Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

"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.[1] 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 [2] 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. "[3] 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."[4] 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 [5] 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.[6] It starts at page 141[7] 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 [8] 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 [9]. 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)

I'm confused. Are you claiming that ADF efforts to stop the homosexual agenda are part of a conspiracy to criminalise homosexuality? Kinda confused as not even the SPLC make that claim, and their organisation bio is skewed - they claim for instance that an ADF attourney's views on the Matthew Shephard murder were debunked, but their source is the homosexual offshoot of Media Matters which is itself a political organisation. Based on a quick look around it appears that only 1 witness claimed Shephard's homosexuality was the cause for premeditated murder, and she later recanted. Many, perhaps most of those involved in the case ultimately concluded sexuality was not the motivation for the attack. Sorry tangent I know but if SPLC can't get their facts right and rely on skewed sources ... 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 6 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)[10] 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 [11]. Motsebboh (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, all criticism, except from Silverstein and Wilcox, has come from supporters of groups described 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 hate groups as a whole rather than with the few groups they defend against the charge; 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)

I was quite clear that outside the supporters of views the SPLC describes as hate, their are a very few set of individuals who have criticized the SPLC, but their view have received no recognition in reliable sources, which is the criterion for inclusion, per policy. Alexander Cockburn of course is the co-founder, along with Silverstein, of Counterpunch and I said, "AFAIK, all criticism, except from Silverstein and Wilcox, has come from supporters of groups described as hate groups or people who subscribe to those views." Could you please read my comments before misrepresenting them so that discussion will be more productive. TFD (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think I read you quite well. Are you proposing any specific edit to the article? If not, I don't have anything to add. Motsebboh (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This line of reasoning still seems to me like "heads I win, tails you lose". It is not logically possible to contradict the SPLC's categorizing of people as "hate groups" without implicitly "supporting" those people. Once a person ends up on the list, with or without justification, anybody who says they shouldn't be on the list does not count because by saying that, they become "supporters of a hate group". Somehow "being a hater" is infectious: defend one, and you become one. That is the feeling I get when I read what TFD writes.

"Except for" does not help if you still try to find something wrong with everybody you cannot smear in that way.

I think such reasoning has no place in Wikipedia and should be ignored. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's similar to the moon landing. You say that we should balance the view that man landed on the Moon with the view it was faked. Maybe it was faked, maybe there is a homosexual agenda to molest children or an Islamic conspiracy of world domination. I don't know, but just think we should follow policy on neutrality. Maybe that means heads NASA wins and tails the moon landing skeptics lose, but that's the policy and you should argue with it on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlike the Moon landing, we are not talking about verifiable scientific proof, but of personal subjective opinions from the SPLC. It is perfectly possible to be a critic of certain of their listings or agendas without remotely subscribing to bigotry, supremacism, or genocide. David A (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have been debating pseudoscientists for decades, and your argumentation closely mimics theirs. When one doubts their opinion, they often justify it by introducing another controversy, equating their opinion with the party that is clearly in the right. Usually, they use Galileo for that purpose. Using such bad reasoning hurts your case, so please continue doing it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It certainly is, but there are few examples. And although you say that claims someone subscribes to bigotry, supremacism, or genocide is an unverifiable personal subjective opinion, it is not treated that way in social science or legal proceedings. Stop Islamization of America for example has lost cases in the U.S., the UK and Canada when the courts decided that they promoted hate. In some cases the SPLC was used as an expert source. Hob Gadling, the difference is that we are not trying to determine whether the SPLC or the groups they investigate are right, but what the perception of them is. It could be for example that there is a homosexual agenda. But that's something to argue about elsewhere. All the matters is what mainstream opinion is. Incidentally, do your pseudoscientific sparring partners ever say that we should defer to mainstream scientific opinion? TFD (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox contributed a chapter to the volume The Cultic Milieu, which was edited by Jeffrey Kaplan and sv:Heléne Lööw, both notable academics. Kaplan and Loow evidently didn't feel he was fringe. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"This is the Talk page for discussing improvements to the Southern Poverty Law Center article . . ." What improvements are you recommending TFD? Don't be afraid of specifics. Motsebboh (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

For me the comparison with scientific consensus is a weird one, the hate group classification is not a matter of science, it boils down to a matter of opinion, and the reader shouldn't be blinded to a singular one if others exist that are verifiable and relevant - it seems to me that the disagreement boils down to some editors not thinking anything is relevant when it comes to criticism or classifications. I believe reasonable notability has been demonstrated not only in this section but in other discussions, we're not talking about random self published bloggers here. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So you think social science is an oxymoron and legal opinion is just opinion. But policy does not draw that distinction. Motsebboh, the topic of this discussion thread is stated in the first posting, where SRich objected to the removal of some criticisms. Perhaps we should discuss them one by one. Let's start with one of SRich's edits discussed above: "Professor Mike Adams criticized the SPLC because "Their reason for the characterization [of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)] was simply that the ADF opposes efforts of the LGBT community to impose its agenda on those who disagree with them for religious reasons."[12][13] The ADF claims there is a "homosexual agenda" that targets children for pedophilia and Adams himself holds controversial views on the topic. However, the text does not explain why the ADF is listed or that the criticism is fringe. TFD (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Good. We're making some progress. I agree with you that the Mike Adams criticism doesn't need to be in the article because it doesn't meet the level of media weight we should expect. Next item . . ? Motsebboh (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted it to NPOVN. I will look through the other criticisms and post my comments. TFD (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

See: WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Southern Poverty Law Center .28SPLC.29. – S. Rich (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"Incidentally, do your pseudoscientific sparring partners ever say that we should defer to mainstream scientific opinion?" - Some of them actually do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Adam's criticism doesn't meet the level of media weight required? Okay so what level of weight is required? I would suggest criticism of the SPLC is at the very least simmering for instance: http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/academic-study-splc-hatewatch-biased/. And what counts as controversial? I skimmed Adam's Twitter feed, once I found it, and in the past month or so there's nothing in it that counts as "... hate speech against gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer people" unless the bar is far far lower than I realise. Is it who is offended, the number offended ...? Without having seen Adam's 'controversial' views in detail I'd consider it well within the realm of possibility that his views are widespread. 人族 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think the Wilcox thing is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw Cockburn was removed. It looks like this was the last discussion on that, from 2014. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Republican Party

The article says, "In 2010, a group of Republican politicians and conservative organizations criticized the SPLC in full-page advertisements in two Washington, D.C., newspapers for what they described as "character assassination" because the SPLC had listed the Family Research Council as a hate group due to its characterization of LGBT people as sexual deviants, predators and pedophiles." The statement is false. A number of congressmen signed a petititon that said, "We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council...that [is] working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans." There is no mention of the SPLC in the petition, it was added by the FRC, which is clear from the ad.[14] TFD (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The material is sourced to the Christian Science Monitor. Specifically, the sourced article states that "In December, 22 Republican lawmakers, among them Speaker Boehner and Representative Bachmann, three governors, and a number of conservative organizations took out full-page ads in two Washington papers castigating the SPLC for “character assassination” by listing the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group.". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Beat me to the revert, agree that it should stay, this might be a good additional source. Arkon (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with EvergreenFir. TFD, you are conflating the Christian Science Monitor article with a (downloaded) petition from the FRC. (Which, BTW, has a dead link posted.) The CS Monitor does not say that petition is the one circulated as an ad in the WP. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Gee, TFD, do you really think that any of the petition signers didn't know that the petition would be used in a pro-FRC anti SPLC ad?? There's a bridge spanning Manhattan and Brooklyn that's for sale! At most a little rewording of the item in question would be required to satisfy the ultra-fastidious. Motsebboh (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't wish to speculate about what Boehner, Bachmann, etc. intended, because that is original research. But the ad is [here http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10L12.pdf], preserved on the FRC website. If you cannot see it, go to the website here and click on "Start Debating Stop Hating]. The fact the story was not picked up by major media shows how insignificant it is. Anyway I posted the question to RSN. TFD (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I've recommended that the RSN thread WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Conflict between secondary and primary sources be closed. – S. Rich (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please try to check your facts before making claims: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/24/conservative-groups-southern-poverty-law-center-stop-hating-start-debating.html, or don't you consider Fox to be a major? If not then who are you defining as major given that raises the issue of bias? 人族 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Berger's criticism

Continuing this discussion re: Berger: in my opinion weight is primarily from the reputation of the publication (Foreign Policy) not Berger himself. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's used, then Berger's specific criticism needs to be made clear. His primary concern is that splc counts individual chapters of an organization as "groups," to arrive a time the 1000+ figure, and that some of the "groups" are a business or website. That's really all he takes issue with, so that needs to be clarified and the source can't be used to imply that splc is listing are flawed in other ways (ie, labels groups as hate groups that aren't) since Berger clearly does not make that argument. He criticizes how they count hard groups, not the splc's evaluation of who is a hate group. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a criticism of semantics, and hardly seems a major or noteworthy criticism.Slatersteven (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: He makes two criticisms which you cite: duplicate groups and non-groups e.g. websites and bookstores.

(1) On the first, he says "the number of entries that require such debate is staggering ... 65 or 70 percent." If we detail that criticism we should include his estimate of the extent, or a description to that effect.

(2) On the second, he says:

• Radical bookstores and racist record labels also appear on the list. Are these hate groups, or hate businesses, or just businesses?

I take issue with your argument: "the source can't be used to imply that splc is listing are flawed in other ways (ie, labels groups as hate groups that aren't)" because here that's exactly what he does here with "just businesses?"

(3) Re: semantics, quoting again:

• "The problem is that the SPLC ... are not objective purveyors of data. They’re anti-hate activists. There’s nothing wrong with that — advocating against hate is a noble idea. But as activists, their research needs to be weighed more carefully by media outlets that cover their pronouncements."

I would not summarize that as merely a criticism of semantics. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation there. If you read the whole article from start to finish like I did, the context and content of his argument is very clear, and it's obvious that his primary issue is with the counting. If the "just businesses" part is a broader criticism, it's an awfully vague, indirect one (and made in the context of a discussion of how the splc counts hate groups). Regardless, though, the solution is to place any quote that is pulled out in context, by summarizing Berger's main argument (perhaps as TDD suggests below). Otherwise, the quote is cherry picked and implies much broader/deeper criticism than Berger makes. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say something like, "The SPLC currently lists 1,007 hate groups. However, that counts regional branches of national groups." Then explain why the SPLC counts chapters rather than national organizations and what difference it would make on the numbers. There are two sides to this. if tomorrow the American Nazi Party set up 10,000 additional chapters, the SPLC counting would reflect it. TFD (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Charles Murray/Middlebury College

The rationale for excluding material critical and supportive of the SPLC over the Charles Murray/Middlebury affair would be what exactly? This received vastly more coverage and comment in major news and opinion sources than did the extremist labeling of Ben Carson, or the hate group labeling of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or Laird Wilcox's opinion of the SPLC, all of which are presently included in the section on controversy over the SPLC's hate group and extremist listings. Let's hear substance please. Not "hasn't achieved consensus". Motsebboh (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS. The consensus to include the material is where exactly? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Trying to be a pisser, I see. Motsebboh (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC) And your substantive reason for wanting to exclude it would be what? I don't like it? Just doesn't seem right? Hasn't got consensus? Motsebboh (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A: That is (as far as I can see) a personal attack. B:It is also correct, you need to make an argument for inclusion. You make the case, then we either accept it or reject it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You have not presented in your edit any reliable sources that say there was a controversy, merely opinion pieces. As I have explained to you, weight requires coverage in reliable sources in order to be included. Anyway, the writing makes no sense: "Following the disruption of a presentation by Murray at Middlebury College in March 2017, some commentators were critical of the SPLC's description of Murray." Yes, one followed the other in time, but the connection is not explicit. Since Stanger's op-ed was published the day after the full moon, we could write, "following the full moon, some commentators defended Murray." TFD (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

When one editor explicitly asks to hear something other than a vacuous "hasn't got consensus" and the next editor basically says "hasn't got consensus", I would call that trying to be a pisser. Four Deuces' comment seems to be in somewhat the same vein as his objection to including the FRC advertisement/petition material. Let's find a really pettifogging, objection to the material since there really isn't any other kind. All one needs to do is replace "Following the disruption . . " with "In response to the disruption . . " and his second objection disappears (unless, that is, he expects the sources themselves to say "I am explicitly writing the following to criticize the Southern Poverty Law Center's role in the the shutdown of Charles Murray's speech at Middlebury College on March 2, 2017). As for his first objection, when there is significant back and forth in major news and opinion sources there is controversy. We don't need news articles to explicitly call it a controversy, though, in fact, many news sources contributed to its becoming a controversy by bringing up not only the SPLC's labeling of Murray, but also some of the disrupters' reliance on that labeling. Motsebboh (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Who died and left you in charge? Wikipedia policy requires consensus. It takes big brass balls to say "I don't want to hear that consensus isn't on my side." If anybody is engaging in "I don't like it" behavior, it is you toward a core policy, Verifiability. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Good, were making progress Malik. Verifiability. I think I know what you're referring to regarding verifiability but I don't want to jump the gun. So perhaps you could explain. Motsebboh (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You cannot say "in response to the disruption either" unless you make the connection explicit, that is, explain the connection between the SPLC article about Murray and the disruption. Otherwise it appears as if the disruption was undertaken on the orders of the SPLC. You should recognize that everyone has a world view which allows them to connect events which not everyone shares. I imagine you think that the SPLC is behind a conspiracy to undermine the American way of life and exerts power over hooligans and mislead people who take their marching orders from it. Hence the connection is self-explanatory. The assumption when writing text is that readers cannot necessarily draw the same connections and they have to be spelled out and reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?? Here's the now deleted item:

* In a January 2014 profile of controversial political scientist Charles Murray, the SPLC labeled Murray a "white nationalist." Following the disruption of a presentation by Murray at Middlebury College in March 2017, some commentators were critical of the SPLC's description of Murray.

It makes clear that the critics (and defenders) are not writing about some supposed SPLC orders to disrupt the Murray/Middlebury event but rather the SPLC's 2014 description of Murray as a white nationalist. Motsebboh (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the connection between the SPLC labelling and the disruption? Did the labelling cause the students to disrupt or alternatively were they unaware of the labelling? I am sure in your mind there is some sort of connection, but it needs to be made explicit. TFD (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That would call for OR. I'm having difficulty following your full moon analogy. If every article on the Middlebury protest mentioned the full moon yes, we would mention it. As Motsebboh explains that's all we're doing here: mentioning a fact which (every?) journalist whose articles we cite felt was relevant. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Of course we are not supposed to engage in OR, but sources are. For example, we cannot report what we saw at the talk, but we can mention what was reported about it in reliable sources. If you do not think that is any connection between the SPLC and the protests, then it is OR to imply there was. You need to explain what the connection is found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

More obfuscation. Frankly, the only thing you've said in this thread that makes any sense, TFD, was your minor "following the disruption" point, which, as I correctly noted, would be corrected by replacing it with "in response to the disruption." It does not matter whether or not the SPLC's criticism of Murray caused the disruption, because the edit in question is not saying that it did; just as it does not matter whether or not the 2012 shooting at the FRC was caused by the SPLC's labeling of the FRC because the edit (not yet removed) is not saying that it did. In response to both events, some writers responded with criticism of the SPLC which found its way into reliable sources. Motsebboh (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

When mention the disruption if it had nothing to do with the SPLC article? TFD (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the Mulberry Bush is blossoming again after the last archiving. In the last discussion there really wasn't a consensus one way or the other. Well, I'll suggest this: Add a section to the article about the "Impacts/Influence of SPLC hate-group/extremist listings/designations". The good, bad, and the ugly could be presented with appropriate balance. – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TFD: I suppose you mean "WHY mention the disruption if it had nothing to do with the SPLC article?" I never said the SPLC article had nothing to do with the disruption. It's not our job to decide that issue one way or the other. I said that the edit in question doesn't say that it did or that it didn't. Rather, the edit simply notes the existence of reliably sourced criticism of the SPLC by some people who apparently thought the SPLC article DID have something to do with the disruption. Motsebboh (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not our job to decide that issue one way or the other, nor is it our job to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." So tell what connection the SPLC had to the disruption and provide reliable sources, or leave it out as implicit synthesis. TFD (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Edit in question implies no such thing, and I think you know that. Actually, I think you just hate not getting the last word, however, weak. Motsebboh (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Then why do you want to mention the disruption, if it had nothing to do with the SPLC article? TFD (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Goodnight Motsebboh (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Your objection was that no source drew a connection between the SPLC's categorization of Murray and the incident at Middebury. Our article never claimed a direct connection but here are several sources that do. Certainly they can't all be dismissed. The relevant portions are bold-ed.

• The once-valuable (and now hateful and vile) Southern Poverty Law Center has long labeled Charles Murray an “extremist” and a “white nationalist.” The SPLC’s label not only contributes to lazy headlines and borderline-slanderous reporting, it also seems to have partly inspired the violent attack against Murray at Middlebury College. National Review
• Intelligent members of the Middlebury community — including some of my own students and advisees — concluded that Charles Murray was an anti-gay white nationalist from what they were hearing from one another, and what they read on the Southern Poverty Law Center website. NY Times
• No matter. The professors who admitted to Professor Stanger that they’d never read a word Murray had written led their students in the chants that drowned out whatever he planned to say at Middlebury. While the anti-intellectual nature of this juvenile stunt is appalling, what’s worse is that college professors and students at an elite, expensive American college would outsource their thinking to an outfit like the SPLC. Real Clear Politics
• Murray bristled at the SPLC’s characterization of him and blamed it for provoking protests among college students who have failed to scrutinize his work. Washington Post
• College officials framed the decision to allow the event to take place as being about free speech. But critics said that Murray shouldn’t be treated simply a person with whom they had differing political views. Many noted that he is classified as a white nationalist by the Southern Poverty Law Center PBS
• Angry protesters shouted down an eminent scholar [Murray] and sent a female professor to the hospital. A crazed gunman entered a D.C. public policy shop and shot an employee before being disarmed. Someone mailed a suspicious white powder to a Scottsdale advocacy group [...] The victims in each case were targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center. USA Today
• In light of the events at Middlebury and the accusations there and at Villanova that Murray is a "white supremacist," some wonder why we haven't disinvited him [...] As to the the allegations against Murray, some are demonstrably untrue, others are robustly controverted. Murray is not an "admitted racist and sexist," as some claim. He himself denies the charges, strenuously, and we recommend reading his response to the Southern Poverty Law Center's attacks. Philly.com

James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD, you are obscuring the fact that information from the SPLC is motivating certain people one way or the other. This occurs when you say "the disruption, ... had nothing to do with the SPLC article?". We are discussing edits to the article in that the properly sourced information from the SPLC has had impact or influence on society. It is just like saying "The FBI has used information from the SPLC to help ...." – S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

References

My point is that if there is a connection, it should be mentioned, if there is no connection it should be removed. Personally, I imagine that a speaker best known for his theories about the inferiority of black folks would have excited a disruption even if the SPLC had not called him a white supremacist three years earlier. TFD (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your "what if the SPLC hadn't called Murray a white supremacist" is unknowable and thus can't be, as you recommend it to be, the basis for either including or removing the edit. However, what is known (as Mr Lambden's edit reminds us) is that both the disrupters and their critics prominently mentioned the SPLC's description of Murray as a crowd motivator. Motsebboh (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi, please change the archive.is URL from short form to long form: http://archive.is/KRona#selection-209.154-209.249 --> https://archive.is/20130903112619/http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism/law-enforcement/law-enforcement-training

This is per Wikipedia:Using_archive.is#Use_within_Wikipedia to prevent link shortening which is policy. Thanks, -- GreenC 00:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the better edit is to remove the reference. The info is dated in that the FBI does not now receive training from the SPLC. This old claim by the SPLC should come from an independent source. – S. Rich (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There's very obviously no consensus for that, this has been discussed at length above. I don't think anyone is going to take issue with the url fix though... Fyddlestix (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)