Jump to content

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:5b0:22ff:3cf0::30 (talk) at 23:45, 5 January 2014 (→‎SPLC as a Hate Group?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Alleged hate groups

Whatever we think about it, the SPLC is an authority on hate groups, so we can't just say "alleged hate groups" without a reliable source to back it up. This means you, Arzel. MilesMoney (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The SPLC is a self-proclaimed authority on hate groups. "Alleged" may be weasely, but some comment is required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is similar to saying Webster's is a self-proclaimed authority on language, Moody's is a self-proclaimed authority on credit rating, CNN is a self-proclaimed authority on current events. All of them are authorities because the mainstream look to them as reliable sources. The SPLC is an authority on these groups. Whether or not you wish to call them hate groups is another matter. Certainly no one questions the factual information they present. TFD (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not actually the case. We have a variety of people questioning the information SPLC presents. The refs are in the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Name one. MilesMoney (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here are some of the refs from the article with those questioning the SPLC info."Annual report cites rise in hate groups, but some ask: What is hate? Christian Science Monitor. CNN"Heated Battle on Hate Group Listing"- The Hill Hate', Immigration, and the Southern Poverty Law Center" Harper's Magazine."Fearmongers"- Weekly Standard Capitalismojo (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The people sourced are not questioning the facts presented by the SPLC, merely their opinion that they are hate groups. For example no one questions that the FRC exists, that it opposes same sex marriage, or any other statement of fact SPLC has made about it. They question whether it should be called hate. TFD (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Some consider that SPLC (as an authority on hate groups) is presenting groups as "hate groups" as a fact, when it is clearly their considered opinion. Therefore SPLC is "alleging" groups are hate groups. FWIW. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFA. If the SPLC were not so one-sided in their approach they probably would not be so disregarded. The openly acknowledge that they only consider right-wing groups to be possible of hate. Arzel (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel, your opinion about their approach is irrelevant. The SPLC is deferred to by the media, the government, courts, and educational institutions as experts on hate groups on a daily basis. There is no need for Wikipedia to equivocate on such a trivial point, especially when the same group of editors has been trying this for the better part of a decade... Time to move along, maybe? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there really any such sources that accept SPLC as an authority in the same way as people accept Webster's, Moody's, and CNN? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the typical reference is something like "SPLC considers X a hate group". In other words, SPLC is recognized as an organization with opinions about hate groups, but that's all. Roger (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream media always mention the SPLC, which is why hate groups and their supporters complain about them. TFD (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but there is no need for WP to take sides in a difference of opinion. SPLC opinion is just SPLC opinion. Roger (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPLC's decision to call groups hate groups is of course its opinion, but one that receives attention in mainstream media and academic writing. Their reporting of these groups - what they believe, what they do, who their members are, where they are located - is not a matter of opinion, but are statements that can be verified (or disproved). So while it would be wrong for us to call these groups hate groups, it is not incorrect to say that the SPLC is an authority on them. TFD (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that my old pal Blaxthos has weighed in here. I would simplify the wording to something like "its monitoring of extreme political groups (or 'extremist groups')," rather than naming each category here. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, the SPLC is cited by numerous scholars who accept SPLC's research as fact. Take a peek at Google Scholar which reports 36 papers citing The Year in Hate, 52 papers citing Close to slavery: Guestworker programs in the United States, 29 papers citing False patriots: The threat of antigovernment extremists, and so on. The "self-proclaimed authority" is also lauded and laureled by scholars—in other words, a true authority. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And your point regarding the main issue here is what, Binksternet?? I happen to think the opening statement in the lead is too "busy," but if we are going to keep its current structure then "what it classifies as hate groups" is fine. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to Arthur Rubin rather than making a statement about the main issue. The original question posed by MilesMoney is one of whether "alleged" is appropriate. I assume we are all talking about this edit by some new account, the edit changing "alleged hate groups" to "groups it considers hate groups". I agree with MilesMoney that the "alleged" bit is not optimal. The "groups it considers hate groups" solution is somewhat better but the word "groups" should not be repeated. I think the best solution will dump "alleged" but will not have repetition. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could eliminate one of the "groups" by saying that the SPLC represents the "victims of hate "crimes" rather than "hate groups" assuming that it doesn't only represent hate crime victims when the perpetrators are members of one of its hate groups. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" is a bit weaselly. The SPLC, which I deem to be a liberal front group, is allowed the same rights to deem or classify me in a negative light. I cannot prove my assertions and neither can they. But alleged is contentious when not being used in some legal, "I can't be sued" sense. Let the reader decide. †TE†Talk 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We gotta say "hate group" because that's exactly what SPLC calls them and it's what they're known for. MilesMoney (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the lead, right? Instead of "... its monitoring what it classifies as hate groups" (which is clearly a weasel phrase, and awkward anyway), why not just describe it functionally as "... its classification of hate groups, as well as militias..."??? This is accurate, concise, and effectively eliminates the problem of POV - the SPLC's primary activity is classifying hate groups (the "monitoring" or intelligence gathering activity is secondary to the activity of classification and validating those classifications), it's a fact, and phrasing it this way says nothing about whether or not anyone supports or denies the validity of their clasification. (formerly DigitalHoodoo, retired editor) 2001:C08:1:164:21D:D9FF:FE35:E752 (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above suggested change is fine by me. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC Supporters Doing What They Do Best

As it is clear that SPLC supporters will constantly impose their POV by removing the following section from the article, I am posting it here. If the same supporters further vandalize it here, in an additional violation of [WP] rules, I will restore it. I realize that that if you make it your mission, you can send this down the memory hole, but note that this page is closely watched, and such additional vandalism and censorship will result in Wikipedia and yourselves becoming even bigger laughingstocks than you already are.

Race Hoax Allegations

On August 24, 2013, the SPLC allegedly staged a race hoax. An individual named Keegan Hawkes attended a demonstration by the Southern Nationalist group the League of the South, in Uvalda, Georgia. Hawkes reported at the SPLC website that he had heard “racial slurs” in the crowd.

"But barely whispered racial slurs were heard frequently by this reporter, and concealed firearms weren’t concealed very well."Georgia Police Chief Accepts Award from Extremists During Rally Against Latino Immigrants

Other people who said they had attended the demonstration adamantly contended that the only person uttering racial slurs was Hawkes.

The SPLC reportedly responded to the allegations by removing Hawkes’ name from the report, and replacing it with “Hatewatch Staff.”SPLC Escalates—Uses Agent Provocateur Against Southern Nationalists24.90.190.96 (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another complaint from a group that the SPLC calls a hate group - you need reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct his sources are weak. Blogs and a questionable dot com are not reliable. If he can come up with reliable sources I would support inclusion but not at the beginning of the article. That would show POV and push. If it does have legs there are going to be those who do not want it included for the same reason. I do however doubt it has legs. 172.56.11.174 (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you examine the contributions from 24.90.190.96 you'll see a lot of promotion of VDARE and edits that suggest he is closely involved with VDARE. The article itself needs work. Although it doesn't leave out criticism, it seems to be written from VDARE's pov. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some sort of rule against editing pages that you've got a secret stake in? MilesMoney (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI but it doesn't exactly prohibit and I'm only speculating anwya. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the policy link. Guess the most we can do is ask 'em to declare any conflicts. MilesMoney (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I misspelled the name. It is Keegan Hankes, not Hawkes.24.90.190.96 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to have made up the other people in the crowd, or found that on some forum. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC as a Hate Group?

Just wondering how widespread the notion that the SPLC is itself a hate group? They certainly seem to have a tendency to deem groups that conflict with their own ideological viewpoint as hate groups. In some cases this is definitely not universally accepted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.25.165 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look for reliable, third-party sources supporting your opinion. That will answer your question. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our article doesn't say or imply that the SPLC's listing of hate groups is "universally accepted." Criticisms of it are found in the "Controversy" subsection and (at least indirectly) the "Academic assessment" subsection of the article. As for the SPLC itself being considered a hate group, you would have to find that opinion expressed in a couple of reliable sources before expecting it to find a place in our article. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is just wondering how wide spread the notion that the SPLC is itself a hate group. The SPLC is a pro-communist organization with interstate stalking of individuals who disagree with SPLC. signed SEEXY

Copyediting lead

I've made a change to improve the lead, since the first paragraph mentioned the classification of hate groups twice (my emphasis in bold):

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization noted for its legal victories against white supremacist groups; its legal representation for victims of hate groups; its classification of hate groups, as well as militias and extremist organizations; and its educational programs that promote tolerance. The SPLC also classifies and lists hate groups, organizations that in its opinion denigrate or assault entire groups of people, typically for attributes that are beyond their control.

I think the "also" phrasing at the beginning of the second sentence was redundant/awkward, though of course the rest of that sentence provides important details about the classifications. My simple fix has removed "hate groups, as well as" from the first sentence. If anyone wants to revert and discuss why, please do so. Thanks. El duderino (abides) 10:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a very good edit to me. Alfietucker (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good edit. I think there is a colon (or semicolon?) needed in the last sentence of the first paragraph, after the words "hate groups". - MrX 13:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Why is the sub-section Controversy under "tracking of hate groups and extremists". It should have its own section and the section needs referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatach (talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=589364154"