Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

The SPLC has a left wing bias; informs allegedly Anti-government patriot groups

The SPLC built its reputation on racial equality and that is the only topic they have criticized both left and right on. Facts demonstrate systematic bias in the political activities and 'reporting' published by the SPLC. -the SPLC characterizes the Patriot Movement as anti-government but the Patriot Movement website does not use that word anywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Movement -The Patriot movement is more properly Anti-administration or anti-policy. Self-described anti-government movements include anarchists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States However the SPLC does not track any of the violent leftist groups listed by the government http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf -the SPLC claims it is against groups "characterized by anti-government doctrines, conspiracy theories or opposition to the New World Order" in general. However it has never criticized left wing anarchist groups that protest precisely those things, examples: Leftist anarchists protests of the WTO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity -The SPLC does not care about left wing secessionist movements these include Vermont secessionists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vermont_Republic the 'think tank' of leftist secessionists the 'Middlebury Institute' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlebury_Institute. Is this not something that should be pointed out? Mrdthree (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is more appropriate for a talk forum someplace. Debating SPLC's political stance through your own research is completely inappropriate here. We don't "point out" things in this way, we follow WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, the SPLC ant-govenment extremist section should be put as allegedly anti-government extremists. For the reasons above. Mrdthree (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:ALLEGED. This article is reporting on what the SPLC is, does, and says. The section clearly states that the SPLC calls these groups hate groups and anti-government, and we have verified that with sources. Whether or not they are hate groups or anti-government is part of WP:TRUTH. We have a controversy section where we address sources that disagree with the labels they use. Whether or not the SPLC includes left-wing groups is a separate issue and a strawman argument. We could try to create a "criticism" section addressing things like their labels and overlooking left-wing groups, but it would have to be well sourced with reliable sources and avoid WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

the section title I dont have a problem with. However the body of the section needs to point out that there is no support for their oxymoronic statement that Patriot groups are anti-government. Anti-government groups are anarchists.Mrdthree (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, Badmintonhist changed the section that bugged me to a statement of fact (by prefacing with "the SPLC describes these groups as ..."). It may be a separate issue that the SPLC doesnt track left anarchist groups (anti-gov, conspiracy, anti-NWO) and it could be a criticism but it is probably original research unless its mentioned in that Yancey article. Mrdthree (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you name any anarchist groups that advocate racial discrimination? Certainly there are lots of anti-social groups the SPLC does not monitor - the Mafia for example. But so what? TFD (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't resist trivia questions; always been a weakness: National-Anarchism. And look!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I don't think they are anarchists but maybe that is the "no true Scotsman" argument. The SPLC also lists the New Black Panthers. Also, since editors who hate the SPLC are always arguing that nazis are really left-wing and that the terms left and right are meaningless terms only used by leftists, how can they argue that the SPLC only investigates right-wing groups? TFD (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

They have tried to be fair on racial supremacy. However they also advocate on issues that are not racial. I have a bit of a beef with their campaign against the Patriot Movement. I suppose its ok to track the right wing extremists (media matters does) but it is is a disservice to declare that people who believe in the US government are anti-government (e.g. Alex Jones). It may be a definition that flies with their supporters, but its not a definition that flies on wikipedia (anti-government). Mrdthree (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

They do not call patriot groups hate groups but they track them because there is an overlap between them and hate groups. While you may dislike the term "anti-government", that seems like the best description. Joe Vogler said, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." I suppose one could argue that he only hated the U.S. government, so "anti-federal government" might be more apt. TFD (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well if anti-government doesn't mean anti-policy or limited government it's fair and I'll hyperlink it. But I don't think they mean anti-government in the sense of an anti state or anarchist ideology. I think they mean seditious and anti-government should hyperlink to sedition. Mrdthree (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-state anarchist ideology can be seditious. — goethean 12:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree though I would say Anti-state anarchist ideology is necessarily seditious when there is a government. My point is I dont think the vast majority of the militias that SPLC monitors are Anti-state anarchist. SPLC calls them anti-government in the sense that they are seditious.Mrdthree (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, our article doesn't claim that the SPLC's hate group designations are universally approved; on the contrary, it mentions criticisms. If you can find reliably sourced criticism specifically related to its listing and/or descriptions of "patriot" groups, then feel free to use it. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Antigovernment is a vague term. Unfortunately in wikipedia it links to left-wing anarchism, which ironically is the topic the SPLC wont touch with a stick. Mrdthree (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It should not link to that or any other article. "Anti-government" groups oppose the U.S. government, which they see as having exceeded its authority under the U.S. constitution. TFD (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-government links to Anti-statism and has for about 5 years. Antigovernment was created May 2010 and links to the same article. That article does say "Anti-statists differ greatly according to the beliefs they hold in addition to anti-statism. Thus the categories of anti-statist thought are sometimes classified, at one extreme as collectivist towards the other extreme individualist." but could probably use some clarification and examples. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That is something you need to discuss over on that article. The fact that on Wikipedia a term links to anti-statist is not evidence that is how the SPLC uses it. TFD (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Typical online sources give a definition that is much less extreme than either anarchy or sedition (e.g. Against a government or the administration in office. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/antigovernment). Which is a very broad concept that includes political opposition within the system to sedition/rebellion. I may put a disambiguate link on the anti-government page that tells user to choose Anti-statism,Opposition (politics),Political dissent, or Sedition and then hyperlink references here to that page. Mrdthree (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Made link to anti-government in body of anti-govenment patriot groups section.Mrdthree (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

On the first Amendment

The first amendment protects your right to say or print anything. It doesn't protect you from backlash and most certainly doesn't protect people like SPLC from using their first amendment rights to criticize you which is what they are doing.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this in response to something from the article? I'm a bit confused. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a response to attempted edits to the article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay! Was confused. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hyperlinking to Antigovernment is not overlinking

Antigovernment is not an everyday word; it is something like number 42,200 in the list of common words and the average person is said to know 20,000 words (http://expsy.ugent.be/subtlexus/ ). It is a word used in a contentious topic and I did not understand its meaning so I researched it. It does appear its proper spelling is 'antigovernment' not 'anti-government'. The likely meaning of the word varies by country (in UK anti-government is preferred over anti-administration). A link will increase the understanding of other readers. Other words that have links are more common and less relevant. Including: firebomb, pistol-whipping, vigilante, militia, documentary film, gender,diversity,board of directors, endowment, etc. Last the webpage for Patriot Movement does not describe the groups as anti-government, so the term makes its first appearance here. Mrdthree (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you had to ask what "antigovernment" means doesn't mean most readers don't understand the word. You're engaging in original research by steering readers to any analysis of the word that isn't the SPLC's. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The disambiguation page includes a link to wiktionary and 4 topical sites. If you are claiming that the SPLC uses it in an unconventional manner please help explain the usage of antigovernment by providing additional links on the disambiguation page. Mrdthree (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

How is gender or diversity more priviledged or unconventional than antigovernment? Certainly they are not more uncommon. Nor are they being used in an unconventional way. They are all words critical to the mission of the SPLC. Mrdthree (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"Anti" means against and can be added to almost anything. So literally these groups are against the government. Consider what Joe Vogler said, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." Sounds anti government to me. TFD (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree but the question is what about the exceptional cases? what is the rule is and what the exception? Plus whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant for hyperlinking antigovernment. Why gender? why diversity? why firebomb? why vigilante? Mrdthree (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: By even the greatest stretch of the imagination, linking is not OR. Nor was this edit overlinking. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it should not be linked. See WP:OVERLINK: Do not link "everyday words understood by most readers in context." The words "anti" and "government" are understood by most readers and they can figure out the context. Also see WP:LINKSTYLE: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked." And we are not supposed to link to disambiguation pages. We cannot assume that the SPLC has in mind any of our articles when we link. In other cases, such as when they refer to specific groups, it is clear what they mean. TFD (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis on WP:LINKSTYLE so I did not link the reference to anti-government that is in quotations. That is a statement made by the SPLC. However the subsequent sentence is a wikipedia editors' summary of that statement. That is the sentence that contains the clarifying links to the Patriot Movement and antigovernment. Your point about WP:D requires discussion. Prior to the changes I made, antigovernment redirected to Anti-statism however we all agree that this isnt what SPLC means by anti-government. Hence what wikipedia judged to be the usual meaning was 'wrong' in this case. I would be interested in some thoughts from a senior editor (outside this discussion) Mrdthree (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the style of disambiguation pages and they are for listing 'articles associated with the same title.' as opposed to same concept. So I am not even sure I made a disambiguation page. I will label it a disambiguoation page and see if editors agree that it is a disambiguation page and not a short article so I can resolve that first. Mrdthree (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I started a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_2

Discussion concluded: antigovernment thought to be proper disambig page. So WP:D applies at editors discretionMrdthree (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Nation is a questionable source.

Both Alexander Cockburn and JoAnn Wypijewski of The Nation have a subtle but important criticism about the distraction of an exaggerated threat (attributed to the SPLC's alarms about hate) and the real needs of poverty and the underclass. Why would someone object to my recent insertion? What is undue about this? How is the listing of two critics a synthesis when they are making the same point? Has The Nation become a questionable source of such an opinion? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Cockburn opinion is just a snide comment about how SPLC should be focusing on some other wrongs. It is not a specific criticism about some aspect of the hate groups and the danger they pose. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I admit Cockburn’s rhetoric is heated and perhaps over the top. For example, he calls Morris Dees the “arch-salesman of hate-mongering” claiming there’s a “resurgence out there in the hinterland with massed legions of haters” to the point that “hate is on the rise and America ready to burst apart at the seams.” The SPLC paints a “lurid depictions of hate-sodden America.” ... Cockburn argues that public schools are a greater menace to blacks given for the failure to educated inner city minorities, more likely to be raped by big banks with predatory lending, prohibited from organizing a union, disproportionately incarcerated, etc. He is complaining that the SPLC is evading structural racism while exaggerating individual malcontents. [1] Perhaps you’re looking at the other reference which does have basically a drive-by swipe. Cockburn fleshes out his criticism in the 2009 article. Take a look at that article, Bink, he has a subtle but potent criticism under the heated rhetoric. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

De mortuis nihil nisi bonum and so forth, but your last sentence pretty much sums up Cockburn's entire career. And I say that as a devoted fan of his work.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to have conflated two relatively non-noteworthy opinions into one unified criticism of the SPLC. The Cockburn piece is a polemic, not a reasoned analysis worthy of citation in an encyclopedia article. The Wypijewski article You Can't Get There from Here simply does not discuss "...fear-mongering by exaggerating the threat of the hate-groups while ignoring the real social problems that afflict the poor." as your edit asserts. Instead, it criticizes the SPLC for "Mostly making money." - MrX 16:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that worries about synthesis in the sentence Jason from nyc proposes can be ameliorated by adding the word "Both" at the beginning of the sentence, thus: "Both Alexander Cockburn and JoAnn Wypijewski have accused the SPLC of fear-mongering..." I don't know about Wypijewski, but I can't imagine that including a mention of Cockburn's criticisms could possibly be undue weight. He spent decades criticizing the SPLC both in his biweekly column in the Nation and in Counterpunch. I read every damn issue through the 1980s and it seems that if he wasn't dissing Christopher Hitchens he was dissing the SPLC. He's an important critic of Dees's project. Perhaps this particular item isn't the right one to include, but I support the addition of at least a sentence on Cockburn's views. I wonder if those who oppose it could forget about this one Cockburn source and consider discussing the general idea of putting something in from him, and then, if that seems reasonable, we could decide what it might be. Meanwhile I will look for sources independent of Cockburn that discuss his opposition to Dees's work.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: I think this will be the ticket for establishing due weight. It's only in snippet view on gbooks. I will have access to a copy soon and will report back. If anyone has a copy on hand perhaps they could investigate? It might also be worth including some material on Cockburn's disagreement with SPLC on the meaning of the militia movement in the 1990s.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is the relevant issue. One can always find isolated incidents of criticism of anything, even in reliable sources. Before including them however, we need to establish their significance. Do reliable sources regularly mention Cockburn's opinion on the SPLC? Would we regularly add Cockburn's comments to articles about every topic which he chose to discuss? The answer is no. Laird Wilcox's brief criticism of the SPLC does not establish weight either.

There is a misconception among some editors that criticism must be added to articles to balance articles. But it should only be added if it is significant.

TFD (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I do understand the issue, and I think that a due weight case can be made for Cockburn's criticisms of the SPLC, but I certainly won't attempt to add material about it until I have the sources at hand. Cockburn was notorious in the 80s and 90s for being one of the few commentators to criticize the SPLC from the left and it was written about in secondary sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to find those secondary sources and we can then use them. However, the sources must be about the SPLC, rather than Cockburn. We could for example find secondary sources explaining how Andrew Breivik saw the world. That would not establish the weight of his opinion for every topic he chose to write about. TFD (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I understand how these things work. Cockburn's criticisms of the SPLC are discussed in sources about the SPLC. By the way, it made me smile when you asked " Would we regularly add Cockburn's comments to articles about every topic which he chose to discuss?" You're right that the answer is no. Also, the only three things I recall him not criticising are (a) the country blues, (b) pickup trucks, and (c) magic mushrooms. We'd have an awful lot of work to do if the answer were yes.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple answer: Notable people (Cockburn decidedly qualifies) with opinions can have their opinions, properly cited and ascribed as opinion, used. The Nation is a known reliable source for such opinion columns. That said, Wikipedia is better off using quotes from such columns rather than trying to summarize material which may not be in such columns directly, and disparate opinions from other persons should be in separate sentences. . Collect (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Breivik is a notable person too, in fact more notable than Cockburn. That does not mean that his opinions are noteworthy for every subject he chose to address, unless secondary sources say they are. TFD (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Breivik is not a noted journalist and commentator, AFAICT. Apples and Oranges time. Alexander Cockburn is actually noted as one. And his views are routinely found notable in such publications as The New York Times. We can not give it huge weight, but as a noted journalist, his opinion has far greater weight than that of Breivik for sure, and absolutely citable as his opinion. Collect (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)True dat, but secondary sources discussing Cockburn's criticisms are useful to establish the due weight of the criticisms. As I said, Cockburn hated pretty much everything, so it's essential to have objective criteria to single out this or that thing that he hated. (as I see TFD said at the same time I did...)— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: I think TFD must have been referring to Gunnar Breivik the sports sociologist, or Marit Breivik the team handball coach, or else Terje Breivik the Norwegian politician. Surely he wasn't referring to Anders Behring Breivik the mass murderer. Why that would be insulting! Badmintonhist (talk)

Could you, Collect and alf laylah wa laylah point to other examples where you have argued for the inclusion of Cockburn's opinions in other articles? If he is that important then one would expect his views to be well reflected across the range of topics on which he wrote. TFD (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I routinely state that opinions may be cited as opinions, but not as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice a few hundred times now. There are WP:BLP exceptions about allegations and contentious claims, but that policy does not apply to the general article at hand. In point of fact, I have spoken for the inclusion of views from just about any source one can name -- is there a reason for your apparent implication that I favour a left-wing author? Collect (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't even argued for the inclusion of his opinions in this article, actually. I've merely indicated my intent to argue for the inclusion of his opinions. As far as I can tell his opinions on the SPLC and on 1990s militias are important enough to be regularly discussed in sources independent of him, but that's it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of prominent commentators who have offered strong opinions, pro or con, about the SPLC is somewhat limited. We take them as they are available. For other topics, say the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Cockburn's opinions would have to compete with hundreds or even thousands of other notable ones. By the way, TFD, have you argued to exclude Cockburn's opinions from other Wikipedia articles (except, perhaps, Morris Dees' biography)? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear why there would be an objection to Cockburn. The SPLC is an advocacy/activist organization in the public sphere. Clearly public intellectuals discussing the issues raised by SPLC actions are appropriate for the article. We have many newspaper articles and individuals writing in "serious" magazines already in our citations. One such source is Silverstein. Like Cockburn, he has worked for The Nation and Counterpunch.

I can see an argument that with Silverstein's critique we already have a source for a criticism similar to Cockburn's. In particular, they both argue that (1) Dees exaggerates and (2) he squanders the wealth he raises when it could be used more effectively on fighting for "structural" reforms. As the article now stands it mentions in passing "homelessness" as an issue worthing of attention according to Silverstein. I can't read Silverstein's Harper's article because it is protected by a subscription. Cockburn's article in Counterpunch gives more depth to the idea of the SPLC needs to use some of its bloated war chest to address real current-day pressing concerns: public schools are a greater menace to blacks given for the failure to educated inner city minorities, more likely to be raped by big banks with predatory lending, prohibited from organizing a union, disproportionately incarcerated, etc. Perhaps that could be emphasized somewhere in the article and not merely the limited example of "homelessness." Jason from nyc (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing useful in conjecture about what the SPLC should be doing rather than critical observations about what it is doing. The SPLC alone determines its mission, not outside critics. They are welcome to criticize how well the mission is being accomplished. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist makes an excellent argument for excluding Cockburn: "The number of prominent commentators who have offered strong opinions, pro or con, about the SPLC is somewhat limited." Weight therefore does not justify their inclusion. And no I have not argued against including Cockburn's views in other articles, because I have not come across anyone who wanted to include them. However, I have never AFAIC added an opinion to an article unless its weight has been established in secondary sources. That is I would not add an opinion unless secondary sources had mentioned and described it and explain the degree of acceptance it had. TFD (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, TFD, I figured that you might use that line of argument but it doesn't fly. While the number of fairly prominent commentators who have expressed strong opinions, pro or con, about the SPLC isn't anywhere near as extensive as the list who have expressed strong opinion about, say, US Presidential administrations, it is still significant enough to include samples. Editors are free, of course, to find some notable commentators who have given the SPLC glowing reviews and include them in the article. PS: Cockburn is certainly mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, TFD,: [2]; you might want to check them out.

As for Binksternet's point it's, well, pretty pointless. Of course criticism of an organization's actual activities is relevant. If, say, a prominent theologian makes a scathing criticism of The Roman Catholic Church's time, effort, and money spent trying to make abortion illegal, or working against same sex marriage, as opposed to protecting children from pedophile priests; then it would be silly to say "there's nothing useful about conjecturing what the RC Church's mission "should be" because only it determines its mission. Good grief! Badmintonhist (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It does not see when no significant views have been published to add insignificant ones, especially when no reliable secondary sources have reported them, although I notice that Cockburn's views have been reported extensively in the echo chamber, which is probably the only place their readers would have encountered him. TFD (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Since when are views by editors and regular contributors published in quite prominent left-leaning journals such as The Nation and Harper's about other left-leaning entities considered "insignificant."? As I said before, we are also free to find "significant views" quite favorable toward the Southern Poverty law Center. I would think that you would be quite expert at that. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how this proposed content benefits our readers in understanding the SPLC, especially since Cockburn's criticism of SPLC's finances is already noted in the article?- MrX 20:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because the topic is completely different and thus ought to be addressed? In fact, this criticism is more directly aimed at the core value of SPLC than their interesting finances. Collect (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but your argument is that it's different so we should include it? The different topic would be that the SPLC ignores "the real social problems that afflict the poor"? Please help me understand the relevance to the SPLC's stated purpose(s).- MrX 20:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's pretty clear that ol' Cockburn despised the whole organization, so in what place or places do we put his criticism? I'd say a brief mention, probably combined in the same sentence with another critic or two, in both the "Hate groups" and "Finances" section is about right. I wouldn't include any of his specific, colorful rhetoric about Dees and Co., however great the temptation. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, even opinions expressed in the New York Times are not significant unless they are noted in reliable secondary sources. Why do you think that left-wing publications automatically elevate the value of an opinion? This is Wikopedia not Leftopedia, and the last I looked The Nation had a weekly circulation under 200,000 compared with 20,000,000 people who watch Glenn Beck and company on Fox News Channel every night. If you think that Wikipedia should give more emphasis to views expressed in left-wing publications, then argue your view on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Really? Would you cite the specific Wikipedia policy which would prevent us from using New York Times editorials in our article about the SPLC unless the editorial itself was discussed in reliable secondary sources? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." TFD (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good job, TFD, but a rather ambiguously phrased rule or guideline. For example does "each viewpoint" mean a generally shared viewpoint (sources highly critical of the SPLC's hate group list) or the specific viewpoint of a single author or team of authors (Cockburn)? In any case Cockburn's take on the SPLC, presented in The Nation and Counterpunch, has received notice in The Weekly Standard and Harper's and, of course, in all sorts of political websites and blogs. Once again, you are free to recommend reliably sourced glowing reviews of the SPLC's activities. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Well, I got this book, and it has dozens of pages of discussion of various critics of the SPLC vis-a-vis fundraising in relation to the militia movement. It seems quite comprehensive. Out of those dozens of pages, Cockburn is quoted once, and not even about the SPLC in particular, but about ostensibly left-leaning organizations supporting anti-militia laws when they'd, according to him, oppose the same laws if they weren't targeting the right. From the gbooks snippets this looked like the best hope for establishing some weight for Cockburn's criticisms, but it fails to do so. So I think I support leaving out Cockburn for now, as much as I love the guy's work. This book would be an excellent source for anyone who wants to add some critical material on the SPLC because we currently have zero coverage on issues that the book discusses at great length and quite comprehensively. I personally am not really up for it, but I thought I'd note it here in case anyone else is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Silverstein's criticism in history section

Is there some reason I'm missing why the following material is in the history section? It seems as if it ought to be somewhere else:

The SPLC has been criticized for using hyperbole and overstating the prevalence of hate groups to raise large amounts of money. In a 2000 ''[[Harper's Magazine]]'' article, Ken Silverstein said that Dees has kept the SPLC focused on fighting anti-minority groups like the KKK, whose membership has declined to just 2,000, instead of on issues like homelessness, mostly because the former issue makes for more lucrative fundraising. The article also claimed that the SPLC "spends twice as much on fund-raising--$5.76 million last year--as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses."<ref name="harpers">[http://www.harpers.org/archive/2000/11/0068709 The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance], Ken Silverstein, ''Harper's Magazine'', November 2000</ref> ''Harper's'' also pointed out that more than 95% of hate crimes are committed by [[Lone wolf (terrorism)|lone wolves]] without any connection to militia groups the SPLC speaks of.<ref name="harpers"/>

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It should be somewhere in the Tracking of hate groups and extremists > Controversy section.- MrX 21:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

SPLC financial information as a reference

This material is cited twice, both times to support the statement that the SPLC doesn't take money from awards it wins in court. This statement is true, and is supported by independent sources, and also does not appear in the current version of the SPLC financial info linked to. Are there objections to removing it as a source since (a) it doesn't support what it's meant to support and (b) what it's meant to support is adequately supported by other sources already cited:

<ref name="SPLCFI">{{cite web | url = http://www.splcenter.org/donate/financialinfo/financial.jsp | title = Financial Information {{!}} Southern Poverty Law Center | author = | authorlink= | accessdate = 2012-09-12 | date = | publisher = Southern Poverty Law Center }}</ref>

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, since no one said anything I took it out, but, of course, put it back in if you wish, by all means.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Montgomery YMCA case use of SPLC summary as a source

Here's what I removed:

<ref name="SPLC-YMCA">{{Cite news| url=http://www.splcenter.org/legal/docket/files.jsp?cdrID=36 | title=Smith v. Young Men's Christian Association | publisher=Southern Poverty Law Center |date= June 11, 1969 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2007-09-18}}</ref>

I just want to open a section in case there are objections. Here's my reasoning: this case is sufficiently covered in independent sources that there's no need to take any information from the primary source. I will be adding more of these and expanding the section a little quite soon. I also want to note in advance that I'm not removing it as a source because of doubts about its reliability or any such thing; it's just so brief and doesn't really say much that isn't available elsewhere.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct to remove any primary source. I would also be concerned if that source or similar sources make allegations or claims against any living persons as also being problematic. Collect (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

????— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

We must make sure no actual living persons are treated other than in accord with WP:BLP. Some individuals in court cases even from years ago are still alive, and we must be sure no contentious claims get made without strong specific sourcing. I think that was clear :). Collect (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's clear enough as an abstract principle, it was just confusing in this context, where it doesn't actually apply. But if you were just stating a context-free principle, then naturally I concur!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue of (and there used to be a lot more of it in the article then) self-sourcing came up several years ago when whole sections of the article were virtually copied out of SPLC literature. As I remember some editors argued that it was perfectly okay to use SPLC summaries of the cases it was involved in because it was a third party reliable source on the adventures of hate groups. I kid you not. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguity in YMCA case relating to foundation of YMCA

Even Dees and Fiffer don't discuss what happened between Dees's victory in the trial court in 1969 and the upholding of the ruling in 1972 with respect to the foundation of the SPLC and who was running the case (Dees or the SPLC), so I suppose it's just going to have to stay vague in the section unless someone can come up with a good source. And so it goes...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

1981 Bullock County lawsuit

I removed this:

===Staff salaries=== In 1981, the SPLC won a case filed to force [[Bullock County, Alabama]] to pay salaries to the staff of its first black probate judge. Alabama state law at the time required probate judges to pay for their own staff, but Bullock County, in violation of this law, paid the salaries of the staff of its white probate judges.<ref>{{Cite news| url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70F14FE385C0C7A8EDDAB0994D9484D81 | title=Black Judge in Alabama Wins Staff Salary Case | work=[[The New York Times]] |date= December 29, 1981 | first= Reginald| last= Stuart| accessdate = 2007-09-18}}</ref>

because the only discussion of it that I can find is the single NYT article cited. There's no discussion in books, in other newspapers, or anywhere else that I can find. Given the lack of discussion I conclude that it was a routine case and not really illustrative of the SPLC's work. I would love to be proved wrong, and if someone can find other sources that indicate the importance of this case for this article, by all means, put it back in. Or put it back in if you just disagree with my removal. But lacking sources to expand the section, I don't think it merits an entire level three subsection to itself. Perhaps there's somewhere else it can be mentioned? Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It was in The Tuscaloosa News too.[3] I could find several other mentions of the story in rs. The probate judge was Rufus Huffman, and the relevant law was the Voting Rights Act. It may have received wider coverage at the time, but stories were not posted to the internet then. However, with no subsequent coverage, it may not be worth mentioning. TFD (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I did search the Google newspaper archive, but I can see that I missed that one because I was searching on Huffman + various combinations of Dees, SPLC, etc. and that article doesn't mention them. I wonder if it's because they weren't so well known at the time? Anyway, like I said, I have no problem with it being in the article, I just couldn't find much to say about it in the context of the SPLC.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

White Patriot Party section emphasis; can anyone help find sources or agree there aren't any?

Right now a the first paragraph of this section is about the Bobby Persons suit in 1982-4. I find that with one very minor exception all the coverage of the SPLC's interaction with the WPP is about the later events involving soldiers at Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg and Dees's investigation into their involvement with the WPP to enforce the injunction obtained in the Persons suit, which is mentioned in the RS only briefly as background to the events of 1985 and subsequent.

For instance, an NYT article on Dees's investigation says by way of explanation: "The White Patriot Party was ordered by a Federal court last fall not to operate a paramilitary organization or harass black people. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has pressed successful civil lawsuits against Klan organizations in Alabama and Texas, had demonstrated in court documents that members of the group threatened a black prison guard in North Carolina." This is typical of the level of detail about Persons. But there is extensive coverage of the SPLC's efforts to enforce the court order which is missing from the article section. Also missing from our section is the 1987 conviction of WPP members for conspiracy to assassinate Dees in retaliation for taking them to pieces in court.

I can't find anything independent that supports the idea that the suit on behalf of Persons deserves as much space here as it has. I plan to add the missing material outlined above soonish and I hope that The Four Deuces or anyone can possibly find independent sources that demonstrate the appropriate weight to be given to the story of the Persons suit itself. I think probably that part of the section should be severely reduced in length while the overall section should maybe be longer once the soldiers, the various investigations in support of court order enforcement and the conspiracy are added.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

FBI no longer using SPLC as a reliable source

FBI will no longer use SPLC as a source as they are deemed biased and unreliable. Ref here: [4] MaxPont (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)