Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Hyperlinking to Antigovernment is not overlinking

Antigovernment is not an everyday word; it is something like number 42,200 in the list of common words and the average person is said to know 20,000 words (http://expsy.ugent.be/subtlexus/ ). It is a word used in a contentious topic and I did not understand its meaning so I researched it. It does appear its proper spelling is 'antigovernment' not 'anti-government'. The likely meaning of the word varies by country (in UK anti-government is preferred over anti-administration). A link will increase the understanding of other readers. Other words that have links are more common and less relevant. Including: firebomb, pistol-whipping, vigilante, militia, documentary film, gender,diversity,board of directors, endowment, etc. Last the webpage for Patriot Movement does not describe the groups as anti-government, so the term makes its first appearance here. Mrdthree (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you had to ask what "antigovernment" means doesn't mean most readers don't understand the word. You're engaging in original research by steering readers to any analysis of the word that isn't the SPLC's. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The disambiguation page includes a link to wiktionary and 4 topical sites. If you are claiming that the SPLC uses it in an unconventional manner please help explain the usage of antigovernment by providing additional links on the disambiguation page. Mrdthree (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

How is gender or diversity more priviledged or unconventional than antigovernment? Certainly they are not more uncommon. Nor are they being used in an unconventional way. They are all words critical to the mission of the SPLC. Mrdthree (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"Anti" means against and can be added to almost anything. So literally these groups are against the government. Consider what Joe Vogler said, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." Sounds anti government to me. TFD (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree but the question is what about the exceptional cases? what is the rule is and what the exception? Plus whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant for hyperlinking antigovernment. Why gender? why diversity? why firebomb? why vigilante? Mrdthree (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: By even the greatest stretch of the imagination, linking is not OR. Nor was this edit overlinking. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it should not be linked. See WP:OVERLINK: Do not link "everyday words understood by most readers in context." The words "anti" and "government" are understood by most readers and they can figure out the context. Also see WP:LINKSTYLE: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked." And we are not supposed to link to disambiguation pages. We cannot assume that the SPLC has in mind any of our articles when we link. In other cases, such as when they refer to specific groups, it is clear what they mean. TFD (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis on WP:LINKSTYLE so I did not link the reference to anti-government that is in quotations. That is a statement made by the SPLC. However the subsequent sentence is a wikipedia editors' summary of that statement. That is the sentence that contains the clarifying links to the Patriot Movement and antigovernment. Your point about WP:D requires discussion. Prior to the changes I made, antigovernment redirected to Anti-statism however we all agree that this isnt what SPLC means by anti-government. Hence what wikipedia judged to be the usual meaning was 'wrong' in this case. I would be interested in some thoughts from a senior editor (outside this discussion) Mrdthree (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the style of disambiguation pages and they are for listing 'articles associated with the same title.' as opposed to same concept. So I am not even sure I made a disambiguation page. I will label it a disambiguoation page and see if editors agree that it is a disambiguation page and not a short article so I can resolve that first. Mrdthree (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I started a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_2

Discussion concluded: antigovernment thought to be proper disambig page. So WP:D applies at editors discretionMrdthree (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

FBI no longer using SPLC as a reliable source?

FBI will no longer use SPLC as a source as they are deemed biased and unreliable. Ref here: [1] MaxPont (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

According to Tony Perkins, president of the SPLC-classified hate group the Family Research Council? Sorry, but that would be synthesis. The source that you provided does not make any such claim. In fact, it says "The FBI had no comment and offered no explanation for its decision to end their website's relationship with the two groups...". - MrX 11:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

They haven't stopped using it as a source, they just changed the sources list on their website. This is old news [2] [3]. Either way, going from that to claiming that it is no longer a reliable source is definitely synthesis --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hate group listing, again

Listing the Family Research Council as a hate group shows that the SPLC is biased and not a reliable source. There is a lot of criticism from all political views of the bullying tactics and outright libel by the SPLC. Why is that ignored on this page? 173.153.9.121 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has a systemic bias. Of course they're not going to call out others who share the same kind of bias. -- Glynth (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming polemic and unconstructive. Please stick to the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't pretend you've taken the high ground here. The high ground is reserved for those who deal in reality even if they don't like the political consequences (e.g. noting SPLC's obviously political, divisive, and uncalled for "hate group" classifications here and consequently not acting like they're a credible source on other pages), not those who try to stop those of us who want to address Wikipedia's flaws. Also, stop cyberstalking me. It's creepy. -- Glynth (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You are editing on pages I follow. Again, discuss the article vis-a-vis the FBI, start a new section, or stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have bothered replying (not a forum, blah blah), but you imply something here with "You are editing on pages I follow." This may be, but you also (creepily) "welcomed" me back, indicating how long I was gone, linked a previous discussion, etc. It's passive aggressive at best. So why don't you stop? -- Glynth (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Already discussed before. A non-reliable source misrepresents information, then it gets posted to multiple blogs and IP editors discuss it here. TFD (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted many times before, the source mentioned by the IP only quotes FRC saying it's a good thing that the FBI dropped SPLC for reporting groups such as FRC as hate groups. That is not an interesting statement. It is true the SPLC is criticized in reliable sources for declaring FRC a "hate group". This is controversial, and the majority of the active editors seem to be opposed to even that being in the article, in spite of its removal being a violation of WP:NPOV. But that still doesn't support what the IP(s) want in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Groups called hate groups object to the term and we mention that in articles about them. But unless reliable secondary sources cover the issue, it seems undue to add it here, particularly when we do not mention that the SPLC calls the FRC a hate group. It seems anyway that the FRC etc. are opposed to the definition of hate speech which is generally accepted in the mainstream, including the courts of other Western nations. TFD (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To answer ol' 173.159.9.121's question at what is now the beginning of this section, our article DOES NOT ignore the controversy over the SPLC's hate group listings. It is mentioned in the lead and we have included a specific subsection on it. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You know, 90% of the time SPLC is right on target when it comes to hate groups. But when they star accusing anti-jihadist organizations like Stop Islamization of America as being on the same level as the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party, it makes me question their credibility too. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

They distinguish between "Ku Klux Klan", "Neo-nazi" and "Anti-Muslim" groups. Other categories of hate groups include white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others.[4] That the leaders of SIOA are banned from the UK is confirmation their classification is not unique to the SPLC.

There is a distinction between groups that preach hate which may lead to violence and groups that carry out that violence, which is clear in the SPLC's distinction of types of hate groups. The confusion comes from "hate groups" themselves who claim the SPLC is putting them on the same level of violent hate groups.

TFD (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

I find it quite remarkable that despite this SPLC being a highly biased one dimensional organisation, there is no criticism section to be seen anywhere on this page.

No wonder Wikipedia is often accused of systematic bias. This a very clear example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.9.150 (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the importance of a criticism section. You don't posit that there is no criticism but just that there is no special section for it. Upon review of the article I find there is criticism. So what is the need for a special section? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party, but I think that somewhere on Wikipedia among the policies, essays, and guidelines, there is a recommendation against using "criticism" sections. Criticism sections draw away from the point at hand and give undue weight to opponents of the subject, so it is far better to include any criticism of the subject elsewhere in the article (not all together in its own section). Dustin (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ben Carson

So when Carson is called a hate extremist by the SLPC it is fine to plaster his page with that idiocy, yet when the SLPC retracts the statement it is not fine? Hypocrites. Arzel (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)