Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

RfC on lead sentence

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 sentence of Southern Poverty Law Center describe it as [left-leaning / liberal-leaning] or not? Proposed wording:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a left-leaning American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation

NPalgan2 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:!VOTE

• Include OP and prefer left-leaning as opposed to liberal-leaning as although left≠liberal, liberal is a subset of left. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose/exclude. Certainly not in the first three words of the article, because "left-leaning" is not one of the most important things about the group, and because the first sentence of the article should be limited to the most defining and important characteristics. The most important thing about the group is that it tracks extremists in the United States. For all of the sources that you cite (some of which, by the way, are certainly not usable: Ron Radosh is an opinion columnist), an even larger number and more impressive array of reliable source do not tag the SPLC with the "left" descriptor. Contrast your proposal, with its great emphasis on left, with the "short form descriptors" used by other sources, for example, which make no mention of it:

• Liam Stack & Daniel Victor, Hate Group Numbers in U.S. Rose for 2nd Year in a Row, Report Says, New York Times (Feb. 15, 2017): "the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremism in the United States."
• Liam Stack, White Lives Matter Has Been Declared a Hate Group, New York Times (August 30, 2016): "the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that tracks extremist groups in the United States...Researchers with the law center..."
• Caitlin Dickerson, Reports of Bias-Based Attacks Tick Upward After Election, New York Times (November 11, 2016): "the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups."
• Kim Severson, Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says, New York Times (March 7, 2012): "The center, which has kept track of such groups for 30 years, recorded 1,018 hate groups operating last year. ... The center, based in Montgomery, Ala., records only groups that are active..."
• Miriam Jordan, In Immigrant Fight, Grass-Roots Groups Boost Their Clout, Wall Street Journal (September 28, 2006): "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups"
• Joel Millman & Evan Perez, Suspect Is Arrested in Spokane Bomb Case, Wall Street Journal (March 10, 2011): "The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil-rights group that tracks hate groups and has won numerous lawsuits on behalf of victims ..."
• Amol Sharma & Diksha Sahni, Sikhs in India Grieve After U.S. Shooting, Wall Street Journal (August 6, 2012): "a U.S. civil-rights group"
• "Right-Wing Extremism" in Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues, Vol. 2 (ed. Michael Shally-Jensen), p. 653: "the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the main sources of information for right-wing extremist groups."
• David Mark Chalmers, Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), p. 188: "the Southern Poverty Center ... [is one of several groups that] monitor extremism on the Right ... prime source of reliable published information."

Now, if you wanted to discuss this content further down in the article, or even further down in the lead, then I'd be open to that. But no, not in the first three words. --Neutrality^talk 02:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that we describe lots of organizations as [liberal/conservative/progressive/libertarian] [think tank/advocacy group/legal fund/magazine] in lead sentence even though RSs may not refer to their ideological orientation all the time. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not when it's not a defining feature. Neutrality^talk 02:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's defining for SPLC. Some of their listings are pretty difficult to explain in absence of a political motive. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support/Include - Numerous Wikipedia articles on right-leaning organizations prominently and repeatedly describe such organizations as "right-leaning", often repeating that phrase all over the article. Using a different policy for leftwing organizations would be inconsistent. For the SPLC's case, OP cited cases in which even the New York Times and Washington Post described the SPLC as left-leaning or similar terms, and many other publications have done likewise. There's no question that its politics and policies are decidedly leftwing, and there is no legitimate reason to cite the political leanings of only rightwing organizations but not leftwing ones. Ryn78 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support/Include, but I tend to agree with User:Neutrality regarding placement, although I do not have such a strong objection as to completely discard the original suggestion, because of what I already expressed in the previous section regarding this topic - i.e. concerning the political classification not appearing on every reference to a group. I added a talkquote below with an alternative placement at the last paragraph of the lead. I also agree with Neutrality concerning RSs, and there is an excessive amount of citations. Per WP:CITEKILL only the most relevant should be kept. I addressed that as well in the alternative proposed below, but any improvements to it are more than welcome. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude The mission of the SPLC is to fight religious, racial and other types of prejudice, which is a position lauded by people across the political spectrum. It does not align itself with any political movement. The use of 9 footnotes is typical of tendentious writing. When no definitive source can be found, an attempt is made to compensate with lots of weak sources, in this case opinions expressed by nine out of tens of thousands of articles and opinion pieces that mention the SPLC. And in most sources the terms left and liberal have different meanings: liberals are enthusiastically pro-capitalist, while the Left ranges from acceptance to outright hostility. There is no evidence where the SPLC fits along this spectrum. TFD (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for this gratuitous insertion, but I can't help myself. While I agree that we should not label the SPLC as "liberal" in the lead (just as we shouldn't label an organization such as AEI as "conservative") nobody of sound mind should doubt that by TODAY's common political usage the SPLC epitomizes that description which, btw, has little to do with economics. When a bunch of folks advocate replacing Mother's Day and Father's Day with Someone Special's Day ["The publication also advises parents to use culturally sensitive language (such as the gender-neutral phrasing "Someone Special Day" instead of the traditional Mothers Day and Fathers Day) and to make sure that cultural diversity (is) reflected in your home's artwork, music and literature."] they are bleeding-heart liberals. Motsebboh (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Modify – Hmmm ... doesn't the SPLC describe itself as "progressive"? It seems to when it says "... our newest campaign, #WhatDemocracyLooksLike ... acknowledges ... necessary forms of political expression for progressives everywhere. In addition, SPLC on Campus will use this campaign ....". By saying "Progressive" in our article, both the lefties and righties will know the SPLC is left-wing or left-leaning -- as if they don't already know. (And the SPLC gets the label it proudly enjoys.) If we don't want to link to "left-wing" or "liberal-wing" or "liberal-leaning", then we simply link to "progressive" or a straight-out "left-wing" link. – S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because they appeal to progressives doesn't mean they are "progressive" themselves. All this means is that they have ONE program which is targeted at progressives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are clearly targeting centerists and non-progressives! See my point? Let's use the terms that the RS has provided. (And let's see if SPLC objects to the term "Progressive".) – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it is not the SPLC saying that but the recently appointed Coordinator for their college program, SPLC on Campus, writing about SPLC on Campus on splconcampus.org/blog. This is the type of source that experts may use in determining whether the SPLC is a progressive organization, but it requires a number of assumptions and guess work and knowledge of how the organization operates, which is original research. TFD (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, we have numerous neutral reliable sources which use the terms "left" and "liberal" to describe SPLC. And SPLC itself uses the terms "far-right activists", "white liberal critics", " scofflaw ..., a radical Nevada rancher", "common right-wing cannard", "conservative news site ...", and "debunked right-wing claim". – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude - this is a POV attempt at poisoning the well. Also agree with User:TFD.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Fuck no, unless you (you know who you are) are willing to allow me to add "conservative" before the name of every hate group identified in the article. I guarantee I can find thousands of reliable sources that call each of them conservative, and it's equally irrelevant well-poisoning. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If you do find said sources you should most definitively do so, add the term. And comment on content, not on contributors. Justify your vote preferably in terms of policy but not as "fuck no you'd be complaining if I did the same", otherwise it's irrelevant. It's not a vote count. I could just as well accuse some of the people here of POV pushing for trying to omit a widely used (by relevant sources) classification without actual discussion, just "fuck no" or similar. Saturnalia0 (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit, User:MShabazz, way to post a comment consisting almost entirely of profanity and ABF. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude I'm not a fan of immediately placing an ideological label on groups unless they describe themselves that way. As Volunteer Marek points out it's a form of poisoning the well. Yes, this is common in Wikipedia when it comes to right-of-center groups but that doesn't mean we should further a bad practice. Any reader with a modicum of political savvy will realize from the rest of the article that by American standards the SPLC is a left-of-center group. Motsebboh (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude per Neutrality, MShabazz, and others. This is a heavy-handed and non-neutral. Sources which contextualize it as left-leaning or similar or mostly doing so in explicitly political contexts related to specific news stories, but a Wikipedia article should not be limited in that way or to those sources. Emphasizing their ideology shoehorns them into a false-dichotomy and suggests that they confine their activity to right-wing groups only, which is false. Including the ideology later in the lead should be discussed elsewhere, but that seems more reasonable. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

False, this has already been discussed and not responded to. Even if we ignore the whole "context" bullshit, there is a Washington Post story specifically about the SPLC. Saturnalia0 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying the Washington Post story (about a specific incident) which specifically says that conservatives emphasize the SPLC's left-lean to discredit them... supports that not all sources discuss the point in a political context? I don't get it. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who doesn't get it. There are several stories (WPo, NYT, Guardian) calling the SPLC "left-leaning" or "liberal", while reporting a hate group classification, as practically all stories about the SPLC do, and you say that for those stories the term is "taken out of context" because they are reporting on a hate group classification "by the left-leaning SPLC", and that the latter somehow only makes sense in the context of the former (well hate group classifications is what the SPLC does so I guess it always makes sense...). Since that discussion didn't go anywhere in the previous section I provided another story where this isn't the case. There is attribution in it, of course, but there's no "hate group classification context" to complain about. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include. This appears to be well-sourced, and I see no basis for excluding it. The counterarguments don't hold water. We routinely include these sorts of labels (liberal, conservative, moderate, nonpartisan, etc. etc.) in the first sentences of our articles on think tanks and other NGOs, since they help readers make a straight-up assessment of where they stand on the political spectrum. The way an organization describes itself is worthy of inclusion in body of the article, but no organization is a reliable source on itself for this purpose, and unreliable sources should never be placed on par with reliable sources (per WP:NPV). There are other !votes here based on accusations of bad faith conduct - these are not constructive and should be ignored by the closer. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman: This is a matter of degree/importance, though. We apply such a label so early in articles only where the political orientation is of core importance to the subject (for example, we properly identify, within the first three or four words in the articles, The New Republic, the Center for American Progress, and the American Constitution Society as "liberal" or "progressive" and The American Spectator, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society as "conservative"). But I'm very hard-pressed to believe that the SPLC's political leanings are of equivalent importance to it, as they are with respect to these other groups, so as to justify the appellation right away in the article, before anything else. This is basically the five-word test: If you asked a knowledgeable person to describe any of the six organizations above in five words, they would probably give you the liberal/conservative descriptor. But if you asked a knowledgeable person "describe the SPLC in five words," they would probably tell would that it's a U.S. civil rights group that monitors extremist organizations/hate groups. Neutrality^talk 20:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable argument. However I think the political ideology of any group that deals with politics (and the SPLC certainly does) is of utmost importance. The reliable sources appear to agree with this, as I believe most of them label the SPLC as "left-leaning" right up front alongside their first mention of the organization. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC has three distinct main missions (education, watchdog, litigation) so summing them up in 5 words is a squeeze, but how about: 'The SPLC is a liberal U.S. civil rights law firm, anti-extremist 'watchdog' group & tolerance education organization. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This reads as a subtle attempt to poison the well. Even our article on the Ku Klux Klan doesn't mention right-wing until the 3rd sentence. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The KKK is described as "extremist reactionary" in the first sentence. "extremist reactionary"≈extreme right-wing. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Too wordy, and "liberal" doesn't conform to the cited sources (which almost exclusively use "left-leaning"). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include. This appears to be well-sourced and matter-of-fact correct. David A (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - I agree with User:Neutrality in that "left-leaning is not one of the most important things about the group." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude. "Certainly not in the first three words of the article", per Neutrality, "it's not a defining feature" and not even the balance of RS describe it thus. It is not a party political organisation and describing its politics on the basis of its language is WP:OR, and slightly insulting to non-left-wingers (last time I heard, the political centre and centre right had not completely abandoned opposition to racism and support for equality under the law. Am I out of date?). Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - Peacock words and certainly not neutral. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:NPOV, Me-123567-Me, Pincrete, MShabazz and TFD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Include Well whilst I disagree that "liberal" and "left" are synonymous I do see a lot of RS calling them left leaning. As we call many many groups left or right based on the assessment of RS I see not reason to make make the same judgement here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:I see no reason to not make make the same judgement here. How about because it isn't a defining feature? How about if they are not a party political group? It is very possible that secular third world charities are more likely to attract left or liberal supporters, religious ones perhaps more likely to attract conservatives, but in either case if one of their primary purposes is not advocacy of left/right positions, why define them thus in the lead? Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Because that is what they have been called, and I do not see it as something they should feel ashamed of. Also if the SPLC's accusations of being a hate group can be in the lead for such groups why can their label as left not be in theirs, it is as relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to this content being somewhere, I object strongly to it being in the opening sentence, since no one has shown that this a, let alone the defining feature. In so far as it is relevant, I often object to labels in the opening sentence for other groups, especially if no one can show it as the defining feature of such groups. Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a defining feature and it is what RSs call it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And these RS use the term in the first three words of their descriptions do they? RS indicate that the central purpose of SPLC is the promotion of left-wing politics do they? I would not be surprised to find that there were more centre-right/left/liberals among, for example the US civil rights movements or the SA anti-apartheid movements than right-wingers, but characterising any of these as inherently 'left' in their primary purpose is getting awfully close to J E Hoover territory. It can simply not be justified as the defining feature. Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No one proposed to add anything about promoting anything. RSs use the definition, so can and should we. If your only criticism is placement then suggest an alternative placement as I did. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

'Promoting' or 'advocating' is implicit in making 'left' the first defining feature, a 'left-wing newspaper' promotes or advocates or defends left-wing political positions, that is what the description means, so placement is not incidental. I haven't yet commented in the second RfC partly because it is unclear where the proposed text is to go. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude Undue in the opening sentence, but support the alternative proposal below. Eperoton (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude Per WP:NPOV. The SPLC is a well-documented non-profit civil rights advocacy organization rooted in not only bringing legitimate legal claims to court, but succeeding on the merits. It focuses not only on right-wing extremism, but left-wing extremism as well. Defining it as a left-wing "political-type" organization in the lead is misleading at best and it's clearly an attempt to smear. Teammm ^talk
  _email 01:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, not even an SPLC representative claims that it "focuses not only on right-wing extremism, but left-wing extremism as well". See this: "He paused. “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”..."We only ever cover left-wing groups when they have a right-wing component, he told me. For example, “when anarchist groups are infiltrated by those on the right; Neo-Nazis, that sort of thing.”" http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299011/occupy-southern-poverty-law-center-charles-c-w-cooke NPalgan2 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude - Including would be an NPOV violation. The SPLC is not a political party. Civil rights is not necessary left or right. Before the 1960's, the Republican party was the stronger supporter of civil rights. Many conservatives and libertarians support certain SPLC goals. Some groups traditionally affiliated with left-of-center politics have opposed certain SPLC goals. I am not arguing anything politically, just that I don't see left or right as an appropriate adjective in this situation.--Rpclod (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You're basically arguing that the RSs that call it left/liberal-leaning are wrong. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't try to put words in my mouth. You are wrong. The question is "Should the lead sentence of Southern Poverty Law Center describe it as [left-leaning / liberal-leaning] or not?" My response is only to that question and is "The lead sentence should not describe the subject as such."--Rpclod (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude - The perceived political leanings are not critical enough to be included in the opening sentence, especially since this is not a de jure political organization. I see no issue with commenting on its potentially left-leaning politics at another point in the article, but in no way should "left-leaning" appear in the lede sentence before much more vital pieces of information ie "American" "nonprofit" "legal advocacy organization" "specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation". --NoGhost (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Exclude (aka "fuck no"), as this is an encyclopedia. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - if you need nine citations to make a point, it shouldn't be in the lede. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - Obvious POV pushing is obvious. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude Agree with prior statement about WP:NPOV Kamalthebest (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude For all the talk about the wealth of sources, the fact is that none of the sources include any explanation of what "left leaning" means or how it applies to the SPLC. It sure seems that if the political (or social, or economic, or whatever the author meant when using the adjective phrase) leanings of the SPLC were so significant as to be in the first sentence of the lead, then we should at least be able to use these sources listed and write a paragraph or two in the body describing how this leaning affects the SPLC. In fact, however, there isn't enough material in all the sources to write a full sentence other than "Some people refer to the SPLC as left leaning." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternative text and placement suggestion

Per WP:CITEKILL keeps only the most relevant citations. As discussed above, moves it down the lead. Text in italic is already present in the article. Any improvements to the text or the placement are welcome.Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC has been referred to as left-leaning, and was criticized over particular listings and what some see as overly aggressive and misleading fundraising tactics.

• Oppose as "Weasel-wording". It does not say who refers to it that way or the extent to which that position is held. Also, the term "left" is only meaningful in context. TFD (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with TFD. This proposal would imply that a reliably sourced fact (that the SPLC is left-leaning) is actually just a criticism levied by the SPLC's opponents. That's a no-no. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this suggestion for the lead or the body?Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Seems a fair compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a compromise. Just "everything I want, differently worded".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support anything that more honestly portrays the bias of the SPLC - they clearly have a bias and to portray them as innocent neutrals is laughable bias itself - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If the only way we we can figure out how to explain their bias is to weasel-in the phrase "left-leaning" in the first sentence, we're not really doing our job. Supporting anything that places that in the lead would be trying to prove a point based on personal certainty, which is not neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support at the end of the lead, but as two separate sentences to avoid synthesis. On some issues SPLC comes down with gusto on a particular side of the left/right political divide and enough RSs reflect that orientation. Eperoton (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose material being in the lede; a compromise could be placement somewhere in the body. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose material being in the lead, proposed text is distintly 'weasel-ly' (what some see as overly aggressive and misleading fundraising tactics). Would probably support expanded and more specific text in body, but unfortunately I cannot access the originals, except one book which criticised SPLC for not passing on any money fundraised in a particular KKK murder damages case to the victim's family and accused it of overspending on offices and unfair treatment of non-white employees. Properly articulated, weighed and attributed criticism is valid, I'm fairly sure this text isn't. Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Apart from other issues, the description 'left' isn't very imformative. In Europe, the left-right divide (except perhaps far-right) is primarily about economic matters. In the US left-right has also become intertwined with social/moral issues (gun control, abortion?), so, in what sense is SPLC characterised as 'left-ish'? Does it favour power/wealth distribution? The description doesn't tell me is what sense 'left'. Pincrete (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Pincrete's reasoning. Teammm ^talk
  _email 01:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as not neutral and non-specific. Criticisms like that belong in the body, properly cited and attributed, not in the first sentence of the lede. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this alternative. Go with the NYT "liberal-leaning" description in the lede. People who follow these designations will know that "left is liberal is progressive" and "right is conservative and classical liberal" and never the twain shall meet. When organizations lean one way or the other they are leaning away from the middle (and consensus). – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed language ("The SPLC has been referred to as left-leaning") hints that there might be an explanation and details elsewhere in the article of what the phrase means. In fact, no such information exists in either our article or the articles listed as sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Let's be honest about what's going on here. I thoroughly reject the obvious and on-going attempt to trivialize protection of Americans' civil rights as a liberal concern, and encourage other editors with good sense to do the same. The phrase "liberal-leaning" was added to the lead sentence by an inveterate POV-pusher—who has since been blocked temporarily for tendentious and disruptive editing—with a bullshit edit summary of "Additional clarity". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

While I am not in favor of describing the SPLC as a "liberal" or "left-leaning" in the lead, I can certainly see why some editors are. Right and center-right organizations, including some that see themselves as protecting constitutional rights (ex. Federalist Society, American Center for Law and Justice), are commonly given an ideological label in the leads of their Wikipedia articles, whereas left and center-left organizations often are not. Yes, "let's be honest", the SPLC's major issues have been those associated with late 20th and early 21st century political liberalism. Moreover, their literature is replete with highly opinionated, politically charged language. Motsebboh (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Uh, at least for the AC4L&J, it's sort of hard to avoid stating their ideology since that's pretty much what they're all about and they pretty much wear it on their sleeve. To some extent the same is true with the Federalist Society where liberterianism is an integral part of their mission. For the SPLC, unless you think that protecting civil rights is inherently "liberal" or "left-leaning" (and I guess some folks do think that, but that's their problem) the same thing is not true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of getting too far into a forum on the organization and not the article, notice the name Morris Dees gave to his organization. Wouldn't that imply that he had some notion that the organization would fight poverty, the great LIBERAL trope of the 60's? But as to the organization which the SPLC actually became, one that is not especially concerned with economics, the notion that "protecting civil rights" is a non-ideological concern is simply wrong. That's because there is a vast and bitter political disagreement over what those rights are and what they should be. Organizations such as the ACLU and the SPLC have their notions of civil rights and ACLJ and the Federalist Society have theirs. Motsebboh (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to say, the idea that somehow liberal organizations' affiliations are somehow systemically hidden by Wikipedia, while conservative organizations' are not, strikes me as kind of bogus. Consider the open lines of following articles' lead sections (these were the first items to come to mind, trying to think of groups which are nearly counterparts or mirror images):

Organization	Conservative group	Liberal group
Lawyers' group	Federalist Society: "is an organization of conservatives and libertarians..."	American Constitution Society: "a progressive legal organization."
Think tank	Heritage Foundation: "is an American conservative think tank"	Center for American Progress: "is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization"
Judicial appointments pressure group	Judicial Crisis Network: " is an American conservative political campaign organization"	Alliance for Justice: "is a progressive judicial advocacy group"
Magazine	The American Spectator: "a conservative U.S. monthly magazine"	The New Republic: " a liberal American magazine of commentary"

I mean, that seems pretty straightforward, NPOV, and on the mark to me. Neutrality^talk 06:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The chart above shows that there are liberal and conservative approaches to different issues, causing them to form rival groups. But how does that translate to the issue of racial, religious etc. equality? Is there a conservative equivalent to the SPLC that fights against inequality, but in a conservative way? Or are we saying that the equivalent would be conservative groups that advocate for the civil rights of white people? TFD (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It really doesn't make any difference whether or not there is a close conservative counterpart to the SPLC, though I've mentioned the ACLJ above (which apparently sees itself as a conservative equivalent to the ACLU) and I suppose one could add the Rutherford Institute. The point is that the SPLC takes predictably liberal (in the modern political sense; not the 19th century economic sense) positions on the issues it engages. Regarding racial equality, for example, it (predictably) defends "affirmative action" (as opposed to "color blindness") when it seems to benefit racial minorities. Regarding language, it is hyper-sensitive to any real or imagined slight of any group that can possibly be seen as oppressed. My favorite example, as I mentioned above, is its desire to make Mother's Day and Father's Day . . . Someone Special's Day(s). Motsebboh (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is the SPLC does not "(predictably) defend[] "affirmative action." It has no position on it. And most conservatives support it. And I don't see that it is particularly liberal to celebrate "someone special day" when children do not have a mother or father. You only achieve a dichotomy by pretending that the positions of hate groups and the SPLC have parity. TFD (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

One issue (of many) is the SPLC's persistent placement of conservative politicians (such as Dr. Ben Carson) on the hate list (until public outrage forced them to back peddle in Carson's case) or mainstream conservative Christian groups such as the FRC, which led to a massive lawsuit against the SPLC after the FRC's offices were attacked. But they rarely (if ever) place liberal politicians or mainstream liberal groups on the hate list. There are many other issues, but this isn't supposed to be an OR discussion but rather a discussion about what RSs say. Someone listed several RSs which label them liberal (or variations of that term), including the New York Times and Washington Post (which are hardly conservative publications that might have a bias against the SPLC). Ryn78 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@ TFD: If the SPLC "has no position" on affirmative action then it most certainly dissembles on the issue because it frequently rails against those they say oppose it, as seen here [1], and in its attacks against figures such as Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, and David Horowitz. Your assertion that most conservatives [in the United States?] support affirmative action comes from what study? I also don't think that it is "particularly liberal to celebrate a 'someone special day,'" but I do think it is indicative of extreme liberalism to request others to change the names of Of Mother's Day and Father's Day to Someone Special's Day. Finally, I have never pretended that the positions of what I consider to be hate groups have parity those of the SPLC. Motsebboh (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

" and in its attacks against figures such as Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, and David Horowitz" (sic) What does that have to do with anything? I'm sure the KKK opposes affirmative action, and I'm sure the SPLC "attacks" the KKK that doesn't mean it has a strong position on affirmative action. I'm sure the SPLC has plenty good reasons to "attack" Murray and Gottfredson without dragging affirmative action into it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Motsebboh, affirmative action is one of the bogeymen of groups the SPLC describes as hate groups. So is Sharia. You don't have to support affirmative action or sharia in order to object to fear-mongering about them and opposing them is not necessarily hate. Also, a timeline of affirmative action shows that it has been pushed mostly by liberals and opposed mostly by conservatives, but conservatives have also advanced the agenda and made little effort to reverse it.[2] But that's a distraction. A reasonable person may argue that affirmative action hurts poor white people, but when they describe it in apocalyptic terms, such as "racial suicide," they are being extreme. TFD (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes Volunteer Marek, I'm sure they do have other good reasons to attack Murray and the others "without dragging affirmative action into it" which makes it curious that they very much DO drag affirmative action into it. Look it up; it's in all four cases I mention. Either the SPLC supports "affirmative action" and thinks that it is a very bad thing when people don't, or else it is dissembling to give the impression to certain people that it supports affirmative action when it actually doesn't. Motsebboh (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@ TFD: You're trying to cut it too fine, comrade. Yes, Sharia IS pretty much a bogeyman in the USA, except when some unstable person does something absolutely horrible in its name. Affirmative action definitely is not. It affects many people daily. The fact of the matter is that any uninitiated person reading the SPLC blurbs I brought to your attention would certainly get the impression that the SPLC staunchly supported affirmative action. Otherwise why exhort College students to keep these programs alive which it most certainly does? As for describing issues in "apocalyptic terms", have you read much of the SPLC's literature?? It sometimes makes Trump sound quite reasonable. Motsebboh (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm, such as calling someone comrade, disrupts discussion and I request you stop. Right-wing extremists latch onto issues such as the threat of affirmative action to promote racism, the threat of sharia to promote Islamophobia, the alleged crimes of Israel to promote anti-Semitism. That is not to say that people who oppose affirmative action, sharia or Israeli policies are extremists or that they are necessarily good things. They just happen to be good issues to promote hate. Anyway, do you have any sources that say the SPLC promotes affirmative action, therefore it is a left-wing group? Otherwise this is just synthesis and does not forward the discussion. TFD (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

We both edit Wikipedia, so in that sense we are comrades. You seem to have a "thing" about getting the last word which is probably, in part, why your Talk edits far outnumber your edits to articles. As I mentioned before this has become a forum on the SPLC rather than a discussion on how to improve the article. I also do not favor a description of the SPLC as left-leaning or liberal in the lead; let readers figure that out for themselves. However, I do see why some editors think that it should be so labelled from the get-go. As for the SPLC

and affirmative action, while some use opposition to affirmative action to promote racial hatred, others use fear of losing affirmative action to promote political hatred. Notice Volunteer Marek's comment above about the SPLC not needing to bring up affirmative action in its attack on Charles Murray since it could have stressed more obvious complaints. Yes, they didn't need to; but they did. Nor did they need to bring it up in the other examples I presented; but they did. Curious, isn't it, that an organization which takes no official position on affirmative action (trusting you here), and which apparently doesn't practice affirmative action internally, makes such a big deal about the possible loss of affirmative action? It's called fear-mongering. Motsebboh (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors ought to note we have numerous articles which reference SPLC's "hate group" designations in the lede. Seems that WP is using such designations to describe the various groups as hate groups, even when the designations are contested or problematic. Doing so gives the SPLC designations UNDUE weight (in the ledes). If SPLC is "the authority" for such designations, then it is certainly proper for readers to know that SPLC is a liberal-leaning group. (But maybe we can remedy the situation by describing SPLC as a "love group" in this article.  ;-)  ) – S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that an argument for adding 'left' here, or for removing the SPLC description from other articles? Regardless, as you acknowledge, the SPLC description is attributed, the proposals here are that 'left' should be stated in WPVoice. Also, I hope the relevant 'group' articles make it clear what about the group has caused SPLC to label them thus, why exactly are SPLC 'left'? I would have no objection to inclusion of criticism if I had any idea of who was making it and what was being criticised. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977: @Pincrete: I think there's a pretty clear case for ignoring SPLC's "designations" whenever they don't get wide attention in RS's, per WP:REDFLAG which requires multiple high quality RS's for any apparently important claim. IMO any claim that somebody is a racist, hatemonger, etc., fits the bill beyond comparison. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on that. Only came for here the RfC. Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

References

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.

"Connection" a la FBI?

The FBI webpage has a pluperfect reference ("has") to "partnership" between it and the SPLC (and many other groups). But RCP has a rather explicit (and rational) statement that says the FBI no longer relies on SPLC for hate-group info. Given that RCP is RS, I think the "discontinuance" of reliance by the FBI should stay in the article (and out of the lede). – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. David A (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. RCP is just one dude's opinion and interpretation. It's not a news article. Since we have sources that say that they do cooperate, and we have the FBI webpage, you need a reliable source here which says that this cooperation has been terminated. AFAIK, there isn't one. This is just spin going around far-right media outlets and fake news sites.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The article cited is an opinion column, not a straight reported news story. This does not make it unuseful, but it does mean we have to attribute its claims to its author. Carl Cannon may say something, but we can't take it as gospel — we must present his opinion and let the reader decide. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

What makes you assume RealClearPolitics is a reliable source for facts? I don't read it often, but my impression is that it's an opinion journal, just like The Nation or National Review. Fine source for citing opinions, which should be attributed in the article text, but not a reliable source for facts. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

FBI "has forged partnerships" is perfect, not pluperfect. An RCP op-ed not RS for stuff like this. However, the statement SPLC "often works in partnership with the bureau" is neither taken from the FBI webpage nor from the 5 year old book. The lead mention of the FBI should stick closer to the language from the FBI website (I assume that they work with some of the groups listed less and more often). NPalgan2 (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

We had a lengthy discussion about this several years ago. The story is not true, and opinion pieces are not reliable sources. Note in an actual news article, a professional journalist would ask the opinions of experts and would call both the SPLC and FBI to confirm their findings and the publisher would stand behind the accuracy of their statements. TFD (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Lately there's been news about the FBI's disconnect from the SPLC. The only current reference is the FBI's own website that talks about past partnership with SPLC and other groups. Given that we have the WPost saying the FBI does not investigate groups simply because SPLC lists them, I think it is UNDUE to include this (promotional) information in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason the FBI relies on the SPLC is that the FBI is not allowed to investigate these groups. In every other developed nation, hate speech is criminalized and the police investigate hate groups. While most of these groups do nothing illegal under U.S. law, the intelligence is helpful to police because people who commit violent hate crimes are often influenced by them. Dylann Roof for example was influenced by the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), which has never been investigated by the FBI.[3] Like it or not, the SPLC is the only reliable secondary source always has current information about the CCC. TFD (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This page on the FBI website [4] simply includes the SPLC in a laundry list of organizations that it has formed "partnerships" with to combat hate crimes. Is there any current info indicating a more special relationship between the FBI and the SPLC? Motsebboh (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

We have the Founding Fathers to thank for our First Amendment to the United States Constitution rights, and "developed" nations would do well to follow our example. So SPLC is free to publish their lists, whether or not it uses the listings as a fundraising tool (as alleged). But to say or imply that the SPLC is supplying info to the FBI (and thereby preventing or solving crimes) is not in the RS. This implication does not belong in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There are limits to free speech in the U.S. as well, and questionable whether the Founding Fathers anticipated how their amendments would be interpreted. There was no KKK or Nazi Party or Westboro Baptist Church back then. In any case, the meme that the FBI was no longer cooperating with the SPLC has been debunked and was not published in any reliable sources to begin with. TFD (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Have we not had this discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Many aspects of this article have been debated before. I'm not opposed to a mention of the SPLC helping out the FBI somewhere in the article but I don't see enough meat from reliable sources to make it lead-worthy. Motsebboh (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, discussed in the past. But with new facts, WP:CCC. Now we have the FBI mentioning past "partnerships", but a few years ago they dropped SPLC as an actual resource from their webpages. – S. Rich (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

See "No, The FBI Hasn't Ditched The Southern Poverty Law Center" in Media Matters for America, the only reliable source that actual that actually discusses the meme. Whether or not the right wing sources are right, we need reliable sources to determine that the relationship has ended. TFD (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a battle between the right-wing and the left-wing news sources! Choose your champion!! Bang-bang, Clash-clash!!! The only common ground is the actual FBI website that says "has partnered" in the past. The Washington Post story which quotes the FBI as saying it does not investigate merely because group designations is reliable and neutral. This info is cited as a footnote. Best that the lede give proper weight as well. The past "partnership" is incidental. – S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not left and right. It is reliable sources such as the SPLC and MMfA and unreliable sources such as opinion pieces. If you have an actual news report in a reliable conservative source then please present it. Contrary to some people's beliefs, facts are not left or right they're right or wrong. Pizzagate for example is wrong not because it originated in conservative media, but because it it happens to be false. But conservative media that maintain fact-checking and journalistic standards are acceptable. TFD (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Come on, please admit that SPLC itself has a left-leaning bent. And then admit that MMfA, too, is left-leaning. (Hopefully, then, the 2 sources might neutralize the left-right spin that we see.) The source I used (RCP), when noting that the FBI had "distanced" itself from SPLC (RealClearPolitics), is accepted as one striving to be neutral. FWIIW, I predict that the FBI will continue to dissociate itself from SPLC because of the new the new administration. When that occurs, WP will be obliged to re-state whatever FBI-line is presented. E.g., I predict we will not see info from the FBI that says "We had a partnership with SPLC." When that occurs we will edit in accordance with the RS we find. – S. Rich (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No I don't think they are socialists and it would be bizarre that corporate American would have given so much money to the Democrats or corporate media to have accepted SPLC as a source if they were. It seems you identify the extreme right in the U.S. as right-wing and mainstream business and media as left-wing. TFD (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead now reads:

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

Unless an editor thinks that this should be changed in some way we are basically spinning our wheels in discussion. Motsebboh (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The current version reads like the SPLC is a resource the FBI rely on. Given media reports saying the FBI dropped the SPLC because of concerns, and the fact SPLC have not been mentioned in any FBI pages more recent than 2010, that's at best misleading. Quoting SPLC as evidence that the FBI relies on them strikes me as problematic in the extreme. They are not a secondary source and part of the comments here are noting SPLC are a politically skewed organisation. According to the Wikipedia link for MMfA they're a left-wing organisation. Whether they're reliable is another matter, but it is a common bias. If you want another link how about ? It's really only a sentence in the piece and nothing new, but the MMfA's 'rebuttal' pf the piece is even more flawed - claims the piece lies and a link included that leads to the FBI page where the SPLC link exists - except it doesn't. Oh and a couple of interesting points from an Academic Questions article (don't think that journal is deemed acceptable as a source correct?). SPLC's Hatewatch caption is 'Hatewatch monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right' which means the left get a free pass. Also, SPLC has no set criteria for defining a hate group with the result that inclusion and exclusion is largely political - a group accusing Christians of seeking to usher in “a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, naturalistic militarism and superstitious theocracy" is somehow not deemed a hate group, in fact there are no anti-Jewish or anti-Christian groups listed, whilst a Christian group which includes references to scientific studies or articles or somesuch that point out problems with homosexuality constitute hate. 人族 (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Controversy section missing immigration contention

Does not appear to be anything on SPLC's controversial labeling groups supporting deportation of illegal immigrants and reducing legal immigration levels as anti-immigrant and hate groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.95.60 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, the information can easily be added to the article. clpo13_(talk) 23:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

VDARE and Congressman Tancredo and Breitbart.com

Congressman Tom Tancredo, writing in VDARE, criticized the SPLC. This is certainly WP:NOTEWORTHY and properly sourced. The article certainly presents lots of info about the successes of the SPLC; in turn the SPLC has been criticized. So we cannot, in terms of WP:BALANCE, exclude such noteworthy criticisms. – S. Rich (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I already self-reverted, missed a bit of context. Sorry bout that! Chalk it up to editing before coffee... Fyddlestix (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I started this thread IOT avoid an edit war. – S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not noteworthy or properly sourced — VDARE is not an acceptable reliable secondary source, and if you question that decision, you're welcome to launch a thread on the RSN. If the only place you can find a particular criticism is a white supremacist website, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If Tancredo's criticism is really noteworthy, you can find a reliable secondary source for it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, I have reverted your insertion of a link to Breitbart.com, which by extremely longstanding consensus is perhaps the canonical example of a non-reliable source, due to its long and well-documented tradition of publishing distortions, half-truths, fabrications and outright lies about people and groups it disagrees with. I would ask that you stick to using mainstream reliable sources and discuss any contentious or questionable sources here before inserting them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. Tancredo is a US Congressman and the SPLC does not like him. He chose VDARE to counter the SPLC criticism. There is no dispute that he did so. RS is important when determining whether or not factual info presented in a source is reliable. In this case (for both VDARE and Breitbart) WP:BIASED applies. Please revert. – S. Rich (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The question is not whether the sites have an ideological viewpoint, the question is whether the sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as policy demands. Neither VDARE nor Breitbart have such a reputation and Breitbart has literally the opposite of such a reputation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:QUESTIONABLE also applies: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. Both Breitbart and VDARE are, at best, questionable sources — they do not have widespread reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, and express views widely acknowledged as extremist, and thus cannot be used to cite claims about the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A contrary example here is your sourcing to The Weekly Standard — that is certainly a WP:BIASED source, but TWS is generally acknowledged to have responsible fact-checking and editorial standards, and thus I have not removed it — it is biased but not questionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You are ignoring the admonition in BIASED. "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Both VDARE and Breitbart are presenting their viewpoints about the SPLC. By your logic, absolutely anything and everything linked to VDARE and Breitbart should be excluded. – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, the question is not one of neutrality but of reliability. If a viewpoint is only published in sources which do not meet our standards for reliability and accuracy, then that viewpoint is not going to be represented in the encyclopedia - such is the reason for the WP:FRINGE viewpoints standard. There is plenty of criticism of the SPLC which has been published by mainstream reliable sources - we do not need to go digging in the fever swamps of racial conspiracism and white supremacy to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Policy says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." VDARE, which the SPLC describes as a "hate website" is not a reliable source. It publishes articles supporting white supremacy, black inferiority and anti-Semitism. It's not a criticism that the SPLC opposes those views, it's what they do.

Regarding SRich's mention of BIAS: bias and reliability are independent of each other.

But when sites promote conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, they cannot be considered reliable. Racism is a bias but it is also a factually incorrect theory.

TFD (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Omitting (or censoring) VDARE (or Breitbart) can only lead to a one-sided presentation of the views. That is, SPLC says VDARE is "such-and=such". (These particular references do NOT promote conspiracy theories or pseudoscience, so those factors do not apply here.) So for WP:Balance the contrary views (from VDARE itself) must be included; in this case it is Tancredo's rebuttal. The proportion aspects of the proposed edits is taken care by 1. the fact that the Congressman himself is making the criticism, and 2. the Breitbart criticism is confined to a footnote. (Also, readers and editors ought to recognize that Breitbart is a significant voice in the American political scene these days.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)22:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, whether they are "a significant voice in the American political scene" or not, there exists longstanding consensus that Breitbart's long and well-documented history of distortions, lies, errors and fabrications targeting their political opponents renders the site utterly useless as a source for this encyclopedia. I return again to WP:RS, which states that reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I do not believe either Breitbart or VDARE qualify - neither of those sites have such a mainstream reputation. I would invite you to open a thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you wish to confirm this consensus. Your reference to "censorship" is spurious and irrelevant - making editorial decisions about what is and isn't included in an article is the very definition of what we do as encyclopedia editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If the congressman's views are important, he will get them published by a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Heads-up: CapitalResearch.org article – S. Rich (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If the congressman's views are important, he will get them published by a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

VDARE is mentioned (not discussed) twice on the WP:RSN. See Archive 95 & Archive 24. In my search for Breitbart on the RSN, I got 38 hits. Looking at Archives 200+ I see various editors giving their 2¢ for and against Breitbart, but the only closed discussion is at this RFC. Other discussions which have Breitbart as the topic are at: Archive 176, Archive 208, Archive 211, here, and Archive 216. Generally the remarks are that Breitbart is non-RS for facts, but acceptable for attributed opinions. No RSN discussion (so far) says Breitbart is unacceptable for all purposes. – S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Since VDARE is not mentioned in the article they don't get the right of reply. Otherwise the article would be full of comments of 900 hate groups.And they do publish pseudoscience and conspiracy theories - racial theories and anti-Semitism. From the Capital Research Center's website, "“Civil War 2017” is the first episode in a five-part “America Under Siege” documentary web-series to be released over the course of 2017. Each episode will profile the influence of radical Marxists on various segments of American society." That's crazy. TFD (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not VDARE is mentioned (or criticized) in the article is not the point. VDARE served as the media outlet for Tancredo. That's all. – S. Rich (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"Due and undue" says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources...." Since VDARE is not a reliable source, then nothing printed in it is due for inclusion. The only exception is "questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...so long as...it does not involve claims about third parties." Your position is Tancredo is a notable person, therefore anything he says can be entered into any article and we need to put in some negative comments to balance the positive ones. But that is contrary to policy and you would need to change policy to do that. TFD (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the insertion of material sourced to "FrontPage Magazine" — as extensively discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, FrontPage is a far-right opinion publication that does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the particular opinion writer cited does not appear to have specific expertise in the subject material. That a far-right opinion writer believes the SPLC is a "scam" based upon his political opposition to the organization's mission and goals is entirely unsurprising and does not appear to merit inclusion in this article. We are not a compendium of every single person who has ever criticized the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

And what was the result of the "extensive discussion"? Zilch! There was no closing or community consensus. You are simply presenting your version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's quite clear what's going on here, Srich. You are attempting to slant this article negatively, and are attempting to do so using questionable and unreliable sources because those are apparently the sources that best fit your POV about the SPLC. Unfortunately, this is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia, and we have standards for our articles that direct us to use high-quality reliable sources and to write our articles in a balanced manner, avoiding undue weight on any given viewpoint. That you have to resort to using white supremacist gutter-slime like VDARE speaks volumes about the perspective you are attempting to write from. That you do not like our reliable sourcing policies does not give you license to ignore them. It is now incumbent upon you to gain consensus for your proposed additions to the article, explaining why and how you believe they improve it. I have explained my objections clearly, and they constitute far more than "IDONTLIKEIT". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I would add that it is my belief that this article already more than adequately summarizes the various criticisms of the SPLC, and that adding more pile-on opinions (on either side) is not in keeping with our responsibility to give due weight to various perspectives, and to provide a balanced view of the subject. This article is not a compendium of every person who has ever criticized (or supported) the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Everyone has their biases, including me. As presented, the article is laudatory of the SPLC with the various sub-topic headings and full paragraphs about its successes. But those successes MUST be weighted against the criticisms. (My gosh! Even liberals are asking why does the SPLC have a $300,000,000 endowment fund.) I have corrected citation problems and, to a great extent, consigned the criticisms to bullet lists and footnotes. If SPLC is so saintly, then these various criticisms should not hurt. We are here to present the info to the readers so that they can decide. – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

We should not weigh successes against criticisms, but "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources....Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all..." And no "liberals" are complaining about the endowment. That comes from a fringe of the radical left that sees the SPLC as just another bourgeois organization, concentrating on the symptoms of capitalism rather than overthrowing it. This is the only article where you insist on giving weight to Trotskyist views. TFD (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

CIS link

Should extracts from be added? Upthread there was a section about SPLCs controversial approach to labelling anti-illegal groups as hate groups. clpo13 wanted a source and I stumbled over this while following up some other stuff. Apologies it's a very long article with an extensive reference list, but is an interesting piece about one small element of US politics. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

: The citation is now in the ref section, but it needs incorporation (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) into the text – S. Rich (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not controversial except among a few defenders of these groups, and their descriptions are routinely used in news media. (For example, in NBC, "In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated ADF an "active hate group" in a list that includes Westboro Baptist Church, KKK chapters, and Neo-Nazi groups. "[5] If it were controversial, they wouldn't do this. Your first source is an editorial in an extremely controversial newspaper. But in their actual news reporting, the Washington Times cites the SPLC as authoritative on hate groups, although it gratuitously calls it "left-leaning."[6] I imagine that means to the left of their typical reader. TFD (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me, but but I'm confused here. What are we discussing in this section? What TFD says above doesn't seem to jibe with what 人族 and S. Rich are talking about. Motsebboh (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue is whether the CIS link should be in the article. I had added it as a further reading item, pointing out that the author is a Pulitzer Prize journalist. IMO, the CIS article ought to be added (at some point) into the article for BALANCE. (Please note that I've been seeking to confine the criticisms to footnotes, while SPLC's courtroom successes get their own full section.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. However, TFD's comments above don't seem to have anything to do with that. Or am I missing something? Motsebboh (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I oppose including the CIS link as an EL or further reading - CIS is a Spinoff of FAIR, so this is basically a case of someone complaining that a group they're directly affiliated with was designated a hate group by the splc. This is something already discussed in the article, so while this could conceivably be used as a citation in that section (documenting FAIR'S position), it's not worth highlighting as further reading or an EL imo, and if used, it needs to be attributed and the connection to FAIR made clear. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually TFD SPLC's status as controversial wouldn't affect NBC's reliance on them in the slightest if NBC's bias accords with SPLC's. According to [7] NBC is frequently accused of a liberal bias, and their staff donated radically more to the 2008 Democrat campaign than to the Republican one. Elsewhere SPLC has been deemed an extreme (or extremist) liberal organisation. That suggests an overlap of views. You called the Washington Times an extremely controversial newspaper, and yet Wikipedia merely calls it centre-right and conservative. How does that translate to extremely controversial? Feel free to point out something I've missed but based on the Wikipedia info I'm not seeing a case for the claim, unless you mean right\conservative=controversial?

As for Fyddlestix's point, I'm open to better, and more succinct criticisms e.g. the Philanthropy article downthread, but I don't see CIS' link to FAIR as automatic grounds for discounting the article. SPLC is a controversial organisation - most of the American's I communicate with deem it a borderline hate group. If SPLC is a hate group - and I'm not asking you to agree here mind you, then their criticism of any other group doesn't negate that group's criticism of them. They need to be assessed in light of their own claims and actions. If FAIR have for instance advocated violence against immigrants then that rather than SPLC's views should be used against them. Since I'm not aware of them having so advocated CIS' association with them is irrelevant. If they had so advocated then I'd be more inclined to be cautious and want more info about CIS and the author. 人族 (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Source for how the SPLC determines hate groups

I've found a discussion of this in a compendium of articles on hate crimes.[8] It starts at page 141[9] of an article on defining hate crimes and looks at how the SPLC, specifically Mark Potok does this. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a good source for the article. TFD (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep seems OK to me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The chapter author (Randy Blazak) basically talked with Potok, giving the reader the echo chamber version of SPLC's process. Admittedly problematic in designation process are the "low consensus" groups, which get named after they are "talked through" (by SPLC staff?). Also a bit dated. The source does not consider the criticisms that have arisen since publication in 2009. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So who else will be able to tell us what their actual polices are, other then them (or those who know how they operate? But your point about being dated is valid, as long as you can show their polices have changed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't use Blazak, but should be cautious. After all, Blazak did not mention criticisms published before 2008. The selection policies, per se, may not have changed, but there is a long line of criticism about the motivations behind the policies. – S. Rich (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a source for what the policies are, unless they have changed we can use it. I fail to see what we need to exercise caution over, as long as we do not say this is anything more then this is how they define hate groups.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There's certainly criticism about the motivations, and we include that criticism extensively — much of which is from partisan opinion sources. Fair enough. But your objection to including a non-partisan, reliable published academic source discussing the SPLC's methodologies rings rather hollow. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the "high consensus" "low consensus" distinction should be useful. Of course, our readers should also know that this material is coming from SPLC/Potok by way of Blazak. More detail should be included in the main SPLC hate group list article than in this one. Motsebboh (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell skimming I'd strongly disagree with the claim that SPLC have solid criteria as listed in the book. Yes they may operate on a consensus basis, and that may be a valuable point to mention, but shared opinion about the world being flat or the Knights of Columbus being a race hate group doesn't make it so. This article [10] wasn't what I was looking for but calls the SPLC a partisan attack group and enforcer of ideological orthodoxies whose greatest expense is fundraising. I was actually having a quick look for some claims to SPLC having criteria and while I didn't see anything the aforementioned article was a very interesting read. 人族 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not up to us to second guess how scholars writing in academic books determine what credence to give to their sources. Funny that one would question that type of source yet clamor for the inclusion of fringe opinions expressed by people with no expertise. TFD (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Philanthropy Roundtable" op-ed you link was written by a noted right-wing political adviser and opinion pundit. It is Mr. Zinsmeister's opinion, and while we include many opinions in this article, his opinion cannot outweigh or override a scholarly factual source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Is he a right-wing political adviser and opinion pundit? It looks like he's worked for both sides of US politics. I enjoyed the linked article by the way. Which scholarly sources is his opinion not permitted to override? If you're referring to the 2006 encyclopaedia reference or the Free Legal Dictionary which relies on 2003 or older material, those sources are at best dated. That's fine for history, not so much for contemporary analysis. Most of the references in this article are simply media links - New York Times, HuffPost etc so a field 'expert' seems relevant to me. 人族 (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The info one finds on Randy Blazak, shows him to be every bit as publicly opinionated as Zinsmeister. That being said, the suggested book chapter by Blazak seems to include a faithful recording of Mark Potok's version of the SPLC's hate group selection process. It would seem to be a good source for the "Hate group and extremist designations" subsection provided the reader is told where it is coming from in-line. Motsebboh (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

For gods sake, 人族, that's not an "article". It's an opinion column on a partisan website, and referring to it repeatedly as an article -- even after it was pointed out to you that it's an opinion column -- really doesn't help your credibility. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So he worked for Moynihan. So did lots of neoconservatives. He's always been right-wing. His writing is not to be taken literally. Otherwise, the the article on the former VP would begin "[he] is an American dog and former VP of the U.S. that suffers from rabies." Maybe fakenews has been so successful that you actually believe that to be true. TFD (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again we seem to be getting sidetracked from the main issue which is about using the Perry/Blazak source for the Hate Group section of the article. Maybe Doug Weller or another editor can give a try incorporating some of its material into our article and then we can go from there. Motsebboh (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that concern about the Blazak chapter is a sidetrack. But I'm also concerned about whether the SPLC is careful in its hate group designations. Isn't clear that the designations are simply opinions, and not subject to scholarly review? – S. Rich (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No, concerns about "the Blazak chapter" is what we should be discussing here, if anyone has concerns about this source. It's not a sidetrack. The sidetrack is debating the merits of the SPLC's hate group list which is not our job. Motsebboh (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay relooking at p142-143 to try to extract some sort of criteria. Potok claims that hate is necessary but not sufficient. The group must have a name, not just be a collection of folk. The group must have some platform based on the supremacy of their members' reference group. Third the group must be involved in activity based on its belief that others are less than them. Potok accepts that 'antigay groups' are weakly identified as homosexuality being a sin is a common religious concept. Anti-illegal and neo-Confederate groups are also deemed low consensus. The problem is this criteria seems to be ... flexibly applied or even ignored when 'necessary'.

Take for instance this passage by one noted 'hate group': To love people who identify as gays or lesbians means to extend grace to them: to welcome them as friends, to care for them when ill, and to respect them as persons whose creation was ordained by the God of the universe and for whom the Son of God died. ... And such love means being willing to accept accusations of bigotry, hatred, and ignorance if, on behalf of truth and love, our yes to God and no to sin means that our antagonists refuse to hear what is, for them, a difficult message, however lovingly expressed. Does it espouse hate? Nope. Does the group have a name? Obviously. Does the group espouse some form of supremacy? The group believes their views are right, that's not supremacy. Is the group espousing the view others are less? No. Based on the given criteria SPLC's hate group isn't. What other criteria do they use that isn't given in the linked book? Here's another old quote 'We MUST vigorously [oppose Christian fundamentalists]... Monsters, one and all. To do any less would be to roll out a red carpet to those who would usher in a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, nationalistic militarism, and superstitious theocracy.' Does it espouse hate? Obviously. Does the group have a name? Yes it's an organised foundation and this quote is from HuffPo. Does the group espouse some form of supremacy? Yes ... but it's not ingroup superiority so much as selected outgroup inferiority - those they deem enemies of the United States. Is the group espousing the view others are less? Absolutely. Those holding the wrong view are monsters that should be opposed - how domestic enemies should be dealt with isn't spelled out. Based on the given SPLC criteria this is manifestly a hate group, except it's not according to SPLC. I'm not trying to argue original research here - that's banned by Wikipedia, I'm just noting there's an obvious inconsistency between the criteria allegedly used as the basis of decisions, and the practical outcomes.

Mmm wait, am I misconstruing things and is this what you consider merit sidetracking? How about Blazak's CV [11]. Looks like a prior connection with SPLC but it's not a strong link - a report published through them, and more recently a board position with them. Brian Levin has previously served as Associate Director-Legal Affairs for SPLC. Can't see if the other authors have links but given one is Canadian and another British it's less likely. It's enough to suggest that the book is written by authors who at the very least sympathise with SPLC - note that doesn't automatically mean the content is inaccurate or prejudicial. 人族 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I you want to know why the SPLC considers the Family Research Council a hate group, read their article where they explain it. The definition of hate speech is fairly clear. While it is protected in the U.S., it is illegal in every other developed nation. Here is a link to a Canadian decision on someone convicted of distributing pamphlets that were homophobic: Hate speech "incite[s] the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects." It does not matter what connection an author has with the SPLC so long as his writing has been accepted by an academic publisher it is a reliable source. Publishers like Praeger publish works by people of different opinions, but it expects that they get their facts right and accurately acknowledge the degree of acceptance their opinions hold. Unlike blogs by people who fear minorities represent an existential threat to America. TFD (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

More superfluous discourse. At this point Blazak is being used in a very limited way, in one paragraph, to confirm a couple of fairly obvious things about the SPLC. Motsebboh (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the recently added material is fringe and it also appears to be an attempt to WP:COATRACK this article. Some of the particular incidents have also been discussed in the past and general consensus was to omit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

SRich added a comment that criticized the SPLC for listing the Alliance Defending Freedom solely because it "opposes efforts of the LGBT community to impose its agenda on those who disagree with them for religious reasons." That agenda according to them is promoting pedophilia and their "efforts" to oppose it are criminalization of the LGBT community. I think the SPLC is well within the mainstream here. TFD (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, and a good number of recent additions have been in that vein. Indeed, some of them added material ignoring previous discussions and consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Fringe? Coatrack? Cherry picking? Check the archives?

I've just seen a number of reverts justified with "fringe", "coatrack", "cherry picking", "check the archives" justifications. How these rationales apply mystifies me. The Washington Post, Washington Times, Townhall.com, Weekly Standard, Hudson Institute, National Review, Huffington Post, Vox, Harpers, a Vanderbilt University professor, Ken Silverstein, Larry Wilcox, etc. fall into these categories? "Fringe", per WP standards, comes within WP:FRINGE guidelines, with deals with fringe theories. The essay WP:COATRACK deals with coatrack articles. The "archives" justification is most astonishing – the Allison Stanger NYT piece was mentioned in Talk last month and the WP editor pointed out how her comment "most certainly did blame the SPLC's description of Murray, along with other "faulty information," as "the catalyst for shutting off the free exchange of ideas at Middlebury."" Lastly, WP:CHERRYPICKING does not preclude selection of WP:NOTEWORTHY material from a variety of sources; in this series of edits the cherry-picking has been done to sanitize the article of criticisms of the SPLC. – S. Rich (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The fringe refers to sources such as townhall. Cherry picking refers to the practice of scouring the internets and trying to find any negative statement that exists about the SPLC then cramming it into this article. Same thing for undue. Coatrack refers to the attempts to turn this article into "Everything negative that's ever been said about the SPLC". The archives comment references previous discussions on Middlebury, Silverstein etc. and is frankly self-explanatory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, Townhall is not fringe. They've got a correspondent assigned to the White House and many notable commentators contribute to their articles. Given that there are different opinions about the SPLC, WP:BALANCE demands that we add in these noteworthy and continuing criticisms. Please check your POV. (I have, and I'll admit that I do not like the way the SPLC has gone over the last decade.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, having a corresponded assigned to the White House these days does not guarantee non-fringe status. And like I said, this is a whole bunch of cherry picking. Please read through the archives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Lots of unsubstantiated removals including good sources like Harpers and National Review. I've reinstated most of it except townhall.com where a case could be made for inclusion. The rest you should discuss here. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please quit it with the WP:STALKING and revenge reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please keep it civil. As I said: I preserved the parts of your edits I considered improvements. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It was a 99% revert. You restored pretty much all the text, just removed some extraneous sources. You also did that without discussing it first here. Or, apparently without reading the discussions in the archives. You're doing revenge reverts cuz of our dispute elsewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that valid notable sources should preferably not be removed. David A (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: the removal of this text. If the objection is "shock value" is there an objection to restoring the content ($68million in assets in 1996) without the quote? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

These are all noteworthy sources, from the left and right. And they serve to show the criticism has continued over the years. Objection to Townhall as "fringe" is purely POV. It has been mentioned twice on the WP:RSNB and once on the WP:NPOVN. The NPOVN listing dealt with an article that Thomas Sowell wrote in 2010. – S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Views that are not reported in reliable secondary sources are fringe. The opposition to the SPLC comes primarily from people who support what they call hate groups. For example the social media sites of Mike Adams, who SRich quotes, are "littered with hate speech against gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer people. He condemned “the gay lifestyle” and likened same-sex marriage rights to “rape.” He called trans people mentally ill and asserted that any doctor willing to help with gender-reassignment surgery should be charged with mutilating a mentally ill person." (Daily Beast)[12] Ken Silverstein and Laird Wilcox are also mentioned. Silverstein is a founder of CounterPunch, a controversial left-wing publication, while Wilcox has been ignored in the mainstream for the last 20 years. TFD (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Naturally, many members and fellow travellers of organizations that the SPLC condemns as hate groups dislike the SPLC. However, the criticism presently found in this article generally doesn't come from such people. With so many highly opinionated internet magazines now, judging which ones have enough clout to be used for opinion is not clear-cut. However, Silverstein, who wrote extensively for Harper's as well as for Counterpunch, is clearly a worthy critic; so is Wilcox who has co-written a highly regarded monograph on extremist groups [13]. Motsebboh (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, all criticism, except from Silverstein and Wilcox, has come from supporters of groups decsribed as hate groups or people who subscribe to those views. While Wilcox's 1992 book on American extremism is highly regarded, his writing in the last 25 years has been self-published and generally ignored. Chip Berlet, who is one the leading experts on the American Right, said, "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter...He simply can't tolerate people who are his competition in this field." And Silverstein is the founder of a controversial left-wing journal. In any case those are only two writers, who are extensively quoted in right-wing websites because they are the only two people who do not subscribe to their beliefs who are critical of the SPLC. TFD (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK J.M. Berger, Alexander Cockburn, and the Montgomery Advertiser have not been members or supporters of any of these groups. Neither is Stephen Bright, a harsh critic of the SPLC, who is not mentioned in this article. Are any of us supposed to be impressed by Chip Berlet's knock on Wilcox? Didn't Berlet work for the SPLC at some point? You repeatedly dismiss critics of the SPLC as fans of the listed hate groups. In doing so, I suspect intentionally, you not-so-subtly associate such critics with the hate groups as a whole rather than with their specific criticisms of the SPLC; i.e. these people hate the SPLC because they like (all?) the hate groups it lists. Of course, your approach also induces circular reasoning. Critics of the SPLC support hate groups. Why? Because they criticize the SPLC. Motsebboh (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)