Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups

Islamic Fundamentalist Groups?

What about Islamic Fundamentalist Groups?--95.113.197.99 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC addresses hate groups in the United States. Currently, they have no US Islamic groups listed as hate groups. If you have suggestions, contact the SPLC and they will give your thoughts due consideration. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Should this article even be here

I'm sort of inclined to think that if this article is here, there should also be one listing anyone who happens to think that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group (and there are such). To say things a little more rationally, it seems to me that having this article sort of implies (without saying) a kind of authority--that if the Southern Poverty Law Center list it, then it probably is a hate group. And having this article/list is totally unnecessary. There's an article in Wikipedia on the Southern Poverty Law Center (and I don't deny that there should be one). If someone wants to see whom they've labeled, someone can simply go to their website. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not really how Wikipedia works. The SPLC is a respected and widely-cited expert source on the issue of hate groups, and thus its listings are generally notable because they appear frequently in reliable sources. Random people who happens to think that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group are not widely-cited expert sources on hate groups. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not "random people," and that characterization shows a kind of judgmental coloring--an easy dismissal of the inconvenient. This is a very left-wing agenda'd organization, frequently cited by other left-wing agenda'd organizations and publications. "Respected" or not is the point of view of whoever is doing--or not doing--the respecting. And it amounts to them all rubber-stamping their imprimatur on each other--giving each other an air of semi-official authority to declare who is good and who is bad. By having this article, Wikipedia is reinforcing that, and that's NOT what Wikipedia should be about.
Again, sure! Have an article on the Southern Poverty Law Center. But leave the list to their website; presumably, one can go there and find it. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note above the two recent attempts at deleting the article through accepted processes; both overwhelmingly failed. A third attempt in such a short period of time would likely be speedily closed as disruptive. Of course, I can't stop you from trying, but at least you've had fair warning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah this definitely doesn't belong on Wikipedia unless they're just flat out trying to endorse whatever the SLPC considers a hate group. Pretty ridiculous but they have a website and lean left so it looks like they'll stay on here despite common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.213.196 (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Map is definitely out of place

Even if this article should be here (which I maintain it should not), the map is certainly inappropriate. As it stands, it is extremely uninformative and grossly misleading, without a LOT more data accompanying it. But it would seem, to the less than critical reader, to provide interesting information. The darker the color on a state--the more rampant is "hate" in that state. "Ooooo! Don't ever want to go to THAT state!"

Here's why it's uninformative at best, and grossly misleading at worst. Two hypothetical states might each, arguably, have one hate group. One state has a population of half a million; the other has a population of 10 million. Suddenly, the state with half a million looks so much more evil than the other.

Furthermore, what if the single group in each of those states happens to be just a separate chapter of the same group--a group that sets up a chapter in every state? The chapter in any given state might consist solely of that chapter's chairperson. But suddenly, this state has a "hate group." And for the state has only half a million people, that works out to two "hate groups" per million. Shocking, compared to that forward-looking state with only one group per 10 million!

I have a very concrete reason for this concern. Apparently, the SPLC put out some sort of list of communities that they decided were hotbeds of hate. They included one of the Amana colonies in Iowa (which I recently visited--lovely places). The reason? Two known white supremacists were seen meeting for coffee in a coffee shop there. So the community is to be tarred and feathered.

If a community is now obligated to oust people who are breaking no laws, but who happen to think the wrong (according to whom?) way--and bar them even from sitting down to coffee together, we are falling into the grand old tradition of the Nazis in Germany or the Stalinists of the USSR. Then we have to ask ourselves, who are the real haters.Uporządnicki (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The "number of x per x population" compares density. It is a very well established metric for comparing something in unequal populations. It is impossible to make a direct comparison between, say, California and North Dakota, not when one state has less population that individual cities in the other state. So one uses a standardized metric, such as "per capita" or "per x population." So the map in question shows exactly what it is intended to show: that hate groups are more common in some states than in others. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Remove: It's actually pretty meaningless anyway, because it ignores numbers of members - Montana might have lots of little hate groups because of fragmentation, while Washington might have a lot higher percentage of the state's population belonging to a hate group. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Further comment: In any case, the title at the top is not neutral - it should be, as per the caption, something like "SPLC hate groups". This needs to be modified in the image itself, which is in Commons. I will remove it for the time being while the discussion is taking place". StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011040036/http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/music.asp to http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/music.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't some token attempt be made to appear objective?

This article currently reads as a mere extension mouthpiece for what is just a private organization (the SPLC). The article reads as if the SPLC lists were compiled on stone tablets from God, delivered to the people by Moses, and thus unworthy of any type of critical examination.

In reality, the SPLC has had numerous contentious and public controversies related to people it has listed as purveyors of hate in the past (e.g., Harvard Professor, Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and what it took to remove their names (in many cases, litigation). Where is mention in this article of such controversies? In addition, there have been news stories looking into the massive net worth the SPLC has accrued from compiling its ever-expanding lists (over $300 million), as well as the obscene salaries many people within the SPLC draw. Where is mention of these stories/criticisms?

There have been news stories about how individual lives have been wrecked by being put on the SPLC list for the most picayune things, such that the SPLC lists have arguably taken on the power, on a national level, that McCarthy era Black Lists once wielded in Hollywood. Yet there is no mention or even whiff of such criticisms in the article.

SPLC hate lists are not remotely as objective as, say FBI crime statistics (which are themselves hardly unassailable). As it currently reads, this article's lack of even a slight twinge of a critical/journalistic voice stands as an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Bdmwiki (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We are not journalists. We are an encyclopedia. This article is about organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It is not our place to try to critique Southern Poverty Law Center. The article about the center itself does contain critiques by various sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir has put it perfectly. Editorializing is not our place. The relevant policy is over this way:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

If there are any reliable secondary sources criticizing the SPLC designations that are not present in the article, by all means, Bdmwiki, post them here so we can have a look at them. A Train^talk 18:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean creating a false equivalency between this authoritative source and the groups they describe as hate groups. Note that their description of hate speech is equivalent to what would be illegal in most countries. (See yeah it would be equivalent to crime stats.) TFD (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The existence of this article, as a breakout from the SPLC article, and without even lip service to gobs of related controversy that has made the news, is itself an act of aggressive editorializing (that has no place in an Encyclopedia). We should be just as opposed to seeing a decontextualized article entitled, "List of organizations designated by Pamela Geller as hate groups," where the author took the innocent position, "Hey, this article is simply doing what its title describes. Oh, and sourced news/criticisms about Geller are in her primary article, so what's the problem?" As to the last reply (and others of same type) that SPLC lists are objective crime stats, I already addressed their word-of-God position in my opening sentence about stone tablets (may be your opinion, but again, no place in an Encyclopedia).Bdmwiki (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Care to supply us with any examples of the "gobs of controversy"? You seem to be taking it as a fait accompli that the article can't be improved. On the contrary: every article can be improved. But you have yet to take any concrete steps that would lead to the article being edited; you're just shouting. A Train^talk 20:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bdmwiki: allow me to officially welcome you back from your hiatus. As for the comparison with Geller, if she ever became as notable, prominent, and authoritative a the SPLC, then I'd think we'd have a spin off list for her too. Until that day, we don't. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Geller was denied admission to the UK when Labor was in power. When the Conservatives took power she asked again for admission, it was refused. She took the government to court and lost, she appealed and lost again. So the view of the SPLC is how she is normally seen. TFD (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me back, @EvergreenFir: Since your objectivity is clearly paramount wrt Wikipedia's behaving like an Encyclopedia, I know you will also welcome the following links, starting with the Britannica.com SPLC article, which has the integrity to note the exact concerns I've highlighted above:

"SPLC’s activities have long generated both widespread acclaim and ongoing political controversy. The organization has been accused of financial mismanagement, misleading fund-raising methods, and institutionalized racism. In addition it has been charged with exaggerating the threat of racism for purposes of fund-raising, of wrongfully applying the term hate group to legitimate organizations, and of promoting a left-wing “politically correct” agenda under the guise of civil rights."

That should be sufficient for you to begin your own objective inquiry, but in addition, below is a brief sampling of journalism/articles (some conservative-leaning, some liberal-leaning outlets, but all legitimate) to assist:

It seems clear to me, just as it did to the Britannica author, that controversy and criticism (with more than enough substance to be worth noting) surrounds SPLC. I would suggest adding a facsimile of the same Britannica quotation, to provide legitimately-rooted balance (i.e., not merely for the sake of balance sans substance) to this article.Bdmwiki (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)