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 Saturnalia0 (talk | contribs) at 00:07, 19 August 2018 (→‎Relevant link: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


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]
In the minds of right-wing (often far-right) POV warriors, every organisation vocally opposed to far-right hate groups must consist of "loony left" extremists. They just can't imagine anyone who isn't their mirror image to oppose them; they simply can't envision the existence of moderates who have zero sympathies for right-wing radicals and don't secretly agree with them. And they evidently consider "liberals" to be a small radical minority or elite among Americans, when easily about half the population identify as broadly liberal or leftist, or at least not conservative or right-wing. That's evidently why they're so eager to brand the SPLC as left-wing or liberal, as if liberalism was an extremist ideology itself. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:44, 15 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.72.199 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2018‎

I have no objection, but RS might back up your claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant link

If the POV pushers are not watching this article anymore, here is a relevant link: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/southern-poverty-law-center-hate-label-deserves-vigorous-response/ Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=855529057"