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)

The Nation is a questionable source?

Both Alexander Cockburn and JoAnn Wypijewski of The Nation have a subtle but important criticism about the distraction of an exaggerated threat (attributed to the SPLC's alarms about hate) and the real needs of poverty and the underclass. Why would someone object to my recent insertion? What is undue about this? How is the listing of two critics a synthesis when they are making the same point? Has The Nation become a questionable source of such an opinion? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Cockburn opinion is just a snide comment about how SPLC should be focusing on some other wrongs. It is not a specific criticism about some aspect of the hate groups and the danger they pose. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I admit Cockburn’s rhetoric is heated and perhaps over the top. For example, he calls Morris Dees the “arch-salesman of hate-mongering” claiming there’s a “resurgence out there in the hinterland with massed legions of haters” to the point that “hate is on the rise and America ready to burst apart at the seams.” The SPLC paints a “lurid depictions of hate-sodden America.” ... Cockburn argues that public schools are a greater menace to blacks given for the failure to educated inner city minorities, more likely to be raped by big banks with predatory lending, prohibited from organizing a union, disproportionately incarcerated, etc. He is complaining that the SPLC is evading structural racism while exaggerating individual malcontents. [1] Perhaps you’re looking at the other reference which does have basically a drive-by swipe. Cockburn fleshes out his criticism in the 2009 article. Take a look at that article, Bink, he has a subtle but potent criticism under the heated rhetoric. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

De mortuis nihil nisi bonum and so forth, but your last sentence pretty much sums up Cockburn's entire career. And I say that as a devoted fan of his work.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to have conflated two relatively non-noteworthy opinions into one unified criticism of the SPLC. The Cockburn piece is a polemic, not a reasoned analysis worthy of citation in an encyclopedia article. The Wypijewski article You Can't Get There from Here simply does not discuss "...fear-mongering by exaggerating the threat of the hate-groups while ignoring the real social problems that afflict the poor." as your edit asserts. Instead, it criticizes the SPLC for "Mostly making money." - MrX 16:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that worries about synthesis in the sentence Jason from nyc proposes can be ameliorated by adding the word "Both" at the beginning of the sentence, thus: "Both Alexander Cockburn and JoAnn Wypijewski have accused the SPLC of fear-mongering..." I don't know about Wypijewski, but I can't imagine that including a mention of Cockburn's criticisms could possibly be undue weight. He spent decades criticizing the SPLC both in his biweekly column in the Nation and in Counterpunch. I read every damn issue through the 1980s and it seems that if he wasn't dissing Christopher Hitchens he was dissing the SPLC. He's an important critic of Dees's project. Perhaps this particular item isn't the right one to include, but I support the addition of at least a sentence on Cockburn's views. I wonder if those who oppose it could forget about this one Cockburn source and consider discussing the general idea of putting something in from him, and then, if that seems reasonable, we could decide what it might be. Meanwhile I will look for sources independent of Cockburn that discuss his opposition to Dees's work.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: I think this will be the ticket for establishing due weight. It's only in snippet view on gbooks. I will have access to a copy soon and will report back. If anyone has a copy on hand perhaps they could investigate? It might also be worth including some material on Cockburn's disagreement with SPLC on the meaning of the militia movement in the 1990s.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is the relevant issue. One can always find isolated incidents of criticism of anything, even in reliable sources. Before including them however, we need to establish their significance. Do reliable sources regularly mention Cockburn's opinion on the SPLC? Would we regularly add Cockburn's comments to articles about every topic which he chose to discuss? The answer is no. Laird Wilcox's brief criticism of the SPLC does not establish weight either.

There is a misconception among some editors that criticism must be added to articles to balance articles. But it should only be added if it is significant.

TFD (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I do understand the issue, and I think that a due weight case can be made for Cockburn's criticisms of the SPLC, but I certainly won't attempt to add material about it until I have the sources at hand. Cockburn was notorious in the 80s and 90s for being one of the few commentators to criticize the SPLC from the left and it was written about in secondary sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to find those secondary sources and we can then use them. However, the sources must be about the SPLC, rather than Cockburn. We could for example find secondary sources explaining how Andrew Breivik saw the world. That would not establish the weight of his opinion for every topic he chose to write about. TFD (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I understand how these things work. Cockburn's criticisms of the SPLC are discussed in sources about the SPLC. By the way, it made me smile when you asked " Would we regularly add Cockburn's comments to articles about every topic which he chose to discuss?" You're right that the answer is no. Also, the only three things I recall him not criticising are (a) the country blues, (b) pickup trucks, and (c) magic mushrooms. We'd have an awful lot of work to do if the answer were yes.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple answer: Notable people (Cockburn decidedly qualifies) with opinions can have their opinions, properly cited and ascribed as opinion, used. The Nation is a known reliable source for such opinion columns. That said, Wikipedia is better off using quotes from such columns rather than trying to summarize material which may not be in such columns directly, and disparate opinions from other persons should be in separate sentences. . Collect (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Breivik is a notable person too, in fact more notable than Cockburn. That does not mean that his opinions are noteworthy for every subject he chose to address, unless secondary sources say they are. TFD (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Breivik is not a noted journalist and commentator, AFAICT. Apples and Oranges time. Alexander Cockburn is actually noted as one. And his views are routinely found notable in such publications as The New York Times. We can not give it huge weight, but as a noted journalist, his opinion has far greater weight than that of Breivik for sure, and absolutely citable as his opinion. Collect (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)True dat, but secondary sources discussing Cockburn's criticisms are useful to establish the due weight of the criticisms. As I said, Cockburn hated pretty much everything, so it's essential to have objective criteria to single out this or that thing that he hated. (as I see TFD said at the same time I did...)— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: I think TFD must have been referring to Gunnar Breivik the sports sociologist, or Marit Breivik the team handball coach, or else Terje Breivik the Norwegian politician. Surely he wasn't referring to Anders Behring Breivik the mass murderer. Why that would be insulting! Badmintonhist (talk)

Could you, Collect and alf laylah wa laylah point to other examples where you have argued for the inclusion of Cockburn's opinions in other articles? If he is that important then one would expect his views to be well reflected across the range of topics on which he wrote. TFD (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I routinely state that opinions may be cited as opinions, but not as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice a few hundred times now. There are WP:BLP exceptions about allegations and contentious claims, but that policy does not apply to the general article at hand. In point of fact, I have spoken for the inclusion of views from just about any source one can name -- is there a reason for your apparent implication that I favour a left-wing author? Collect (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't even argued for the inclusion of his opinions in this article, actually. I've merely indicated my intent to argue for the inclusion of his opinions. As far as I can tell his opinions on the SPLC and on 1990s militias are important enough to be regularly discussed in sources independent of him, but that's it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of prominent commentators who have offered strong opinions, pro or con, about the SPLC is somewhat limited. We take them as they are available. For other topics, say the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Cockburn's opinions would have to compete with hundreds or even thousands of other notable ones. By the way, TFD, have you argued to exclude Cockburn's opinions from other Wikipedia articles (except, perhaps, Morris Dees' biography)? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear why there would be an objection to Cockburn. The SPLC is an advocacy/activist organization in the public sphere. Clearly public intellectuals discussing the issues raised by SPLC actions are appropriate for the article. We have many newspaper articles and individuals writing in "serious" magazines already in our citations. One such source is Silverstein. Like Cockburn, he has worked for The Nation and Counterpunch.

I can see an argument that with Silverstein's critique we already have a source for a criticism similar to Cockburn's. In particular, they both argue that (1) Dees exaggerates and (2) he squanders the wealth he raises when it could be used more effectively on fighting for "structural" reforms. As the article now stands it mentions in passing "homelessness" as an issue worthing of attention according to Silverstein. I can't read Silverstein's Harper's article because it is protected by a subscription. Cockburn's article in Counterpunch gives more depth to the idea of the SPLC needs to use some of its bloated war chest to address real current-day pressing concerns: public schools are a greater menace to blacks given for the failure to educated inner city minorities, more likely to be raped by big banks with predatory lending, prohibited from organizing a union, disproportionately incarcerated, etc. Perhaps that could be emphasized somewhere in the article and not merely the limited example of "homelessness." Jason from nyc (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing useful in conjecture about what the SPLC should be doing rather than critical observations about what it is doing. The SPLC alone determines its mission, not outside critics. They are welcome to criticize how well the mission is being accomplished. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist makes an excellent argument for excluding Cockburn: "The number of prominent commentators who have offered strong opinions, pro or con, about the SPLC is somewhat limited." Weight therefore does not justify their inclusion. And no I have not argued against including Cockburn's views in other articles, because I have not come across anyone who wanted to include them. However, I have never AFAIC added an opinion to an article unless its weight has been established in secondary sources. That is I would not add an opinion unless secondary sources had mentioned and described it and explain the degree of acceptance it had. TFD (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, TFD, I figured that you might use that line of argument but it doesn't fly. While the number of fairly prominent commentators who have expressed strong opinions, pro or con, about the SPLC isn't anywhere near as extensive as the list who have expressed strong opinion about, say, US Presidential administrations, it is still significant enough to include samples. Editors are free, of course, to find some notable commentators who have given the SPLC glowing reviews and include them in the article. PS: Cockburn is certainly mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, TFD,: [2]; you might want to check them out.

As for Binksternet's point it's, well, pretty pointless. Of course criticism of an organization's actual activities is relevant. If, say, a prominent theologian makes a scathing criticism of The Roman Catholic Church's time, effort, and money spent trying to make abortion illegal, or working against same sex marriage, as opposed to protecting children from pedophile priests; then it would be silly to say "there's nothing useful about conjecturing what the RC Church's mission "should be" because only it determines its mission. Good grief! Badmintonhist (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It does not see when no significant views have been published to add insignificant ones, especially when no reliable secondary sources have reported them, although I notice that Cockburn's views have been reported extensively in the echo chamber, which is probably the only place their readers would have encountered him. TFD (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Since when are views by editors and regular contributors published in quite prominent left-leaning journals such as The Nation and Harper's about other left-leaning entities considered "insignificant."? As I said before, we are also free to find "significant views" quite favorable toward the Southern Poverty law Center. I would think that you would be quite expert at that. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how this proposed content benefits our readers in understanding the SPLC, especially since Cockburn's criticism of SPLC's finances is already noted in the article?- MrX 20:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because the topic is completely different and thus ought to be addressed? In fact, this criticism is more directly aimed at the core value of SPLC than their interesting finances. Collect (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but your argument is that it's different so we should include it? The different topic would be that the SPLC ignores "the real social problems that afflict the poor"? Please help me understand the relevance to the SPLC's stated purpose(s).- MrX 20:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's pretty clear that ol' Cockburn despised the whole organization, so in what place or places do we put his criticism? I'd say a brief mention, probably combined in the same sentence with another critic or two, in both the "Hate groups" and "Finances" section is about right. I wouldn't include any of his specific, colorful rhetoric about Dees and Co., however great the temptation. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, even opinions expressed in the New York Times are not significant unless they are noted in reliable secondary sources. Why do you think that left-wing publications automatically elevate the value of an opinion? This is Wikopedia not Leftopedia, and the last I looked The Nation had a weekly circulation under 200,000 compared with 20,000,000 people who watch Glenn Beck and company on Fox News Channel every night. If you think that Wikipedia should give more emphasis to views expressed in left-wing publications, then argue your view on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Really? Would you cite the specific Wikipedia policy which would prevent us from using New York Times editorials in our article about the SPLC unless the editorial itself was discussed in reliable secondary sources? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." TFD (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good job, TFD, but a rather ambiguously phrased rule or guideline. For example does "each viewpoint" mean a generally shared viewpoint (sources highly critical of the SPLC's hate group list) or the specific viewpoint of a single author or team of authors (Cockburn)? In any case Cockburn's take on the SPLC, presented in The Nation and Counterpunch, has received notice in The Weekly Standard and Harper's and, of course, in all sorts of political websites and blogs. Once again, you are free to recommend reliably sourced glowing reviews of the SPLC's activities. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Well, I got this book, and it has dozens of pages of discussion of various critics of the SPLC vis-a-vis fundraising in relation to the militia movement. It seems quite comprehensive. Out of those dozens of pages, Cockburn is quoted once, and not even about the SPLC in particular, but about ostensibly left-leaning organizations supporting anti-militia laws when they'd, according to him, oppose the same laws if they weren't targeting the right. From the gbooks snippets this looked like the best hope for establishing some weight for Cockburn's criticisms, but it fails to do so. So I think I support leaving out Cockburn for now, as much as I love the guy's work. This book would be an excellent source for anyone who wants to add some critical material on the SPLC because we currently have zero coverage on issues that the book discusses at great length and quite comprehensively. I personally am not really up for it, but I thought I'd note it here in case anyone else is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

White Patriot Party section emphasis; can anyone help find sources or agree there aren't any?

Right now a the first paragraph of this section is about the Bobby Persons suit in 1982-4. I find that with one very minor exception all the coverage of the SPLC's interaction with the WPP is about the later events involving soldiers at Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg and Dees's investigation into their involvement with the WPP to enforce the injunction obtained in the Persons suit, which is mentioned in the RS only briefly as background to the events of 1985 and subsequent.

For instance, an NYT article on Dees's investigation says by way of explanation: "The White Patriot Party was ordered by a Federal court last fall not to operate a paramilitary organization or harass black people. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has pressed successful civil lawsuits against Klan organizations in Alabama and Texas, had demonstrated in court documents that members of the group threatened a black prison guard in North Carolina." This is typical of the level of detail about Persons. But there is extensive coverage of the SPLC's efforts to enforce the court order which is missing from the article section. Also missing from our section is the 1987 conviction of WPP members for conspiracy to assassinate Dees in retaliation for taking them to pieces in court.

I can't find anything independent that supports the idea that the suit on behalf of Persons deserves as much space here as it has. I plan to add the missing material outlined above soonish and I hope that The Four Deuces or anyone can possibly find independent sources that demonstrate the appropriate weight to be given to the story of the Persons suit itself. I think probably that part of the section should be severely reduced in length while the overall section should maybe be longer once the soldiers, the various investigations in support of court order enforcement and the conspiracy are added.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:53, 29 April 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: [3] 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 [4] [5]. 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 the 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)