Talk:Morris Dees/Archive 1

Archive 1

2004

Your revision made the article biased to a pro-Dees perspective, and ignored the criticisms he has come under or dismissed them as 'racist' or 'not well substantiated.' I am restoring those sections you deleted.

Dees is certainly a polarizing figure. To many liberals he can seemingly do no wrong; not just to hate groups but to "Southern heritage" groups and many more maintstream conservatives, he is portrayed as the Devil incarnate. I think that the current article is fair in that it shows both his accomplishments and criticisms of him. Rlquall 03:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sierra Club election

Maybe that NPOV notice came down too quickly. Morris Dees continues to be a controversial character, and that includes his involvement in the Sierra Club election. My edit of the paragraph was intended to better record what Dees and the SPLC actually did. Willmcw 01:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I reverted some anonymous changes. The SPLC did label the Social Contract Press a hate group, and they did link the three candidates to Tanton. Two minor facts that the anon editor added I kept. Willmcw 17:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaibab, for signing your edits. It makes the process much easier to follow. Regarding what the critics of Dees believed about the three candidates, that's a big topic and it's very hard to divine the beliefs of so many people. What we do know is what they publicly claimed. FWIW, the assertion that Frank Morris is a long-time environmentalist was an empty claim. I suppose it would be appropriate to say here that it was reflexive opposition to Morris Dees that helped bring some of the neo-nazi fringe into the election. Willmcw 19:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is a list of links to messages on neo-nazi websites substantiating what I wrote. I can't guarantee that the all of them still work.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2558
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=3041&goto=nextoldest
http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=6541
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=110736&highlight=susps
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=29262&highlight=susps
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=148718&page=2&pp=10&highlight=susps

"Hate groups" should be in parentheses

Not everyone would agree that Dees's targets are "hate groups."

This is an extremely controversial usage and is certainly not neutral.

The term "hate groups" should be in quotaiton marks when referred to as a term. But when employed to describe a group that acts hatefully it should not be in quotation marks. The applicaiton of that term to particular groups is certainly controversial, but that controversy should be addressed directly, not through the use of "scare quotes." Cheers, -Willmcw 19:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Then by the same logic, every time the SPLIC is mentioned as a "civil rights group" that phrase should be in quotation marks, since there is little to no evidence that the operation is any such thing. Moreover, Willmcw should not be the arbiter of what is a "hate group." The level of smug autocracy implied in his statement above is staggering. BulldogPete 12:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe nationalist or racialist groups would be much more accurate since those are almost exclusively what he targets and most of these groups deny hatred for anyone and rather defense of their own given fringe culture. Some of the groups the SPLC lists as "hate groups" are simply economic and media competitors or paleoconservative fundraisers so racialist may not be accurate either. Either way "hate group" should indeed be modified or in parentheses, as the groups themselves do not advertise themselves as hating anyone making it pure opinion.Cold polymer 13:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Critical links?

Why are all the links to articles critical of Dees? --4.235.132.41 23:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That's no longer the case. I added the link from the My Hero Project. 65.151.166.28 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The External Links

Are there no pages on the Web favorable to Dees? Is this guy really that bad? 128.194.66.176 02:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The last three links are problematic. Laird Wilcox's website (critical of Dees) appears to be just some person's web site. The link points to nothing in particular about Dees. If there is content on his site about Dees, then it should be linked deeper to the specific article. Otherwise this link should be deleted completely.

The Harper's link is simply broken. There are several mirror copies of this article around the web. Would someone who can vouch for its authenticity please pick one?

The final article "Finding Our Way Out of Oklahoma, by Adam Parfrey (article critical of Dees)" mentions Dees only tangentially. It should probably be deleted as well on the grounds of irrelevance.

Elharo 12:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wilcox has written material on Dees, but it is not available on that website, except by sending in a check and getting an article back in the mail. The Parfrey article doesn't appear useful - he just repeats what is already in the Advertiser article. The Harpers article is real, but they don't have a full archive. It has been copied extensively over the web, however, so it is available. We should find a site that has a clean copy. -Will Beback 20:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Watchdogs

I've made a quote from Laird Wilcox's The Watchdogs invisible, because it seems it's self-published and some doubt has been raised elsewhere as to whether it should be used as a source. Any thoughts? The passage is below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of four groups negatively profiled by Laird Wilcox in his book The Watchdogs. Wilcox, who tracks extremist groups of both the left and right, accuses the Southern Poverty Law Center and the other three groups he profiles in that report of: "illegal spying, theft of police files, fund-raising irregularities, irresponsible and fraudulent claims, perjury, vicious and unprincipled name-calling, ritual defamation, libel, intolerance of criticism, harassment, stalking, and a callous disregard for the civil liberties of their opponents and critics."

Aside from the self-published aspect, I'm worried that this criticism covers the subject plus three other groups. It's impossible to tell which pertain to the Center. "Ritual defamation"? What's that supposed to mean anyway? -Willmcw 08:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, Morris Dees is not the SPLC. Criticisms of that group should go in that article. -Willmcw 08:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ritual defamation: I have visions of half-naked men gathered around a fire in a dark wood, slandering people as they slaughter a goat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I distinctly remember that in the lead-up to Operation Desert Storm, when Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were regarding Iraq as an enemy, the U.S. TV news reported on an unusual Arab custom. Saudi TV was airing poets delivering hour-long verse insults against the Iraqis (think a-rhythmic, monotonic Arabian Rap). They were the following an ancient and apparently necessary custom of ritual defamation of their enemies. Also, the California Cahuilla tribe had a wonderful practice of ritual defamation, always making sure to pick as their enemy a village some distance away. These villages were sworn enemies, chanting insults against each other at every big feast and (supposedly) killing each other on sight. Yet, since they lived far apart, actual contact was rare so the "feuds" were really just a ritual. Hey, how come we don't have an article on ritual defamation?

Since the criticism isn't about Dees, I'm just going to delete it from this article as irrelevent. Whether it belongs in the articles about the four groups is up to the editors of those articles. -Willmcw 09:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jubilee Newspaper

I see that an editor removed the citation from The Jubilee Newspaper. Its article is not a reprint of the Advertiser article. The Jubilee website is down now, but the article is still available in Google's cache.[1] I'll post the article to a temp page (talk:Morris Dees/temp) so that other editors can see it while we're discussing the matter. -Willmcw 21:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the policy which says that white nationalist and neo-confederate groups may not be used as sources for their own opinions. The Jubilee article has gained a notability due to its frequent repostings. Since Dees intentionally deals with many groups that are considered fringe, we need to allow some fringe criticism for rebutal: it's his milieu. If Dees criticizes the LVMI, the Black Panthers, or the Christian Identity movement then it is appropriate to fairly (and proportionately) summarize their responses to his criticism, no matter what we think of their opinions personally. -Willmcw 13:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is not where or how we should source this "Jubilee Newspaper" but rather the purpose of including it in the paragraph about the Montgomery Advertiser. When Willmcw initially added the "Jubilee Newspaper" as a source, he did so in the paragraph reporting the findings of the pulitzer-nominated Montgomery Advertiser series on Dees and the SPLC. This addition changed the attribution of material in the Advertiser series to the Jubilee Newspaper. Since the Jubilee Newspaper is a white supremacist Christian Identity source, adding it into the paragraph about the Advertiser investigation seems to serve the purpose of discrediting the Advertiser - a mainstream newspaper - by associating it with known white supremacist publications, rather than representing the views of the Jubilee Newspaper in itself. In the interest of full disclosure, this incident is also the subject of a current Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#POV_Pushing_-_Ku_Klux_Klan_and_white_supremacist_insinuations. Rangerdude 01:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If the issue is not the inclusion of the Jubilee citation then why do you keep removing it? Is deleting information that you disagree with the best way of handling a POV dispute? I'll go ahead and add them in a paragraph of their own, since that seems to be acceptable to you from what I understand. -Willmcw 02:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If the information is political material from a white supremacist site included for no other reason than to discredit legitimate sources, then yes. Deleting it is the best way of handling it. BTW, Could you explain exactly why you consider a defunct link to a defunct website so crucial to this article? Rangerdude 03:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The Jubilee piece is widely copied and excerpted, both on neo-confederate and other websites. Since Dees criticizes groups like the Christian Identity then a fair summary of their rebuttals should be included in the article. The momentary status of a website does not negate what was said on that website. As I recall, you added links to a defunct website (via web.archive) to the Ed Sebesta article. The Jubilee article isn't crucial, nor is the Advertiser link, but they both help make the article NPOV by including all viewpoints. -Willmcw 09:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Giving equal treatment to the Montgomery Advertiser and a white supremacist source is a stretch under even the most liberal treatment of NPOV's directive to represent all viewpoints. That's why WP:RS discourages using hate group sites except as representations of their own opinions and with due caution then. NPOV clearly does not intend, however, for a white supremacist group's criticisms to be treated as if they were on par with a mainstream newspaper's. Rangerdude 04:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

According to whom is the Jubilee a hate site? -Willmcw 07:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As evidenced by their own website, which includes openly antisemitic and white supremacist statements such as "We understand and teach that the descendants of the Israelites of scripture are the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Celtic, Germanic and European people with whom God has made His covenant. They are the descendants of Abraham. Those who refer to themselves as Jews and are NOT but are of the synagogue of Satan"[2]. Quit making apologies for bigots, Will. Rangerdude 07:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"As evidenced?" That equals original research by you. Using well-known sources, such as the SPLC, there are hundreds of named hate groups. This isn't one of them. -Willmcw 08:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I note that the SPLC calls groups including the American Renaissance, Occidental Quarterly, and the Pioneer Fund as hate groups. Does that mean we can't use any of them for sources, even for their own opinions? Which policy are you invoking? -Willmcw 08:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Quit obfuscating, Will. It doesn't take a note from the SPLC to demonstrate that a website calling Jews "the synagogue of Satan" is anti-semitic. The truly repugnant thing about this whole episode is the length you're willing to take it in order to score cheap guilt-by-association political points. Seriously, Will. Do you honestly think wikipedia is benefitted by quoting Christian Identity websites? Rangerdude 08:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV demands that we represent all viewpoints. Dees criticizes anti-semitic groups so it is natural that they would criticize him back. Just because they are anti-semitic does not mean that their viewpoints may not be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. Let's remember that the League of the South is also called a hate group. And Thomas DiLorenzo is an affiliate. I look forward to you showing your consistency by removing references to a hate group-affilates from other articles. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review WP:V. Guilt by association tactics such as those espoused in your post above, Will, are not permitted on wikipedia: "Claims that are attested only by a source or sources which rely on guilt by association are not considered verifiable. Verifiability requires a source and direct evidence which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a negative behavior. This is especially true of claims which infer information from membership in an organization and from activities of others associated with that organization. An example, Smith and Jones are Knights of the Garter. Smith kills his wife. It is inappropriate when writing an article about Jones to include information like this, "Smith, also a member of the Knights of the Garter, killed his own wife" under the heading "Crimes of Jones." Most uses of guilt by association are more subtle than this example, but share the characteristic of using inference from known information to attempt to establish a fact about which there is no direct evidence." I look forward to your compliance with this policy. Rangerdude 08:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Jubilee is not associated with anyone. I don't see the applicability of your citation to the matter at hand. If the Jubillee is a hate group or anti-semitic and is therefore ineligible as a critic (according to your logic), then the same rule should apply to other anti-semites and hate groups. -Willmcw 09:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review WP:V. Guilt by association tactics such as those espoused in your post above, Will, are not permitted on wikipedia: "Claims that are attested only by a source or sources which rely on guilt by association are not considered verifiable. Verifiability requires a source and direct evidence which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a negative behavior. This is especially true of claims which infer information from membership in an organization and from activities of others associated with that organization. An example, Smith and Jones are Knights of the Garter. Smith kills his wife. It is inappropriate when writing an article about Jones to include information like this, "Smith, also a member of the Knights of the Garter, killed his own wife" under the heading "Crimes of Jones." Most uses of guilt by association are more subtle than this example, but share the characteristic of using inference from known information to attempt to establish a fact about which there is no direct evidence." I look forward to your compliance with this policy. Rangerdude 09:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I tried a phrasing that is more NPOV regarding the Jubilee. As for the 1979 case- which actually occured in 1980- a lexis nexis search of the case indeed brings up Dees divorce proceedings- and they don't include any of the supposed allegations. -tzanc

That's fine. Someone had said that it was published by the KKK without any evidence to support that. The new characterization is correct. The 1979/1980 filing is posted around the Internet. Allegations in a divorce case, without any corroboration, do not seem reliable. -Willmcw 04:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The supposed dicorce transcripts are false. They are not found in any public records. I, myself, have asked 'the smoking gun' to verify this. They did not find any such transcripts. plus, if you actually read the falsified transcripts, you'll find it worded so badly, it shows as being nothing but a falsification.06:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)06:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Rsm99833`

No kidding? Fake evidence? So it's not even a real divorce filing? I guess that it's credibility is close to zero. -Willmcw 10:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

pulitzer

I removed the section about the pulitzer; it wasn't up for a pulitzer, this can be confirmed at the pulitzer website. In the absence of any other awards than the supposed pulitzer nomination, I also pulled the modifier about it being an award winning report, but will restore it if another award it won can be found. tzanc

It would help if you posted a link to support your claims. Simply saying "I visited a website" doesn't suffice. This link [3] from Harvard University's Nieman Foundation for Journalism indicates the Advertiser's series was indeed a finalist, and also discusses Dees' campaign against them: "Jim Tharpe, 45, has worked at newspapers in Florida, South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia. As an editor in Montgomery, Alabama, he led a small afternoon newspaper, The Alabama Journal, to its first Pulitzer Prize in 1989 for the paper's reporting on the state's infant mortality problem. While he managing editor of The Montgomery Advertiser, that newspaper won numerous state, regional and national awards, including two national Headliner Awards in one year. The newspaper was a finalist for a 1995 Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the Southern Poverty Law Center." Also please review WP:NOR. Rangerdude 19:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I found the article listed as a finalist in the Pulitzer database. -Willmcw 22:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we do need to be concerned that the criticism is becoming disproportionally long. -Willmcw 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the criticism length, Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance states "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Should you or any other editor wish to do so, please be mindful of proper citations and NPOV. Rangerdude 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction- I searched under investigative reporting- it shows up as explanatory journalism- my mistake. But even in that case, the modifier "award winning" is still incorrect, as it didn't actually win. tzanc

That's right. It may have won some award, but if so the award isn't listed. -Willmcw 23:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

American Free Press/Incest Controversy article

The charge of incest is obviously an extremely strong one to make. I checked out the link to read the article on the "American Free Press." It is obvious to me that this is not even remotely a newspaper/website that has any sort of credibility. This would be like putting in Wikipedia, "According to the National Enquirer..." Or giving credence to all the wackos who think 9/11 was an inside job. The American Free Press has an extreme point of view, and is not credible to use as an authority on anything. As noted above, incest is an extremely strong charge/accusation to make about anyone. To put it in Wikipedia and to back up this accusation by quoting the American Free Press is reckless. Asc85 13:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The American Free Press is a an arm of the Barnes Review, a Holocaust denial journal. As such it is indeed a fringe source. -Will Beback · † · 20:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Was the section directly accusing Morris of incest or discussing the accusations of Dee's wife and lawyer Larry Salley? Fringe source or not it did after all cite the Alabama court of civil appeals for the event. Does being a source controversial to mainstream media directly render cited facts within the article irrelevant? That seems like bias within itself.

Since the article is about an actual witnessed event, while it's own opinions on Dees' should be ignored, I think the removal of the cited information it supplied simply because you disagree with the political agenda of the source would be considered censorship. I think it should be re-added. Not directly accusing Morris of incest, but still noting that the event in which he has been accused of it took place would be a middle ground.Cold polymer 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find this incident reported in any other publication or website but I haven't succeeded. Without any confirmation by a reliable source I don't think we can assume that the event occured as described by the AGF. If we can find another source for it I don't object to a mention of the event. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The "divorce papers" are a forgery, which is why the only mention of it comes from racist/hate websites/Holocaust denialists. It was discussed before.[4] FFthird 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)