group to some other group, we're attempting to neutrally summarize a group with several decades of complicated history. We should be more thoughtful, and more restrained.

Several of these links above are not reliable, or are very weak for this point for various reasons. Of the "most neutral" last two, the Washington post does not say that SPLC is "left-wing". Instead, it says that tWilliam G. Boykin from the Family Research Council has accused the SPLC of having a "left-wing agenda". The article then explains that the FRC invokes the SPLC as a boogie-man for funding purposes. In other words, it is in the FRC's financial interest to portray the SPLC as ideologically driven, and this context is the only use of the phrase "left-wing". Hopefully it is obvious, but we cannot lie and say that a source supports something it does not. If you have not actually read these sources, you should not be proposing them for this point.

I do not have a subscription to the WSJ, but this is an opinion from their editorial board. If, in context, this is similar to the others, and being an opinion piece, this also seems totally underwhelming. If you have read it, perhaps you can summarize the section which describes them as "far-left". If you have not read it, then you're wasting time by proposing it as a source. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wrong question. The SPLC was established as an organization working against hate and bigotry, not as a progressive political force. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It may have been established that way, but it has evolved over time.Drbogatyr (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

A lot of conservative sources conflate the terms liberal, progressive, left-wing and far left and to a degree they overlap. But the SPLC is non-partisan and used by reliable news reporting across the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Personally I do not see either term as an insult I am really not sure what it the aim of using them (and yes I would say they are left wing, as in they oppose many, many right wing values). But we go with what RS say, and I am not sure (if the above is a sample) this is really that well supported.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is important to state that they are either liberal, progressive, or left wing, because their definitions of "hate speech" are informed by cultural left-wing values. They consider criticism of Islam to be hate speech, even when it comes from ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They consider all three major American immigration restriction lobbies (CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA) to be "hate groups" because they disagree with their founder for using racialist talking points, even though he no longer is involved with them, and these lobbies have never advocated profiling immigrants by race. They also believe that quoting the Bible on gay marriage is hate. Again, these are all criticisms that stem from left-of-center beliefs about Islam, immigration, gay marriage. However, it seems to be very difficult to find media sources that accurately discuss this, so I think we should look to some reliable political science journals. Drbogatyr (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The center and even some conservatives opposed many right wing values. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be interested in any quotes you have found on gay marriage in the Bible because as far as I know it only became an issue in the last twenty years. As I explain below, there is consensus about what constitutes hate and the SPLC is widely accepted as an expert source in identifying them. NumbersUSA btw is not listed as a hate group. You will find that you are more persuasive if you stick to facts rather than making them up. TFD (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC has accused NumbersUSA of "intolerance" https://www.splcenter.org/20090131/nativist-lobby-three-faces-intolerance. The Bible forbids gay marriage. You are correct, it only became an issue in the last twenty years, because progressive activists made it so. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Gay-Marriage/ No, there is very little "consensus" about what constitutes hate speech, Americans are very divided on this issue. https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america Drbogatyr (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Political scientists' classifications of the SPLC

It is important to state in the intro that the SPLC is a left-of-center group, as many of its hate speech/hate group classifications are based on left wing cultural values. This should not serve to discredit the SPLC or remove its classification as a Reliable Source on wikipedia; the Reliable/Perennial sources list admits that it is a biased and opinionated source, but still considers it Generally Reliable. I personally agree with many of their hate group classifications, for example the National Socialist Movement, the KKK, Nation of Islam, or Christian Identity.

It has been difficult to find a meta-discussion of the SPLC in reliable media sources, so I would suggest looking through various political science journals, and see how they describe the SPLC and its history. Drbogatyr (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC is not described as a left-of-center group in reliable sources, and in fact their hate group classification is based on universally accepted cultural values, at least in developed countries. All of those countries have hate speech laws which criminalize the type of publications and speech that lead the SPLC to designate organizations as hate groups and the U.S. has hate crime laws which provide additional penalties for crimes motivated by the types of hate that lead the SPLC to designate organizations as hate groups. TFD (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Saying that SPLC classifications are based on "universally accepted cultural values" is a pretty bold claim, you got a citation to back that up? Also, what countries have hate speech laws? I know that the US has the First Amendment, which prevents those sorts of laws. I think you will find that you are more persuasive if you stick to facts rather than making them up.Drbogatyr (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

A good place to start if you want to know about hate speech is Wikipedia which has an article called Hate speech that presents the hate speech laws of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, the EU, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. You are right that the United States constitution has been interpreted as preventing these sorts of laws, which is why mainstream sources rely on the SPLC rather than the courts to identify hate groups. The groups listed by the SPLC as hate groups would be prosecuted in any other country that had hate speech laws. TFD (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Drbogatyr, you are jumping to a conclusion and then working backward to find support for your conclusion. Wikipedia works the other way: WP:SECONDARY sources are perused by we the editors, and these sources are summarized for the reader. The literature does not support your conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

We only need one thread about their leftyness.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

They are beneath public discussion,

Why was this diff done? Surely it is pertinant, sourced, has enough weight to include. Was it reverted solely because it was labelled "minor" by a newbie who probably isn't familiar with the implications? Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 20:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth including if there's some larger discussion of the Stephen Miller story, but just mentioning Grisham's opinion without context gives the misleading impression that she's just offering some sort of a detached analysis rather than trying to deflect questions about a White House staffer. On its own, the opinion isn't notable, and it also probably doesn't belong in the section on Controversies regarding hate group designations Nblund ^talk 20:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I'd prefer more than one source, per WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 23:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Unionization Controversy

The SPLC has recently discouraged its employees' attempts at unionization.

https://eu.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/11/12/southern-poverty-law-center-wont-voluntarily-recognize-employee-union/2580284001/

This seems like a fairly significant controversy that should be added to the Wikipedia page, given their activism around civil rights and broad-based egalitarian advocacy.

From the article I linked: "Southern Poverty Law Center management said Tuesday they would not voluntarily recognize a union organized by employees at the civil rights nonprofit and have hired a Virginia law firm whose website boasts about victories over labor organization attempts." 2A00:1028:8386:CA6:EC2D:6BE8:EF3E:EBBC (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure once source makes it significant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a story which is developing and quite new. More sources:

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/southern-poverty-law-center-workers-say-they-want-a-union/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmj9xe/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-unionizing-after-a-year-of-scandals

Expounding further on the scandals section seems like it could be worthwhile too.2A00:1028:8386:CA6:7913:24FB:745:CECF (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)