Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see .|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Southern Poverty Law Center article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 month may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Human Events magazine
I've removed (here) a quote (recently added by an IP editor) from an unsigned article on the Human Events website under the Controversy over hate group listings section. Malik Shabazz removed the same content, although the IP added it back.
I think we already have enough quality material in this section: we specifically quote or reference five individually named critics, in addition to more general criticisms ("some commentators criticized X and Y"). I simply do not think we need to add another quote from a quite marginal publication — especially when the quote is from something resembling a blog post (it is bylined with the anonymous "admin" but it's not an editorial since the writer uses the first person "I"). This is low-quality and is simply unnecessary here. Neutralitytalk 19:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- When I removed the criticism, I wasn't aware that Human Events had been a print newspaper; like too many Wikipedia articles, its article suffers from WP:RECENTISM and describes it as a "news and analysis website". (Its case wasn't helped by the IP editor, who also described it as "conservative website Human Events".) I left the criticism the IP editor added from The Washington Times.
- In any event, having now read the "editorial", I agree with Neutrality that it more resembles an anonymous blog post than a newspaper editorial. I think my first instinct was right. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The information added in this edit suggests that the FBI cut ties with SPLC, but a counterpoint article shows that it's nothing of the sort. The FBI removing links to non-federal resources is absolutely WP:UNDUE information. clpo13(talk) 15:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
You do not get to determine what is a reliable source just because you ideologically disagree with the information provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Reliability is not decided solely by age or ideology but by the presence of editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking, among other things (see WP:NEWSORG, WP:QUESTIONABLE, etc.). I'm not saying that Washington Examiner is not reliable, however. I'm just that saying being old doesn't give it a free pass. (I do see that others have called it unreliable, which is an issue that should be taken up at WP:RSN.)
- The bigger issue with this article is that it claims something patently not true. The FBI did remove links to non-federal resources on a certain page, but did not stop their partnership with SPLC altogether, as the counterpoint article above points out. clpo13(talk) 18:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The implication of your edit is that the FBI no longer partners with the SPLC when in fact the FBI merely decided to list only links to government resources on its website. I do not know whether the Washington Examiner fails rs, but it's coverage is extremely misleading. TFD (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I think people are looking at this all wrong. From what I can tell, both of the removed references are completely factual. Such as, SPLC does not, at this point, show under the resources on the page cited. The reverted edit said noting about stopping any supposed partnership, so I don't know why that is being used as any sort of justification. The Due-ness or whatever may be a different matter, but the objections so far don't seem to be on point. Arkon (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
No liberal, left leaning in the lede? I guess there are exactly ZERO left wing hate groups in the US? More liberal denialism hard at work
Or maybe Morris just forgot them in some kind of clerical error?
Or maybe they don't even follow the extreme left?
SLPC Spokesman “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”
- The usual "it's not NPOV" as code for "I don't like what it says". clpo13(talk) 18:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is also not the first time that National Review article has been brought up, but I'm not sure why it's relevant. Yes, SPLC focuses on right-wing groups, but that doesn't necessarily make them left-wing, unless you think a person or organization can only be one or the other. clpo13(talk) 18:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can you name any left-wing hate groups, that is left-wing groups whose primary purpose is discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or gender-identity? TFD (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Very tricky, the SLPC spokesman says we do not really cover the extreme left. That doesn't mean left leaning or liberal, it means exclusively and only left wing.
Do you really believe no such left wing hate groups exists? Weird given nationwide race rioting, calls to hunt down and burn those opposed to prop 8 in CA, calls for death to climate change deniers, attempts to blow up infrastructure in the name of Occupy, calls to burn down pizza places, florists, endless physical attacks on GOP supporters and on and on and on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- You said, "I guess there are exactly ZERO left wing hate groups in the US? " Name one. TFD (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Request update on fbi cutting ties with SPLC, as it is an important detail when considering how political enemies of the current administration have been attacked by the IRS illegally, as well as FBI inquiries into right wing, patriot, or anti government groups that are critical of the government.