Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

SPLC focus is on 'Right Wing' hate groups

The current news is full of 'left wing' hate groups, militias and anti-government groups that promote violence. The SPLC has refused to pull these anti-government groups into their analysis; this is because their explicit purpose is to monitor Right Wing groups. This distinction and SPLC policy is current, significant, and notable and needs to be incorporated into the article. 68.14.248.5 (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless you get your news from InfoWars or Breitbart, I can't imagine how it's "full" of left-wing hate groups, militias, and anti-government groups. The SPLC has reported on black nationalist groups and antisemitic African Americans, such as the New Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and Louis Farrakhan, but its focus is generally on white supremacists and right-wing hate groups. It's hard for them to analyze figments of your imagination, though. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have't heard of any, can you name any of them? TFD (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you read the SPLC mission statement you'll see that their focus is on groups they identify as right wing. Left wing hate groups don't fall within SPLC's purview, and definitely aren't of interest to their donor class.

TFD, you wanted left-wing hate groups. How about Antifa, JVP, or perhaps Hizb ut-Tahrir? Can't say I've looked for hate groups in the past, and most of the quick hate group searches I ran returned things like the SPLC, or the ACLU. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Is Islam left wing?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Um, an anti-fascist group is a hate group? The Jewish Voice for Peace is a hate group? H.T., not sure, but his past membership seems to have something to do with the SPLC's perception of Nawaz, didn't it? Doug Weller talk 11:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No third party reliable sources would describe those groups as "hate groups" and there is no group called Antifa in the U.S. as far as I know. TFD (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Jewish Voice for Peace is a far-left, anti-Semitic hate group comprised exclusively of communists that advocate for the genocide against Israelis and engage in constant lies about Jews, Judaism, and Israel. Communism is an anti-Semitic ideology, just as much as Nazism. JVP proudly boasts that they stand in solidarity with terrorists who murder Jews: [1][2][3] Sources for it being far-left: [4], [5], [6]. Far-left hate group: [7], [8]. Hate group: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]

SPLC itself is also openly anti-Semitic and far-left because it slanders Jewish groups like the Jewish Defense League[18] and many Jewish pro-Israel and anti-terrorist groups as "hate groups."[19] SPLC has also failed to include Black Lives Matter as an anti-Semitic hate group, despite it actively promoting blood libel,[20] as well as Chicago Dyke March. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.123.18.185 (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Associated with does not mean is. Nor does "we would call them a hate group" means they are being called one. Care to actually provide a quote here they are actually called a hate group?Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant. JVP promotes genocide and sides with Islamic terrorists. They are a hate group. The left-wing media often fails to directly call anti-Semitic hate groups hate groups because the media itself has an anti-Jewish bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.123.18.185 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No is is not irrelevant, If you make a claim you have to back it up...with evidence that supports it. If you back up a c,laim with evidacne thjat does not say what you says it does then that raises doubts about what you are trying to prove (to illustrate "the SPLC is a small hamster called Gerald [21]", this does not prove that SPLC is a small hamster called Gerald). What we do not do here is Wikipedia is engage in OR [22]. Nor do we allowing soapboxing [23], now do you actually have an RS that actually draws attention to the fact they only target right wing groups?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think he was talking about JVP? Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Then he is correct, talking about what JVP is is irrelevant as this page is not about JVP. What is relevant is whether or not this issue (does SPLC target "right wing groups" only) has RS supporting that, and not anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources don't consider the JVC a hate group, as the IP concedes, then it's irrelevant to the topic. TFD (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD, Antifa is under consideration as a terrorist group not merely a hate group. As for it being active in the US, consider: https://heatst.com/culture-wars/portland-police-confiscate-weapons-from-antifa-make-arrests-during-free-speech-rally/. Antifa brought weapons to a US protest. As for JVP being a hate group, per the Wikipedia article - ... a United States left-wing activist organization ... they do not support Israel's character as Jewish and democratic. Jewish groups consider them anti-Semitic. Further in the article it notes that JVP exists largely to declare anyone accused of anti-Semitism as not guilty. An NGO Monitor report said that ... the organization supports or has partnered with groups [that] support violence against Israelis. As for Hizb ut-Tahrir and Nawaz, it was his departure and subsequent opposition to groups such as HT that saw SPLC declare Nawaz a hater. Unlike Nawaz HT is not deemed a hate group by SPLC, but is deemed anti-Semitic and dangerous by other organisations\countries. It is banned in something like 30 nations around the world. 人族 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@人族: As I'm sure someone has told you already, talk pages are not a forum. There are many venues in which you can talk about your personal feelings, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article based on the views expressed in reliable sources. Everyone else: Can we just stop wasting our time by engaging this person? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD asked a question hence my answer. Was I supposed to ignore it? Wait was it TFD or Doug that raised the initial question? Meh no matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人族 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Critical Op-Ed from the National Review – and beyond

Here is another critical opinion from a WP-notable writer (David A. French) which is WP:NOTEWORTHY and which might/should be included in this article. See: "Media Beware: The Southern Poverty Law Center Has Become a Dangerous Joke". I will add – IMO – French's criticisms ought to be considered in those articles where WP uses the SPLC categorization to describe various main-stream and non-main-stream groups as hate-groups. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Being notable does not make every view you hold as noteworthy. Why is his view on this subject notewothy?Slatersteven (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Two issues: Is French a WP:NOTABLE person? (Clearly yes – he has a WP article on him.) Once this is established, we must ask whether or not his Op-Ed is noteworthy. Pro-SPLC editors will say NO! and con-SPLC editors will say YES!. Well, this leads to the next editing question: given the disparate opinions about SPLC as WP:RS for the classifications about this-or-that organization/person is "hateful", should we be presenting SPLC's opinion as truth? – S. Rich (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

One issue, weight. Why do we need his opinion, what is it addressing (as a counter point) to something we already have in the article? Do we (in this article) say anything about him or his organisation that needs counter weight?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In this case, French describes his affiliation with the Alliance Defending Freedom, and denies that the group is a hate group.: "In fact, throughout the summit, the speakers and attendees advocated basic Christian principles. Bless those who persecute you. Love your ideological foes. Fight for the rights of others that you’d like to exercise yourself." Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The op-ed clearly acknowledges that the SPLC's categorizations are accepted by the mainstream and the author identifies himself as a "hater." I have always thought the article should say that groups described by the SPLC as hate groups and people who defend them resent the categorization. At the same time, we should acknowledge that they are representing a minority or fringe view. French actually provides a defense of the SPLC: "the ultimate moral responsibility for violence rests with the criminal. But we all know that speech has power. It can influence men to do great good or inflict great harm." Hate speech inspires people to attack minorities and bomb abortion clinics.

However, it would be misleading to pretend that French and others have no connection with hate groups and merely represent informed opinion.

TFD (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The bigger issue for WP is NPOV. French is correct when he scolds the media for using SPLC as a source to describe various organizations as hate groups. And WP is part of the media which follows the SPLC line. (In fact, we often do so in the lede.) We can't even be honest with ourselves and describe SPLC as being "left" on the political spectrum. And we even mirror the SPLC by listing all of the labeled groups in the list article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Then we can have his rebuttal there, in that list.Slatersteven (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says, "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It does not mean correcting the views published by reliable sources. Anyway, if we do mention French's opinion, we would have to mention that it runs entirely against the mainstream view. TFD (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Noting that French is one of those "significant views", he ought to be included. NPOV is not limited to "mainstream views", and we are exercising editorial bias when we say "s/he is outside the mainstream" or, worse yet, "s/he is fringe". – S. Rich (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if his view were significant, we would still have to present it as a minority view. But it is insignificant because it has not been published or reported in a reliable source. Compare for example his essay with "The Paranoid Style in American Politics", which is cited in many articles. It is significant not because of who wrote it, where it was published or because of the validity of its opinions, but because it has received extensive coverage in reliable sources. When we quote it, we can mention its degree of acceptance, what experts found right and wrong about it, note that other interpretations are available etc. TFD (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The National Review isn't reliable? Please. – S. Rich (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"the author identifies himself as a "hater." The following is really, really, really obvious to every not irony-resistent person who has read the article: French does not "identify himself as a hater". He states that according to the SPLC, he is a hater. He himself thinks this label is so absurd he does not need to mention explicitly that it is absurd.

I think French's position on any number of subjects is backwards, silly, out of touch with reality, and detrimental to society, but:

• by misrepresenting people like him, the SPLC does itself a disservice,
• by misrepresenting people like him, Wikipedia users (you know who I mean) do themselves a disservice,
• the WP article should quote the article.

It is well-documented that the SPLC routinely, casually and carelessly pidgeonholes people in one broad villain category, regardless of the extent to which they really belong there, and that naive folks out there still trust them enough to sometimes violently attack those people (and those around them) because of that. This is an important point that has drawn comment in the media, the SPLC's credibility is going down the drain, and the article should give enough space for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If we quote the article we must have a section on this "controversy", and that means inclusion of SPLS's version. As this was not deemed worthy of inclusion before it became "criticism of SPLC" why is it now worthy of inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Also I see nothing about what SPLC has said about him, only about groups.Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether French uses the term "hater" ironically, he is clearly saying as you admit that the SPLC considers him a hater. To his credit, French does not conceal that information from readers and neither should we if we use French's comments. The American Center for Law and Justice for which French was senior counsel lobbies for the criminalization of homosexuality overseas, as mentioned by the SPLC,[24] The Human Rights Campaign has an extensive dossier about efforts by French and the ACLJ against LGBT rights, including sending people to meet with Robert Mugabe to encourage his crackdown.[25] French was also a vocal opponent of the "Ground Zero Mosque." TFD (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Lets not turn this into a forum about gay rights or the American Center for Law and Justice, it does not matter what they (or Mr French) say or do about gays or Muslims or cheese burgers. This page is about SPLC and only comments related to that are relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant. Groups identified as anti-LGBT groups claim they are listed because of their opposition to same sex marriage, while the SPLC says it is because they wish to denigrate and criminalize LGBT people. TFD (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: TFD, you are conflating (above) WP policy about using sources for factual material with using sources for restating noteworthy viewpoints. And, more importantly, WP does the same when we say "according to the SPLC, the XYZ Organization is a hate group." That is, we are restating SPLC's opinion about XYZ as if the opinion were a fact. With this in mind, I repeat my contentions that French should be mentioned in the article and that WP restrain itself from repeating the viewpoints of the SPLC. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

SPLC are recognized experts on the subject of hate groups regularly quoted in RS, is French a notable expert on SPLC?Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

French is an expert on his own organizations, thus his dispute with the SPLC about the "hate group" designation is pertinent. One organization mentioned in his op-ed is Alliance Defending Freedom which has advocated numerous cases before the US Supreme Court. And note that ADF has "special advisory status" at the UN, EU, and OAS. Thus ADF is very upset about ABC News using the SPLC as a source for its reporting. – S. Rich (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read the neutrality policy with the same diligence you would if it were a law and you were writing a brief. Despite the name, it clearly says that opinions should be provided the same weight they have in reliable sources (i.e., sources that are reliable for facts, not the opinions of their authors). No reasonable interpretation of the policy would require that we provide the same weight to an opinion piece by a lawyer for a group described as a hate group by the SPLC and a major news network (ABC). Now that may not be fair, but it is the rule. If you don't like the rule, get it changed. But please don't provide arguments your view is consistent with the rule, when we clearly know it is not. TFD (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The guideline recognizes that opinions are different than factual statements. See, WP:RSOPINION. In the case of French, we have a WP:NOTEWORTHY opinion which should be posted in this article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The comparison of French and ABC News as to weight isn't valid here. A news network such as ABC quotes an organization such as the SPLC not necessarily because they find the SPLC especially reliable, but rather because the SPLC is the biggest (and nearly the only) game in town when it comes to categorizing groups that oppose LGBT rights. Moreover, the fact that an organization may be widely considered a reliable source for a specific kind of information, as the SPLC is, or for information in general, as The New York Times is, doesn't exempt it from notable criticism of its function as an information source. For example, we wouldn't bury a spate of prominent editorials and columns denouncing The NY Times's handling of specific news story on the basis of its general reliability far outweighing these criticisms.

On another matter, I think one of the problems with the article's Controversy section is that it is too much listing of separate new items. Those items should be integrated into topical paragraphs dealing with controversies over SPLC's various hate group categories, along with its general approach to hate group and extremist listings. 68.0.204.180 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

According to an opinion piece in Fox News, ABC, NBC and CNN called the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) a hate group.[26] Generally however they just quote the SPLC and as you say it does not mean agreement but does acknowledge that it is the major opinion. TFD (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

And this suggestion is just another example of a bullet point criticism without context or prose. This is why (and I am now coming round to that view) Wikipedia frowns upon such sections. Of course organisations and people who have been criticized by SPLC will complains. What we do is to include notable examples of controversy, such as court cases (if Mr French is so sure of this is fake let him win a defamation of character case, that we could include). What this should not be is a page where every pseudo-fascist can come and say "but SPLC are telling lies".Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Please don't use words like "defamatory". And please don't edit other people's comments. Please read WP:PA. Please use {{rpa}} only in cases of a personal attack. Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think (due to a poor choice of words on my part) a misunderstanding has occurred). What I mean to say way that even people who are pseudo-fascist are going to say "but SPLC" are telling lies. We cannot therefore include every denial of what SPLC has said. What we should do is only include these disputes when (and if) they become major controversies. Also only when and if RS cover it in a significant way.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Lets try to avoid these misunderstandings from now on. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why this discussion should become heated. There are groups who believe that the islamic belief system threatens Western civilization, that homosexuals have an agenda which will destroy the family or that African Americans are less intelligent, industrious and law-abiding than people from other races. The SPLC believe that these opinions are wrong and expressing them is hate. According to policy we cannot choose between sides but must explain which view is more widely accepted. And I think we must avoid polemicism, for example, the SPLC supports gay marriage and labels anyone opposing it as a hater. Now they are thoroughly discredited and no one listens to them any more. TFD (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD your upthread reference was an interesting find but please quote all the relevant parts, For instance the article noted that "SPLC is best known for being the left-wing group that targets other groups and individuals in the public eye for 'hate speech' -- especially conservatives and Christian groups" and that POLITCO is even starting to reconsider their value with writer Ben Schreckinger going so far as to call "... the founder of the SPLC 'a little Trumpian,' the ultimate liberal insult". While it doesn't explicitly say SPLC are a hate group it does make clear they're a politically active group that wields that hate label against ideological enemies. 人族 (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

And since defamation and bias came up I ran a quick search:

The Southern Poverty Law Center Is A Defamatory Hate Organization - http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/08/17/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-a-defamatory-hate-organization/
ABC and NBC Help SPLC Smear Successful Religious Liberty Law Organization as “Hate” Group - http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/07/abc-and-nbc-help-splc-smear-successful-religious-liberty-law-organization-as-hate-group/
Southern Poverty Law Center “extremist” lists used “to silence speech and speakers” - http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/southern-poverty-law-center-extremist-lists-used-to-silence-speech-and-speakers/
ABC, NBC hit with backlash after pinning ‘hate group’ label on Alliance Defending Freedom - ADF blasts ‘defamatory’ Southern Poverty Law Center designation - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/16/alliance-defending-freedom-blasts-defamatory-south/

I'd suggest things aren't quite as black and white as some suggest.人族 (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem you face is policy. It may be your sources are right but your sources present a minority fringe opinion. If someone tells me the moon is made from green cheese, I don't argue about the physics but ask for proof that mainstream scientists support that view. Maybe the moon is made out of green cheese, I don't know, but until you provide a mainstream opinion saying that I will oppose it. TFD (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And therein lies the fundamental problem. What counts as a mainstream source, what counts as a minority fringe opinion? Legal Insurrection is a highly respected law blog by lawyer and professor William A. Jacobson. Yes I'm aware blogs are usually a grey area at best but Wikipedia notes that those authored by well-known professionals writing in their field may be acceptable. I can't comment about the Red State source - not especially familiar with it, but have encountered the Times source before. And Fox has articles about SPLC smearing conservative, traditional-value organization as hate groups. I'm assuming you're thinking NYT etc, except those have demonstrable bias so I prefer other sources. 人族 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And is professor William A. Jacobson a noted expert in the field of civil rights or securities arbitration?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding SPLC at the RSN

See: this thread. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of "Ku"

@Slatersteven: Could you explain your revert, please? The article is Ku Klux Klan, not "Klu", and the book cover can be seen at Google Books with the correct spelling. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It was the fact it was an alteration to something we had for a long time. Also it is sometimes called that [27], [28].Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

it is correctly spelled 'Ku'. Variations are not correct. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but I can only go with what I have seen. But as I have not altered it back again this discussion can be ended.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Antifa

not productive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SPLC refuses to this day to label Antifa a hate group or add them to hatewatch. Their reasoning is as follows: "Antifa adherents do not discriminate against people on the basis of race, sexual orientation or other classes protected by antidiscrimination laws, such as religion There might be forms of hate out there that you may consider hateful, but it's not the type of hate we follow," Cohen said. Which is a verifiable lie. They routinely track and report on groups outside of that mandate as for example anti abortion activity here: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/04/03/new-criminal-charges-filed-against-anti-abortion-activists and immigration including numerous cases against the government here: https://www.splcenter.org/issues/immigrant-justice. They have also designated CIS as a hate group which would appear to be outside of their self described mandate and others including Federation for American Immigration Reform. I would argue the fact they refuse to label Antifa a hate group is WP:NOTABLE and has been widely reported. I would also ask that their reasoning along with some of the contradictions contained in their explanation also be listed. 24.114.72.161 (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Why was this section deleted? I was asking for consensus on the possibility of adding information related to the fact of SPLC refusing to designate Antifa nor report on it despite their more liberal "definitions" of hate groups and hate watch activity related to anti abortion groups and legal immigration activists which fit outside of their self described mandate. I am not offering to write the content. I am biased it would need someone with a more NPOV. I'm asking why this information has been omitted. Please leave up this is a talk page where else would be the place to put it. 24.114.72.161 (talk) What RS have reported this?Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC) The SPLC explains why each group was placed on the hate list and this is never because of opposition to abortion or same sex marriage etc. In each case they explain how they encourage hatred toward minorities. Note that violent anti-abortion crimes are typically committed by people who subscribe to a number of hate positions. See for example Eric Rudolph. TFD (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "Antifa" isn't a group - it's (supposed to be) the default human condition - post WWII at any rate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC) There's nothing actionable here. The OP has a complaint about how the SPLC defines and carries out their mission. Wikipedia has nothing to do with such concerns. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC) That's why I reverted the IP troll hours ago, but he came back and just pasted it in again. This is a general whinge against the SPLC, it has nothing to do with article editing. TheValeyard (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Should be hatted just like the section above. The talk page is not a therapy room/safe space for venting one's anger at the SPLC. Volunteer Marek  21:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Another hate group that, according to the SPLC, does not exist.

WP:NOTFORUM, nothing here relates to improving the article based on policy and reliable sources.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to the SPLC,[29] the Antifa (United States) hate group does not exist. It is a shame that this article does not accurately reflect the fact that the SPLC is really, really good at identifying groups of violent idiots on the far right and really, really bad at identifying groups of violent idiots on the far left. Another example: List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups#Racist music They managed to find all of those idiots, but somehow missed the many Drill music and Narcocorrido artist in the US. So singing a song advocating violence against others makes you a hate group if you are far right, but not if you are far left. This Wikipedia article is a classic example of whitewashing rather than NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC) I will remind you for the last time that this page is not a forum for you to gripe about the SPLC. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC) And I will remind you to stop trying to suppress my good-faith attempts to discuss what I see is a serious NPOV problems with this article. You want to whitewash the SPLC, fine. Go ahead and try. If you want everyone to shut up and not comment about how whitewashing the SPLC is a violation of NPOV, the answer is no. Hell no. You are wasting your time asking. If you think I am violating Wikipedia policy, feel free to file a report against me at WP:ANI and receive your free WP:BOOMERANG. I will make popcorn so that we can all have a nice snack while we watch you go down in flames. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC) You are not discussing NPOV problems with this article, you are using the talk page as a FORUM for your own opinions. The antifa example is a classic case of WP:POINT. Unless you can bring reliable sources to the table which refer to antifa as a "hate group", quit it with the disruption. And at this point it's pretty hard to believe your comments here are in good faith. Volunteer Marek  14:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC) And honestly is this: " but somehow missed the many Drill music and Narcocorrido artist in the US. So singing a song advocating violence against others makes you a hate group if you are far right, but not if you are far left." - suppose to be serious?  Volunteer Marek  14:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) It's not the SPLC but the concept of hate you have trouble with. See for example the definition of hate in the Hate Crime Statistics Act 1990, signed by conservative President George Bush: "prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity." Not all anti-social behavior comes under the category of hate. By the way, "Antifa" is not a group. The SPLC for example does not call the neo-Nazism a hate group, but lists specific groups with neo-Nazi ideology. Can you name any Antifa groups? TFD (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Stop being silly. The Antifa movement contains groups. It's just that the SPLC somehow cannot find them. See our Antifa movements page, which states "In the 2010s, self-described anti-fascist groups have become increasingly active in Western Europe and North America. These loose collectives first arose in the early 2010s in response to growing nationalism in countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, and France. In the US, anti-fascist groups had existed since at least 1988..." How odd that you choose a definition from George Bush instead of the definition that comes from the SPLC itself as documented in our Hate group article: "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics... Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing." This clearly describes the various groups that make up the Antifa movement. BTW, if you are about to pen a fevered response claiming that being a Neo-Nazi is not an "immutable characteristic", consider the fact that neither is being a Muslim. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC) This is not a forum for general discussion of our opinions. What edit are you sugesting?Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Although this is just a small part of the NPOV problem, let's start by replacing "The process for determining which groups are included involves "talking through" cases that are not clear-cut" (which claim, BTW, is not found in the sources cited) with "The process for determining which groups are included has never been defined, and there has been significant criticism of the choices made, mostly by those who are listed as hate groups, but also in multiple independent publications." followed by citations to some of the more notable criticisms. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC) You mean apart from where we mention the criticism of their assessment elsewhere? We already have a whole section on criticism of their listings. So we either consolidate that into the body of the article And thus remove the criticism section), or we do not labour points by mentioning umpteen times "but their choices have been criticized".Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC) We're wasting time discussing the personal opinions of the OP regarding the SPLC. This is why the section hatting should have remained. TheValeyard (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Guy Macon, I used the definition in the law to show that the term hate is generally accepted, not just one used by the SPLC. Notice the SPLC qualifies the term immutable with typically. Religion is considered tantamount to an immutable characteristic. Anti-Islamists however make the same point you do, that people choose to become Muslims, while homophobes argue that people choose to become gay. But no one argues that one does not choose to become a racist or a fascist, and no law that protects minorities includes them. But to return to my point, your argument is not that the SPLC inaccurately identifies Islamophobia and homophobia, but that they should not be considered minority groups for purposes of hate speech. That's a general argument against the concept of hate, rather than against the SPLC. If you want that argument in the article I have no objections, so long as it is properly phrased and we point out its degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Bearing in mind that I probably sympathise with your position Guy, the fact that Antifa is a left-wing group means that as far as the SPLC are concerned they're not a hate group meriting monitoring or reporting. They also haven't - as far as I'm aware, attacked any SPLC protected classes. I'd also like to see a more balanced treatment of SPLC but as I'm a minority I don't expect to see it happen any time soon, not unless there's some radical court rulings in the near future. Under the controversy section for instance the difficulties various organisations and individuals have with SPLC are listed, and then the SPLC defence for their position is given. If you visit the pages for those organisations and individuals the SPLC version is again repeated, but not the defence against the SPLC accusation. Seems like whether here or there the SPLC view is deemed paramount. Isn't that inconsistent? 人族 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Protected classes"? What does that mean? Are you equating fascists with ethnic minority groups? Doug Weller talk 13:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC) And looking at its mission, it's "Dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society." @人族: - is that what you mean? In any case, how can you claim that Antifa hates the most vulnerable members of society? Doug Weller talk 13:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Articles do mention when groups reject the SPLC description. TFD (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Any of the SPLC's preferred groups - sacred cows if you like. And while I hadn't considered your parallel, or really much of any particular scenario, so long as fascists are peace loving victims of aggression then yes they merit the same level of protection as any peaceful ethnic minority group. Feel free to argue there's no such thing as a peaceful fascist, but that's a different argument. As for the SPLC's mission, that's not how it classifies its Hatewatch @Doug Weller: which is captioned monitoring and exposing the activities of the radical right. What counts as radical? Acts of violence? Advocating violence? Expressing views that the SPLC object to? The latter seems to be the standard SPLC use. As for most vulnerable members of society, who are they? Remember that's your point, not something I've raised. And does it really matter whether Antifa are attacking white supremacists or a multi-ethnic prayer group so long as they're the ones initiating the violence? Kinda getting sidetracked here though I think. 人族 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

WP:NOTFORUM, nothing here relates to improving the article based on policy and reliable sources.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok, so we all know the main stream media is biased against conservative ideologies. Professors and educational institutions are too. This is wonderful. Here's the plan: We bash any sources that represent conservative viewpoints as not reliable and we just parrot the liberal ideologies as the only valid ones. We need many Wikipedians that have a liberal bias to get on board with the game plan and block any conservative thought out of the encyclopedia. In this way, we can totally subvert WP:NPOV and we can hide behind WP:RS. Further, we can revert any and all conservative ideas as soon as we see them. Then we accuse the original editor of edit warring. Brilliant!! Sprinkle in some Ad Hominem too. Now go forth and use this plan to scrub any and all conservative or libertarian ideas the hell out of this encyclopedia! Glennconti (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Seriously man, if you want to rant about the evils of main stream media (sic) or professors or whatever, this is NOT the place to do it. Please stop disrupting the talk page. Volunteer Marek  05:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Seriously man, I think this article can be improved. That is my hope. Glennconti (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC) That's great. But how? Your comment is not helpful. Volunteer Marek  05:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC) My comment was thought provoking please wait for comments.Glennconti (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Well, I am a centrist, so I prefer if both sides are presented equally, not onesided slanting of Wikipedia. David A (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox & Washington Times

Seems some editors do not like the citations to Laird Wilcox and the Washington Times in this article. Interestingly Wilcox is mentioned very little on the WP:RSN and the RSN does not conclude that the Times is non-RS. I submit that the WP:BURDEN is on those editors who want to exclude such citations because each source is, per se, notable and because the info from them is WP:NOTEWORTHY. (Also, where do we see in the Talk page archives any consensus to the contrary?) – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times is not RS. It's a moonie newspaper. It's conspiracy crap. I believe it is on RSN a bunch, you just haven't looked carefully enough. With Wilcox, the problem is that all his stuff is self published. So basically, who cares? It's not notable. It's not "noteworthy". And if you don't see it on talk then you shouldn't add it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sound's a lot like "I don't like it". They have a professional journalist team with editorial oversight, 35 years in the business, and I don't see any consensus of it being unreliable or not noteworthy. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and saying that the response to Wilcox is RS (which it is, because it's the SPLC responding) in no way justifies including the non-RS crap to begin with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Marek, the reference is to Wilcox's contributed chapter in the volume The Cultic Milieu, which was edited by Jeffrey Kaplan and sv:Heléne Lööw, both notable academics. Iif you look through this talk page's archives you previously admitted the K&L cite was ok. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to the inclusion of Wilcox's opinion; it's properly balanced by SPLC's response, reliably-sourced and addresses a substantively-disputed argument about the SPLC's work rather than being another random "they're commie pinko jerks" blather. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The WT is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The WT is not RS. Check archives of RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to censor valid references solely on an ideologically driven "I disagree with their position" basis. The Washington Times is not considered as unreliable by Wikipedia as far as I am aware. David A (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We are not, why do we need to mention this twice?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware that it was mentioned elsewhere in the page. David A (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I shall reply on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Any opinions mentioned in articles should explain their degree of acceptance, which is best done by using secondary sources. While the Washington Times probably meets Wikipedia's low threshold for reliable sources, it does not provide weight. Reasonable and informed people will totally discount anything it publishes. TFD (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, check RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk)

"Explain their degree of acceptance"!? No, that is asking too much and simply it isn't done throughout Wikipedia. Give an indication of where the opinion is coming from . . sure, that's quite reasonable and often required per WP:Attribute. By the way, Laird Wilcox's "incautious approach" criticism of the SPLC is also found in the The Weekly Standard. See [30]. 68.0.204.180 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Due and undue weight", which is a policy, says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." My question to you is, what is the prominence of Laird Wilcox's criticism? You mention it is supported in a U.S. "conservative" publication, but on the other hand, the SPLC is routinely quoted without qualification in mainstream media, including Fox News. Didn't the Weekly Standard tell us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda? We should not provide a false equivalency between fringe views and those generally accepted. Sometimes the fringe is right, but policy requires us to stick to mainstream views. I suggest you stop reading the Washington Times. TFD (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The Laird Wilcox citation dates to 2000, which to me seems hopelessly out of date when discussing issues of the rise of hate groups and neo-Nazis in the wake of the Trump campaign and election. Seventeen years later we now have neo-Nazis staging mass rallies which have lead to deaths and injuries, so Wilcox's statement that anti-hate groups "exaggerate the dangers" is almost quaint in 2017. I really does not belong in the article. TheValeyard (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Valid point. I think in light of recent events it does seem outdated.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wilcox essay was cited in 2016 in this RS by Jeffrey Kaplan https://books.google.com/books?id=DoD4CgAAQBAJ The in-depth article few months ago from Politico makes similar criticisms. It's not outdated. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It's discussed on p. 111. Note that Kaplan sees it as a minority view. So it's fine to mention it, sourcing it to Kaplan and not presenting it as a major view. Laird Wilcox's opinion of other researchers in right-wing politics is occasionally mentioned in mainstream sources, but given no support. On the other hand, right-wing sources always mention it since it lends credibility to their views. TFD (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Valeyard: Regarding "Neo-Nazis staging mass rallies . . ", I hardly think that gathering a few hundred "Unite the Right" enthusiasts in a nation of over three hundred million constitutes a mass rally. A "renegade" member of this brigade was responsible for the death of one counter-protester and injury to others. As for the police deaths, they could just as logically be pinned on the other side. It takes more than one side to fight. @TFD: The specific accusation that Laird Wilcox makes is that the SPLC pads it's hate group numbers. It is that issue, and not whether whether lots of news outlets routinely quote the SPLC, that is being discussed here. Regarding that issue, where are the reliable sources coming to the SPLC's defense? They don't seem to include J. M. Berger, or even Dobratz and Shanks-Meile, a couple of generally sympathetic academics who, nonetheless, note the SPLC tended to exaggerate in its descriptions of right-wing gatherings. Merely telling us that many generally reliable news sources use the SPLC as a reliable source really isn't pertinent here, any more than telling us that a specific criticism of CBS News is outweighed by the fact that lots of organizations find CBS to be reliable. Incidentally, from a quick Google search it would seem that when Fox News quotes the SPLC it usually to poke fun at the organization. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The "he's not one of us" defense doesn't work, sorry. TheValeyard (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The source used for Laird Wilcox makes clear that he holds a minority position and he has been criticized by experts on the radical right. That someone says something and is ignored does not mean what they say is accepted. Some speaker at Unite the Right today on Meet the Press criticized Trump for allowing his daughter to marry a Jew. Does that mean we can add that criticism to the Trump article? Does the likelihood that no one will take the bait and explain why his comments are wrong mean that they have mainstream support? Your reply to Valeyard shows a unique view on the world. However according to policy we cannot slant articles to meet our personal beliefs. It doesn't matter whether your views are right or wrong even if you could persuade us to support them. Readers expect that articles will provide the same weight to opinions as they would find in the New York Times. TFD (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I have tried finding in the RSN archives clear consensus saying the WT is not RS, and I have not found it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Valeyard: I think you meant to say the "he's not one of them" defense doesn't work. Fair enough. My main points were [A] that Charlottsville was no "mass rally"; it might have tried to be one but it failed, as the few hundred (at most) demonstrators were far outnumbered by counter-protesters and curious onlookers; and [B] that according to reporters, responsibility for the outbreaks of violence were unclear but probably shared.

@TFD: Comparing some fool's remark at the Unite to Rally with Laird Wilcox's criticism of the SPLC is silly. Many prominent commentators, left right and center, have made similar criticisms; for example Ken Silverstein, Alexander Cockburn, Stephen Bright, Dana Milbank, Millard Farmer, and Pulitzer prize winning reporter Jerry Kammer. I would suggest that academic and journalistic fans of the SPLC often don't "take the bait" because they really have little of substance to offer in response. In truth, the folks who really like the SPLC tend to like it precisely because it does exaggerate threats from the far right, just as those who liked, say, the old John Birch Society, liked it precisely because it exaggerated the Communist threat. Of course, the criticisms of the aforementioned folks don't all have to be included in Wiki's article, but a representative sample of them should be, and Wilcox, as someone who specializes in the same general area as the SPLC, is a good one to include. I actually think that the amount of criticism currently in the article is about right, but I also know that left in the hands of certain editors it would be denuded.

As for my earlier response to Valeyard, no, I don't see it as showing a "unique view of world." The Charlottesville right-wing gathering was no "mass rally" by any stretch. The Fields idiot apparently wasn't "following orders" (and might even have been disobeying orders) when he rammed his car into the group of counterprotesters, and yes, responsibility for the violence seems to lay on both sides. All reasonable conclusions and hardly "unique". 131.109.225.34 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There are a handful of people who have no connection with hate groups who nonetheless are critical of the SPLC. (Jerry Kramer by the way is a Senior Research Fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies.) Their names are mentioned over and over again on hate websites but the mainstream pays no attention. Who cares that 20 years ago two editors of CounterPunch attacked the SPLC? You're not going to tell me you are a regular readers are you? I bet you would never argue for the inclusion of their opinions anywhere else except here where they happen to coincide with your own. Wilcox btw has not published anything for decades but now self-publishes and despite his early success is not part of the discussion today. TFD (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There are far more than a handful. If older critical comments about a 46 year old organization bother you there are plenty of newer critics. Journalist Carl Cannon wrote a scathing recent piece about the SPLC regarding the Middlebury College melee in RealClearPolitics. Allison Stanger, one of the melee's victims, twitted the SPLC in a New York Times column. Both The Atlantic and Politico have recently run well balanced but critically probing articles about the organization. Regarding its damning of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a large secularist and atheist contingent including Sam Harris, Seth Andrews, and Hemant Mehta have weighed in quite negatively toward the SPLC. So there is no shortage of current and prominent critics. BTW I'm not aware of any Wikipedia rule which states one must be a regular reader of a periodical to use it as a source, nor a rule that states one must use a particular source both when it agrees and when it disagrees with one's opinions. Do you know of any editors here who voluntarily follow such "rules"? 131.109.225.34 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about one criticism, not many. Also we are talking about a specific type of criticism, not many types.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A Christian Ministry Labeled a "Hate Group" Sues the SPLC

In the "Controversies" section, I have noted that a conservative group decided in the summer of 2017 that it had had enough and that it was going to "punch back twice as hard" and file a lawsuit against the SPLC:

In August 2017, an evangelical ministry filed a federal lawsuit against the SPLC, saying it defamed the Christian organization as an “active hate group” because it endorses the biblical view of homosexuality. “It’s ridiculous for the SPLC to falsely tag evangelical Christian ministries as ‘hate groups’ simply for upholding the 2,000-year-old Christian consensus on marriage and sexuality,” said D. James Kennedy Ministries spokesman John Rabe. Elizabeth Llorente of Fox News writes that "increasingly … both liberals and conservatives say that SPLC has grown overzealous — bringing down its huge and very high-profile 'hate-group' hammer on not just people and organizations that actually encourage hate and violence against certain groups, but also on those who simply don’t fall in line with liberal positions on hot-button social issues."

(Southern Poverty Law Center ‘hate group’ label hit in evangelicals’ lawsuit by Elizabeth Llorente, Fox News, August 24, 2017) Asteriks (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the lengthy editorializing and included the SPLC's rationale for inclusion — that D. James Kennedy was notorious for spreading homophobic propaganda and outright lies about the LGBT community as a preacher, and that apparently the ministry organization he founded continues to traffic in homophobia. The lawsuit is certainly fit for inclusion in the controversy section, but that makes the SPLC's arguments necessary to include as well. Once the lawsuit sees its day in court, it can be updated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Conciseness is fine but is it appropriate to quote the SPLC view in the Controversies section? Note too that the SPLC attack piece contains a mass of unreferenced claims, and false logic\unfounded smears e.g. Rushdoony is essential reading, Rushdoony contains anti-homosexual vitriol, therefore anti-homosexual vitriol is essential reading. Is it possible the claims are true? Sure, but without proof they're purely allegations and the controversy section is for allegations about SPLC, not allegations about critics of SPLC. I'd recommend the addition be deleted. 人族 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes we should include SPLC view, as we put both sides of any dispute. No (by the way) the controversy section is not for "allegations about SPLC" (read criticism) it is for controversies (which always have two sides). Neutrality means we gives both sides a voice.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your argument is ridiculous and removing the SPLC's response would violate the NPOV policy. The church has every right to make unproven allegations (which is what a lawsuit is), but making those allegations means it is entirely relevant to discuss why those allegations have been made. The ministry believes it has wrongfully been labeled a hate group by the SPLC; discussing the reasons the SPLC has labeled it a hate group is entirely and directly relevant to those allegations and to the SPLC's defense against those allegations. They will, no doubt, be vigorously contested in court and, as I said, we'll see what happens with the lawsuit. We aren't in the business of providing only one side of the story, which is what you propose to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the section heading was as far as I got. Inherent bias fobbed off as "reasonable" -- really, Propaganda 1-01. It'd be exactly as factual to have titled it Hate Group Self-Described as "Christian Ministry" Sues SPLC.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

LI Article on SPLC

This may be worth a read: [[31]]. While it may not be suitable for quoting, the links should be useful. Consider for instance this article's current Finance section. It states that "Charity Navigator rated the SPLC three out of four stars" and yet Charity Watch has consistently given SPLC an F for stockpiling assets rather than advancing its purported charitable cause(s). Such a radical discrepancy should be noted! 人族 (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Well here is the Charity Navigator assessment for SPLC [[32]], and I see no mention of "stockpiling assets" (or rating anything by lettering), which says a lot about the usefulness of your new source for providing information for us to look for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

https://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/the-southern-poverty-business-model/ --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

How does this addesss my point?Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The Lead

A recent change to the lead replaced "The SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups . . and its labeling of certain people as extremists have been the source of some controversy" with "The SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups . . . have been the subject of criticism from conservatives for giving groups which oppose gay rights a hate group label . . . " The problem with this change is that the criticism found in this article of the SPLC's hate group and extremist listings is not at all limited to, or even mainly those of, conservatives protesting the hate group and extremist labeling of anti-gay rights groups and individuals. The critics are far more varied than that and so is their criticism. In the article's body. Note the criticism by folks such as Maajid Nawaz, Ken Silverstein, Laird Wilcox, and the Lantos Foundation, none of which is about conservatives criticizing the SPLC for labeling anti-gay rights groups as haters. Also, let's not have responses which deprecate their criticisms. It's not relevant here because their criticisms are now in the body of the article and the point is to now make the lead match the body. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, please read the forum.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Except it is not really being discussed above. It has instead broken down into a forum on the SPLC. The point of the new heading was to get the discussion back on track. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

OK then provide a source for Maajid Nawaz, Ken Silverstein, Laird Wilcox, and the Lantos Foundation not being conservative.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

How about how you provide us with some secondary sources that would mention your collection of opinion pieces if they had any weight, as required by policy. TFD (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's somewhat awkward, but it arose from an attempt at a compromise. This edit inserted the mention of groups which oppose gay rights. That section was duplicative — we already mentioned controversies about SPLC-named extremist groups in the lede. But not wanting to wholesale-revert the edit, I tried to fold it into the existing section. Perhaps it wasn't entirely successful. If we wanted to be more general, we could be less specific, but then we'd have to remove that specific reference to prevent it from being undue weight in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I've written another compromise version which notes that the criticism comes from "conservatives and others" (acknowledging that while reliable sources specifically point out conservatives as critics, there are undoubtedly others as well), and removing the specific references to anti-gay groups (because sources specifically say that criticism of the anti-gay listings came from conservatives only). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Good. A big improvement over the previous version which would have it that only conservatives criticize the SPLC hate listings, and do so only over the listings anti-gay individuals and groups. However, I still don't see much in your sources or in the body of the article which convincingly says that the SPLC "is widely considered authoritative by academic and media sources. Is widely useful to academic and media sources, sure, but widely authoritative? Incidentally, one of your sources, David Neiwert, contributes articles to SPLC publications; i.e. he gets paid by them. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven It's a moot point now because of NorthBySouthBaranof's recent much improved edits to the lead, but under the previous lead you had it reversed. It would have been his obligation to demonstrate that Nawaz, Silverstein, and company were conservatives. By the way, Silverstein is actually a borderline left-wing radical. None of the others are described as conservatives in their Wikipedia articles. The Lantos Foundation is named after Tom Lantos a former progressive Democrat. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect, it is down to those who wish to include something to prove it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not incorrect. Yes it is up to people who want to change something to demonstrate it. NorthBySouthBaranof HAD CHANGED a long-standing part of the lead only a day or two earlier. He HAD NOT demonstrated that the critics were entirely conservatives and couldn't have even if had tried because they are not. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

He provided cites for the statement, so it was down to you to counter those soruces with sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Revert of Rickm7x

I have reverted an edit by User:Rickm7x to the article's lede; the lede should be a concise summary of the article, and including multiple quotes from avowed opponents of the SPLC is not part of a concise summary. We already (properly) note that the organization's hate group listings have been controversial; the details are best left in the main body. Otherwise the lede would turn into a he-said, she-said quotefarm of opponents and supporters, which just isn't kosher. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your revert is biased since there are numerous examples of critical views of individuals and organizations in the introductory paragraph or lede. Picking out as a random example, notice in the introduction or lede for the article on Stefan Molyneux. It cites Politico and the Washington Post to describe him as "alt-right" and "right-wing" by CNN, although it does not say until later on in the article that he denies these labels. There are many other articles that follow the same format. I expect you to revert it back and follow the pattern that is standardized on Wikipedia.Rickm7x (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Then complain on the Stefan Molyneux about the label in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is like... the fifth instance in the last week or so that a yet different (and low edit) account has brought up the "alt-right" designation in the Stefan Molyneux article. It's like they all got the same memo from somewhere. Strange.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not the Stefan Molyneux so please do not discus it here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You have it precisely backward; you need to demonstrate consensus for your proposed addition, otherwise the material remains out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, your ad hominem attack is duly noted. I have nothing to do with "they" and only cited the Stefan Molyneux article because I recently read it in relation to a newspaper claim that he's part of the "alt-right," and was looking for information. My involvement with Wikipedia goes back ten years and I am a cited author. User:NorthBySouthBaranof you write that I need to demonstrate consensus, yet you did not demonstrate consensus when you reverted the edit. Did you take a poll or a survey? If so, post the results. TFD, what are the policy guidelines and policy that allow negative information in one article but not in another? What this is clear evidence of is a double-standard. So what are the policy and guidelines that allow a double-standard depending on the political point of view of the subject? By including material from reputable sources that illustrates both sides it provides a neutral point of view. The edit reversion took that away and gave a biased article. [[33]]Rickm7x (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As I noted, the burden for demonstrating consensus lies with the editor proposing a change; your bold edit has been reverted and you now need to discuss your proposal. The objections to your edits are clearly stated here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As such an experienced ed you would then know the lead summarizes (key) the body, thus if it is not in the body it does not go in the lead. In addition it place in the lead is based upon it's prominence within the body.Slatersteven (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Rickm7x, One policy is "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". The views that the SPLC is authoritative on the extreme right and that Molyneux is part of the alt-right are mainstream, the opposite views are fringe. TFD (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the SPLC is authoritative on the extreme right, the issue is that multiple credible mainstream sources point out that the SPLC conflates groups and individuals who are not on the extreme right with it. They also pointed out that in doing this it is playing partisan politics. Asserting that opposite views are fringe are not only false and extremely biased, but contradicts the fact that it was mainstream sources that reported on this. Some of them were the same sources used to classify Molyneux as "alt-right."Rickm7x (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What other articles do is no guideline for this article and vice versa. Only policy and guidelines are acceptable. TFD (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A series of anti-SPLC quotes do not belong in the the lead. As suggested above some of this material, suitably reworked, might be included in the body. However, let's get away from the idea that any views questioning the "authoritative" quality of the SPLC's pronouncements about the extreme right are thereby "fringe". Many decidedly non-fringe sources have been highly critical of the SPLC's categorization of certain organizations as hate groups and certain individuals as extremists. 68.0.204.180 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Like thes one we already cover you mean?Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, among others. One editor in particular seems to be adverse to including any criticism at all of the SPLC. 68.0.204.180 (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Have they suggested removing what we have already?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Amanas controversy

From the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:[34]

[copyvio redacted] -- Guy Macon (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, something posted on the Daily Stormer website by a user with the screen name "Concerned Troll" is what the SPLC considers "confirmation" that a sleepy little town in Iowa is a "refuge of "hate". And yet we still treat the SPLC as if they were a reliable source... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well as they admitted their mistake and removed it yes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Drop in the bucket. Let me know when they admit their mistake and remove Maajid Nawaz from their listing of "anti-Muslim extremists". Or when they admit their mistake and stop calling the World Congress of Families a hate group just because they have an unpopular political position. [35] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but you disagreeing with them does not make then wrong. Maybe they are maybe they are, or maybe they are not (ohh and by the way, this is about the page, not Wikipedia using them as a source). It does not matter what we think of them, RS regard them as reliable. Take this to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of going into WP:NOTFORUM territory, any group which calls for the withdrawal of civil rights (such as marriage and adoption) from a group of people because of their sexual orientation and which endorses such vile, inhuman drivel as the Russian gay propaganda law is, yes, a hate group. Advocating the removal of civil rights from people because you don't like them is the definition of hatred and bigotry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Then NorthbySouthBaranof, to continue with our forum, you would consider the Catholic Church which also opposes same-sex marriage, to be a hate group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.204.180 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Piss off, permablocked user Badmintonhist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You're wading into the weeds of a forum, 68.0.204.180. Please discuss the topic at hand and not the beliefs of others. --PureRED | talk to me | 17:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The story has only been covered in local press and right-wing media. I would point out that this article is not the place to mention everything that the mainstream ignores, but to mention what it finds important. TFD (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Complete non-story. I wonder if this is the Wikipedia's longest section title, though. TheValeyard (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It does illustrate why SPLC's list shouldn't be seen as a credible source though. Ikmxx (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I half agree, but as long as we say it is only SPLC's opinion a given group is X there is no problem.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Does not. One of the tests of reliability is how quickly errors are corrected. Furthermore, it is not wildly inaccurate to say that a new group that met for the first time in a location was centered there. TFD (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

They are/were one of the most definitive references on hate groups, they have a good reputation because they used to actually do their research. Now they seem to be simply coasting on their reputation without putting-in the effort to have accurate information. Ikmxx (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice story, but none of it is true. The group never existed. They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed. And the SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year, ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, only reluctantly posting a correction after there was a huge public backlash. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Did they vigorously stand by it? The source says it was not picked up on until about two weeks before it was removed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

They did stand by their claims.[36] As to when they did so, that isn't relevant. When you make a claim without a shred of evidence other than a post by a troll, you are doing a bad thing no matter how long it takes someone to notice and complain. And when you have zero evidence other than a posting by an internet troll to back up your claim, it is wrong to stand by your claim for any amount of time.

Again, the SPLC cannot name the restaurant, the time of the alleged meeting, or anyone who attended it. There are no witnesses of any meeting, not even an announcement on any of the Nazi websites. Just an anonymous post by "Concerned Troll" who wrote "The Amana Colonies might be a sweet place to meet. There is an awesome free shooting range on Amana road (sic) plus it is a historic German community". That's it. David Rettig, executive director of the Amana Colonies and Visitors Bureau, says that he attempted to reach out to the SPLC as soon as he learned about the map, but nobody from the civil rights organization would return his message. "It was a shock to us when we found out," he said. "We’ve checked around with the sheriff (Rob Rotter) and he indicated to me there is absolutely no hate group operating in the Amana Colonies, and he checked with his superiors in Des Moines and there are no reports … we’ve seen nothing of this, visitors or residents." Rotter backed up Rettig’s remarks" "There is no such neo-Nazi group in Iowa County." and that the SPLC was "irresponsible at best. I would hope that the SPLC is a more responsible organization than this example of their professionalism exhibits." The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong. Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, they changed the claim that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And yet the SPLC still refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll".

I will now return you to the usual apologists who will either claim that the above behavior by the SPLC was acceptable or that this article should not cover the incident in detail. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy, you should propose a revision, with sources, if you feel so strongly about this. You're not going to get the result you want by posting polemic. Seems to me like you're more focused on picking a fight with other editors and than on actually improving the article here. If you see issues, make a constructive proposal for fixing them and try to get consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, there are problems with your presentation of the story. You may be relying on how the story was presented in non-rs media. The SPLC did not say they decided the group existed because of a posting by "Concerned Troll." The Desmoines Register found the posting and said it supports the SPLC position that "there was activity in [Amana Colonies] during [2017]." While the SPLC does not name the restaurant where the group met, a reporter interviewed the owner.[37] The SPLC hires investigators and they do not present their files to the public. Note also that meetings held by groups described as the SPLC are not considered illegal and local police do not investigate them, nor did they claim to. TFD (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Unwatching this page

I am not going to continue arguing with editors who I believe are violating NPOV, so I am unwatching this page. If anyone is ever able to name the restaurant, name a single person who attended or witnessed the alleged meeting, or say exactly when it supposedly happened, drop me a line on my talk page. Likewise, if anyone ever comes up with any shred of actual evidence that any such group as the "First Iowa Stormer Bookclub" existed in 2016 (the SPLC still says that it exists and that it is "statewide"), drop me a line. No, some idiot neo-nazi forming a new group with that name after this became national news does not count. I stand by my assertion that NPOV is being violated here, but I am withdrawing from attempting to address the problem because doing so is clearly a lost cause. Anyone is free to respond to this, but I won't see the responses. I suggest dropping the stick and quietly accepting your "victory" without gloating. Again, drop me a line on my talk page if anyone comes up with any actual evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Contact the news department at NBC affiliate WHO-HD in Des Moines, Iowa and ask them the name of the restaurant - they interviewed the owner so they would know. And write to the SPLC and tell them to publish their investigative files so that you can verify their work. TFD (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, I seem to recall you pulling this stunt on the Russia interference page, so taking a stroll thru your edit history...; unwatching Brianna Wu, (aformentioned) unwatching Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, unwatching James O'Keefe, unwatching Alternative facts, unwatching Marjorie Cameron, unwatching Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, unwatching WIndowsXP. We could really do without the Diva quitting. TheValeyard (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard: The proper term is YAGE. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Authoritative?

Closing discussion initiated by block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lede's statement that "the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups . . are considered authoritative by academic and media sources", not only borders on peacock but is also inadequately sourced. Only the first of the four listed source works uses that term. The third source work is by David Neiwert, who, according to his Wikipedia bio writes for the SPLC, which probably means that he gets paid by them. The fourth source by way of Carol Swain, is rather bizarre since she has recently been extremely critical of the SPLC, to say the least. Witness:[38]. I'd suggest a rewrite; something along the lines of The SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups and extremists . . are widely used by academic and media sources but have been . . . 131.109.225.34 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, authoritative. If you don't like the sources in your complaint, go find some different ones. There are lots to choose from. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Free Beacon article on SPLC assets & basically self-sourced article in the NYTimes

The Free Beacon is a garbage source. Find something with a proven track record, preferably several to show it meets WP:UNDUE. The NYT article is basically an opinion piece by someone who feels wronged by the SPLC, of course she's going to criticise it but the simple link makes it appear that it is the NYT itself perhaps. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No comment re the Free Beacon, but I concur on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali op-ed. GAB^gab 17:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Saying The Washington Free Beacon is "garbage" is simply ad hominem. Doing so fails to refute or contradict the information presented in the particular article. (I note that editor-in-chief Matthew Joseph Continetti has a noteworthy record of writing for MSM outlets.) The fact that NYT publishes an opinion from a notable person is noteworthy too. After all, the NYT gives us "All the News That's Fit to Print". Her opinion is not SPS, and suggesting otherwise is a garbage-reading of WP guidelines. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Ad hominen" is irrelevant here (and not just because a source isn't a hominen). As is "argument from authority". This isn't a class where we evaluate syllogisms for their logical consistency, it's an encyclopedia where we rely on reliable (which involves making "ad hominen" type determinations) sources (which are an "authority"). And this isn't one of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

And it has to be explained why - preferably without resorting to fallacies - if you want to find agreement from other editors, which you need for some removals/inclusions... Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? Because it does not meet the criteria for a reliable source as laid out in WP:RS. They print fake news and other bullshit [39]. They basically make shit up [40]. No way. Just no way this is gonna be used here (or almost anywhere else on Wikipedia).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What has RSN said?Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Basically just this. Again, what facts in the WFB article are inaccurate? (After all, the WFB article has links to SPLC's own IRS tax documents and other reliable sources.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)17:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times gives views from various side of the political spectrum room. That doesn't make something noteworthy. Not self-published, self-sourced, ie someone who is a party to an issue is being allowed to complain about the issue. As for the Free Beacon, ok, maybe it's not all garbage, I overstated, but if no mainstream sources are reporting this then I don't think we should use it this way. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I do wish edds would just remove one thing at a time. OK as I see it RSN has said it is OK for it's own opinions, as this was worded as fact then it fails. One question, does SPLC pay tax?Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No, this whole "it's RS for its own opinion" is like the most abused tactic on Wikipedia, and it's almost always someone trying to push POV (not talking about right here). Basically it goes like this - there's a junk source which supports someone's POV. The source is rejected. The person in question then tries to rescue the source by arguing that it's "RS for its own opinion". And what ends up happening that our articles get filled up with crap. This is why we also have a WP:UNDUE policy. Otherwise you could justify including ANYTHING in a Wikipedia article, no matter how atrocious the sourcing. IF this "own opinion" was in some way significant, if it had been commented upon in other reliable sources then maybe we could use it as "RS for its own opinion". But nothing like that is true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization; it files tax returns, but is exempt from paying income tax. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So then the question becomes what function would off shore bank accounts serve? The fact they have them is irrelevant if there is no wrong doing (even of the legal but immoral kind)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, remember Rule 11 of reliable sourcing - if a particular source reporting on something is actually reliable, then it shouldn't be too hard to find the same info in multiple OTHER reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I do wish the editors who try to add criticism to this article would learn the difference between a newspaper article and an op-ed or opinion column. There was no New York Times article cited as a source. It was an op-ed, which is a reliable source—but only for its author's opinion, not for facts. See WP:RSOPINION. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If they could do that, they would not have sympathy for what the SPLC describes as hate groups. TFD (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@TFD This is not an open forum on the SPLC or on your fellow editors. Comments should serve the purpose of improving the article. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think User:Malik Shabazz has hit the nail on the head. There is no doubt the NYT is RS. Therefore, when it prints a letter-to-the-editor op-ed from a notable person we assume the person actually wrote it. And we can assume that NYT is exercising sound editorial control by printing it. (That way we avoid exercising our individual prejudices for or against the writer/SPLC.) Next we ask if the opinion is WP:NOTEWORTHY. In this case the NYT certainly thought so. Since the letter is directly pertinent to the SPLC, and written by someone criticized by the SPLC, we should include it IOT achieve balance. The summary of her opinion might include a qualifier like "ABC, who has been named as anti-DEF by the SPLC, said GHT in a NYT op-ed." – S. Rich (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)19:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a departure from how most editors currently interpret policy and would require a change. What you are saying I believe is that any opinion expressed in a letter to the editor of the New York Times (and presumably other newspapers) can now be added to any article, even though it has not been mentioned in reliable secondary sources. Also, noteworthiness is not binary and we need to represent views according to their publication in reliable sources. The way I do that is to rely on these sources to explain how accepted various views are. How would you do that? TFD (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the source in question was an op-ed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, not a letter to the editor. As they often do, its URL includes the word "opinion"; in addition, the top of the page identifies it as part of "The Opinion Pages" by an "Op-Ed Contributor" (as opposed to a columnist whose opinions are published regularly). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No comment on the op-ed (opinion sources, when attributed, can be noteworthy/proper weight, depending on the circumstances, even if not directly commented on by non-opinion sources). But the Free Beacon is not a reliable source. Neutrality^talk 22:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

If an op-ed was noteworthy, wouldn't reliable third party sources mention it? Isn't that how Wikipedia defines noteworthiness? It's what reliable source find important, not what we find important. And it's a useful policy, because otherwise we could never agree on what weight various opinions deserved, unless we all thought the same. TFD (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that how Wikipedia defines noteworthiness? Not necessarily. WP:NPOV has representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic; reiterated at WP:DUE, fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Neither policy text requires independent coverage of the views.
My own view is that this is an imperfect method, which may bias our representation of the range of viewpoints on a number of topics; but it is what we have (and I doubt that consensus exists for the one word change which would set it right). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It requires that the views be published "by reliable sources on a topic." That would require coverage in news or other reliable sources. And the views must also be "significant," which is hard to show if they have gone unnoticed. TFD (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that the views need to be published in reliable sources; but there is no requirement in that policy for further independent coverage of the publication of the views. The question is: "Is the New York Times a reliable source?" If "yes", then the views have been published in a reliable source; this also means they have not gone unnoticed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

But op-eds are not reliable sources. And how can an opinion be significant if no one has paid any attention to it? Bear in mind that there are other encyclopedias and tertiary sources, including university textbooks. Policy also says we can look at them to determine proper weight. But if they also ignore an opinion piece, I can see no reason for us to use it. It's just a way of getting fringe views into articles.

The former KKK leader David Duke has been interviewed by all sorts of reliable publications so we could say that his opinions have appeared in reliable sources. Does that mean they are noteworthy for every subject he chooses to speak about? No, because we can read secondary sources about him that says they are fringe views and if they are sufficiently covered and we need to mention them, then we have explain how accepted his views are and source that information.

TFD (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

SPLC finances

This is noteworthy and should be added in this article under Finances. It has been reported on by the Washington Times and the Federalist. --2001:8003:4B8D:2C00:353D:99EA:8C8D:518E (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Federalist is a polemic right-wing source that should no more be relied upon here than Media Matters for America should be relied upon in Donald Trump. The Washington Times article cited is simply a regurgitation (with no apparent independent reporting) of yet another unreliable polemic partisan source, the "Free Beacon". We can afford to wait to see if any of this has any substance as reported by mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times is also non-reliable. Don't confuse it with the Washington Post. Volunteer Marek  04:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times and The Federalist article on this matter is accurate. But I can wait to see if anything further is released on this topic. And if it is I'll be reverting the edit and adding further citations. --2001:8003:4B8D:2C00:353D:99EA:8C8D:518E (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, what you should do is discuss your proposed changes and gain consensus on the talk page before re-adding disputed material. Otherwise, you'll be edit-warring and that's frowned upon here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that the IP attributes the WT source to the WP. Doug Weller talk 05:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times did not critize the SPLC, it said it was criticized by a report in the Free Beacon. That does not establish weight and you need to mention the political position of the authors of the report. It appears that the SPLC invests part of its money in equity funds managed by an American company, and a small part of that is invested overseas with the funds registered in the Cayman Islands. The implication in the report is money-laundering or tax evasion, but that is a disingenuous explanation since the investment was reported to the U.S. government. That's why articles require reliable sources. Mainstream media has chosen to ignore this misleading report and if it did mention it would also carry out some kind of investigation to determine the actual facts. TFD (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

New York's NPR affiliate covered the Free Beacon report: [41] James J. Lambden (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a talk show and no different from any other. How do you think they fact check a discussion? TFD (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got a point there about fact checking. For example ([42]), Ben Schrekinger, who should have known better, says that the SPLC's endowment "may be north of $200 million" when it is actually well north of $300 million. On the other hand, it does include an interview with SPLC president Richard Cohen who is pretty close to the horse's mouth. Interesting that he didn't correct that endowment figure. Also interesting that he said the SPLC will be spending "close to $60 million" this year. That would be a lot more than it spent in 2016; a jump by about a third. Their annual report should be coming out soon and with it some useful information about their current financial picture. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I notice that there is presently nothing in the lede about the SPLC's finances even though Finances is one of the major subtopics of the article. The criticism from "conservatives and others" hasn't just been about the SPLC's lists of hate groups, it has also been about what some see as its love affair with money. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I recommend a closing sentence to the lead reading something like this:

Some critics have said that SPLC reports and fundraising appeals exaggerate the threat posed by hate groups.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.225.34 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We cannot say that per WP:WEASEL. Some people also say that hurricanes are God's punishment for sin, but we don't give it equal validity with scientific explanations. TFD (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, we certainly can say that per WP:WEASEL since Weasel says that such wording may be used in the lead section of an article or in the topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. As for hurricanes being being God's punishment for sin, I really don't see the analogy. However, if Wikipedia's article on hurricanes featured God's punishment for sin as an explanation for them then, yes, it would be proper to mention that in the lede. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Criticism coming from conservatives

I have reverted this edit because it does not accurately describe the criticism. Both cited sources for criticism related to the classification of anti-gay-rights groups discuss that criticism as coming exclusively from conservatives — The episode prompted fierce condemnation of the SPLC from social conservatives, who view FRC’s stances on homosexuality as legitimate and consistent with Christian teachings. (Politico) and Tension erupted recently between the SPLC and a slew of Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota (who tops the SPLC's “militia enablers list”), who protested the SPLC’s listing of the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group. ... While the SPLC's investigations and studies are used by some law enforcement agencies concerned about domestic terrorism, its overall work, its critics on the right say, has taken on an overtly political dimension by giving ideological cover for attacks primarily on white conservatives and by turning the word “patriot” into a euphemism. (Christian Science Monitor). It is appropriate to note this criticism, but it must also be stated that the sources which note this criticism also note that it comes from sources on the political right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, so now over to the other side to produce a source saying it is not just conservatives?Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

[43] Arkon (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the same source already cited. I quoted that source above, and the source says the criticism was from conservatives. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to preview the whole article, which would include a summary of all criticism of the SPLC found in the article not just one aspect of it. That criticism is only partially about the SPLC's labeling of anti-LGBT rights groups as hate groups and only partially comes from politically and/or socially conservative sources. The article also includes criticism of the SPLC descriptions of groups and individuals by academics Dobratz and Shanks-Meile, and J.M. Berger; hate-group researcher Laird Wilcox; journalist Ken Silverstein writing in the politically liberal Harper's Magazine; and the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice. None of these sources are notably conservative and none are primarily concerned with the SPLC's treatment of anti-gay rights groups. Let's cut the crap and write a lead which comports with the body of the article. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, you need to bear in mind weight. A commentary by the founder of a controversial left-wing magazine (i.e., well to the left of the Democratic party) written long ago is not representative of liberal opinion. And in fact the "conservative" critics are not representative of conservatives either, but of the conservatives to the right of the Republican mainstream. The republican party for example does not promote views that Islam is evil, homosexuals should be imprisoned or blacks as less intelligent. Incidentally, CounterPunch is frequent target of the same sort of people who target the SPLC. TFD (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's very simple. The criticism is from the far right because the SPLC calls far-right positions (gays should not be allowed to be married for example), "hate". If the SPLC were to label certain far-left positions (death penalty for denying climate change, for example)[44] "hate" then the far left groups that hold that position would be criticizing the SPLC. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If a professor of musicology at the University of Graz ever was able to gin up a significant pressure group which advocated for the judicial execution of climate change skeptics/deniers, I'd agree it should be labeled a hate group. Oddly enough, he hasn't been able to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Why the double standard? Nobody at The Amana Colonies (see section above) ever "gined up a significant pressure group", and neither did Mobtuse and borderline disruptiveaajid Nawaz or Ben Carson. But that didn't stop them from being listed. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This line of argumentation is becoming a bit obtuse and borderline disruptive. The SPLC retracted the Amana and Carson listings, that is what responsible organizations do, shy of inventing time travel and preventing it from ever happening. When fringe outliers like Breitbart are the ones complaining about the Nawaz listing, it's pretty certain that the SPLC did something right. You dug up a professor's 5 year-old blog posting as a purported example of "why don't they go after hardcore lefties too!?", apparently failing to comprehend that it was less a genuine call to execute deniers and more along the lines of A Modest Proposal. TheValeyard (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Riiight. In this whole wide country, a country where the SPLC is easily able able to find Nazi hate groups that others cannot verify the existence of, they somehow cannot find any communist hate groups, muslim hate groups, LGBT hate groups, etc. Not a single group of radical Islamist exists that want to kill all the unbelievers. And no, responsible organizations don NOT label people with zero evidence, stand by the labeling for years, and only reluctantly retract when the public pressure becomes too great. And anyone who want this article to correctly state that the SPLC mostly labels far-right groups (as they should) while ignoring far-left groups (by an amazing coincidence, most of the SPLC's donors are somewhere on the left) is being "obtuse and borderline disruptive". Riiight. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Whaaa??? "Communist hate group"? "LGBT hate groups"? You serious Guy? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I am completely serious. There are people who form hate groups for all sorts of reasons. Some hate all blacks and jews. Some hate all whites. Some hate all gays. some hate all straights. Some hate all who have not accepted their religion, and the religion may be christianity, islam, hinduism, or scientology. Some hate all who have accepted various religions. (I have not found a pastifarian hate group yet, but would not be surprised). There are people who hate and actually murder in the name of all sorts of political ideologies, from far-right to far-left. And yes, I am completely serious and accurate in my claim that the SPLC is really good at finding and identifying some kinds of hate groups and pretty much blind to some other kinds. Pretending that nobody ever commits hate crimes in the name of Islam, Marxism, etc. is not helpful. In most cases,such as Islam, we have a vast majority who simply hold a particular opinion and who would never think of hurting anyone, and a tiny minority who form hate groups -- but the tiny minority does exist, no matter what the SPLC says.

Another example: [List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups#Racist music]] They managed to find all of those idiots, but somehow missed the many Drill music and Narcocorrido artist in the US. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, this discussion is way off the rails now. Please focus on the article and on RS, your personal opinion about what is or isn't hate speech is not relevant here. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Well See Mrs. Bindel on the radfemcollective. According to that interview, men aren't even human and should be in camps. Then there's the TERF, movement, which is, in common parlance transphobic (and full of "political lesbians"). Strange as it seems, us LBGT's are human, too, and susceptible to the same kind of radicalism other people are. Never heard the term "cishet white scum"? Communists groups are ipso facto hate groups. Given the history of communism, they're no better than actual nazi's. Kleuske (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the SPLC? You guys should not need a reminded of WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM but apparently here we are... Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that Communism has just as genocidal history as Nazism, I agree that it is objectively not any less satanically evil. And considering the actual statistical support for Islamic terrorism among the Muslim populace, focusing more on that, and less on its critics, would give the SPLC an awful lot of credibility. David A (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that we are not SPLC then this is not the right place to raise this, contact SPLC and suggest it. This is not a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I was just trying to explain why it is perfectly reasonable to have legitimate concerns about the SPLC without being some kind of extremist. David A (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is also irrelevant as we go with what RS say, not what we think is true.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC tracks U.S. hate groups, which excludes the the Soviet Communist Party and the German Nazi party for that matter. While an argument could be made that some Communist mass killings were motivated by ethnic hatred, no left-wing group in the U.S. victimizes minority groups. See for example the Communist Party of the USA's recent article, "White nationalism in Trump administration," where they openly denounce "scapegoating of racial and religious minorities, and homophobia." The SPLC does not track organized crime groups, serial killers, fraudsters, polluters and many others who carry out anti-social activitiees. TFD (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, can we have some links to this criticism of their labeling?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The only non-conservative listed in the controversies section is Nawaz. And even there, even though he himself is not a conservative, he's hella popular with some far-right circles, who use him to dress up their bigotry and Islamophobia in respectable clothes, then discard him when he's served his purpose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: if there is criticism levied by reliable sources (Politico, for one), it should be summarized neutrally in the article. Dismissing sources based on a (perceived) political stance (or, worse, popularity within a certain political group) is in direct conflict with the goals of the project. I object in strong terms to the attitude taken my VM, since it undermines the credibility of the project. Kleuske (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not dismissing anything. The dispute is regarding the word "conservative" in the lede. I believe you're misunderstanding things here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Shadilay, my dear... I may have totally misunderstood "he's hella popular with some far-right circles, who use him to dress up their bigotry and Islamophobia in respectable clothes, then discard him when he's served his purpose.", since it sounds pretty dismissive to me. The minute your political leaning show that much, I feel obliged to remind you of what the project is about and urge you to leave your political convictions at the doorstep. Praise KEK. See how that works?

If you wanna discuss the term "conservative" and whether or not it's appropriate, do so. If you want to discuss your political convictions (or those of others), go to Reddit. Kleuske (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Shady-what? And you're gonna go lecturing ME about my "political convictions"? Go to r_Donald or wherever you got that cute little saying from. And these awful "political convictions" of mine that you are objecting to essentially boil down to "far-right circles contain bigots". And I am discussing whether the term conservative is appropriate - it is because, to repeat myself, all but one of the criticism listed can be ascribed to conservatives, and even that last one sorta fits. Capiche? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's "Shadilay", my dear, and I see you are not afraid of a few assumptions about others. So... the rant about bigotry, islamophobia and what far-right is going to do to poor mr. Nawaz was completely facetious and devoid of any bearing on the discussion at hand? Kleuske (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

English translation? Ikmxx (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It's apparently connected to Pepe the Frog. TFD (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah... Lest I forget... The characterization of Mr. Nawaz as a far-right purse puppy (even if it's only implied) is moving dangerously in the direction of WP:BLP and violations thereof. Kleuske (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

First, cut the "my dear" crap. It's stupid and obnoxious and an obvious attempt to be incivil and condescending. And yeah, I know where "shadilay" comes from. Just like I know where your little Nazi-flag-based-flag on your user page comes from. I know, I know, "it's just a joke" hah hah, because prancing around with Nazi symbolism is so fucking funny. But thanks for explicitly labeling yourself as as troll that no one should take seriously. On that note, bahye.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: So you not only ignore a warning about a possible WP:BLP issue, you also do not shirk away from personal attacks. Thanks. That's what I needed to know. Kleuske (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I notice on your user page that you express support for Jordan B. Peterson, the prominent opponent of Bill C-16. It seems to me that the reason for criticism of the SPLC including by yourself is that opponents disagree with the definition of hate speech categorically. I think it would be more accurate to say that the main criticism is that there is nothing wrong with the statements described as hate speech and in some cases these statements must be made, for example the threats of Islam and homosexuality to society. By vilifying this speech, the SPLC threatens our way of life and villianizes people for exercising their right of free speech. TFD (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh there's plenty more criticism coming from other groups,[45][46] specially after the shootings at FRC and to the mobs at Middlebury.[47][48] it's just usually white-washed away from the article. I remember once mentioning these [49][50][51][52], and though I agreed back then that it wasn't a necessary addition to the article it serves as an example to this discussion. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The second link isn't to a group, it's to a piece by Ayaan Hirsi Ali who of courses didn't like what the SPLC said about her. Reason.com isn't a group either. Nor is the author of the Middlebury article. I'm not sure why the word groups is being used here. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see your point. It was said that only homophobic conservatives were critical of the SPLC for being labeled so. That is not the case. Do you disagree? No? Good. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No. The article stated that only conservatives were critical of the labeling of anti-gay groups as hate groups, because that's what the sources said. If we're agreed that we can avoid that level of detail, then we can all move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we please assume good faith, not cast aspersions as to motive and not comment on users please.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Another critical article. WSJ: Fake News From the SPLC. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • While you're busy suggesting that the SPLC invented that church burning in Greenville, MS, as a hate crime, I'll just add that this is how the FBI saw it at the time. The SPLC report was from November 2016? The arrest of a member of the church's congregation was announced on 21 December. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Once again, we have an editor who cannot distinguish between an op-ed column and a news article. Good god, man, did you not see the words "OPINION" and "COMMENTARY" above the headline of the opinion column? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Negative commentary from an opinion piece in a BLP was recently restored by Drmies, who commented above. It was on that basis I offered an opinion piece here. Unless the standard for criticism of an organization are more stringent than those for a living person you may want to reconcile your interpretations of RS. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

So in other words you're editing to make a point? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If that is the term for revising one's understanding of sourcing requirements based on the actions and comments of an experienced editor then yes but I do not see how your question here is relevant to the article or in any way helpful. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

James, who besides you says that the Hannity article in the Washington Post was an opinion piece? It has a byline--that doesn't make it an opinion piece. False equivalency, sir. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear what the discussion is about, but if you want criticism of the SPLC from a non-conservative source, you can see this 2000 article in Harper's Magazine, titled the Church of Morris Dees. There are many criticisms leveled against the SPLC and its founder, primarily the use of deceptive advertising and direct mail campaigns, and its alleged misuse of funds. It built upon a series of articles in the 1990s in the newspaper the Montgomery Advertiser.

It is of course true that the vast majority of criticism of the SPLC comes from conservatives. That will not change if one finds a few non-conservatives here and there. So I don't get the point of this discussion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Net assets and compensation of executive officers

To promote transparency, every article of an organization should include its net assets and how much the executive officers are compensated. You can get this from the organization's IRS Form 990 using GuideStar.

• Tax form 990 from 2013.[53]
• Tax form 990 from 2014.[54]
• Tax form 990 from 2015.[55]

Waters.Justin (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

We would only cover this if those things recieved substatial coverage in reliable secondary sources - our job is to summarize what RS say not to "promote transparency." And posting individual's salaries using a primary source probably runs afoul of several core policies/guidelines... Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, troll (not you, Fyddlestix), but the article does show the group's net assets. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to find them. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz, nothing about what I wrote could reasonably be interpreted as being a troll and your comment is belittling. I suggest you read. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? What do you call it when an editor takes the time to search for government filings but doesn't bother to look at the article? I call it what it is: politically motivated trolling. And I suggest you read WP:No original research and WP:BLPPRIMARY. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I read the section on the SPLC's finances, but the links I posted also give the exact salaries of executive officers and give more details on the organization. You have no reason to assume this was politically motivated trolling. In fact, I added this same information, from a 990 Form, to the article on the right wing group Stop Islamization of America. See edit[56] Wikipedia:Assume good faith Waters.Justin (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I would ask people to AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

To the OP ... What would you suggest we do with organisations that do not file IRS Form 990 forms? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this information is available from secondary sources. Searching for it online may result in other sources if the 990 form is not available. Charity Navigator gives a lot of information on finances, so WP:No original research and WP:BLPPRIMARY is not really an issue. We can only do our best to include relevant information. If the finances of an organization cannot be discovered, then it can't be included, but that is not an excuse to avoid including information into articles that have publicly available financial information. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the reason for inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources report on the finances, then that is enough of a reason to include it. If secondary sources do not report on the finances then the net assets are still worthy of inclusion because that is relevant to how influential the organization is capable of being. If secondary sources do not cover the salaries, the salary of executive officers is less relevant than the net assets, but it is still relevant in the same way that basic info on the organization may be relevant, like where it is principally headquartered, who runs the organization, its founding date. These details, added together, give an honest profile of the organization. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The salary of executive officers ... is still relevant in the same way that basic info on the organization may be relevant .... No, it most certainly is not. Without independent secondary reliable sourcing on this information, it is contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If Waters.Justin thinks that every article should contain information about executive compensation, I suggest they get Wikipedia guidelines developed so that we can apply it across every article. Is there any reason you chose this article to launch your campaign TFD (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I first suggested the idea that every article on an organization should include a section on finances over two years ago.[57] Last year, I had a conversation about this with another editor.[58] Waters.Justin (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It is clear from your discussion here and the previous discussions you linked that your sole focus is on organizations that attack what they call hate groups and even cite Stop Islamization of America as a source. Furthermore you said this information would reflect badly on them, which is an invalid reason for inclusion. Incidentally you mention organizations. The salaries of top paid executives are in the 10s of millions, well above those of the SPLC and ADL.

In any case, if your suggestion went nowhere, accept it and move on.

TFD (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your criticism of me is unjustified. I never cited Stop Islamization of America as a source. You may have misread the above comments. I mentioned Stop Islamization as an example of how I also posted financial data on an organization the SPLC criticizes. You can see I posted the financial information in Stop Islamization's actual article, See edit [59] but I only posted the financial information in the SPLC's talk page. If I have any bias towards the SPLC it's in favor of the SPLC compared to my treatment of the organization the SPLC criticizes. I never wrote "this information would reflect badly on them." Please don't misquote me or assume bad faith. Your criticism does not even make sense because I gave the same treatment to a group the SPLC criticizes, and posting a suggestion on an article's Talk page does not deserve such personal criticism. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Waters.Justin (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Waters.Justin, I don't find your suggestion about executives' pay compelling, however, I don't see any anti-SPLC bias in it. (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your reference to the SIoA. However, in order to include information we need to demonstrate weight, see "Balancing aspects." we all have different views about what is important so instead of arguing among ourselves we agree to consider important what reliable secondary sources find important. TFD (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No, TFD didn't just "misread" Waters.Justin's reference to SIoA, he completely misrepresented it. He also said, on no evidence, that W.J's "sole focus is on organizations that attack what they (the SPLC) call hate groups". TFD then claimed that W.J "said this information (about the SPLC's executive compensation) would reflect badly on them". W.J said nothing of the sort. Characterize this as one may. TFD should stand down from the article. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The above entry is block-evading User:Badmintonhist using IPs from Rhode Island. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The charity evaluations are sufficient. (After all, big organizations have corporate officers that get paid big money in all sectors of the economy.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The salaries of CEOs of public companies are publicly available but I don't see them frequently reported in Wikipedia articles. If you want to have a policy that all CEO salaries should be mentioned in articles, then you should push for a policy change. TFD (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There's not, and is never going to be a policy or guideline which requires that net assets, salaries or any thing of the like be included (or not) as standard in articles about organizations or companies. If the info is relevant and can be reliably sourced, go ahead and include it. If not, leave it out. Comparisons between this article and others are meaningless. Information is included in the project when it can be sufficiently sourced and is verifiable. If the information is included, templates which assist the inclusion of such info in info-boxes etc may be used. People who see political opponents when assessing the suitability of the inclusion of info are probably not viewing the source of the information as dispassionately as a wikipeidan should. Edaham (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The compensation of all CEOs of publicly traded companies and not-for profits is available. Rex Tillerson's (CEO of Exxon) in 2015 was $27.2, or about 100 time higher than the CEO of the SPLC. But the salary was not mentioned in the Exxon article.  :::::Relevance is not the policy for inclusion, it's weight. Presumably information gets attention in reliable sources because it is relevant, but it is not up to editors to determine what they consider relevant.

TFD (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me clarify, because I may have chosen a poor word when saying relevant. - relevance is weight. If something satisfies WP:DUE, then it's worthy of consideration for inclusion. To meet this criteria for relevancy, the information you want to include should be not hard to find in mainstream reliable sources and be a contributing factor to an understanding of the subject of the article, not merely a trivial mention in an individual source. Comparing two sources as you did in that example would be WP:SYNTH unless the comparison was made by a reliable secondary source, in which case it would probably require attribution. Edaham (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Weight means "to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It does not mean that every fact that can be reliably sourced and you thin contributes to understanding the subject should be added. It is synthesis for you to determine what is relevant. Incidentally it is not synthesis to compare two sources as I did, it is only synthesis if that information is added to an article. You can't explain why SPLC salaries should be included while Exxon salaries should not. TFD (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you might be talking to the wrong person or be slightly confused about my suggestion. In either case, I am definitely talking to the wrong person as I'm not arguing for the inclusion of this information, I'm suggesting/requesting that the editor who proposed the original edit demonstrate that it belongs there based on due weight and high quality sources rather than provide subjective rationale based on preference. Incidentally the auxiliary verb, "would" (as opposed to "is") in the partial second conditional sentence, which I wrote expresses the hypothetical (future) sense as in: were you to combine sources to infer a relationship in an article it "would" be synthesis. So I'm glad we agree there! Edaham (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

SLPC and FBI

" The SPLC has provided information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies.[8][9]"

Anyone can provide "information about hate groups to the FBI" It should be defined that,

The FBI and the U.S. Army have removed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a “hate crimes” resource on their websites. Should it not be noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8804:CD79:B183:E684:AF62:1E9E (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Public Outreach: The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. These groups include such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Association of University Women, Anti-Defamation League, Asian American Justice Center, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Disability Rights Network, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Organization for Women, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others

That is from https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes so it appears that your claim is not in step with reality. TheValeyard (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

IP, you can read the archives for the discussion. The claim about the FBI severing ties with the SPLC comes from fakenews on a website, which is why we require reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to lede

EXISTING: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is noted for its successful legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance.

NEW: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is noted for its successful legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of groups as hate groups and extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance.

By doing as I suggest, we incorporate the idea that SPLC is not infallible in their determination of what is a hate group. In other words, as the lede stands now, as I read it, all these groups are indeed hate or extremist groups and SPLC is simply classifying those hate groups. Whereas in the new version we open the possibility that groups as classified by the SPLC may or may not be hate or extremist groups. I believe this slight alteration is warranted due to the controversy surrounding some of their determinations and the fact that they are not infallible such as the case of Ben Carson etc. Glennconti (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. I think that this seems like a good idea, given its inaccurate categorisation of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. David A (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: because the particular changes are subtle, I've now marked them out in bold strike-out and italic texts. And I endorse David A's recommended change. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The reality is though that their categorizations are routinely used by by mainstream news media and academic sources without qualification. To be reliable does not mean 100% accuracy. We say for example that biologists classify plants and animals by species etc., yet some classifications have had to be revised or are in dispute. This is an attempt to inject doubt into the reliability of SPLC classifications, which is not supported in reliable sources. With a very few exceptions, these doubts come from the groups that the SPLC classify as hate groups. Their argument is not that the SPLC has incorrectly applied its criteria, but that the concept of hate is itself wrong. Depending on their classification, they see minority groups such as Muslims, Jews, or blacks as posing an existential threat to America and are merely telling the truth about them. TFD (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to inject doubt, I am trying to be more precise in the language that we use. I am not disputing the good work that the SPLC does. I have noticed that news media is starting to qualify support for the determinations of the SPLC especially when reporting on the more controversial determinations. Glennconti (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how this is more precise, rather then being an example of redundancy?09:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, let me see if I can be more clear but I cannot be as brief. I take issue with the current wording in that it does not precisely represent the current reality as concerns what the SPLC does when it classifies groups. I my mind there is a theoretical universe of all groups that exist. What the SPLC does is analyze those groups and based on a criterion or a standard deems some of the groups as hate groups or extremist groups creating a subset of the universe of all groups i.e. they put them into hate group lists. For some reason, the SPLC is not infallible in this process of selection and they have had to rescind such selection. Also, there have been charges by conservative groups that such selections are overreaching. Reliable sources are now footnoting that some people disagree with the SPLC's determinations. This wiki article when read in total, accurately reflects the current state of affairs excepting the sentence in the lede which I would like to modify. When I read the sentence in question which summarizes the works of the SPLC the portion in question says its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations, it implies to me that the groups on SPLC lists are hate groups that already exist as such, other extremist groups that already exist as such and what the SPLC is doing is merely organizing or classifying those hate or extremist groups. For example, insects exist and we the SPLC just categorize them. When in fact some times creatures make it on to the SPLC lists that are not insects at all. The current wording in this way presupposes that any group classified by the SPLC is indeed a hate group or extremist group. To be precise, the SPLC is selecting groups and putting them on a list based a criterion that is at times flawed and at times controversial (and at times quite correct). My wording is better. It is a small change I don't understand the controversy over my wording. Unless some editors do not agree the the SPLC in not infallible. To them I say it is an organization of humans and as such by definition is not infallible. I hope this is more clear. Glennconti (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It makes it clear that this is SPLC definition (as in "its classification"), I fail to see how your saying groups twice alters that. Indeed your edit say what you oppose far more clearly, by using redundancy by saying "the groups they call hate groups are hate groups (this is getting very pythonesque now).Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I am proposing to say SPLC is noted for its classification of groups as hate groups and extremist organizations. Notice the possessive its. This now means that the classification belongs to the SPLC and is not necessarily everyone's definition. When you say as it does now its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations it implies a certainly that the groups classified by the SPLC are indeed hate groups and all the SPLC is doing is organizing those hate groups. I hope you can see the difference between the two sentences. Glennconti (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it says the same thing, just with an extra reference to groups (by the way your suggested text needs editing to remove (rather then strike out) the first use if hate).Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree about that it is POV to attempt to present the SPLC as infallible in their selection process. David A (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven In my mind the two sentences do not say the same thing. If you believe that they do then why object to the change if it is equivalent? As far as the strike outs some one edited my post and apparently it is causing some confusion. I have just tried to fix. Glennconti (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Whooahhh, do not use that line of argument please, this is not about me. I object because it is a redundancy, it adds nothing. We do not say "they call Cheese hate groups" or "that annoying bloke down who talks too loudly about his socks the pub hate groups". So there is no reason to point out that they call Groups hate groups. It is unnecessary (redundancy) verbiage. It is not equivalent, it just says the same thing in a different way.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not calling you out as a person when I said you, I meant your logic. You are losing me same thing in a different way says the same or equivalent to me. So why object? You references to Cheese etc and pubs or whatever I am totally unable to follow. Glennconti (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have explained why I object, I shall say it again, however, We do not say what they say is true, we just say they say it. Your proposed edit does not substantively change that statement it just says it with more words (and a more tortured use of English). This is why I say it is not equivalent, it may say the same thing, but take longer to say it. As to my point about cheese, your edit only make sense if we are tying to say they call anything other then Groups hate groups. As we do not your is addressing an error that does not in fact exist. Any one reading this will think "So they call groups hate groups, well what else would they be calling hate groups?".Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you will understand if I say its classification of some groups as hateful and extremist organizations. Does that make you more comfortable? There are many ways to skin this cat. Glennconti (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I do understand, it is still, saying the same thing with different words, so how does this alter what the article already says? What are you trying to get the article to say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the way the lede is written that the sentence its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations presupposes that any group selected by SPLC is automatically and infallibly a hate group. This is in error. They have established their own criterion and it is some time flawed. We don't need to specifically point out that they make errors but just that SPLC owns their determinations for better or worse. Glennconti (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how your suggested edit changes that. And we do not say "they classify hate groups as hate groups" we say (really very clearly) this is their designation. It is really hard to see how "its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations", is not us saying that SPLC owns it's designations.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations" I still have a problem with this sentence. It is not accurate and needs work. SPLC does not classify hate groups. They classify groups into what they consider as hate groups. I don't know how more clear I can be. We need to more precisely say what they do in this regard. Glennconti (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

They classify them AS hate groups. They may group them into a single classification (in the same way that Spiders are group in the classification Arachnida, but are not the only Arachnida (and not all spiders are the same species of spider)). But that is also not quite what you are saying (I think). But (again) we are saying that it is their designation. I think this should be closed now as I do not think it means what you think it means.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree they (SPLC) classify them AS hate groups, BUT we do not say that. We say they classify hate groups, in essence giving wikipedia's seal of approval that any one the pick is indeed a hate group. Do you not see the problem? Glennconti (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No, and have explained why.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned, biological classification is not infallible either. See for example Giant panda#Classification: "For many decades, the precise taxonomic classification of the giant panda was under debate because it shares characteristics with both bears and raccoons." Classification in social science is even more subject to dispute. Is Trump a conservative, Clinton a progressive, Sanders a socialist? SPLC categorizations are routinely reported in news media and academic papers without any qualification, meaning they are seen as authoritative as any social science categorizations. The only real opposition comes from the subjects of categorization themselves. However, even they do not challenge the classifications in their entirety, only in their own case. So they say things like, "the SPLC does a good job in classifying white supremacists and anti-Semites, but err when they classify anti-Islamism as hate." TFD (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheFourDeuces so we agree that the SPLC does at times err in some manner when classifying hate groups and other extremists. In the case of Ben Carson they apologized for miscategorizing him and this was no small error. I believe there is also a tendency to attract very much controversy on the part of the SPLC as concerns traditional religious groups and their attitude that gays are sinners. If we are in agreement that the SPLC makes controversial determinations and it is possible for them to err then they are not as infallible as the current wording would make it seem. Glennconti (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - awkward and unnecessary. Newspapers sometimes have their reports challenged or have to retract them, but we still say they report news, not that they "report things as news." Same goes for authors, academics, etc. This is silly. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Or more in keeping with the OP's suggestion "New events as News".Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

All classifiers whether in natural or social sciences err. Even theories about star classifications have been amended. However, only young earth creationists would insist on putting in that proviso in all astronomy-related articles. Reliable sources are not considered reliable because they are infallible but because they are generally accurate and errors are corrected. While the SPLC said Carson should not be considered an extremist it noted that he had made comments that most people would see as extreme.[60] Conflating homosexuality and pedophilia for example. Note that this issue got lots of coverage in what the SPLC describes as hate groups as well as fringe right-wing websites, but little or no coverage in mainstream media. If people want to know what these people think they can read Wikipedia articles about them or go to their websites. It is contrary to weight however to inject their views into this article.

Incidentally, mainstream media itself has been highly critical of the Trump administration, in which Carson serves, for their LGBT policies. Whether or not they are right, the SPLC is certainly not outside the norm.

TFD (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and alternate suggestion The SPLC doesn't "classify" hate groups, it monitors them. We should fix the lead accordingly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the apology [61] of the SPLC for their characterization of Ben Carson it seems that what the SPLC does is create a "profile" of a person or group then compares that profile to an internal "standard". Based on that comparison they then characterize that person or group as a hate group or extremist. It seems the SPLC does more than just monitor hate groups but they define them. Glennconti (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to your interpretation, but reliable sources describe what they do as monitoring hate groups. Sources that include Fortune, The Christian Scientist Monitor, Al-Jazeera, CBS News, and Britannica. It's also the word the SPLC uses to describe what it does. On the other hand, I don't believe any reliable sources describe the SPLC as "classifying" hate groups. That's probably original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This [62] Politico article says what the SPLC does is "label" groups as hate groups or extremist groups. I didn't make this controversy or critisism of the SPLC up. The CSMonitor source you cite also says the SPLC "labels" groups. Glennconti (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

concur with Malik Shabazz per BBC.

• 1) in Spotify report
• 2) on Richard Cohen
• 3) on Charlottesville

and many more Edaham (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"Label" is a loaded term that suggests bias. Glennconti, I appreciate your position: the homosexual agenda is to molest children and the SPLC aids them. But no reliable sources support it. You need to take your view to the court of public opinion. TFD (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Label" is the term used by the sources I quoted; it is not my term. Take it up with Christian Science Monitor and Politico if you don't like the term they use. Also, my position has nothing to to with the homosexual agenda. You are WAY in the weeds. Please focus on what I am saying. Namely, the SPLC does more than "monitor" hate groups. Indeed as per the sources I quoted the SPLC classifies or defines or "labels" some groups as hate groups or extremist groups. Glennconti (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on the general principle of voice. Wikipedia should always strive to use attributed voice to express positions. Whether its "terrorist organization" or "hate group," it's an attributed description. "Attributed" does not mean writing as if it's doubted per WP:WEASEL or WP:SCAREQUOTES. Wording like "the SPLC monitors organizations on its list of hate groups" is an example of attribution that doesn't require Wikipedia to adopt any positions. Rather, it's source based. It could also be something like "classifies organization through its creation of lists of hate and extremist groups." These are both preferable to saying "it monitors hate groups" and other non-attributed statements. It should always be our goal to use attributed phrasing without weasel words or words to watch. --DHeyward (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

We do not say that, we say "its classification of hate groups", it is hard to see that as not being a clear statement is is them classifying them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Does SPLC say they classify or monitor hate groups? If they do not say they classify them, then this is not what they say they do. As therfore thye lead must reflect who says what it should not imply this is their claim. Thus it must read "what some sources claim its classification of groups as hate groups and extremist organizations", otherwise we are saying (in Wikipedias voice) they are saying this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

From their websites and an enormous number of reliable sources, many of which have been listed above, "We monitor hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States". Can't really see a reason not to word it similarly, as in the proposal made by Malik Shabazz. Attribution in the form of lede citations would be fine too. There's no need for added verbiage about where this text originates with so much due weight. As has occurred frequently, single source attribution when there are many sources saying the same thing is misleading the reader by failing to acknowledge the widespread use of the term. Edaham (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

proposed text

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is noted for its successful legal cases against white supremacist groups, its monitoring of hate groups and other extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance. Edaham (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that we need to mention the fact they have been accused of labeling.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Slatersteven. Glennconti (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Edahams proposed text us fine. I oppose shoehorning "labeling" in there though, as I don't see a basis for that in the article or in RS. Seems to me this is really about the fact that some people take exception to bring monitorered/listed as a hate group by the SPLC - but that is already discussed in the lede and at length in the article itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

True, but it is also true they are noted for this as much as monitoring, maybe just remove the line about what they are noted for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's true - lots of attention is being given to accusations of listing people incorrectly (which is what we're really talking about here, isn't it?) right now, yes, but given SPLC's long history we shouldn't overemphasize current controversies. We've also discussed this at length in other talk page sections and in the archives, how the article handles criticism of the SPLC right now is the result of considerable discussion and compromise. Focusing on one word seems like an odd and unproductive way to try to rehash those discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It just seems to me we need some sort of nod to the controversies in the lede rather than obscure them. Plus, we don't want to have the lede look like we, that is wikipedia, endorse any selections (labeling) made by the SPLC. Glennconti (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the fourth paragraph of the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I see that. But I was thinking the nod belonged in the first paragraph then more specifics in the fourth like we have. Glennconti (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph is inherently contradictory. It states that SPLC's classification and listings are deemed authoritative by academic and media sources, then notes that conservatives and others criticise them. Are there no conservative or others in academia or the media? I also think it should be noted that the SPLC's focus is on what it deems the American radical right - something not mentioned in the lead. Are there no left-wing hate groups? 人族 (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, Antifa certainly qualifies, but the SPLC ignores that, much like it ignores the hate-preaching of Salafism/Wahhabism, and would rather lambast Ayaan Hirsi Ali for criticising Islamism, than the people who have placed multiple fatwas paying for her assassination. David A (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not for us to judge, just report what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Strong Support This article purports to put Southern Poverty Law Center on a moral high ground when they have no such position. They are a partisan organization that profits from adding more and more groups into its "list of hate". Ergzay (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no criticism section?

Southern Poverty Law Center is well known as a partisan organization that attacks freedom of religion. They've labled many marriage and religious organizations as hate groups simply for disagreeing on the defintion of marriage. Where is the criticism section that discusses this? Southern Poverty Law Center is itself becoming a hate group. Ergzay (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections are deprecated on Wikipedia. We do not segregate criticism into separate ghettoes, but rather incorporate both positive and negative views into articles where relevant. If there are significant, reliably-sourced critical views of the SPLC you do not believe are represented in the article right now, please feel free to propose additions here, with links to relevant sources. Your personal opinion of what the SPLC is, is not relevant here and I have stricken it. We are not here to talk about what you or I think the SPLC is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a specific criticism you think we should mention we do not?Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"well known as a partisan organization that attacks freedom of religion". Well-known by whom? Breitbart? Newsmax? No. Actual, reliable sources recognize the SPLC as a leading voice in identifying hate groups in the United States. This article reflects that, and they are used as a cited source in many Wikipedia articles. TheValeyard (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

They do not designate groups as hate groups for opposing same sex marriage. None of the major churches identified by Pew Research as opposing same sex marriage are on the SPLC list of anti-LGBT hate groups. According to the SPLC, "These groups are not listed on the basis of opposition to same-sex marriage or the belief that the Bible describes homosexual activity as sinful." Certainly the best known church on the list, the Westboro Baptist Church, goes well beyond saying LGBT marriage is sinful, which is why its founder was barred from the UK and Canada. TFD (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've donated to Wikipedia before, and this thread made me never donate again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.229.232.229 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't want to support a site that summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that may not fit your preferred narrative. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We do not have criticisms sections (it is frowned upon), what we do is have prose about notable criticism (we do).Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

male-supremacy

It appears that new category of discussion has emerged: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/male-supremacy Maybe someone could take a look? 64.210.21.210 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article, under #Hate group and extremist designations. Is there some additional information that should be included? Grayfell (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SPLC is a left-leaning organization

This is very old POV territory, it's been re-hashed again and again, and does not need another go-around. There is zero chance that a consensus of editors will agree to callling the SPLC "left-leaning". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a heavily-political organization, it's EXTREMELY important to define the political leanings of the organization in the opening sentence as left-leaning as described by various sources. References --Chlorineer (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Screaming that something is EXTREMELY important doesn't explain how it's important or why it belongs in this article. How many hundreds (thousands?) of news articles have cited SPLC? Finding a smattering of them which mention "left" has more to do with your Google ability than it does with the sources themselves. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Screaming? I was not screaming. In any case, and whatever your or my personal position may be on the subject, it doesn't undo the fact that there are sources from various sources describing the SPLC as politically left-leaning, and given the highly-political nature of the subject it most definitely need to be on the lead. --Chlorineer (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC) It have have been better if you had not capitlaised and bolded the word EXTREMELY, that is generally seen as shouting (and does your argument no good). It may well need to be in the lead, but is is also an opinion (and should be written as such).Slatersteven (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC) That's somewhat reasonable. It could be re-written as: "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation that has been described by commentators as left-leaning. References Not all commentators do though.Slatersteven (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Of course not. For example, not all commentators would consider Breitbart News as far-right wing, yet it's described as such on the lead. --Chlorineer (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I don't think it's a significant part of what the organization is famous for. If we slapped a label on everything that was called left-wing by Fox or in a few conservative editorials, we'd have the label on just about every reputable source there is. Plenty of conservative commentators honestly think that the entire mainstream media is left-wing, but that's still clearly a WP:FRINGE view. --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC) It's clearly not as some sources find the need to describe it as such. You argue that, "If we slapped a label on everything that was called left-wing by Fox or in a few conservative editorials, we'd have the label on just about every reputable source there is", but I think that's a hasty generalization and it's deviating from the main argument here: The SPLC is a left-leaning politicized organization. It should be described as such in the lead. --Chlorineer (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC) It's a defining trait according to three of the four sources you've proposed. The sources include an editorial which describes the SPLC as a "leftist hack advocacy group" which would only hypothetically be usable with attribution, and two minor Fox news blurbs. The Washington Post source mentions this not as a defining trait, but as context for a more complicated issue. I'm pretty sure that exact news article, for this exact purpose, has already been discussed at least once in the talk page's archives, or maybe a noticeboard. Regardless, all of these sources are from a very narrow window of time, and the SPLC has over 45 years of history. We're not a news service, we're an encyclopedia, so we need to summarize the long-view coverage of a topic. If you have something more substantial about the left-wing orientation of the group, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "There was a time when the Southern Poverty Law Center did useful work reporting on actual hate groups such as the KKK. These days, though, the SPLC is simply a MoveOn or Media Matters–style outfit." --Chlorineer (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "The SPLC is a discredited, left-wing, political activist organization that seeks to silence its political opponents with a “hate group” label of its own invention and application that is not only false and defamatory, but that also endangers the lives of those targeted with it. --Chlorineer (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "Like many leftist organizations, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, started out with good intentions. It was founded in 1971 by Morris Dees and Joseph Levin and is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama. The Southern Poverty Law Center rightly condemned, as did conservatives such as the great William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan, the American Nazi Party and the Democrat-affiliated Ku Klux Klan. A favorite SPLC tactic was suing Klan affiliated organizations for their crimes and then distributing the money to the victims. This strategy has been effective in financially hurting many Klan related organizations. SPLC, though always leftist in nature, bravely stood strong through attacks on its headquarters and threats against its leaders by Klansman. That is to be commended. Sadly, the Southern Poverty Law Center has more than lost its way. The going astray from the original mission can be traced back to 1986, when most of the organization resigned, except founder Morris Dees, when Dees turned the focus of the group to strictly monitoring hate groups. --Chlorineer (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC) This piece (for instance) got your boys at Media Matters pretty pissed-off. Are you finally seeing a pattern? Don't let your own bias blind you, sir. --Chlorineer (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC) You are aware that Wikipedia is not a forum for personal commentary? Is there a policy that articles need to be labeled to identify organizations that a few media outlets don't like? Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Hey there! Welcome to you too. Wikipedia strives to be accurate, and you cannot be more accurate that by describing the heavily-politicized group SPLC by what they are: a left-leaning (I'd dare say "far-left") group. Kindly, Chlorineer (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Townhall, the National Review, and a downloaded PDF from an anti-LGBT hate group. Well, color me convinced! TheValeyard (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Sarcasm is not an argument. Kindly, --Chlorineer (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Please engage with the substance of the comment. How WP:DUE are the thoughts of "Townhall, the National Review, and a downloaded PDF from an anti-LGBT hate group"? Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Not the only sourced material provided. Kindly, Chlorineer (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Typical bullshit. "There was a time we supported civil rights, but [fill in the blank] has gone too far left these days." I notice that, with the exception of The Washington Post, every source cited is conservative, right-wing, ultra-right-wing, racist, anti-black, or some combination of the above. But they all used to support the SPLC's work until it became a leftist organization. Excuse me while I puke. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC) The problem here is that when we discard sources based on perceived political stances, we are not doing the encyclopedia (or its credibility) any services. Kleuske (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Well, I hope you feel better now. SPLC is still left-leaning though. --Chlorineer (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Saying has been described by some commentators is wording. People on the extreme right of the U.S. spectrum call everyone else leftists or socialists. It says more about them than it does the SPLC. The problem is outside the echo chamber no one uses or understands the same code words. To me as well as most people left-wing refers to people who advocate social control or ownership of the means of production, not something the SPLC gets into. To them it means being to the left of Steve Bannon. TFD (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Good example of the tyranny of the majority though. --Chlorineer (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)