Jump to content

Talk:Center for Immigration Studies

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alison Alice (talk | contribs) at 02:03, 7 July 2019 (→‎Alison Alice is a SOCK!!!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findnote


Lead rewrites

ModerateMike/ModerateMikayla blocked as part of a sockfarm, so this is all bad-faith and can be closed.--Jorm (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ModerateMike729 WP:BOLDly rewrote the disputed paragraph of the lead here. I object to most of the changes made here. First, the source goes into more detail, specifically naming white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, as well as its alleged ties to the American nativist movement. Second "Circulation ... in weekly newsletter" parses to publication in this context (and stripped of the second part it's misleading, since it makes it sound like they were just circulating it internally.) Note that the rationale ModerateMike729 stripped out is the one specifically described in the Daily Beast source later in the paragraph, indicating that it's what secondary sources have found significant about the designation. I also strenuously object to Bluewolverine123 edit warring in an effort to push through a plainly-controversial WP:BOLD rewrite that substantially changes the meaning of a disputed paragraph in the lead, after it's clear someone has objected, in the middle of an WP:RFC. WP:BRD, people! --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all parties who edited today: @ModerateMike729, Aquillion, Beyond My Ken, Bluewolverine123, Darryl.jensen, Jorm, Simonm223, NorthBySouthBaranof, MrX, and Grayfell:. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it has come up: While attributing these views directly to the SPLC is relatively new, the mention of white nationalism / white supremacism in the lead dates back to at least 2017 (and ModerateMike729 is entirely aware of that, since much of her contributions to this page have focused on trying to remove that line.) It is longstanding and removing it, which was the primary focus of her most recent edits, was a WP:BOLD change that in no way reflected any sort of status quo - this article has not had a stable version that reflects ModerateMike729's preference for omitting that material from the lead for years. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, I have requested at WP:RFPP that the page be locked down to stop the edit warring and promote discussion here instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Aquillion reverted me claiming that some form of "white supremacy"/"white nationalism" has been in the lead since 2017. That is objectively false. I have been editing this page for the better part of a year and it has not been in the lead until now. Here is how the page was in January. Here is how the page was in December. Here is November. Here is October. Here's September. I could keep going back but you get the point. I totally agree we should keep it at WP:STATUSQUO until the RfC is over. The status quo very clearly DOES mention ties to nativism, but does NOT mention ties to white supremacy or anti semitism. Yes, there were points 2+ years ago where it was in here, but for the vast majority of the past year and longer, it has not been in the lede. And the notion that I've spent long trying to remove it is silly, most of my edits on this page have been about disputes in the body over CIS' positions, its founding, and the length of the criticism section. Please don't falsely accuse me. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material was removed from the lead by an IP in the edit immediately prior to your first edit on this page; since that was just prior to your account being registered, I presumed that to be you (if it wasn't, I apologize and can understand you not realizing you were edit-warring against longstanding text that had coincidentally been removed immediately prior to your arrival; but the rest remains true.) At no point was that aspect of the lead stable after that - mostly because because you have been revert-warring to keep it off. See here, here, here, here, here (after which the discussion shifted towards the SLPC-specifying version.) Note the misleading edit summaries in many of those edits, as well as, here where you incorrectly claimed (as you are now) that the version you were edit-warring for was the stable consensus version. At no point did you manage to make it stable, and at no point has your proposal to remove that part of the lead ever enjoyed consensus (indeed, going over the history it's clear your the only one who objected to it - I was able to find every removal prior to the shift to the SPLC version simply by reviewing your edits. And, yes, edit-warring to try and keep that sentence off the lead was indeed a significant part of your contributions to this page.) The only stable version of the lead is pre-August 2018, immediately prior to your arrival on the page. EDIT: Also, you linked to a version from the 25th, claiming it was the "longstanding form", but here is a version from the 20th. (I didn't go back extensively, since my edits above trace the evolution of that section and the debate over it - I don't think the lead has ever been fully stable since August 2018 - but it's absurd for you to claim a stable version when the other version was live mere days earlier.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I think an important point in respect to that is the RfC just above this one. Although it has not been closed, it appears to me that the consensus is that the SPLC "hate group" designation should appear in the lede. If this is the case, then further explaining why it has received that designation is merely providing additional context to the reader, and is a legitimate addition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like I'm trying really hard to WP:COMPROMISE here and would appreciate some degree of people working with me here. I myself shifted positions--and agreed that the SPLC designation is due in some form in the lede, whereas I previously argued it was due for the body but not the lede. But to simply say you are "merely providing additional context" is unfair. We're selectively picking contentious WP:RACIST labels from the splc. If we were to say that the SPLC designated CIS a hate group due to their anti-immigrant views and/or their links to nativism, in the spirit of reaching middleground I'd be amenable to that. But I'm getting frustrated by a lot of bad faith accusations here and cyclical arguments. Can we work together on this? I'm amenable to the following wording: The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as an anti-immigrant hate group in 2016, citing the organization's ties to nativism.[12] In 2019, CIS announced it was suing the SPLC over the designation.[13][14] It's tighter, it's due, it's neutral, it succinctly summarizes the SPLC's position. This page has been a mess but I'd be glad to finally drop it if we can agree to that wording, as I do think the designation is due for the lede. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely not. The sources emphasize "white supremacy" or "white nationalism", and although you've removed it from the lead repeatedly, you have not provided any actual reason to omit that aspect. A "compromise" that removes it is no compromise at all - again, look over my list of reverts by you showing your efforts to remove that longstanding part of the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read it. Yeah, out of the hundreds of edits I've made on this page, several times I've removed either poorly sourced or highly contentious content that included the word "white." You're as guilty of trying to ram that content in as anything you've accused me of. Every attempt at good faith or compromise I make toward you is met with contempt and refusal to cooperate. It's rude, it's sexist, it's getting incredibly redundant. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have repeatedly removed the same sentence (one that was longstanding on the article before you arrived.) My point is merely that it's silly for you to suggest that the version without that sentence was "stable" when you, yourself, have consistently destabilized the article by trying to remove it over and over again; and I'm baffled that you could claim that the versions in the months you linked were stable, knowing you were repeatedly reverting to try and keep the contested text off the page that entire time. I understand that you object to those words (as, it is clear, you have since your first edits on this page, given how consistently you've tried to remove them), but you also have to recognize that at least up until now your efforts to remove them have failed. If you want to keep them off the page, you need to stop revert-warring, stop trying to claim your preferred version enjoys some sort of consensus or stability, and actually present a compelling argument for taking the wording you object to out. Currently I am not seeing it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I won't revert war, I apologize for doing so in the past, and I ask that you don't either. No problem. My actual argument is quite clear: There are some secondary sources that repeat the SPLC's claim about CIS' designation, which leads me to believe it should be in the lede. It is far harder to find reliable secondary sources that repeat the SPLC's claim that CIS is publishing antisemities/white nationalists, which is a far more contentious claim. Given how incredibly contentious the "white nationalist"/"anti semite" labels are, I don't think they belong in the lede if they're not well backed up by secondary sources. Nativism, on the other hand, is much more reliably backed up by secondary sources, so I'm comfortable including it. That's it. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand your objection now. I think the previous sources were sufficient, but I've found two more sources to back that specific line and added them to the article ([4], [5]). One of them even specifically uses the word published. Do you have any further objections? (If you don't think they're enough, or if you have problems with those sources, I can find others - eg [6].) --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without looking at whose version this is, the current text upon time of writing this comment, "The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group in 2016, citing the organization's publication of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, as well as its alleged ties to the American nativist movement.[12] In 2019, CIS announced it was suing the SPLC over the designation, alleging that the label was false.[13][14]" seems to best-reflect the reliable source, and in addition encapsulates what reliable sources say - that it's an extremist anti-immigrant groups with ties to FAIR that has given platforms to nativists, white nationalists and anti-semites. I think this is WP:DUE, sourced from an WP:RS, avoids inflammatory language sufficiently for WP:NPOV and provides a clear encapsulation of what the article should describe. Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Furiously concur with Simonm223.--Jorm (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrator note: Full protected for 2 days. All of you know better than to edit war like this. I trust you will have figured things out when the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The version I see now (the protected version) certainly seems to me to be acceptable, as it is well-sourced and tells both sides. I can;t image how this would not be good for everyone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed another WP:BOLD edit added to the lede by user ModerateMikayla555 (an apparent sockpuppet account of ModerateMike729) on March 19, 2019 due its use of weasel words ("some pundits"), potential lack of notability of in selected Fox News and National Review op-eds, and most importantly, failure to seek any consensus on the talk page prior to addition of the line. As you are likely aware, ModerateMikayla555, the lede has been highly disputed and protected this month - you are to start a new thread on this talk page to discuss further additions before you may proceed with doing so. TheMiddleWest (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, it's not a sockpuppet account. Take literally one second to click either one of those users and you'd see I changed my username. Second of all, we've had editors above arguing that more context in the lede is more neutral inherently, and I'm inclined to agree. Third, I'd be glad to change the wording of "some pundits" to perhaps "some conservative pundits" or something similar. Fourth, lack of notability makes no sense. The most prominent conservative television station and most prominent conservative publication both came to CIS' defense. You're probably right that it needs to be qualified with the word "conservative" rather than pundits generally, but the rest of your comment is nonsensical and assumes bad faith...again. Also, you apparently are quite well versed in WP rules for someone who has only made a dozen or two edits, basically all of them on CIS' page. Come on. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Am I to assume, then, that Bluewolverine123 is not one of your accounts, or that your interest in defending the reputation of CIS is purely an intellectual one? I'll be requesting a number of dispute resolution measures as your comments here as well as the threatening one on my talk page suggest that you are almost certainly assuming bad faith on my part. TheMiddleWest (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I asked on your talk page if you have a conflict of interest, which, given the fact that you almost exclusively comment on this page, seems pretty reasonable. I have no connection to BlueWolverine--now who's the one assuming bad faith? So, just to be clear here, you falsely accuse me of using a sockpuppet (when I've made very clear I'm a trans user going through a gender transition), you falsely accuse me of being BlueWolverine, you claim I'm "threatening" you for having the audacity to inquire about conflicts of interest, and then you tell me that I'm the one who's assuming bad faith? This is beyond ridiculous and offensive, and I look forward to finding a resolution. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no relationship to Mikayla whatsoever, and there's nothing threatening about inquiring about conflicts of interest. Let's cool this down and assume good faith please! Bluewolverine123 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the "conservatives have criticized" to the lede appears to be a way to subvert the consensus that is apparent in the RfC above. I'm sure some have, but this is just cherry picking a couple sources which means it's not important enough for the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having several lines of back-and-forth argumentation in the lede will quickly become unwieldy and undue weight. Those who advocate for adding the lines about what conservatives think of the SPLC's position should consider that neutrality would require yet another set of balancing arguments of what liberals think of the SPLC's position. You can't just include one side of an argument and call it done. This would, ironically, give the SPLC's definition of CIS as a hate group more weight than it should have in the lede. It's far better to just include the SPLC's argument and the CIS' response, leaving any back-and-forth arguments to the body text. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree but it looks like the content was lost from the body during Darryl's edits. Can someone restore it to the body, while keeping it out of the lede, while we discuss--aka the LGV? Okay, looks like it's been fixed. With regard to the actual debate, I'm inclined to agree we want to avoid the back and forth and avoid giving it too much weight, ironically. If anything, consensus was going in the opposite direction, arguing for a tighter lede that basically just says splc designates cis as x, cis says they're not x--and that's it. If you look at older consensus versions of the page (pre August 2018, when all this started) that's closer to how it was. In other words I think you've convinced me the conservatives' comments are probably WP:UNDUE for the lede, but because we should be moving in the opposite direction. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that keeping it at just "splc designates cis as a hate group, cis says they're not" is the most appropriate lede. References to media coverage and Twitter notoriety is WP:UNDUE and makes lede far too wordy. TheMiddleWest (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"A number of reports have been disputed"...

OP blocked as a sock, so this is all bad-faith and can be safely closed.--Jorm (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I made an edit to the lede which was undone by Volunteer Marek. I appreciate the attempt at compromise wording by NorthBySouthBaranof and think that the current wording is preferable to the version prior to our edits as it's less redundant and more precise. The reason for my initial edit was that some reports by CIS have been both disputed and cited by the fact checkers and news orgs listed. For example, politifact has cited CIS as an expert many times, such as here and here. As for WaPo, CNN, and NBC, all three have also cited CIS reports/analysts for expert opinion. A google search reveals that this was not a one-off thing--these organizations have cited CIS for expert opinion literally hundreds of times. However, it is also true that politifact has corrected false claims made by CIS, as have the WaPo fact checkers--both of which are rightly included in the Criticism section. As such, the prior wording seemed to be an NPOV violation in that it gave the false impression that these organizations only debunk CIS reports, when in fact most of the time they're actually citing them. As a compromise wording, I'd propose something along the lines of "A number of reports published by CIS have been cited by fact-checkers and news organizations, although other claims made in CIS reports have been challenged or debunked by those groups". I'd be amenable to phrasing it differently or perhaps tighter but I think I've expressed the point I'm trying to get across.

Additionally, it is an example of WP:SYNTH to simply say that CIS reports are routinely debunked/disputed. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CIS are cited as representative of the anti-immigration sentiment. A lot of news stories take the format of "Here's what partisans A say and here's what partisans B say". They are not cited as experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So this would then rule out pretty much everyone ever quoted in a newspaper about a newsworthy topics. What an incredible line of thinking. I guess we can go ahead and gut half of the "Controversial Reports" section then, given that it reads something like this -- " CATO Institute Person disagrees with CIS Person about methodology." Both are cited regardless of their affiliation, because they're seen as experts in the field. Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Daryl, because the way you're defining "expert" is too strict. If a reputable publication is asking CIS for their opinion on X piece of legislation, it's because they want an expert view. It may well be that they want CIS to represent the anti-immigration side of the debate--but why not ask any random anti-immigration person off the street for their opinion? Why not ask the Breitbart comment section? The fact that CIS represents one side of the immigration debate in articles/fact checks is not mutually exclusive with the fact that they're clearly being treated as an expert. Besides, Politifact actually uses the term "experts" to describe who they consult for their fact-checks. I do think it's noteworthy that various groups have debunked CIS reports, which is why I don't object to its inclusion in the lede. But it's not NPOV if we fail to mention that these groups have also cited them for expert opinion, regardless of what bias that expert opinion carries. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of this is important enough to be placed at the top of the article, but it would be better to use MM's language since it's more neutral and accurate in terms of describing what an expert is, compared to the current language. So if you are going to include it at all I prefer that phrasing.Bluewolverine123 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First sentence

OP blocked as a sock, so this is all bad-faith and can be safely closed.--Jorm (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I made what I thought was a pretty innocuous and non-controversial edit, in which I tightened the first sentence by using the descriptor most commonly used by RS: some variation of "favors lower levels of immigration". My edit was undone by Snoogansnoogans, whose rationalization was that the longer version is a better represrentation. My rationale is that we should defer to RS, which describe CIS as simply "favoring lower immigration" with by the far the most frequency--I referred to politico, LA Times, and and USA Today, and could provided plenty more sources using that language if need be. I think this is perfectly aligned with the body, which shows that CIS' research clearly reflects their bias. It's tight, it's neutral, it reflects the body, and most importantly it's what reliable sources say. Further, Snoogansnoogans comment that CIS thinks "immigrants are horrible in every way" may or may not be true--obviously CIS has an agenda--but it's basically just pov pushing, and more reflective of the editor's own views than what an encyclopedia should say. I continue to believe that the tigher version is superior. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We will not be using the white-washed language.--Jorm (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That adds nothing of value. Can you clarify why you think the language used by nearly every respectable RS is "white washed"? I'm not proposing any changes to the body or the rest of the lede, which is far from "white washed". I'm simply saying we should use the descriptor used by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Politico, USA Today, NBC, ABC, USA Today, and the Washington Post. Unless you're accusing all those publications of "whitewashing" too. Per MOS:BEGIN, the first paragraph should be written from a neutral point of view, establish context, but not be too specific. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ModerateMikayla555: You really need to work on WP:BRD - build consensus before edit-warring your version back in. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We go down this road every single month it seems like... no consensus to change from a lead section that underwent a RFC within the past few months. Until proper consensus is established the opinion of Jorm should be ignored as it is unhelpful. Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to work so hard to make sure people know these are non-profit racists? Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the real bias comes out. We don't get to call them racists just because we personally think they are, or because we don't like their bias. Frankly, I think CIS' views suck and are harmful to vulnerable immigrant communities. But that doesn't change how we handle contentious labels on here. See WP:RACIST ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're flipping the burden here with regard to WP:BRD. The prior version (to which it appears Darryl.jensen just reverted) was the long standing version, so we can definitely amend the lede but that would take consensus to do so. And as Darryl mentioned, we've been over this before and even had a major RfC with comments from dozens of editors about the language of the lede and have even debated this very specific issue multiple times. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-immigration" is fine and was settled in a RfC[7]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was specifically about the use of low vs anti further down the lede, as the context reveals. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the RfC question: "Should the lead describe the Center as a) favoring low-immigration, b) as being anti-immigration, or c) use both?". It concluded with "There is consensus for describing the Center for Immigration Studies as being "anti-immigration". There is also consensus against describing the organization as "favoring low-immigration"." It's frankly WP:TENDENTIOUS to keep edit-warring over this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one being tendentious by altering the longstanding version without consensus. You're purposely mischaracterizing the RfC. Jsalzillo1 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you fully but to be clear, do you have any connection to CIS/this topic? You have very little history on this. Apologies if not. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fully admit to being biased against racists. It is my clear, publicly expressed POV that racists should be excluded from polite society. But my question remains, why is it due in the lede that they're non-profit? What's the relevant thing we expect readers to learn about them here? Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do see where you're coming from that "non-profit" is undue for the lede, and I'm amenable to removing it. But I wouldn't put "anti-immigration" in the first sentence because per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence should be especially NPOV and avoid being overly specific. As for the RfC, we already added "anti-immigration" to the lede because of the RfC. The question here is over placement within the lede. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If the RfC is clear that it should be in the lede, we should not be putting in statements that contradict that prior to it in the lede. That's textbook WP:TEND. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm not calling for any contradictory statements. Just saying that the placement of "anti-immigration" within the lede was fine where it was--at the bottom of the first paragraph. That was the result of the RfC. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "low immigration" or "lower immigration" is very useful at all; anti-immigration is the most common descriptor in sources and the one the RFC agreed on, so I'm unsure how the "low/lower" language keeps creeping back in. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because editors keep putting it back in as if the RfC hadn't settled this. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is incredibly straightforward. There was an RfC. As a result, we added the word "anti-immigration" to the lede to reflect consensus. Now, editors without consensus are rewording the lede so that "anti immigration" is in the lede twice--in both the first and second paragraph. "RfC consensus" was the prior, longstanding version to which I'm restoring the lede. RfC consensus is not a new version that an editor randomly decided to add months after we already edited the lede to comply with the RfC ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RFC clearly stated that "anti-immigration" is the appropriate descriptor for this organization, because that's what reliable sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Fortunately, that descriptor was already in the lede, in the longstanding version. So stop changing it. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'anti-immigration' mention comes at the end of the second paragraph to refer to groups founded by John Tanton. It's perfectly fine to include it in the first line of the article to describe the organization in straight-forward terms. The RfC concluded that there was no problem in using the term for this group, so your repeated 3RR violations are getting pretty damn tiring at this point. It would be inane to start a second RfC that asks virtually the same question that a recently finished RfC asked, but if you feel that the consensus has drastically shifted to such an extent that editors would oppose including the line 'anti-immigration' in the first sentence, feel free to start a second RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI accounts

Socks be sockin', blocks be droppin'.--Jorm (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pretty much all the accounts that are reverting the lede in violation of a recently concluded RfC (some of which have now also repeatedly violated 3RR) are accounts whose first edits to Wikipedia where to CIS or CIS's founder Mark Krikorian:

To me, this seems weird. It's also worth noting that both Darryl Jensen and ModerateMikayla demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia policies and practices in their early editing. Again, to me, that's weird. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20 minutes after ModerateMikayla555 gets warned about violating 3RR, suddenly the SPA Griffy013 shows up for the first time in three months to continue the edit-warring where ModerateMikayla left off. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion on the COI noticeboard.[8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I'm going through my own edit history and it's pretty obvious I knew nothing about WP policies for all my early edits. Besides, you've accused me of being a sockpuppet among other things before and they've never panned out. I'm not sure why you have a fixation on attacking me (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope it's not a transphobia thing/playing into the stereotype of the "distrustful" trans woman) but it is quite odd and a little upsetting. Regardless I have no COI or other issues so I guess it's a moot point. I just wish you'd extend the courtesy that maybe I disagree with you in good faith. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protecting the page

Darryl.jensen is also "Moderate"Mikayla555 is also a stack of other socks, so this is all bad faith, and we can close it.--Jorm (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We should protect the version of this page that existed prior to the edit warring which started 4 days ago. Darryl.jensen (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is what I suggested to El_C after your post on his page. This version. Glad to discuss changing it after on here without edit wars. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. Editing through protection is done only with a clear consensus, and that clearly doesn't exist here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A new RFC seems reasonable to me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amenable to a new rfc, but I object to that language--"continue" implies that's what the first sentence has been; that it's the status quo consensus. Really, the question is whether to *add* it to the first sentence, after it hasn't been in there before. Look at this page any time before 4 days ago. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course one is amenable to an RFC when one arrogates to oneself the right to !vote as many times as desired. In light of the section below, it seems to me an RFC is not required. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppets on this page and article

Jsalzillo1 and ModerateMikayla555 (aka ModerateMike729) are checkuser confirmed socks of Darryl.jensen. All three are indefinitely blocked. It is possible that User:Factchecker atyourservice was the original sockmaster but as they quit editing a year ago after their topic ban appeal was denied and they were blocked for a week for violating it, there is no data available to confirm it except for editing data, eg interaction data.[10] Note that sockpuppet edits can always be reverted (see WP:BANREVERT and talk page edits struck through. Posting this here because all 3 have been involved in editing the article and talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly shocking, given that large amounts of discussion on this page involved at least two of those socks being used in concert to try and create an appearance of consensus. Normally I would be more cautious even when it comes to WP:BANREVERT, but based on the extensive and targeted nature of the socking (and the high probability that they were both socks of an editor who was already banned from the topic area), I suggest going through all their edits on this and related articles, and removing anything remotely controversial or unusual that any of those accounts added or altered. It's fairly important that there be no "reward" for this sort of socking. Obviously any edits that anyone feels are worth vouching for can be re-instated if someone believes they can back them up, but it seems as though in the vast majority of cases the only person vouching for their edits when there was a dispute was their own sock. --Aquillion (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised concerns that the editors Griffy and Alison Alice are also sockpuppets or somehow related to the blocked accounts and/or CIS.[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it from me to sully august company with my presence, but I also agree. It certainly seems that a lot of what transpired on this page was as a result of sockpuppet smoke and mirrors. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to all of this. All traces of them need to be eliminated from this articles. I will say that I am extremely impressed that even with this concerted effort from multiple socks, the real users here were still able to prevent anything major from happening. The socks didn't win because of the vigilance of editors here. Toa Nidhiki05 15:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we need to check other articles of connected figures. John Tanton has been edited by one of the banned socks as well as numerous IPs. Toa Nidhiki05 15:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: could a discretionary sanction requiring users to be extended confirmed to edit the article be put to use here? Would help at least slow down the socking. nableezy - 20:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. 1RR could be worth considering as well but given the socks here work in pairs it probably wouldn’t be ideal. Toa Nidhiki05 21:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having read this talk page, well done to the editors who spent a lot of time engaging with these sockpuppetts on this article; I would support enhanced protections on this article (ECP or 1RR, or both), to avoid sinking material additional time on such cases. Britishfinance (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that I don't think I'm the right person to add specific sanctions as I've edited the article. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should definitely be given an award for good faith for dealing with these clown accounts for more than two years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked old talk pages, and apparently Simonm223 busted someone for sockpuppetry in 2018.[12] I don't have the time to search for that particular sockpuppet investigation, but it's worthwhile to check if those socks are related to the socks which were busted days ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Sock of User:Architect 134 but maybe Moderate Mike as well. Toa Nidhiki05 14:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Galobtter and Volunteer_Marek who were involved in the last SPI, and may have some input on the hive of CIS socks.[13]
  • These types of articles are so important to create, however, they drain the editing resources of some of the best editors on WP (e.g. those who have the skills to defend them without themselves getting sanctioned/burnt-out). I see a core of experienced editors who do a lot of the "heavy lifting" in this area (several on this article) and I wonder how long will they last? And are they enjoying it?
ECP+1RR on these articles would materially reduce the editing resources required to defend them against editors who are not here for the right reasons. We have a MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, why don't we also have a similar list articles that are always controversial? As the ratio of "content-to-good editors" is always rising, without this, we could lose this battle long-term? Britishfinance (talk)
As someone who edits controversial topics and is frequently stuck in edit-wars (often with IP accounts and single-purpose accounts), I find that 1RR usually works to the advantage of the bad editors. They will violate 1RR, but it prevents regular veteran editors from daring to violate it, even to restore normal sensible versions of articles. Usually, when dealing with 1RR, I revert once (and the bad accounts revert twice), I start a talk page discussion, I let the bad edit stand for a few days, and then revert back to the normal (at that point the bad editor is no longer interested in editing) so as to not violate 1RR. On pages with 3RR, it is easier to revert bad edits without running afoul of the 3RR restriction, and the bad editors usually get fatigued or lose interest after reverting 2-3 times. 1RR is particularly hobbling for regular veteran editors on pages that are not prominent and where there are not many veteran editors patrolling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting – question then is what kind of set-up should these type of articles have that would make your work more efficient (and less draining)? Britishfinance (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article is now the subject of off-site canvassing on at least one social media site. We can expect additional socks/brigade attacks.--Jorm (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we're already under 1RR here, so the legitimate editors here at a severe disadvantage in accounts start ganging up. I think we seriously need to consider getting full protection for this page for a week and hope these people just go away. Toa Nidhiki05 00:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanton and POV pushing

Cut and paste from a site banned editor.--Jorm (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socks have been heavily invovled on the page. Regardless of what these socks do or don't want, there are some glaring issues here that I'd like to resolve, specifically around how to label John Tanton, where these labels go, and whether POV pushing has replaced neutrality.

There are red flags here, sourced claims in the lead. However, that is old-school. Because every fact asserted in the lead should be covered within the article proper, it was not considered necessary for statements in the lead to be sourced, the sourcing would be in the article body. However when there is controversy, and users are attempting to insert text into the lead against opposition, they will add citations. See WP:Lead. The lead should be carefully neutral, because it will be the takeaway for many or most readers, as explained in the guideline.

What I see as obvious immediately, is that CIS is presented as an"anti-immigration think tank." Is that fact or opinion? If it is opinion, whose opinion?

The first source ([4] is The New York Times. It's convincing that CIS is an "anti-immigration think tank," but it also torpedoes the lead's over-emphasis on John Tanton as founder. The Times' article is quite good investigative journalism, in avoiding the black and white conclusory mess that the lead here is. Is CIS *still* simply "anti-immigration." Or has their position and work become more nuanced? If they claim a fact, is it a fact?

The second source [5] is PolitiFact. Reliable source, my opinion. However, it does not support the text, at all. It cites CIS research as if fact without mentioning a political agenda. In fact, Politifact describes CIS using the "low immigration" language that's been disputed here.

Bad sign. A research institution may be founded with a political goal in mind, but it may also become dedicated to fact. To those editing this article, CIS is forever contaminated by not only the fact of the founder, but also subsequent views and positions and accusations against the founder.

So I will turn to the other obvious issue. Is John Tanton a "white nationalist," so clearly that this may be stated as a fact? Some white nationalists are very clearly so, and clearly acknowledge it and proclaim it. But others are called this as conclusory opinion, which is only usable on Wikipedia if the source is notable, and it should always be attributed. These are basic academic standards, and they have often been lost as factions battle it out on Wikipedia. Truly neutral text will either enjoy broad consensus, from editors with various points of view, or dissent will be obviously uncivil, fractious, and not actually seeking consensus.

This is all complicated by the habit of many "good standing editors" to facilitate the ban of those whose points of view they dislike. This seriously damages the neutrality of the project, by warping the body of users working on articles. So what do we have here?

[10] is the same source as [4]. Sloppy. "White nationalist" occurs in the article, but it is not a reference to Tanton, rather to others, and possibly to claims about him. The article presents fact that roughly defends Tanton from the charge.

“What kind of racist does that?” he said. “They’ve never accused us of doing anything that’s racist or white nationalist. It’s only that Numbers U.S.A. ‘has ties’ ” to Dr. Tanton.

He added: “Even if there were some mild strain of white nationalism in John, the fact is that the results of everything he is pushing in immigration policy would disproportionately help black and Hispanic Americans.”

The Center for Immigration Studies, where Dr. Tanton played a lesser role, has come closest to criticizing him, writing last year that he had a “tin ear for the sensitivities of immigration.” (A blogger then attacked the center as undermining “the patriotic struggle.”)

[11] is a highly opinionated article from SPLC, openly and explicitly a political action group. SPLC opinions are notable, but should always be attributed. They are not neutral and unbiased. The SPLC article is more or less contradicted by the New York Times article. It is political rhetoric. About FAIR

"Its founder was white nationalist John Tanton, an avowed eugenicist who created the modern anti-immigrant movement in the United States."

That is a dense, conclusory claim. While I'm sympathetic to the goals of the SPLC, and much of their work is excellent, they also demonize those with opinions diverging from their own. My own opinion is that racism is not defeated by demonizing it, but by confronting it with good will, not hatred-in-return.

[12] Is a Wired article, breathlessly dramatic about " FAKE THINK TANKS FUEL FAKE NEWS—AND THE PRESIDENT'S TWEETS." This is junk sourcing, with heavy political bias. Is that Wired article notable? I think so. But this is an off-hand mention. The only actual article on Tanton in the mix holds far back from calling him a "white nationalist."

So what we have is an article being maintained in a POV-pushing state, not actually neutral.

And in other news, Pope Catholic. A full report at 7.

(I have no opinion on whether or not Tanton is or is not a "white nationalist." My concern has always been neutrality and fairness, not "defending racists," of which I have been accused for writing things like this. However, are there sources which look at the allegation? Has Tanton notably denied the claim? He is very old, late 80s. Over a long life, he may have said many things that he would no longer support, and some of the things he is reported as saying can also be interpreted in non-offensive ways, or were opinions that were common at the time that are no longer in fashion, etc.)

tl;dr John Tanton probably said some racist things decades ago. However, there is not strong sourcing to describe him as a "white nationalist advocate", his role at CIS is disputed at best and limited at worse, and there is clear POV pushing here to paint CIS with guilt by association by tying it to Tanton's remarks--at readers' expense. Alison Alice (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the more I read up on this, both CIS and Tanton himself deny he's the founder? How has that not been discussed? Alison Alice (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed by at least three of the sockpuppets/sockmaster. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well pardon me for not knowing the apparently deep history but what was the conclusion? We have reliable sources saying he's the founder, and reliable sources saying he's not even involved in the organization let alone the founder. Can we reliably determine which is correct? I don't get why even the mention that CIS disputes this is being removed from the article. In what universe should that be left out? What am I missing here? Maybe people are just on edge b/c of socks. I get that people are distrustful but I feel like I'm raising very legitimate concerns about the sourcing and pov pushing and I'm just being met with snark and borderline mockery. Pinging Jorm for help. thanks. Alison Alice (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how pings work. You have to include the ping in an edit that includes your signature. Adding them after the fact doesn't work.
And you're right! You're being met with snark and borderline mockery because it's very... convenient... that you, new to this article, arrived a day or two after a whole nest of sockpuppets got banned, pushing the exact same agenda.
Ducks go quack and all that.--Jorm (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not new to this article. I've been editing CIS since December, on and off. And you're still not really addressing my question. If CIS and Tanton both dispute that he's the founder, and reliable sources say so, shouldn't that be mentioned? If not, why not? How is that neutral? I also resent the claim that I'm "pushing an agenda", when I've added a whole range of reliable material to the page. If anyone's pushing an agenda, it's the people adding two paragraphs of crap to the lead about a guy who may or may not even be involved with CIS. Alison Alice (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, you aren't new here. You've edited here before and went on the talk agreeing with the sock accounts proposals, requesting their proposals be BOLDly adopted, and now you are basically restating their proposals here. You've also edited on other pages connected to this one or to connected anti-immigration orgs like NumbersUSA, including John Tanton, Social Contract Press, Roy Beck, and VDARE. Most concerningly, as Snooganssnoogans observed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ModerateMikayla555, your account fits the exact same profile as the socks - namely, that you claim to be a moderate or a liberal while focusing on anti-immigration groups and generally promoting the removal of negative content.
So yes, forgive us if we find this extremely fishy. Toa Nidhiki05 03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm a sock ban me. Until then, try not to be a prick. I've raised valid arguments about the undue nature of the lead, and you're repeatedly avoiding them because you don't want to address them and frankly you probably can't. I don't know if this is sexism or elitism or what but it's bullshit, take a long hard look in the mirror. Alison Alice (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did this editor copy-paste this reddit post[16] by a blocked editor or vice versa? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both comments were posted yesterday. Reddit does not give an exact time, but this is too close for comfort and with Alison Alice being suspected of being a sock, this would not shock me in the least. It would also explain why this page has been targeted: User:Abd is a notorious far right conspiracy lunatic. Time to start a sockpuppet investigation for Alison Alice and maybe crosscheck everything against both the known socks here and Abd. Toa Nidhiki05 00:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing list of all socks that have edited this page

The following sock accounts were involved in this article:

  1. User:ModerateMike729/User:ModerateMikayla555
  2. User:Darryl.jensen
  3. User:Jsalzillo1
  4. User:Molarcons

Suspected sockpuppets/suspicious accounts:

  1. User:Alison Alice
  2. User:Griffy013
  3. User:Factchecker_atyourservice
  4. User:Pacificus

Anyone is welcome to add any accounts I missed to this list. Any contributions the socks made should be removed and any contributions the suspected accounts have made should be highly suspect. Toa Nidhiki05 00:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worthwhile to check Pacificus who has a similar editing profile as the other editors, and who was coincidentally weeks ago temporarily blocked by Berean_Hunter for abusing multiple accounts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a sockpuppet investigation for Alison Alice. Let's see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Toa Nidhiki05 01:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who disagrees with me is part of a deep and secret conspiracy of sockpuppets and BOTS to undermine my edits. I am flawless, and it's impossible that my pov pushing could lead to objections. Alison Alice (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alison Alice, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have to realize there was a lot of "socking" happening here. Suspicions are up with reason. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make bold changes, or advocate for your views, but be prepared for pushback and for change to happen very slowly. Sometimes the Wikipedia mill grinds slowly, but, well, it grinds slowly. All there is to it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Alice is a SOCK!!!

I have made two very simple points:

1. Tanton's role in founding CIS is disputed. Does that mean we leave it out of lead? Nope! But the guy cis claims founded them (otis graham) wrote years before TAnton even became controversial that tanton wasn't involved. Tanton says he wasn't involved, yet he curiously doesn't deny being involved with fair or numbersusa or any other anti immigration group. And cis themselves insist he wasn't involved, all of which is backed up by reliable sources. All I'm saying is the fact that tanton is the founder is in dispute, and it seems like a very intentional ommission to leave that out of the lead. As it stands now, it's basically just a way to slander cis for what some guy who may or may not have founded it said 35 years ago in some racist ramblings.

2. The lead is way overly detailed with john tanton. Think he's a racist? Cool, me too--so add it to the tanton article. People don't come here to learn about john tanton's views on eugenics from 1970. They're here to learn about CIS, and you're doing a disservice to readers by prioritizing pov pushing over actual notability. Hell, the whole reason I started getting re-involved in this freakin' page is because I opened it to learn about CIS and instead was greeted by this monstrosity. You've gone so far beyond rolling back socks it's ridiculous.

Call me a sock all you want. Talk about how some other sock accounts made related arguments about tanton. I don't care. Until you prove I'm a SECRET SOCK, my points deserve to be weighed on their own merit. I'm not seeking to whitewash this page, and I'd be appeased by even a couple basic, token changes to the lead. For proposing this, I've been slandered, called a white supremacist (!) by Jorm, been mocked for wondering if sexism is a factor, and have had post after post impugning my motives. Thank you to the few of you who've been respectful. Alison Alice (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Center_for_Immigration_Studies&oldid=905129823"