Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Criticism from notable people

Many seem averse to including John Stossell's criticism of SPLC in this article but there a number of other reputable public figures who have criticized the SPLC. The article in its current state does not mention the substantial number of respectable people who do not consider the SPLC to be a fair and neutral organization. There are a number of “criticism” sections on Wikipedia articles that quote specific notable people; the certified “good article”, Black Lives Matter, is an excellent example of this. Specific criticisms should be added to the article to make it more balanced. I propose the following as a lead in to a “criticism and controversies” section:

The SPLC has strongly been criticized by a number of figures in public policy, academia, and media including Karl Zinsmeister , Edwin Meese, Kimberley Strassel, and Niall Ferguson. In September 2017, a coalition of 47 conservative leaders released an open letter to news outlets, calling on them to refrain from citing the SPLC. The letter read in part: “The SPLC is a discredited, left-wing, political activist organization that seeks to silence its political opponents with a 'hate group' label of its own invention and application”.

--Zime2005 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We have such a section. And like the BLM section discuses specific accusations, it is not just a list (well actually it is, and needs a rewrite to make it a prose section, not a bullet pointed list) of people who criticized it. When it reads like the BLM section (with the material it currently has) then we can start to discus expansion, but lets get it into shape first.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Any section including critical views must also include positive views. We do not create sections merely to list every single person who has ever said something negative about a person or organization. We could have a section entitled "Reactions" which would include positive and negative views in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Someone tweeting about something, or making a YouTube video, is not necessarily relevant or fit for inclusion unless it has been discussed in a reliable secondary source - of which Twitter and YouTube are not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"Any section including critical views must also include positive views". I'm not sure what the basis for that assertion is; is it an official policy? As I wrote above, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia which contain criticism sections without positive views on the subject matter (e.g. Black Lives Matter). There most certainly is a large amount of criticism directed at the SPLC which is well documented in a number of reliable sources (here is another source for Zinemeister's criticism https://archive.is/lpQ5k). If, for some reason, there are stylistic objections to making a list of critics, perhaps the first sentence of my proposed lead in could remain intact with just the citations of the criticisms. The open letter to the media definitely deserves a mention in the article. --Zime2005 (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Philanthropy Roundtable, i.e. the neocon 501c funded by the Koch Brothers? Yea, hard pass there, buddy. TheValeyard (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

And when the section we have here reads like the section in BLM, then we can discus adding material to it. But if it does not read like that using the BLM article as an example and then wanting to keep this one the listy mess it is is a very poor argument. Fix, then we can discussion inflation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Let's call a spade a spade here: these attempts to add criticism to the article, and to label the SPLC as "left-wing", are entirely based on the fact that the right wing hates the SPLC -- which is the primary reason why the article is going to remain balanced and not include the bullshit that the right keeps wanting to add. Just ain't gonna happen, because we're Wikipedia and not Fox News. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Weasel requires that we explain who is criticizing them and neutral point of view requires that we explain the relative weight of these views. The expression "a number of figures" doesn't tell us who they are or how many. The "47 conservative leaders" did not include any elected officials, but did include leaders of groups the SPLC lists as hate groups, including Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, both of whom are barred from entering the UK because of their anti-Islamist activism. The editor of WorldNetDaily, a site that promotes conspiracy theories, is also listed. Essentially people who see nothing wrong with the positions that the SPLC and other reputable sources see as hate object to the SPLC listing hate groups. TFD (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson may be associated with the quite reputable Hoover Institution etc., but his Twitter feed is WP:SPS and not RS when it comes to third parties. Leave out. – S. Rich (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

He's also married to Hirsi Ali. TFD (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the phrase “many figures” constitutes weasel words and naming specific people is bad style, then perhaps reputable mainstream sources which have published criticism of the SPLC could be mentioned. There certainly is a precedent for this on Wikipedia. The first sentence could look something like this:

The SPLC has been the subject of criticism published in the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, Politico Magazine(https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312), and Bloomberg News (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-07/southern-poverty-law-center-gets-creative-to-label-hate-groups).

The Politico piece is quite lengthy and could be a valuable reference for an expanded criticism section. Simply put, there is an abundance of criticism of the SPLC from respectable people which is documented in reliable sources; this article in its current state does not cover it adequately. Zime2005 (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As I have said, write a new section as prose containing only the materiel we have now and lets see what it looks like. It's not as if this is a critisism free zone now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that the Politico article does not criticize the SPLC but reports criticism. Bloomberg News did not criticize the SPLC, but included an article by a right-wing blogger (Megan McArdle) that did. I could write that some people say the moon landing was faked or 9/11 was a false flag operation, but that would be misleading unless I explained who these people were and how accepted their views are. The reality is that almost all this criticism comes from groups the sPLC describes as hate groups and their supporters. And most mainstream sources accept the sPLC description. TFD (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

“The reality is that almost all this criticism comes from groups the SPLC describes as hate groups and their supporters.” This is a very vague assertion with no evidence. As I have pointed out, there are numerous reputable critics of the SPLC who do not have a conflict of interest.

There is a precedent for the style I proposed above on other Wikipedia articles but... whatever.

Is has been suggested that I write a new section as prose. This is a bit challenging to do without adding a little bit more material. I think that the last sentence of the “assessment” section quoting Berger should be moved down and expanded upon. This is my proposal for an amended section:

The SPLC's identification and listings of hate groups and extremists have been the subject of controversy. Critics of the SPLC say that it chooses its causes with funding and donations in mind, and argue that the SPLC is a partisan organization the often uses the ‘hate group’ label as a weapon to silence its political opponents. The SPLC sometimes responds by reviewing its actions and removing people or organizations from hate listings, such as that of Ben Carson; however, it has stood behind the vast majority of its listings.

In 2013, J.M. Berger wrote in Foreign Policy that media organizations should be more cautious when citing the SPLC and ADL, arguing that they are "not objective purveyors of data". Berger was subsequently quoted in Politico Magazine as saying that the SPLC “wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information”. William A. Jacobson, a professor at Cornell Law School has questioned the SPLC’s credibility, saying “time and again, I see the SPLC using the reputation it gained decades ago fighting the Klan as a tool to bludgeon mainstream politically conservative opponents”.

All quotations come from the Politico link above.

Zime2005 (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Conservatives don't like it when conservative organizations and persons are criticized. Stop the presses! Every action or organization earns praise and criticism, what should be looked at is whether the criticism is a widely-held point of view. Abortion has two well-established and thoroughly-argued sides, as does climate change and health care. Here, two naysaying pundits doesn't seem to rise to the level of the wealth of sourcing that the SPLC is a reputable citation for haste groups. I don't even need to get into the ADL angle, as the "criticism" they receive is largely rooted in antisemitism. TheValeyard (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It is considerably more than just “two naysayers”. I think have done a good job of documenting the numerous reputable critics of the SPLC. My proposed edits expand on the commentary of one critic already mentioned in the article, add criticism from an Ivy League academic, and replace an un-sourced general claim with a well-soured and well-documented claim. By any reasonable criteria, the edits are an improvement to this article. Zime2005 (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly reasonable and encyclopedic to include criticism of the SPLC when it comes from neutral reliable sources, but criticism from people and organizations who see the SPLC as an ideological opponent is almost entirely worthless, even if there's a lot of it. We're not here to be part of the Great Right Wing Echo Chamber (that's what Fox News is for), we're here to report what reliable sources say about the subject of our articles. and in this particular instance, the complaints you want to report come from biased non-reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is if only conservatives criticize SPLC, and the conservative view is almost entirely worthless, then the moment a neutral organisation (or individual) criticizes them you deem them a biased non-reliable source and continue to protect SPLC from criticism. They aren't a sacred cow. If SPLC as far-left is the standard view amongst conservatives that merits noting despite not being the liberal viewpoint. Remember neutrality not the liberal view is what matters, or have the rules changed? 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The neutral view is that SPLC is not a far-left organization, and that's what the article will continue to say. If and when some neutral reliable source criticizes the organization, it will certainly be reported in the article, but partisan whining from the right will not be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the test is not whether criticism comes from "neutral" sources but whether it is substantially reported in "reliable" sources which are not necessarily the same thing. Actually a fair amount of criticism of the SPLC already appears in the article. My main quibble with the present article is that it is too eager to declare the SPLC's inherently subjective hate group listings as "authoritative". Respectable news sources make reference to the SPLC's hate group listings because it is the only "game in town" for such listings, not because they necessarily consider the listings to be "authoritative". Also, as mentioned above, the figure on the SPLC's endowment is now way out of wack. It is not a mere $319,000,000 but probably more like $500,000,000. 68.14.86.118 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ken Silverstein

We can say "Ken Silverstein said it" if the source says he said it. We cannot say "and others" if the source does not say "and others", what dopes the source say?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This really isn't difficult. Keeping the basic form that Glynth used we could say something like this:

Starting in the 1990's some observers, including Ken Silverstein writing in Harper's Magazine, were critical of the SPLC's fundraing appeals and finances. He alleged that the group was "essentially a fraud" that used hyperbole and overstated the prevalence of hate groups to raise large amounts of money.

Speaking of raising large amounts of money, our figure for the for the SPLC's endowment is now outdated. It one year it has moved up from about $319,000,000 to about $433,000,000 [1]. It seems that the year following Trump's election has been a godsend for the SPLC. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That works.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to change "He":at the top of the second sentence to "Silverstein". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really, the reference is perfectly clear, but it's no big deal in any case. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, really. The subject in the first sentence is "Ken Silverstein and others", so you can't go with a singular pronoun in the second sentence, because it doesn't call back to a singular person in the first. The second sentence must use "Silverstein". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm on board Captain! 68.14.86.118 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Come to thinks of it this might be better:

Starting in the 1990s some observers have been critical of the SPLC's fundraising appeals and finances. Ken Silverstein writing in Harper's Magazine alleged that the SPLC was "essentially a fraud" that used hyperbole and overtstated the prevalence of hate groups to raise large amounts of money.

68.14.86.118 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Better, I agree. Nit-pick: commas before and after "writing in Harper's Magazine". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this, with the commas, is a great suggestion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Outdated information

The Infobox stats on the SPLC's annual revenue, endowment size [2], and number of employees are out of date. The endowment size should also be changed in the Finances section of the article. 68.14.86.118 (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

What is preventing you from doing that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps either time or ability, or merely discomfort of making changes, if we assume good faith. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming nothing, just letting the IP know they can make the change themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No they can't; not when the article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.86.118 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Source for attempt to kill Dees (just deleted)

The book mentioned here. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to add this

In the "controversy" section i'll add:

"The SPLC has strongly been criticized by a number of figures in public policy, academia, and media including Karl Zinsmeister , Edwin Meese, Kimberley Strassel, and Niall Ferguson. In September 2017, a coalition of 47 conservative leaders released an open letter to news outlets, calling on them to refrain from citing the SPLC. The letter read in part: “The SPLC is a discredited, left-wing, political activist organization that seeks to silence its political opponents with a 'hate group' label of its own invention and application”."

This is the source: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2017/09/06/conservatives-urge-media-cut-ties-splc-over-dangerous-hate-map

93.36.191.55 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)