Jump to content

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.179.72.199 (talk) at 16:45, 9 August 2018 (→‎Maajid Nawaz). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Source is needed that directly supports 'are considered authoritative'

The lead says, The SPLC's classification and listings ... are considered authoritative by academic and media sources. (Not "were considered".) It attributes that material to four sources. None of them directly supports it.

Can anyone provide a (current) RS that supports that material directly? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five years after New White Nationalism, Swain gets quoted -- by Chokshi -- as qualifying (or maybe contradicting?) the material that's attributed to her in the lead.

“They paint with a very broad brush and in the process they tend to be sweep up people that are politically conservative,” said Carol Swain, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University who has criticized the organization’s methodology in the past. “I think they do it in a very harmful way and they abuse their power as an organization.”

Note to User:EdJohnston (cc to User:MShabazz): It looks like everyone's been discussing the points of interest; so there's no need to worry about page protection! --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does look a bit synthy, can any one provide sources that say it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first source. Intelligence and Security Informatics (p. 95), says, "the web sites of the "Southern Poverty Law Center" (SPLC, www.splcentyer.org) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL, www.adl.org) are authoritative sources for identifying domestic estremists and hate groups."[1] That does directly support the text. Whether or not it should be authoritative is another issue. The National Review for example routinely runs articles attacking the SPLC, but one of its columnists, Dennis Prager, writes, "it is cited and even relied upon by the New York Times, Facebook, Amazon, Google, CNN and others." He then argues that it should not be considered authoritative. But this article already says in the lead that there are detractors. TFD (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first source (Chen) looks like it could be used as a reputable mainstream RS for claims about the subject group's history. It would directly support any passage that says the SPLC was considered authoritative in or around 2004. But not one that says it still is. (See WP:AGE MATTERS guideline.)
By 2016, Swain (the fourth source) was saying (in the second source, Chokshi) that she did not consider the SPLC authoritative. "They paint with a very broad brush ... in a very harmful way." So it looks like the article may need a subsection under "History" with some information about when and how the group changed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC) 18:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You would need a source that something says the statement is no longer valid. Also, you need to distinguish between what a reliable source says about consensus and what they say about their own opinions. The article clearly states that a small number of writers are detractors of the SPLC. That does not mean that it is not considered authoritative in reliable sources. Even Fox News regularly cites it. TFD (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Around 2015, the FBI stopped officially using SPLC as a legitimate source of hate-crime reports, according to Fox News.[1] --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Parke, Caleb (January 29, 2018). "Southern Poverty Law Center, Under Fire from Conservatives, Is Branching Out to College Campuses". Fox News. In 2012, a gunman used the list to select a target, later shooting a security guard at the Family Research Council, or FRC. In 2015, the FBI deleted SPLC as one of its legitimate sources of hate crimes reports.
And this may not in fact be true [2].Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are (or were) arguing that "Even Fox News regularly cites it." To me, it looks like you are (or were) relying on yourself as an authority for that claim. (Most people do this kind of thing from time to time.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was when?. Also what has this to do with the FBI (who are not as far as I know yet to be sold to News Corp).Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: I misspoke. DFW is (or was) arguing that, not you. I can only say that I am amazed that a man of my intelligence should have been guilty of [making such an error]. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one link in the discussion pages to a Fox news story citing it.[3] Note that in addition to carrying heavily biased talked shows, Fox News Channel also has news reporting. TFD (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The byline says Associated Press. And the dateline says PEARL, Miss. – PEARL, Miss. (AP). --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News isn't terrible, but citing it and saying that it is Authoritative are two different things. I think at the moment is is clear that the SPLC used to be considered authoritative, but currently that is quite unclear. Fox News did recently re-publish this opinion piece entitled "The Southern Poverty Law Center isn't authoritative, it's garbage" that was originally published in the Washington Examiner. Interestingly, that piece was published as an 'Opinion' piece, but doesn't have an author listed, just "Washington Examiner". In it, they cite Ken Silverstein with the comment "Ken Silverstein, the liberal investigative journalist who probably has studied the SPLC more than anyone else, wrote in 2010, “I feel that the Law Center is essentially a fraud and that it has a habit of casually labeling organizations as ‘hate groups.’”". It seems that all of the recent coverage that the SPLC has "lost all credibility" and "Isn't authoritative" are all Op Eds though, at least in so many words, though the Atlantic in an article (not Op Ed) notes: By overreaching in its description of Nawaz, SPLC undercut its own reputation and the noble goal of fighting against anti-Muslim sentiment. Given the lack of clear claims of being authoritative in anything near to being current, and claims to the contrary by experts in the field, I think we can't say that it is currently authoritative. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was, reliable sources say the SPLC is considered authoritative in media and academic writing and that it is regularly cited in major news media including Fox News. I don't think anyone questions that. What some do question though is whether or not it should be considered authoritative, just as some people question global warming or evolution. Incidentally, Silverstein's original writing on the SPLC was in 2000. But while you describe him as a liberal, his views are considerably to the left of most liberals. There's very little in his writing you would support, so it is strange that you would pick this one. TFD (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: I didn't describe him as a liberal, the source did (it was a quote), and I don't know anything about him beyond what the source said. Not sure why you brought up global warming or evolution either. "reliable sources say the SPLC is considered authoritative in media and academic writing and that it is regularly cited in major news media including Fox News." I question that. Some sources call it authoritative, others call it all kinds of things that you shouldn't say in polite company, and the SPLC has changed quite a lot in the last decade or so, so it depends when the sources you are talking about are from. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I personally am not questioning whether whether ... it should be considered authoritative, TFD. Here's the point I'm making: Some mainstream reliable sources (may) say they still consider it authoritative - but others don't. So we can improve the lead by adding "some", removing "conservatives and", and correcting the verb tense, like so:
The SPLC's classification and listings . . . have been considered authoritative by some academic and media sources but have been the subject of criticism from others, who argue that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad or unwarranted.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC) 03:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dervorguilla: I'd support that. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that almost all the criticism has come from conservative sources, most of whom hold at least some of the views that the SPLC defines as hateful, in particular anti-Islamism. Ken Silverstein founded CounterPunch, which routinely runs articles attacking conservatives, liberals and progressives from the left. TFD (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? Partisan politics is partisan? That is a revelation. In all seriousness though, we don't need to reinvent the wheel, just tell it like it is. Dervorguilla's wording above sums up the situation rather well. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the opinions expressed by most SPLC critics lay outside mainstream opinion in mainstream journalism and academic writing and should not be misrepresented as mainstream criticism. In fact, the same critics typically criticize the media and academia as far left. Here is a link to a July 1 article in Al Jazeera that cites the SPLC's description of a far right group in the U.S. There is no proviso, such as "many critics disagree with the SPLC's assessment of far right groups." TFD (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into a discussion of "how biased are the media?". The point is that some think it is, and some think it goes too far. Keep it simple and lets not make a political thing out of this. This discussion is straying dangerously toward American Politics discretionary sanctions territory. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No issue with the suggested alteration.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, I think it may have been true in the past that "almost all the criticism has come from conservative sources, most of whom hold at least some of the views that the SPLC defines as hateful". But this is clearly no longer the case.
As summarized by The Atlantic:
"The list that included Nawaz became a central bone of contention in a broader debate over SPLC in general. While the fabled nonprofit has long had its critics, many of them hatemongers like Gaffney, the new chorus included sympathetic observers and fellow researchers on hate groups, who worried that SPLC was mixing its research and activist strains. 'Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?' Politico Magazine asked."
For the same reason, sources published in 2006 and earlier are not sufficient to support the present tense statement "are considered authoritative by a number of academic and media sources".
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have helpfully added two citations to 2018 articles published by The Washington Post and The New York Times which cite the SPLC as experts on hate groups, and changed back the wording to "are." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These two articles don't support the general "authoritative" claim. They surely support the notion that there are cases where SPLC's research is still being quoted and reported on in quality media, but that has (as far as I'm aware) not been in doubt, and it's a far cry from showing that these news publications consider it "authoritative". Most newspaper articles are, at least partly, based on another party's statements (press releases, reports by other news media, interviews etc.), without implying that that party is the gold standard in the corresponding field.
Is it possible to find a current reliable source that directly states that the SPLC's classification and listings are considered authoritative, like the cited paper by Chen did in 2006?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @HaeB: It's not looking good for that material. See "Southern Poverty Law Center SPLC Morris Dees", Bing.

  • Ben Schreckinger, "Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?", Politico Magazine, June 28, 2016. "Beirich ... concedes that the SPLC prioritizes the other end of the political spectrum. “We are focused, whether people like it or not, on the radical right,” she says.... “I think the SPLC has jumped the shark,” [Krikorian] says."
  • Kathleen M. Brown, "Southern Poverty Law Center", Encyclopædia Britannica, January 9, 2017. "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."
  • Ken Silverstein, “Hate,” Immigration, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, Harper's Magazine, March 22, 2010. "I feel that the Law Center is essentially a fraud and that it has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” ... In doing so, the SPLC ... raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people."

So the challenged material has to get removed per WP:UNSOURCED policy. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds ... material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if that information is directly present in the source. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 05:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary here, the information that *a number of sources* consider them so isn’t *directly* present in this source is a nonsensical Catch-22. The statement in question is that "a number of sources consider the organization to be authoritative." The source removed, which directly and extensively cited the SPLC as an expert source of information about Atomwaffen, is one of that number of sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, my edits are an attempted compromise with HaeB's version. If you object to my version, I object equally to HaeB's version, and the correct challenged removal would be all the way back to status quo ante. If that's what you prefer, I will go there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Here's how I interpret your argument.
1. It's OK to say:
The SPLC's classifications and listings ... are considered authoritative cited by ... the New York Times[13] and the Washington Post[14].
2. Consequently it's OK to say:
The SPLC's classifications and listings ... are considered authoritative cited by a number of ... media sources, including the New York Times[13] and the Washington Post[14].
Did I get that right? Because if 1 were OK, then 2 would be OK too. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 02:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'The listings are considered authoritative by the Post.[14]' may be OR

The Post is a primary source of information about whom the Post considers authoritative or not authoritative. So the WP:PRIMARY policy unquestionably applies here.

A primary source may be used only to make a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact that can be verified by any educated person with access to that source. • Do not interpret or synthesize material found in a primary source.

It looks like some educated persons can verify to themselves that the Post really does consider the Poverty Law Center's listings to be authoritative - just from reading the Heim story. But User:Dervorguilla herself can't. Maybe she's just dim. Nonetheless, she is (for better or worse) "educated". Which means neither she nor anyone else can use that story as a primary source to directly support the statement that the Post considers the Center's listings to be authoritative. (Indeed, having just reread it, she now believes that Heim and the interested Post editors don't regard those listings as gospel! But that doesn't matter. What matters is that she can't verify that they do regard them as such, just from that story.)

Consequently, we can't use that story as a source to directly support the information that the SPLC's classification and listings are considered authoritative by the Washington Post. This material needs to get removed (as OR) per WP:PRIMARY policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC) 05:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'The listings are considered authoritative by the Times' may fail verification

The article says "The SPLC's classification and listings ... are considered authoritative ... by ... The New York Times. (Bromwich, "What Is Atomwaffen?", New York Times.) I checked the source. It doesn't support that statement. Bromwich gives the SPLC just 21 words; he then gives the ADL 40 words that directly contradict the SPLC's.

An intelligence analyst at the [SPLC] cited a ProPublica report that said.... But ... a senior researcher at the Anti-Defamation League said she had no evidence that the group had that many members. She estimated that....

The article text has failed verification; so it needs to get removed. See WP:UNSOURCED policy. The cited source must clearly support the material. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does he say about the SPLC?Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: All Bromwich says about SPLC itself is that one of its intelligence analysts read a ProPublica report on Atomwaffen and spoke to him about it. His story focuses on Atomwaffen - not SPLC. It's RS for Atomwaffen but not for SPLC. So ought to move that citation to Atomwaffen.
See SOURCE policy: Use sources that directly support the material presented and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness depends on the context. Likewise the CONTEXTMATTERS guideline: Cite sources focused on the topic at hand.... Sources should directly support the information as presented in the article.
We can (as a rule) improve an article by removing sources that don't focus on its subject. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC) 19:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the SPLC listings were authoritative a few years ago, but the listings have greatly increased their scope in recent years, and have been criticized widely from both the right and the left. No, they are not authoritative anymore. They are just the controversial opinions of some political activists. Roger (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People keep changing "have been considered authoritative" to "are considered authoritative". I have restored the 'have been' again. Hope this addresses your concerns. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Bromwich story doesn't support the statement that the SPLC's classification and listings have been considered authoritative by The New York Times. It doesn't even support the statement that they are or have been considered authoritative by Bromwich. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roger, please note that (per WP:TALK) this is not the place for mere opinions about the article's subject that are not grounded in external sources and/or Wikipedia policies. Please also consider that individuals who have been in conflict with the SPLC themselves (e.g. because they were called out in one of its publications) could benefit from evaluating whether they have a conflict of interest. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the outcome of the discussion above and the so far unsuccessful search for references supporting the present tense statement, TFD has has changed "have been considered authoritative" to "are considered authoritative" again, arguing that "Past perfect tense [sic, 'have been' is actually perfect tense ] implies may not be true now, which is not supported by reliable sources."

I don't think "have been" implies that. And vague speculations about possible misinterpretations are not a license for violating WP:BURDEN. In any case though, I have changed "considered" to "described", so that the sentence refers more clearly to the publication of statements at a particular point in time (rather than views being held - we don't know how these views may have changed in the last 12-16 years), and specified the timing more clearly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source is needed that directly supports 'are widely cited'

The lead says, The SPLC's classification and listings ... are widely cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues. It attributes that material to two sources. Neither of them directly supports it. Can anyone provide a (current) RS that supports that material directly?

For a helpful definition, see Webster's Unabridged, 2016, s.v. "cite" (def. 2) : to quote by way of evidence, authority, proof. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can paraphrase. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterTheFourth: Yes. We can paraphrase. Still, neither source directly supports that information. See also Dictionary.com, s.v. "cite" (def. 1): to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), especially as an authority: He cited the Constitution in his defense. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 04:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a huge number of media sources can be found which cite the SPLC is demonstrable proof of this fact. That is not "synthesis," it is merely stating an indisputable fact. If you would like me to footnote that section with about 100+ separate sources, that can be done. But it would be, of course, citation overkill. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See what I wrote above, "The first source. Intelligence and Security Informatics (p. 95), says, "the web sites of the "Southern Poverty Law Center" (SPLC, www.splcentyer.org) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL, www.adl.org) are authoritative sources for identifying domestic estremists and hate groups."" We don't need multiple sources just because some editors wish that were not the case. TFD (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof: That (assumed) fact would indeed be proof. But that fact doesn't actually exist. A helpful definition is found in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed., s.v. "cite" (def. 2). To refer to or adduce as precedent or authority. The SPLC was widely referred to or adduced as authority, not is. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for you, the recent citations to, and widespread coverage of the SPLC's listings, are not "was," they are "is." Just earlier this year, the NYT devoted much of an article about Atomwaffen to the SPLC's expert commentary, in fact. You'll have to do some impossible mental gymnastics to explain how that is not "citing." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranoff: I checked that source. It contradicts your erroneous statement. It supports the contrary statement -- that the Times devotes very little to the SPLC's commentary (not "much").
The article gives the SPLC just 21 words, and
21 words ÷ 1,040 words = 0.020.
Also, it then gives the ADL 40 words describing the SPLC's commentary as false authority. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 19:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, a disagreement as to a precise figure doesn't constitute "false authority." If the NYT didn't believe the SPLC number was relevant, they simply wouldn't have included it. That you don't like the citation is not relevant. It is a citation. If you'd like more, I'll happily find more. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: That source was written in 2005. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its 'annual list ... is often seen as an authoritative survey ..., but....' 'After criticism of his inclusion ... the SPLC said that ... he should not have been branded an extremist.' Lewontin, "Does the Center Target Conservatives?. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: See Equivocation. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dervorguilla, so every time you read something on the Daily Caller, we are supposed to update our sources? Show me a source that says academic and news sources no longer consider them reliable. BTW, since you believe mainstream sources no longer rely on the SPLC, do you believe that they are now representing anti-Islamist, anti-LGBT and similar groups fairly? TFD (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about if they are an RS, that discussion is currently taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Southern Poverty Law Center, but rather whether they are "widely cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see anything here that supports the removal of the NYT article as a source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: I don't know anything about the Daily Caller. (Replying to your comment about "every time you read something on the Daily Caller".) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC) 03:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Roger that. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could drop this in, "The Nation's Hot Spots of White Supremacy". The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. 64: 49–50. 2009., but it might be argued that it's the journal of Blacks in higher education, and thus biased, haha--since proper sources are white and don't see color so they don't even have to mention it.

    Or this, McVeigh, Rory (2004). "Structured Ignorance and Organized Racism in the United States". Social Forces. 82 (3): 895–936. To measure the dependent variable, I use lists of hate groups compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence....The SPLC's lists of U.S. racist organizations are by far the most comprehensive available. Its outstanding reputation is well established, and the SPLC has been an excellent source of information for social scientists who study racist organizations (Beck 2000; Dobratz & Shanks-Meile 1997; Ferber 1998; Perry 2000). And I suppose I could plow through that article's bibliography to find the four sources mentioned in that study.

    Or this, Mulholland, Sean E. (2013). "White supremacist groups and hate crime". Public Choice. 157 (1/2): 91–113. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an authority on hate group activity.... And those who think (like that student who wrote that master's thesis for JMU, which was a hit job) that the SPLC somehow benefits from "biased" overestimations of the number of hate groups should read note 14 of this article. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: We're just discussing "are widely cited", though. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No we're not. You are doubting "widely-cited"; no one else is. (And of course you're doing semantics that no one cares about.) I'm here watching the rerun of today's Tour de France's episode, with JSTOR open so I can prove what is already obvious. Along the way I'm dropping nuggets for the next time someone asks a redundant question, and I'm doing so in proper templates, so I can rack up some more "thanks" spam in the future. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The parcours is quite delectable today; much preferable to the endless coastal flats. I've only 23km left in my watching of the stage so I shan't spoil it for you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You finish watching already? I don't know--getting kind of tired of him; we could do with a new face, haha. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterTheFourth: To understand what the term "cite" means in this context, see Webster's Unabridged (to quote by way of evidence, authority, proof); Dictionary.com (to quote, especially as an authority); and Black's Law Dictionary (to refer to or adduce as precedent or authority). That article doesn't quote, refer to, or adduce the SPLC as authority. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. Peter, I suggest you agree to disagree, lest the world run out of electrons. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Check the section title. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG you're a bore. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: This section title says "are", not "were". (Replying to your comment that "No we're not.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) 03:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Replying to your comment that "We could do with a new face": You can find many new faces at this other section. Bye, Dervorguilla (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For a new face, I actually had Dylan Groenewegen in mind, but sure. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The prevailing topic of this thread (following the above editor's bye, is the topic of whether or not or how this thread should be collapsed (with a cycling competition trailing by a hair). I never restore and always discuss after being reverted, so I won't collapse it again without a discussion, but please for the love of what ever deity, whose casual mention least offends you, put a bullet (back) into this thread and leave it until better sources/better proposals come along. FYI, ask a feminist if you aren't sure: Bye means bye. Edaham (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervorguilla: I'm replying here because it seems more polite than leaving messages on Edaham's talk page, and I'm a bit weirded out by the referrals to yourself in third person. If something being discussed distresses you, it's far better to raise it at ANI than edit war to remove or hide somebody else's comments. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or collapse the entire thread if it's not going anywhere :) - The collapse and hat templates support leaving a reason in the roll-up bar, and in it you can suggest further related discussion, perhaps bringing different view points to the subject at hand. This is especially useful if people subject fork, by replying to different comments at different levels in the stack. In this case you could colapse a thread and start two new ones for example. This is regarded as helpful rather than offensive as it doesn't imply an issue with any particular editor's comments and just serves to organize things better. Edaham (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


My 2 cents - my take on something like this is that truth doesn't necessarily justify inclusion. Is it widely cited? Yes. But if no one has discussed the significance of SPLC being widely cited why is it important to mention it in the article? The issue here seems to be that the statement lacks context without a source. Drmies sources look pretty good - its worth noting the controversies should probably be discussed in the same section. The article balance needs to be improved - for example In 1986, the entire legal staff of the SPLC, excluding Dees, resigned as the organization shifted from traditional civil rights work toward fighting right-wing extremism. deserves more than one sentence - especially with so much of the article dedicated to positive opinions of the same.Seraphim System (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of policies relating to "article balance": 1. UNDUE § BALASPS: Balancing aspects. An article should strive to treat each aspect of its subject with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. 2. IAR: Improve the encyclopedia.
So, has anyone found other RS that treat this aspect (that when SPLC shifted direction in 1986, its legal staff all resigned)? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have, but I would have to go searching for them again - I will try to post some of them here later tonight. Seraphim System (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphim System: Its legal staff did resign - but on the grounds that the Center was no longer doing much to help poor minorities. (Reportedly, Dees had found that affluent liberal benefactors were more interested in fighting hot-button high-profile targets than in - for example - suing to reduce the disparity between poor black schools and affluent white ones.)
Silverstein, "The Church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Profits from Intolerance".
In 1986, the Center’s entire legal staff quit in protest of Dees’s refusal to address issues—such as homelessness, voter registration, and affirmative action—that they considered far more pertinent to poor minorities, if far less marketable to affluent benefactors, than fighting the KKK.
Schreckinger, "Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?".
In the 1980s, the group’s entire legal staff quit to protest Dees’ obsession with the remnants of the KKK—which still captured the imagination of the group’s liberal donor base—at the expense of lower-profile but more relevant targets. . . .
Ken Silverstein, a liberal journalist and another critic of the group who authored a scathing investigation of its marketing and financial practices for Harper’s in 2000, attributes the growing scope of the SPLC’s censures to a financial imperative to wade into hot-button issues that will rile donors.
Schreckinger links to Silverstein, "Church of Morris Dees," at a non-RS URL, http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html. And sometime around January 21, 2018, the host site (American Patrol Report) got "taken offline by its owner". Luckily a copy of that page (captured December 28, 2017) is still available at Internet Archive. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the one I was thinking of - I got it confused with the staff quitting in 1986 - this actually isn't in the article [4] Seraphim System (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the book got consigned to the "Further References" section... Can you put some of that material in the body? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining INTEGRITY in lead

I challenged this claim:

The SPLC's classification and listings of ... extremists (... people that, in its assessment, "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics")[9] have been described...

It's sourced to the SPLC's "Hate Map" page. But that page says nothing about extremists. Nowhere does it support this claim about extremists being people who, in SPLC's assessment, attack or malign an entire class.

VERIFY policy: Any material whose verifiability has been challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports it. INTEGRITY guideline: If an element is footnoted with a source, adding new material that the source doesn't support is highly misleading if the material is placed in that element so as to make it look like the source did support it.

I've now removed this text - "and extremists" - and this text - "and people". --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an additional incredibly obscure source that was clearly too hard for you to find. Hopefully this helps. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source for good measure: https://www.splcenter.org/issues/hate-and-extremism EvergreenFir (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What SPLC means by the term 'extremist'

I believe that this material can't be verified:

The SPLC's classification and listings of . . . extremists ( . . . people that, in its assessment, "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics") have been described . . . .

My reasons:

1. After I added a Failed Verification tag, two editors tried to provide references. Neither of the sources they cited supports this material.

2. One of the sources directly contradicts it. See SPLC, "Hate and Extremism":

We track more than 1,600 extremist groups operating across the country. . . . There are 917 hate groups currently operating in the US.
1,600 extremist groups - 917 hate groups = either 683 or 1,600 extremist groups that aren't hate groups.

3. The other source describes what SPLC means by the term "hate group". See SPLC, "Hate Map".

What is a hate group? The SPLC defines a hate group as an organization that . . . has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

So, the lead is making an obviously false assertion about those sources' facts.

SPLC is a world-class organization and it needs a world-class Wikipedia entry. I've contacted the Center about fixing this obvious error per BIOSELF policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from the website that the term extremist is wider and includes groups such as the John Birch Society which is not a hate group but referred to as a "patriot group." The SPLC monitors them because people who join violent hate groups usually have some contact with patriot groups first. TFD (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now I've fixed it by moving 'extremist' to after the description (making it only apply to 'hate group', which is what the source says.) This is accurate but obviously leads to awkward wording, so we should probably revise the entire sentence. Note that the SLPC website is clear that extremist and hate group are different designations and that the one does not imply the other. Probably we should also try and find secondary sources rather than citing the SPLC website. (I suspect that such sources will give us what we need for better wording here, anyway - part of the problem here is that citing the SPLC website limits us to very straightforward factual statements with no interpretation, which makes it hard to write a good summary in the lead.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As they do not mean the same we should make it clear they are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Endowment

I think the endowment should be updated. Right now it has the 2016 sum of $319.3 million, but the SPLC currently reports their endowment as $432.7 million. See here: https://www.splcenter.org/about/financial-information DiscoStu42 (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As this will change regularly maybe remove it entirely?Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should update it by all means .GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FBI page

Malik Shabazz, I'm not sure how you can state that it is not true that the FBI has removed the splc as a resource from its hate crimes page when the page itself confirms it, while the SPLC and ADL are mentioned briefly on the FBI's hate crimes webpage, they are simply listed as having had partnered with the FBI in certain areas in the past, the SPLC is not referred to as a reference, and there is no actual link to its website, you can see for yourself here,

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

If you know of another FBI page that contradicts this page please list it here.Underneaththesun (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit because neither LifeSiteNews nor HotAir are reliable, independent secondary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This story about the FBI cutting links keeps coming up. Here's a link to a story debunking it. TFD (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some one to salt this now, it is getting a bit tedious.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear, I never said that the FBI had completely severd links with the SPLC, my edit simply stated that the FBI's hate crimes web page no longer refers to the SPLC as a resource, which appears to be true (see FBI webpage link above), in fact I actually used the story that TFD mentioned as a source on my first edit because it states that the FBI did make "a minor website change" Underneaththesun (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When did Malik Shabazz say anything about it not being true?Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

revision 851698323 (see revision history) Underneaththesun (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI decided that its source page would only provide links to other government departments and had nothing to do with its connection with the SPLC. So there is no relevance, except that conspiracy theorists have tried to interpret this as a severing of ties. This article should not give credence to that by implying there has been any change. TFD (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the page was changed, regardless of what the motive was, simply stating this in the article in no way gives credence to conspiracy theorists as long as the reason for the change and the fact that it was a minor change is made clear. Underneaththesun (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a start it is their civil rights (not hate crime) page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the hate crimes page a subsection of the civil rights section, the actual civil rights page on the FBI's website is located here:
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/

Underneaththesun (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly, would this trivial piece of minutia about the FBI's website do to improve our SPLC article? Mojoworker (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this is mentioned is determined by "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If something is not mentioned in reliable sources, then it is disproportionate to mention it. And if it is a minor change that in no way reflected a change in the relationship between the FBI ad SPLC, there is no reason to mention it. TFD (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so we've gone from saying the change didn't even happen, to saying mentioning it gives undue weight to "conspiracy theorists", to saying it is simply too small of a change to warrant being mentioned in this article. I am glad we are all on the same page now. The question remains, why the conservative news media was so obsessed with it, and yes, I would in fact argue that sites like the Daily Caller and the Washington Times are simply conservative news sites as opposed to conspiracy theory sites, but that is a topic for another page. Underneaththesun (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of "Left-Wing" to description

In all fairness, this group is an advocacy group that has definite left-ward tilt which is at odds with a huge proportion of the American populaces views. I think it would be more accurate to say "a 'liberal', 'left-leaning' or 'leftist' legal advocacy non-profit."

This is what y'all did to The Heritage Foundation:

"The Heritage Foundation (abbreviated to Heritage)[1][2] is an American conservative public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[4] Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerightstuff (talk • contribs)

You will need reliable secondary sources stating that SPLC is left-wing/left-leaning to add it to this article. NZFC(talk) 20:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Somerightstuff: why do you think it's odd that the Heritage Foundation is called conservative when on its website it says "The mission of The Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote conservative public policies"? There are times when reliable sources don't agree with the way an organisation described itself, but so far as I know, not in this case. Your argument seems pretty flawed. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maajid Nawaz

Should this be updated to include the Maajid Nawaz case? https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/29352-acting-like-a-hate-group-splc-pays-large-settlement-and-may-be-sued-further

(Mr Dog 1982 (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I am failing to find what it says that is new about the case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Left-Leaning SPLC

Suggestion: There should be a mention in the first sentence that Southern Poverty Law Center is a "Left-Leaning" or "ideologically liberal" non-profit advocacy organization.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=854200500"