Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Southern Poverty Law Center. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Diligence and Clear Standards

Hi everyone,

Interesting news release by SPLC:

SPLC’s Anti-Gay Hate List Compiled With Diligence and Clear Standards

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-s-anti-gay-hate-list-compiled-with-diligence-and-clear-standards

12/23/2010

We detailed clearly the criteria we used for identifying an organization as an anti-gay hate group: “[T]heir propagation of known falsehoods – claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities – and repeated, groundless name-calling.” By “known falsehoods,” we mean such things as asserting that homosexuals are more disposed to molesting children than heterosexuals – which the overwhelming weight of credible scientific research has determined is patently untrue.

...

We analyzed in detail each of 18 organizations we cite as purveyors of anti-gay rhetoric, and determined that the activities of five of them – including the National Organization for Marriage – did not meet the above-stated hate-group criteria despite their opposition to same-sex marriage. We distinguished the 13 hate groups from the other five with a widely recognized notational symbol: an asterisk.

...

The Southern Poverty Law Center is in no way opposed to the invigorating clash of ideas in the public forum. We do, however, feel it is important to point out when claims being made are demonstrably false, and when disparaging, emotion-provoking stereotypes are used in place of facts and logic. When we designate an organization as a hate group, it isn’t to suppress debate; it is to sound a warning alarm: “This debater isn’t being honest about the facts – and we can prove it.”

I disagree with the press release (which I won't get into because this talk page is not a forum), but I believe it is useful because it shows SPLC's image of itself and its motivations.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. George Soros should be mentioned

I've been told by user:North Shoreman that changes to the finance section “are currently subject to discussion on the article's discussion page", although I cannot find any mention of Mr. George Soros's support to the SPLC in the discussion page, nor the name of any his organizations. The fact that Mr. Soros provides with an important help to the Southern Poverty Law Center is important for all the people behing the SPLC, please consider adding it, I had provided the references in my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiphopmast3r (talk • contribs) 19:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

New reference

Currently reading Wayne Greenhaw's new book, Fighting the Devil in Dixie: How Civil Rights Activists Took on the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama, (ISBN 978-1569763452) which has a couple of chapters detailing the founding and early activities of the SPLC. I'll try to dovetail in some more coverage of the early period soon, but I thought I'd mention it here now as a good read for anyone interested. I think having a little more historical perspective might help our article. --Dystopos (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of overheated rhetoric section

I acted boldly, so to speak. Since the North Shoreman had previously expressed a desire to get rid of most of the section here I would have thought that he might have appreciated at least reducing it in size. In what ways were the changes that I made less "balanced"? Why would we want to restore the reversed chronology of the subtopics? Why would we want a heading that begs the question? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with BRD. Changing the title of the section and reducing some of the SPLC position does not really address any concerns that I have expressed before. The issue is how relevant in 2011 is a back and forth between Horowitz and Berlet -- I can't see any relevance and all of this material can be removed.

This leaves the original paragraph that somewhere got reduced to a single sentence. The following older version (possibly with the last sentence rewritten to leave out the specific names) should be restored:

On April 2, 2010, Mark Potok of the SPLC expressed concern that hot rhetoric and disinformation is causing a dangerous increase in paranoia and confrontation within the political landscape. There is the concern that overheated speech of pundits and politicians is inflaming hate groups that may pose a viable threat. Potok specifically singled out Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Congressman Steve King, and commentators Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs as failing their moral responsibility for what Potok describes as "inflammatory effects of their rhetoric on hate group violence."[66]

Eventually this theme should be expanded since it is a continuing focus of both the SPLC and the national media. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly that three sentence paragraph was amended for a reason (I think I did it) and the reason was that it represented a rather flamboyant interpretation of what Potok actually said in the NPR interview that it is based on. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. I stand corrected; it was BeCritical who modified the paragraph and improved it in my opinion. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Working on the list (puttin' on the Ritz!)

So I've done the preliminary compilation and sourcing of the proposed list at User:Roscelese/List of designated hate groups. (If anyone wants to talk about what's on it/help with anything I missed, that's great too.) At the suggestion of other editors, I've prepared a "response" column, to note if organizations designated as hate groups have responded to say they weren't. But this brings up a topic that's already been discussed here, though under slightly different circumstances: what sourcing is required for these responses? Is it enough for a group to make a public denial, if that denial isn't picked up in reliable sources? (For example, the FRC's denial got some press; I have a page from Catholic Family News where they denied being a hate group, but I can't find out if that denial was picked up by a newspaper or anything - all I can find is a news snippet mentioning that they were labeled as such.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, a web page controlled by an organization is a reliable source for the opinions of that organization.

I suggest that we don't have to include the text of the denial in the column, but a link to the denial would be good.

In the past, we have removed responses from this article because it gave the responses undue weight, but in a list, a format of "link to accusation" and "link to response" would work well.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should use the groups' own websites as sources for their responses. I know in the case of the FRC, there are several reliable sources that discuss their response, including an article in The Washington Post. Drrll (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course the organization's website is RS for their own statements - but I think the question was notability/undue, though? But the problem is not the same in the list article as in the main article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How about you just start out with reliable sources as references for the groups' responses and see later if references to their websites are needed? Drrll (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Dressed up like a million dollar trouper, trying hard to look like Gary Cooper . . super-duper." You've given me an idea for a new song in my repertoire, Roscelese. Thanks. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to help me out with these responses? Obviously they're a lot harder to find than the actual designations, being scattered over a wide variety of sites. I've got the FRC's already in the WaPo, MassResistance in a local paper...Catholic Family News and Institute for Historical Review, but from themselves, not from a third-party source... If not too many can be found, I may suggest scrapping that column and putting anything worth keeping in main text of the list article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll look on Lexis-Nexis over the next few days for responses and put them on the Talk page for the list. Drrll (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

SPLC character assassination denounced

22 members of Congress, including House speaker-designate John Boehner, several state governors, and other conservative politicians have signed a public statement denouncing the SPLC's inclusion of the anti-gay groups on its 2011 watch list as "character assassination." They said the list is an attempt to "shut down informed discussion of policy issues."

Source of above quote: "Anti-Gay Chicago Groups Make 'Hate List,'" by Mark Saxenmeyer, FOX Chicago News, 20 December 2010.

This article may otherwise be relevant to this SPLC page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would include a mention of this in the section on the Family Resource Council's response to the SPLC's hate group designation, but that was removed from the article. I doubt there is much support for putting their response back into this article. Another article goes into more detail about exactly who signed onto the public statement. Besides Boehner, it includes upcoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, as well as a couple of U.S. Senators. I say it belongs in the Family Research Council WP article. Drrll (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I think it belongs here in SPLC somehow as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You also have editors asking, "Actually, what I asked for were sources that support Badmintonhist's statement that the SPLC is less credible". It appears to me the 2 articles cited so far in this subsection go a long way to satisfying that concern. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what we have here is individuals either criticized or associated with criticized say they are not credible. That is a primary source, and we need secondary or tertiary sources claiming that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The actual ad by the Family Research Council is at http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10L12.pdf

SPLC's response is at http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/12/15/splc-responds-to-attack-by-frc-conservative-republicans/

Google news search to find more sources: http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADSA_enCA387&tbs=nws:1&q=%22John+Boehner%22+anti-gay&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=8d4887a6ba3c5b14

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could be included in the "Hate group listings" subsection as a reaction to their 2010 designation of several conservative Christian organizations as hate groups, not just the FRC? As far as I know, there hasn't been a more public objection to the SPLC's designation of hate groups by prominent public officials as this. Drrll (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The story is from "FOX Chicago News". Unless we can find other sources it appears to lack notability. Also, we should point out other aspects of the story. FCN refers to "the respected Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) annual round-up of hate groups". AFTAH claims that FCN, which is part of the "pro-homosexual media", tried to ""expose" AFTAH as a "hate group"".[13] TFD (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be mentioned, and maybe we indeed have to make a small section about the listing of many anti-gay groups as hate groups and include the response there. We than need of course also the responses who have welcomed the listing of those organizations to avoid WP:UNDUE. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It probably needs to be in, but I can't find any really good sources on it yet. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides the Fox Chicago and Daily Caller sources, there is a Slate source and perhaps most relevant to this article, the SPLC response to the criticism that Kevinkor2 listed above (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/12/15/splc-responds-to-attack-by-frc-conservative-republicans/). Drrll (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh cool, where is the Slate source? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/12/15/boehner-cantor-bachmann-pence-and-more-against-the-southern-poverty-law-center.aspx Drrll (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the SPLC lists over 900 hate groups, this section would not be small. If a group is not mentioned in the article, there is no need for their response. I would like to see intelligent sources that challenge SPLC's categorization, but no one has been able to find any. TFD (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what we see is source after source of hate-groups whining about being called a hate group. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Members of congress signing something in support of -what was it- Family Research Council is notable. Which is why I mentioned I can't find a really good source. We'd have to limit any criticism or criticism section to the best sources, and only give a brief summary of those. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is notable, but also the group least likely to be objective. Not a reliable source in that sense. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability is determined by media coverage. Since the story first appeared Monday, it may be that it attains notability but so far it has not. TFD (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reliable sources for what happened two days ago are the media. TFD (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But media coverage is not notable unless the media is reliable. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The section could be small based upon such factors as which groups designated as hate groups have their objections published in reliable sources, which groups garner support from prominent public figures, and which groups are designated as hate groups solely by the SPLC and not by the ADL. Drrll (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What do we actually expect a hate group to say after being called a hate group? Are they going to cheerfully admit to the designation or are they going to vehemently deny that those "liberal, pinko, Jewish lawyers" just might have a point? Think about it. Reporting denials is pointless because it's not news. Dylan Flaherty 01:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true, that's what I meant about limiting it to reliable secondary sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. If the SPLC decided that AA was a hate group because it hated alcohol, we'd find plenty of reliable secondary sources calling SPLC on this insane accusation. We won't find any reliable secondary sources denying that the KKK is a hate group, though I'm sure the KKK wants us to believe it's a civic organization that just so happens to have an all-white membership roster. :-) Dylan Flaherty 02:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is news when you limit the section to only objections published in reliable sources like The Washington Post or to groups that garner support from prominent public figures. Drrll (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any of those? Dylan Flaherty 02:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Family Research Council. Drrll (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be yet another hate group claiming it's not. Dylan Flaherty 03:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think calling FRC "another hate group" lends itself to objective editing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if two editors think the FRC is or is not a hate group. Anyone with a grain of sense should be able to see that the Family Research Council is not a reliable source for the statement "The Family Research Council is not a hate group." Roscelese (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Dylan Flaherty 05:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors here seem to be talking past each other even though, it seems to me, they should be agreeing on Drrll's basic point: A designated "hate group" denying that it is a hate group is not notable in and of itself, but it is notable when reliable news sources report that it disputes the designation. The news source itself doesn't have to (and really shouldn't) dispute the label on behalf of the group so labeled. Badmintonhist (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If the SPLC calls the KKK a hate group and the KKK denies it, the latter is well within WP:RS, as the KKK is generally a reliable primary source about its own statements. Having said that, there is still no reason to report this, as it's only to be expected; find me a hate group that accepts the label! Now, if the NYT reports that the KKK denies being a hate group, it's a reliable secondary source, but it still doesn't make the claim any more notable or relevant. Only if the NYT were to say (even in an opinion piece), that the KKK doesn't deserve to be called a hate group would we have any good reason to mention the denial. Dylan Flaherty 13:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You're simply wrong here Dylan. Notability for the purposes of Wikipedia is established when reliable sources publish the information. That being said, it doesn't mean that if, say, the Washington Post reports that a Klan group is disputing its SPLC designation as a hate group then Wikipedia editors are obliged to include this info in the article. We can still take other factors into account such as due weight and generally use our editorial discretion. However we could not properly say that the info had not met notability requirements. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to 'Hate group listings' subsection

In November 2010, the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that oppose same-sex marriage. Responses by effected organizations include "The left's smear campaign of conservatives is . . . being driven by the clear evidence that the American public is losing patience with their radical policy agenda as seen in the recent election and in the fact that every state . . . that has had the opportunity to defend the natural definition of marriage has done so" by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and "The whole idea that somehow those folks who stand up for traditional marriage, like the Family Research Council, are hateful is wrong. [The law center is] trying to marginalize and intimidate folks for standing up for marriage and also trying to equate them somehow to the KKK" by Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. The Family Research Council ran an open letter advertisement December 2010 in two Washington, DC newspapers signed by, among others, John Boehner, incoming Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Eric Cantor, incoming House Majority Leader, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. The open letter ad said:

The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that...We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans.

The SPLC responded to the open letter, saying:

Despite the claims made in today’s statement, the SPLC’s listings are not in any way intended to suppress these groups’ free speech. We’re not asking that these groups be silenced or punished in any way. What we are doing is calling them out for their lies. There is nothing wrong with labeling an organization a hate group based on what they say. A simple example illustrates the point: If a neo-Nazi group said all Jews are “vermin,” no one would argue with our characterizing it as a hate group.

References:

Drrll (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Any comments? The language is a starting point for what's included. Including this doesn't mean that we need to include responses from every group designated as a hate group. This is a special case for the following reasons:

The information comes from secondary reliable sources, not the primary websites of the relevant organizations
These organizations received support from prominent public figures, including Governors and the incoming Speaker of the U. S. House
The organizations were designated hate groups solely by the SPLC and not by the ADL
The SPLC actually bothered to issue a lengthy response to the FRC and its supporters
I don't believe that anyone here would support including responses by other organizations

Drrll (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Just one very minor point: The open letter refers to "Concerned Women of America". The correct name of that organization is Concerned Women for America. Please double-check the open letter, and if you quoted it correctly, then I suggest adding "[sic]" right after "Concerned Women of America". Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 18:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Both the open letter ad and the source that report the ad (Slate) use the incorrect name Concerned Women of America. As you said, that should be noted with [sic]. Drrll (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to single out this particular group (or category of groups) for prominence in this article. I imagine ALL of the various hate groups deny that they are hate groups. Rather than being simply a denial of being a hate group, the material cited is a full blown political attack on the SPLC that has very little to do with the reasons cited by the SPLC in designating the group as a hate group. Responding to the special case argument point by point:

It is irrelevant where the charges against the SPLC were repeated. The charges still come from the hate group itself. An article in the Washington Post about the flat earth society would not suddenly make their opinions reliable sources for scientific wikipedia articles.
The "prominent public figures" are nothing more than right wing politicians expressing a political view that appeals to their political base. None of them stand alone as reliable sources for analyzing the SPLC.
The ADL does not, as far as I am aware, maintain a comprehensive list of hate groups comparable to the SPLC list. Not that this is relevant in the first place.
The SPLC routinely responds to attacks levied against it. The situation here is hardly unique. If the material were included, then what should also be included is not just the SPLC denial but the detailed charges that the SPLC actually made. This would greatly expand the size of the section.
You are exactly right when you say "I don't believe that anyone here would support including responses by other organizations." Nor should we treat this one as an exception. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I happen to think that the proposed addition by my friend Drrll is rather lengthy and should be abbreviated by summarizing the tiff between the two organizations. The North Shoreman's objections don't amount to much. The first is flawed in about every way that two short statements could be flawed except, I think, for grammar. "Where the charges against the SPLC were repeated" IS relevant because that is how their notability is established. Whether or not those charges originally came from the "hate group" itself (the North Shoreman is fond of treating assertions made by the SPLC as objective fact), is irrelevant in regards to notability. Due weight is another matter, one that largely involves editorial discretion. The "flat earth" nonsense is embarrassing. None of this involves scientific fact; neither the SPLC's assertion about the FRC nor the FRC's denial. We are not determining here, whether or not to lend credibility to a bogus scientific theory. However, as a matter of interest, were the WaPo to publish a story on the Flat Earth Society rejection of the Round Earth Society's charges against it might very well be worth a mention in a Wikipedia article about the latter. As for the NSM's next point about the PPF's (aka RWP's ) not being "reliable sources for analyzing the SPLC," they don't have to be, the fact that WaPo finds them worth quoting is good enough in terms of notability. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you read what you link to? If you did, you should have discovered that notability has no application to this discussion. It clearly states, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." So everything you just said about the relevance of including material in this article relying on that article is irrelevant. The REAL ISSUE remains whether or not the opinions you want to include are HELD by a reliable source.

As far as your embarrassment about the Flat Earth Society, you should note that your link to Due weight uses the flat earth analogy in pretty much the same way as I do. It is not an issue of scientific fact but one of "the view of a distinct minority." The editorial decision to be made is why should the view of one of 900 different hate groups be presented in this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, you got me on notability. Make it reliability then. The fact that the FRC's denial has been published byreliable sources makes it eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. That fact and due weight are why we are not then obliged to publish hate group denials coming from, say, The Sons of the Aryan Resistance. As for the "distinct minority" you are referring to, isn't one their number about to become Speaker of the House of Representatives? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to provide a direct quote from wikipedia policy or guidelines that states that otherwise unreliable sources become reliable simply because they are reported in a reliable newspaper. As I've stated elsewhere, WP:NEWSORG applies here -- specifically "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others."There is no doubt that the Post article is reliable for the fact that the claims were made, but there is every doubt in the world that the claims themselves are reliable enough sources for inclusion in this article.

As far as Boehner, he was, I'm sure, speaking for himself and not for the Republican Party. As far as I know, the FRC platform has not been incorporated into any official GOP policy statements or platforms. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As John McEnroe might say, "You cannot be serious!" You are making up your own category here, "reliable sources on matters of hate groups" and, apparently, populating it with one source, the SPLC itself. In fact, from Wikipedia's standpoint, there is no such thing as a reliable or unreliable source for designating hate groups. There are, however, reliable sources concerning news about groups that see themselves as the arbiters on matters of "hate" and the Washington Post is one such reliable source. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-responsive and inaccurate. Look up "arbiter". The Washington Post only reported the FRC press release -- it didn't endorse it or condemn it. As to your other claim, there certainly is, from a wikipedia standpoint, a "reliable ... source for designating hate groups -- the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as noted before, reliable sourcing shows the SPLC is almost universally accepted as the authority on hate groups (by academia, the media, and even our own government... everyone, it seems, except the hate groups themselves). :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Really!? Show me where Wikipedia thusly designates the SPLC. Wikipedia rules and guidlines talk about reliable published sources in general but where do they make the SPLC the official designator of the groups that Wikipedia will officially consider to be hate groups? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of the SPLC as a reliable source has been established by a community wide consensus covering any number of articles. Why else do you think it is referenced in articles such as this one [14]. Click on "What links here" if you are honestly unaware of the many uses of the SPLC as a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no! Let's not confuse two very, very different things, editors are perfectly free to note the the the SPLC has designated some organization as a hate group. The SPLC is (like just about any other organization) a reliable source as to its own opinions. Moreover, those opinions are often covered by reliable secondary sources and thus are perfectly acceptable to use in Wikipedia articles. That, however, is a far cry from what you have been suggesting here which is that designation as a hate group is a kind of mark of Caine and that a "hate group" contesting such a designation is, for Wikipedia's purposes, impossible unless some organization whose stature in the area of hate group designations is GREAT INDEED comes to the marked groups rescue. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I get it -- you don't like wikipedia's reliable source policy. You do state YOUR PROBLEM accurately, however. Any criticism of the SPLC must come from a reliable source. The FRC is not a reliable source.

Your point that "The SPLC is (like just about any other organization) a reliable source as to its own opinions" is extremely misleading. SPLC labeling is used because the organization itself is considered a reliable source (note that "reliable" and "accurate" are not synonymous). "Any other organization" stands or falls as a reliable source based on its ability to meet reliable source standards. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As I count currently, the article now includes criticism of the SPLC from the American Institute of Philanthropy, the Montgomery Advertiser, Harper's Magazine, The Nation, and FrontPageMagazine.com. Only the first of these criticisms seems to involve a cold matter of fact (although, I suppose what constitutes a failing grade in the eyes of the American Institute of Philanthropy might be considered subjective), the rest are decidedly subjective, as is the opinion of the FRC as to whether the SPLC should have designated it as a hate group, and the FRC is considered a reliable source as to its own opinions. When that opinion is covered (it doesn't have to be endorsed) by WaPO, a reliable news source, Wikipedia reliable source requirements have been met. If you don't think due weight standards have been met, that is a different issue. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The current section on finances is extremely unencyclopedic and you will find in the very recent archives my proposal to eliminate much of this material. More importantly, however, you continue to misstate wikipedia policy on reliable sources. The section that applies to the FRC is at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves where it says:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The FRC claims obviously fail to meet criteria number 2. You have failed to demonstrate, as I had asked previously, where wikipedia policy says that otherwise non-reliable sources can be used simply if they are reported as news by a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you're asking for an impossibly high standard of sourcing that doesn't exist in WP policy or practice. Something doesn't have to be a reliable source itself to be included in WP articles; it just has to be sourced to a reliable source. If such a standard were required in WP, most articles would be gutted.

You're right that we should include the SPLC's reasons for designating these groups as hate groups. The problem is, the reasons aren't clearly spelled out in the individual profiles of the organizations designated as such as far as I can see. For example, for the FRC, the only thing that could qualify as meeting the SPLC's criteria for being a hate group ("Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling") would be their claim that pedophilia is more prevalent among gay men. Because we don't have the SPLC's specific reasons for designating these groups as hate groups, I suggest that we include their general criteria for designation and include specifics about the groups from secondary sources.

Badmintonhist, I see how that my proposal could be considered long--I laid it out as a starting point. For example, the four lengthy quotes could be shortened. Drrll (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that you can't argue that the FRC meets reliable source standards. Despite this, you are claiming that it becomes reliable simply because a reliable source picks repeats part of the claim. Nothing in wikipedia policy backs you up. The only thing that the reliable source has confirmed is that the FRC paid to have the info. published in an advertisement -- the reliability of the information itself still falls back to the FRC. In attributing the material you cannot say that "The Washington Post says..."; you have to say that "The FRC says ... ." The FRC is not a reliable source.

The claim that this is "an impossibly high standard" whose result would be that "most articles would be gutted" is not even close to true. All of the articles I watch (I'm up to 1,839) do quite nicely without needing to convert non-reliable sources into reliable sources by the intervention of a third party. If you want to say, to use one of your proposals, that "[The law center is] trying to marginalize and intimidate folks for standing up for marriage and also trying to equate them somehow to the KKK", then you need to attribute that to a reliable source. The fact is that you can't do that and your efforts to backdoor the statement are nothing but smoke and mirrors. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, back from knocking 'em dead on the karaoke circuit, I'll address my slightly younger colleague's latest argument. The onus to convince fellow editors that sources not deemed reliable on a particular subject should never be used when quoted, paraphrased, or otherwise represented by by reliable source on that subject is decidedly on you and those editors who support your position. For starters, as Drrll tells us, it is commonly done throughout Wikipedia and for good reason. President Obama for example is not a reliable source on, say, Fox News, however if President Obama were to make a pithy comment about Fox News which was picked up by major news sources (as, of course, it would be) then we at Wikipedia would have the WP:RS we need to include it in the article on the Fox News Channel; not to assert Mr. Obama's opinion as fact, of course, but to include as fact that he expressed the opinion. By the standard that the North Shoreman asserts, all sorts of valuable and reliable information would be purged from our noble project. All this being said, going back to my original comment about Drrll's proposal, I did mention that it should be shortened considerably and thus extensive quotes about the SPLC by the FRC would be unnecessary. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. The burden of establishing that material is attributed to a reliable source rests with the party attempting to add the material -- see WP:BURDEN. With your lax standards, wikipedia would rapidly become filled with all kinds of non-encyclopedic gossip, rumors, and attacks from hate groups. Just because something is repeated by a newspaper does not justify its inclusion in a wikipedia article and nothing in wikipedia policy says otherwise.

The Obama example is not on point and is a matter of WEIGHT. When the POTUS says something it may be worthwhile including the fact that it was said. When one out of 900 hate groups objects to its classification, this is not worth mentioning. As I said before, ALL hate groups probably object to being classified as hate groups. When a reliable source starts making the same charges that the FRC has, then it might be worth including the charges in the article.

Furthermore, there is also nothing "pithy" about the proposed addition. What Drrl proposes is adding attack language unsupported by any reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing too pithy about what the North Shoreman is asserting here, either. He seems to want it both ways. First he asserts the existence of a supposed rule which, if it could reasonably be said have ever existed in Wikipedia, has long since become more honored in the breach than in the observance. Then he claims that an exception to this rule could be made in the case of something said by the POTUS as a matter of due weight. But due weight is not used in Wikipedia to allow us to waive other Wikipedia rules. It is used after other rules and guidlines have been observed to adjust the emphasis given to particular information. Moreover, his exception made for the (current?) President seems rather partisan when he would deny this ad hoc "rule" for something said by the presumptive incoming Speaker of the House. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So now in addition to ignoring Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources you want to ignore NPOV, which wP:WEIGHT is a part of. You want to give undue emphasis to the opinion of one out of over 900 identified hate groups that happens to currently be in the news, despite this warning from the NPOV Policy:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

And you want to make claims attacking the SPLC that are not supported by any reliable sources. Let's not overlook the fact that everyone seems to agree with -- the FRC's political opinion's do not meet reliable source criteria. You want to play games with wikipedia rules in an effort to bypass reliable source criteria. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PS Another problem with the proposal is that the language does not adequately describe the SPLC position. This SPLC article [15] covers this in detail and should be incorporated into the article if the FRC is mentioned at all. WP:WEIGHT requires that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Even a one sentence statement by the FRC would justify listing all 10 of the myths, with brief explanations of each, that the FRC and other anti-gay groups promote. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PPS At [16] there is an interesting article showing that the FRC is even rejecting the majority of the GOP -- more indication that it is a fringe group outside of even the mainstream conservative movement. How dare the GOP allow GOProud to actually attend GOP functions! We can now add Grover Norquist to the SPLC as too liberal for the FRC.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor Drrll was being too polite when he said that the North Shoreman was asking for "an impossibly high standard" for sourcing. He is actually asking for an impossibly disingenuous one that he, himself, has undoubtedly violated many times in his ventures into historical topics. By the "standard" that he is proposing here we couldn't quote Pepsi about Coke or Coke about Pepsi. We couldn't tell what Lincoln said about Douglas, what Montgomery said about Eisenhower (or vice versa), or what Joseph Welch said about Joe McCarthy. In the case at hand, reliable sources are conveying the fact that there is a dispute between two fairly prominent political organizations. Disputes have at least two sides. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again -- and I note that you continue to ignore the issues of undue weight and fringe. We certainly can say, "According to David Herbert Donald, Lincoln said that Stephen Douglas was part of a pro-slavery conspiracy that included President Buchanan and Justice Taney." Donald is a reliable source. What we can't say, and what you would want us to say is that ""According to the FRC, Lincoln said that Stephen Douglas was part of a pro-slavery conspiracy that included President Buchanan and Justice Taney." The FRC is not a reliable source about much of anything. And adding "The Washington Post said that the FRC said that Lincoln said that Stephen Douglas was part of a pro-slavery conspiracy that included President Buchanan and Justice Taney" in no way makes the material suitable for an article on Abraham Lincoln. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope! The FRC is not a source that we at Wikipedia would likely be quoting, even indirectly, for information on Lincoln's attitude toward Douglas, Buchanan, or Taney. Neither, for that matter is the SPLC. Let's skip the reductio ad absurdum. The FRC, a fairly prominent political org. was attacked by the SPLC, another fairly prominent political org., and responded to the attack. The SPLC's designation of the FRC as a "hate group" was seen as newsworthy by reliable sources such as WaPo largely because the FRC had not generally been seen as a "fringe" group. This wasn't perceived as the same thing as the SPLC attacking some Klan group. The exchange of fire between the two groups was considered newsworthy precisely because "new ground" had been reached. The North Shoreman seems to be proceeding along the lines that whenever an organization is designated as a hate group by the SPLC, perhaps the American Enterprise Institute next, said group is then relegated to the "fringe" and under WP:DUE its response cannot be entered into Wikipedia even by way of the most reliable of sources. How convenient! Badmintonhist (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope back at you. The FRC is a fringe group because it is to the right of an ultra-conservative like Grover Norquist and because it promotes bigotted, non-scientific attacks on gays. Or do you buy into the 10 myths promoted by the FRC and its ilk (see [17] or consider it mainstream? The SPLC is not a political organization -- read the article -- and its prominence easily outdistances the FRC. Your take on why the Post covered the dispute is irrelevant and your analysis of the dispute is original research. There is nothing new here -- the defense that "we're not as bad as the KKK" has been echoed by any number of groups and is irrelevant until a reliable source makes the case. The SPLC makes it clear that committing violence is not a requirement for being a hate group and the use of the KKK is simply setting up a strawman.

Your argument that the FRC's response can't be entered into the article is disingenuous. The article, as it exists, doesn't even mention the FRC. You keep failing to address the threshold issue of why this one group out of 900 deserves to be included in the article. As I've shown above, wikipedia policy warns against giving undue weight to a subject simply because it happens to be in the news for a few days. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: previous (recent) thread discussed the issue of singling out (two) specific groups in order to include their repsonses, with several editors there agreeing that instead a summary line of general objections would seem sufficient. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Now that you have I distinctly remember reading BeCritical's proposal and having no problem with it. Shame on me for failing to recognize that a consensus had been reached on excluding the FRC, but also shame on the other two folks I've been debating (Drrl and Badmintonhist) for also missing it -- both of them were active and commenting on the discussion page when the change was proposed and made. All things considered, it seems like everything that follows is moot. We have a clear majority that have expressed an opinion within the last two weeks that favor omitting any reference at all to the FRC -- I'll go with the consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all surprising that some of these hate groups would object to being on the list. That doesn't mean their objections should be included in this article. Dlabtot (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

seeking outside input, RS/N

Tom, I took your theory about how that sources that are quoted in reliable sources must themselves be reliable sources to RSN. Please correct my representation of the issue if I didn't properly present your view. Drrll (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up -- I have added my 2 cents. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

How about his theory that the FRC is a fringe group "because it is to the right of an ultra-conservative like Grover Norquist"? Or would that be original research? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We're required by wikipedia policy to determine whether sources are fringe or not. It would only be original research if I attempted to add it to an article on the FRC. So you apparently find the 10 Myths to be mainstream -- interesting. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. The stuff that I write which is obviously not intended to be placed in a Wikipedia article is "orginal research," but the stuff that the NSM writes which is also not intended to be placed in a Wikipedia article "would only be original research if (he) attempted to add it to an article." Does the SCLC's "prominence easily outdistance" that of the FRC? I just got 410,000 Google responses to the latter as compared to 337,000 for the former. "Prominence," of course, is not the same as "prestige" but the NSM did use the term prominence. As for the SPLC's "10 Myths" article (which doesn't directly address the FRC) it is a polemic, a polemic not too different in tone or scholarship from the kinds of arguments it is responding to. Surely someone who fancies himself as an historian knows the difference between a polemic and and a scholarly work. Surely that someone doesn't see the SPLC's article as an even-handed scientific look at the nature of homosexuality. As for the SPLC not being a "political organization" in the broad sense, well, go right on dreaming. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As to whether the FRC is fringe or not, on the "prominence" front, that Washington Post article calls them "prominent." In 2007, all major Republican presidential candidates spoke at their forum and we have the 2010 open letter signed by the incoming House Speaker and four governors. Those are not indicators of a fringe organization. As to the "10 Myths" by the SPLC, only the first myth in the list even mentions the FRC. Drrll (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, but it was your suggestion here [18] that we include the SPLC's "general criteria". There is a parallel list of myths actually put out by the FRC -- it was referenced in the noticeboard discussion that you initiated. It is these non-scientific, bigoted claims that place the FRC, IMO, as a fringe group. A far as its SPLC criticism, this also appears to be fringe -- nobody has been able to find any actual reliable sources that make the type of attacks that the FRC has made.

The proposal was made on the noticeboard that we simply include a statement such as "Some of the groups on the list have denied being hate groups and have criticized a perceived left or liberal agenda of the SPLC." Seems like a fair resolution -- especially since the article contained such a statement until very recently. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words it's a fringe group because you don't like it. Probably has ideas about homosexuality that are similar to your parents and mine. That being said, believe it or not, I'm fine with your suggestion here, North Shoreman. My only caveat would be if the issue of the SPLC's expanded view of "hate groups" continues to make significant political news covered in reliable sources then the treatment of it in our article could be expanded. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

How about (incorporating the SPLC's side, the proposed statement from WP:RSN, and a mention of support of the FRC by prominent public figures):

In November 2010, the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, saying it was "based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling". Some of the groups on the list have denied being hate groups and have criticized a perceived left or liberal agenda of the SPLC. The list included the prominent Family Research Council, saying that the organization "pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia." The FRC ran an open letter advertisement December 2010 in two Washington, DC newspapers signed by, among others, John Boehner, incoming Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Drrll (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is basically okay with me as well, Drrll, except that I would leave out the adjective "prominent" before "Family Research Council" as well as the additional specific rationale for the SPLC classifying the FRC as a hate group. "Based on their propagation of known falsehoods . . . etc." is good enough. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

While I have problems with both suggestions, the point is moot. A clear consensus was reached on December 19 to exclude the FRC from the article -- a consensus that I add my voice to. See the recent edit above by PrBeacon and my response -- it is way too soon for the three of us to reverse a consensus on a discussion that we neglected to participate in. I consider it dead unless some new voices supporting inclusion come along. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A consensus may have been reached then, but shortly thereafter at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#SPLC_character_assassination_denounced , others (including BeCritical and Kim) agreed that the new development of public support of the FRC should be mentioned. Drrll (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Re using google to establish prominence, see WP:MAINSTREAM. That essay really clears up any misconceptions about what "prominence" means at WP. In an extreme case, a national organization that most people know about and whose positions most people agree with can be wp:fringe. Tom said "It is these non-scientific, bigoted claims that place the FRC, IMO, as a fringe group," and that's exactly right, not because those opinions are wrong, but because they are said to be wrong by RS. Badmintonhist is correct when he says "My only caveat would be if the issue of the SPLC's expanded view of "hate groups" continues to make significant political news covered in reliable sources then the treatment of it in our article could be expanded." Tim Pawlenty's text looks good. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm playing catchup both with wikipedia and the internet. I was offline by choice and ignoring television for about a week. Checking Google news today it seems that the reporting of the "controversy" have already disappeared from tradition news sources although some websites seem to also be playing catchup. It was the paid ad, not the SPLC determination, that generated a flurry of activity and that is unlikely to repeat itself -- especially since this all occurred in a dead news cycle.

The issue becomes what weight to we give to the FRC. To quote Kim, who Drrl mentions, "Yeah, what we see is source after source of hate-groups whining about being called a hate group." This seems to leave us with the proposal made by someone on the noticeboard -- add ""Some of the groups on the list have denied being hate groups and have criticized a perceived left or liberal agenda of the SPLC" and move on.

I'm not sure what your reference to Pawlenty is supposed to mean, but his only role was signing the paid ad, agreeing with the FRC. Opinions by politicians, especially those running for president, don't strike me as reliable sources. Besides, as the source I quoted elsewhere shows, the FRC and the GOP are, as we speak, apparently splitting over gay rights issues.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

PS I noticed what you added to the noticeboard. We have five paragraphs on hate groups. One is simply a count by category. Proportionate representation for the hate groups position in general is probably the single sentence I mentioned above. The neo-confederate movement has, for unknown reasons, a separate paragraph, so perhaps that deserves a single sentence rebuttal such as the response by the CofCC that was removed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

'prominence' is not relevant. It's not part of our policies or guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually "prominence" is part of NPOV -- see WP:UNDUE. This says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." As it applies here, we have designated hate groups, none of which stand alone as reliable sources, criticizing the SPLC while mainstream sources support the SPLC's determinations and, more often than not, refer to the SPLC designation routinely whenever the designated hate groups are discussed. The positive references in reliable sources are numerous; the negative are close to non-existent -- our article should reflect this proportion. The most recent proposal by Drrl is flawed because it attempts to give equal proportion to the SPLC and the FRC analysis. The SPLC position has been around for over a decade; the FRC weighed in on the topic of hate groups this month. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The word is used in the policy. I certainly would recommend following the policy and the contextual meaning of the words used in it. The referenced essay, on the other hand, carries as much weight as any other comment by any editor who has not looked at this particular issue and its context. Dlabtot (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tom, my formulation favors the SPLC position, quoting at comparative length their full criteria for hate group designation (even though in the case of the FRC, there is no name-calling). For the FRC/other organizations' position, there is just the mild short statement that they object to being called a hate group and that they criticize a perceived liberal agenda of the SPLC. Then there is the statement about the ad, which includes no criticism of the SPLC. The third sentence can go, leaving three sentences, including the lengthy first sentence representing the SPLC's criticism of the groups. Drrll (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on your own source (Weigel’s Slate article -- see [19]), what Pawlenty et al signed up for does not even mention the SPLC. From your source (after naming some of the signees):

“The extremely low-key statement they've all agreed to:

We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans.”

The Washington Post article does not even reference the ad. The last sentence is irrelevant to this article and needs to be eliminated.

The first sentence is misleading since it implies that the SPLC listed the groups as hate groups because of their opposition to same sex marriage. This is not true. The intro to the SPLC article that you refer to (see [20]) does not mention same sex marriage at all. The phrase about same sex marriage needs to be removed.

This leaves us with:

“In November 2010, the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that propagate “known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling". Some of the groups on the list have denied being hate groups and have criticized a perceived left or liberal agenda of the SPLC.”

I can live with this if a strong consensus can be gathered, although my first choice remains the single sentence version and my second choice is the status quo. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we're getting a little closer to a consensus. Yes, the excerpt of the open letter ad in Slate that you cited does not directly mention the SPLC. The thing is, elsewhere in the same article, it is made clear that the letter ad was directly targeted at the SPLC, as is done in the Daily Caller reference, and is done in the SPLC reference. The WaPo reference does not mention the ad, since it was published before the ad was published. That last sentence about the ad is important because it puts in context the significance of labeling the FRC as a hate group. And, the significance of those prominent public figures signing on has been widely agreed to here in discussions on this talk page (more so than any other part of the proposal).

The first sentence was actually worded as such because of what the WaPo reference says ("labeled as "hate groups" several political and religious organizations that campaign against same-sex marriage and, the center says, engage in "repeated, groundless name-calling" against gays and lesbians"). But as you said, the SPLC summary does not mention same-sex marriage so we can leave it out, but I would tweak the wording a little to indicate that the SPLC says that they propagate ...

So:

In November 2010, the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that they say propagate "known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling". Some of the groups on the list have denied being hate groups and have criticized a perceived left or liberal agenda of the SPLC. The included organization Family Research Council ran an open letter advertisement signed by, among others, John Boehner, incoming Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Drrll (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I would phrase it as follows:

In November 2010 the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that it says propagate falsehoods about LGBT people "that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities" and engage in "groundless name-calling." Some organizations on the list have disputed the hate group label as being part of an SPLC "liberal agenda," including the Family Research Council which published an open letter signed by soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty among others. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Flows better and reduces the # of sentences to two. Drrll (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal Violates BLP Policy

The Washington Post did not mention the ad in the article cited or, based on my search of their website, in any news article. Nor did the NY Times. The Daily Call is hardly a reliable news source. This leaves us with two reliable sources on the ad -- the SPLC and the Slate article.

Slate states quite clearly that Boehner et al only signed off on a small portion of the ad -- the non-controversial portion that merely calls for free speech and open discussion w/o even mentioning the SPLC. From that article (see [21]) after first naming the signees:

“The extremely low-key statement they've all agreed to:

We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans.”

The proposal to include the names leads to the assumption that Boehner et al signed off on ALL of the material in the ad rather than just the above paragraph.

Including this material would constitute a clear Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violations. As this policy states in the lead, “We must get the article right.” It further says in the body, “This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.”

Since we can’t say for sure (and the evidence seems to suggest that there was probably NOT the intent to sign off on the entire ad) what Boehner et al actually signed off on, we can’t suggest otherwise in our article. The best document for visualizing what Boehner actually signed off on is the ad itself. This link (http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10L12.pdf), provided earlier by Kevinkor2, seems to support the Slate version. The clearly stated invitation was "You can take action by adding your name to the following statement." Boehner's endorsement falls under this statement. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier I put to the RSN whether The Daily Caller was a reliable source, and 5 out of 7 people there agreed that it was a reliable source.

I agree with you that both the Slate article and the ad itself (not a reliable source) seem to favor the notion that Boehner, et al just signed on to the "we, the undersigned" portion. Other reliable sources, however, make the case that they actually signed on to the entire letter. Besides TDC, there are sources ranging from The Iowa Independent to Fox Chicago to foxnews.com that make this case. Then there is the SPLC itself, which makes the case in its response in the before mentioned citation by Mark Potok, which was also published in The Huffington Post:

The statement, whose signatories included House Speaker-Designate John Boehner and the governors of Louisiana, Minnesota and Virginia, ran under the headline, “Start Debating/Stop Hating.” It accused “elements of the radical Left” of trying to “shut down informed discussion of policy issues” and decried those who attempt to suppress debate “through personal assaults that aim only to malign an opponent’s character.” The SPLC, it said, was engaging in “character assassination.”

Even if we take the position that we can't know exactly what the signatories signed on to, I don't think that the version by Badmintonhist, which says "the FRC which published an open letter signed by…" suggests that they signed on to everything in the letter (on the other hand, all the sources make it clear that what was signed was clearly directed at the SPLC as a response to their designation). Nonetheless, do you have a suggestion for changing the wording to clarify things?

I think there there could be a BLP violation if both it was clear that the signatories didn't sign on to everything and the proposed text suggested that they did. Drrll (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Once you admit, as you do, that there is information that "seem to favor the notion that Boehner, et al just signed on to the 'we, the undersigned' portion", then you have a WP:BLP problem in implying otherwise. The part they signed off on is entirely positive and does not mention the SPLC -- the balance of the ad is a totally negative attack on the SPLC and the left.

You also have the continuing WP:WEIGHT problem. Specific to the ad issue, I went thirteen pages deep at Google News Search looking for a combo of "John Boehner" and "Southern Poverty Law Center." Virtually all of the references are to non-reliable sources. Notably absent were ANY newspapers other than the Iowa one, any television networks other than FOX, any reliable news websites other than the couple mentioned, and any local television. With all of the reliable sources for news available, the fact that only a very, very few even covered the ad strongly suggests that wikipedia should not cover the ad -- especially with the potential BLP problem. The basic information, that the FRC denies being a hate group has its own weight problems, but the fact of the denial can be established w/o risking a BLP violation.

The only solution to the problem is to eliminate any reference to the ad or people that supported. The only other option is to go into a detailed description that would require as much space as your original proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did admit that the Slate source favors that the signatories only signed on to the short subsection of the open letter. But that's one reliable source that favors that interpretation vs. six reliable sources that favor the interpretation that they signed onto other portions of the letter as well. And all of them favor the fact that the signatories signed onto the letter, which is what Badmintonhist's text says--nothing more (all of them also makes clear that whatever they signed onto was directed squarely at the SPLC). So I don't see the possibility of a BLP violation. Please take it to WP:BLPN if you feel strongly about it.

As far as the WP:WEIGHT issue with sourcing, we do have three prominent sources in a Fox News story (whether you like Fox News or not, they are a prominent source), in an SPLC article written by Mark Potok himself, repeated in The Huffington Post (Fox News Chicago also is fairly prominent, producing their own separate story independent of the foxnews.com one). Far less prominent sources are used in the SPLC WP article, such as The Texarkana Gazette and The Lexington Courier-Journal.

Please keep in mind that putting in the article that prominent public figures signed on to the letter in support of the FRC has widespread support among editors here. Drrll (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There is not, as far as I can tell, widespread support for adding anything about the FRC claims in the article, let alone some specific language or references. A consensus was reached to take existing material on the FRC out and the reopened discussion has been very mixed. I don't even see a majority, let alone a consensus, for changing the original decision.

As I said, and you neglected to respond to, if we include one interpretation of what Boehner et al signed on to then we need to provide the other side -- and do it in a meaningful way that readers will understand what we're talking about. Then we need to provide the SPLC response to the language of the petition portion of the advertisement itself. Suddenly we're back with several paragraphs of text which is your original, far too lengthy proposal.

Once we get into the specifics of the petition material, which only calls for an open discussion and the promotion of free speech, the following response by the SPLC has to be included in some respect:

Despite the claims made in today’s statement, the SPLC’s listings are not in any way intended to suppress these groups’ free speech. We’re not asking that these groups be silenced or punished in any way. What we are doing is calling them out for their lies. There is nothing wrong with labeling an organization a hate group based on what they say. A simple example illustrates the point: If a neo-Nazi group said all Jews are “vermin,” no one would argue with our characterizing it as a hate group.

The consensus was reopened because of a few news stories and the impression that this was big and important news. In fact, as events have shown, the story has pretty much gone away. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Widespread" may not have been accurate, but other editors supporting mentioning the support of the FRC by Boehner, etc. include LAEC, Kim van der Linde, Becrital, Badmintonhist, Arthur Smart, and possibly Kevinkor2.

I'm not suggesting that we include an interpretation of what the signatories signed on to, nor that we include any specifics of what they signed on to--just include that they signed on to the letter (as is done in Badmintonhist's text above). If we did include an interpretation or specifics, then I agree that we should include mention an alternative interpretation and the SPLC's response to the specifics. As it is now, the first sentence gives the SPLC's side, and the second sentence gives the FRC's/other organizations' side.

The information about the signatories was seen as important, I believe, not because of the number and duration of the stories, but because of the prominence of the signatories. Drrll (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "innuendo" immediately springs to my mind. You want to inform people that these signatories signed on to "something" without telling them what that "something" is. Of course the implication is that the signatories agree with the preceding sentence which is "Some organizations on the list have disputed the hate group label as being part of an SPLC "liberal agenda." The problem is, however, that what the signatories signed off on is entirely positive and does not mention the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a point. I'm divided on my opinion of this as to whether it makes WEIGHT given its transitory nature. I'll go with whatever consensus there is on it, but we have to be conservative as Tom says regarding what we say they signed onto. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Even taking the view that the signatories signed off onto only the "we, the undersigned" portion (which is the distinct minority viewpoint among reliable sources), all of the sources agree that whatever they signed off on was directly targeted at the SPLC. As far as the implication that what they signed off on was in regard to "Some on the list...'liberal agenda'", that can be fixed by rewording and by placing the pre-letter WaPo reference after the characterization of the SPLC and before mention of the letter. Actually the "as being part of an SPLC 'liberal agenda'" text comes from WP:RSN and as far as I can tell, doesn't originate from any reliable sources, so that needs rewording as well. How about:

In November 2010 the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that it says propagate falsehoods about LGBT people "that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities" and engage in "groundless name-calling." Some organizations on the list have disputed the hate group label, including the Family Research Council, which characterized the designation as a political attack by a "liberal organization"[WaPo ref] and which published an open letter signed by soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, among others.

Drrll (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If there was any real change in the language you propose above, then I miss it. You still are trying to say that the signatories signed off on SOMETHING without saying WHAT that SOMETHING was. The implication is that they signed off on the actual specifics. If you don't say what they signed off on then it is irrelevant. If you do say what they signed off on, then you need to include both versions as well as the SPLC specific response to what they said. It is a violation of NPOV (as well as BLP) to include information in a manner to promote only one view. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The change was to clarify that the signatories didn't sign off onto "as being part of an SPLC 'liberal agenda.'" Without wading into the specifics, what is clear in either interpretation is that they signed off on a defense of the FRC. Changing that, and adding that the SPLC disputed the contents of the open letter:

In November 2010 the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that it says propagate falsehoods about LGBT people "that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities" and engage in "groundless name-calling." Some organizations on the list have disputed the hate group label, including the Family Research Council, which characterized the designation as a political attack by a "liberal organization"[WaPo ref] and which published an open letter defending itself, signed by soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, among others. The SPLC disputed the contents of the letter.

Drrll (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Any opinions on the proposed text above? Drrll (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Same objections as before -- you have not made any significant changes. You fail to describe WHAT the signatories actually signed off on and continue to imply that they signed off on the entire ad when all they signed off on was a call for debate. Likewise, the SPLC denial, which DOES address the specifics of what the signatories signed off, should be included. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, even though all reliable sources but one demonstrate that the signatories signed off on more than the short statement, I'll just include that portion:

In November 2010 the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that it says propagate falsehoods about LGBT people "that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities" and engage in "groundless name-calling." Some organizations on the list have disputed the hate group label, including the Family Research Council, which characterized the designation as a political attack by a "liberal organization". Soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and some other public officials signed a statement that expressed solidarity with the FRC and defended its right to exercise the First Amendment. The SPLC disputed that it was seeking to infringe on the free speech rights of the organizations it designated as hate groups.

Drrll (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not retracted any of my previous objections. The statement that Boehner et al signed does not mention the SPLC. They expressed solidarity with the FRC only on very general goals and did not even mention the SPLC -- it doesn't belong in this article. There still is not a consensus to mention ANYTHING relating to the FRE in this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

PS The recent edit by an IP to include this info as well as much more on another organization shows why we need to be careful about opening the flood gates to discussions of specific hate groups. We don't need to use this article as a forum for every hate group's supporters to make their case, especially since the vast majority of the listings are not controversial. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the IP editor referenced above. My recent edit (which I made before my attention was drawn to this discussion) was not intended to "use this article as a forum for every hate group's supporters to make their case." Rather, the purpose was to address a glaring omission in this article. The SPLC's decision to make a broad attack on the Christian Right by declaring many mainstream Christian advocacy groups to be hateful and/or anti-gay is quite notable (as demonstrated by the many reliable sources on the subject and the response by high-level elected officials). Also, it is interesting to note that editors have been quick to add the hate/anti-gay designation to the Wikipedia pages of the respective Christian groups that were named, while the discussion about whether to include the subject on this page has gone on for weeks. I would respectfully urge the editors to reach a conclusion and insert language on this topic into the article. Responses made by Family Research Council and other organizations that are at least as well-known nationally as SPLC should also be included for NPOV purposes; the SPLC's decision was controversial, and its controversial nature should be fairly and objectively reflected in the text of the article. Thank you.184.74.22.161 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What we really need is for you to list the reliable sources here. I think one concern may be bloating of this article with the infinite pool of controversy. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Reliable sources on the SPLC designations:

Reliable sources on conservative backlash:

[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232421] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ::::::184.74.22.161 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, your previous response noted that I didn't say what they signed off on--I changed it to say what they signed off on. Your previous response said that I implied that they signed off on everything in the letter--I change that to make it clear (even though the consensus from sources, including the SPLC is that they signed off on more). Your previous response said I didn't include the SPLC's response--I added that. I addressed every point. The language I used to say what they signed off on tracks very closely to the small section that is quoted in the Slate source. Sorry, but EVERY source notes that what Boehner, etc. signed off on was directed at the SPLC, including the SPLC, and WP goes by reliable sources. There is a lot a support for a least mentioning the prominent signatories.

The IP's added text was too long and he didn't come here to discuss it first (it was good to see him join in on the discussion later, and he added some good sources such as Fox News and Pew). As you said, the vast majority of groups designated as hate groups are not controversial to begin with, plus there are criteria for limiting what groups go in, such as prominence of the organization, whether reliable secondary sources discuss the group's response, whether the group has received support from noteworthy supporters, and whether the SPLC makes a noteworthy response (which it did in the FRC's case with a lengthy response by Mark Potok himself). Drrll (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Any response, Tom, or does anyone else want to comment on my latest proposal? Drrll (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me now, Drrll, but I'm not the one you have to convince. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I made it clear that I opposed your most recent proposal. You seem to think that simply because I don't repeat every objection I've raised before with your other proposals that those objections have gone away. FRC was referenced in the article, if you remember, and was removed by consensus. The issue was reopened based on a flurry of news reports. Those reports soon passed. From WP:UNDUE "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." This FRC issue is simply not significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article which is, after all, about the SPLC not the FRC, which is just one of over 900 designated hate groups.

All of your proposals for inclusion give undue weight to the FRC position in that you only present a cursory summary of the SPLC analysis of such gay bashing groups. They also give undue weight to one type of hate group analysis by the SPLC -- if we go in depth on one aspect we should go into similar analysis for the Nazi's, white supremacists, anti-immigrants, holocaust deniers, etc. By including only one such analysis you imply that the FRC is a typical circumstance when in fact it isn't. As you admit, most hate classifications are not controversial and the article should reflect that by not over-emphasizing one instance that some folks may find to be controversial.

From WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." The view of the FRC that SPLC designations are simply a "political attack by a 'liberal organization'" is simply not a widely reported view by reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the North Shoreman's point that the notion of including the back-and-forth between between the SPLC and the FRC is "based on a flurry of news reports" that "soon passed," that standard of sourcing would put it far ahead of much of what is currently in the article. The subtopic "Opposition to Arizona illegal immigration measures," for example, is sourced entirely by an SPLC news bulletin. Apparently, no prominent news agency cared much about the SPLC's stand on that topic. The whole "Education" section of the article is pretty much "self-sourced" by the SPLC. All but the opening sentence of the substantial "Criticism of overheated rhetoric" subsection comes either from the SPLC itself or from David Horowitz's not too well known FrontLine magazine. This back-and-forth, moreover, was far less publicized than the one between the SPLC and the FRC. Compared to these examples and others currently in the article the sourcing for the Family Research Council material is impressively rich.

As for the North Shoreman's objection that Drrll's proposal "give(s) undue weight to the FRC position in that (it) present(s) a cursory summary of the SPLC analysis of such gay bashing groups," it seems to me that Drrll's proposal admirably manages to concisely state the essence of the SPLC's rationale for categorizing the FRC as a hate group. Whatever else the North Shoreman or other editors would add to Drrll's language that the SPLC considers the FRC to be among those groups who "propagate falsehoods about LGBT people 'that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities' and who 'engage in groundless name-calling,'" they are free to propose it.

The North Shoreman's further objection, that including the material on the FRC would "give undue weight to one type of hate group analysis by the SPLC" (as opposed to other types of hate group analyses) is hard to take seriously. Readers (likely minuscule in number) who are genuinely interested in each SPLC standard for each category of hate group are free to consult the SPLC's website. The news worthiness of the of the SPLC labeling as a hate group an organization described as "an influential Washington-based advocacy group by the LA Times and as "perhaps the most prominent voice in conservative social politics" by AlterNet does not require Wikipedia to present the SPLC's rationale for including the Klan, the Nazis, and the Westboro Baptist Church on the hate group list.

Finally, the fact that the Washington Post saw fit to print the basic FRC objection to its hate group listing, easily frees Wikipedia to do the same. Moreover, the FRC's take on the listing is likely shared by at least a few million folks around the country. This isn't some tiny minority viewpoint. The entire back-and-forth between the SPLC and the FRC is probably the most publicized event that the SPLC has been involved in during the last several years. More newsworthy, even, than its extremely low grades from charity raters. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of your reply is off topic. The bottom line is still that the only substance of the proposed language is that the FRC doesn't like being called a hate group. Simply because a few reliable sources pick up this denial does not mean that any of these sources share that view.

The news worthiness of the denial is reflected in the fact that the FRC felt it necessary to run a paid advertisement to make its claim. The news coverage would have been even less without the FRC buying attention. Far from being, as you claim, that this "is probably the most publicized event that the SPLC has been involved in during the last several years", the story ran for a few days and disappeared. On a daily basis you can count on the SPLC being quoted somewhere regarding issues totally unrelated to the FRC. News organizations actively seek out the SPLC's opinions and research.

Much is made by Drrl of the rather bland general endorsement of the FRC by a few politicians of the GOP -- an endorsement that does not even mention the SPLC. Like the advertisement, endorsements can be bought. This article [34] clearly shows the political nature of the FRC -- $270,417 in campaign contributions made with 98% going to Republicans.

This whole tempest in a teapot is simply another hate group whining about being held responsible for its irresponsible and derogatory language. The same arguments about receiving support from politicians like Robert Barr, Haley Barbour, and Trent Lott could have been made a decade or so ago by the Council of Conservative Citizens -- of course that changed when their racist agenda was exposed by the SPLC and others. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as news coverage, there actually were two separate events that were reported about the SPLC and the various groups over a period of about a month--in November when the SPLC designated them as hate groups and in December with the signing of the statement. Note that the WP:UNDUE language you quote about news events talks about proportionality. For a WP article the size of the SPLC's and which devotes 4 paragraphs to Tolerance.org and an enormous paragraph to David Horowitz, the proposed text is not that big. Also note that a similar amount of text is devoted to the SPLC's side as is devoted to the other organizations' side.

Do you have any evidence of your charge that Boehner's, et al endorsements were bought? The source you provided doesn't show campaign contributions to Boehner, Cantor, Pawlenty, or Jindal. As far as "another hate group whining about being held responsible for its ireresponsible and derogatory language", that is an example of how that the SPLC so "casually" labels organizations as hate groups. It claims that these groups engage in "groundless name-calling," yet for the FRC and several other groups provides zero examples of such name-calling.

The Council of Conservative Citizens case is completely different. Those public officials associated with the group before the SPLC and others scrutinized them. They then distanced themselves from the group after that happened. In the case of the FRC, etc the prominent public officials supported the groups after the SPLC Intelligence Report article on them. Drrll (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing casual about labeling the type of gay bashing that the FRC engages in as hate speech. Since we're talking about the CCC, perhaps we should mention FRC leader and spokesperson Tony Perkins' links with that organization. From this [[35]] SPLC link"

Perkins has his own unusual history. In 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican State Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins of Louisiana, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chieftain David Duke. The campaign was fined $3,000 (reduced from $82,500) after Perkins and Jenkins filed false disclosure forms in a bid to hide the link to Duke. Five years later, on May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.” Perkins claimed not to know the group’s ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation. In 1999, after Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was embroiled in a national scandal over his ties to the group, GOP chairman Jim Nicholson urged Republicans to quit the CCC because of its “racist views.” That statement and the nationally publicized Lott controversy came two years before Perkins’ 2001 speech.

The same article, contrary to your claim, also points out that the FRC does engage in "name-calling". For example:

Headed since 2003 by former Louisiana State Rep. Tony Perkins, the FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relies on the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries (see above for both), along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”

That’s the least of it. In a 1999 publication (Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys) that has since disappeared from its website, the FRC claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order,” according to unrefuted research by AMERICAblog. The same publication argued that “homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.” FRC offered no evidence for these remarkable assertions, and has never publicly retracted the allegations.

Such language is more than just scientifically inaccurate -- it is hate speech. If we do discuss the FRC in the article, we need to allow the reader to determine exactly how hateful that speech is.

You state."For a WP article the size of the SPLC's and which devotes 4 paragraphs to Tolerance.org and an enormous paragraph to David Horowitz, the proposed text is not that big." In fact, the largest part of the SPLC's activities and budget are dedicated to its Teaching Tolerance programs. If anything, that section could be expanded. As far as Horowitz, I have no idea why that is in the article, but I imagine it originated from the anti-SPLC cadre of editors -- it should be removed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia issue of whether or not the brief proposed mention of the back-and-forth between the SPLC and the FRC is mentioned in the article should have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an editor regards either group as a fine bunch of fellows (and gals). The issue is whether or not these events are prominently reported by reliable sources. I don't like them is not a Wikipedia policy. Again, I would ask the North Shoreman to provide us with any undertaking by the SPLC in the past several years which has received any greater coverage from reliable sources than its naming of the FRC as a hate group. To pretend that this was no different in its notability than any of the other 900 or so listings is asinine. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not the FRC were a fine bunch of fellows (and gals) was raised by your teammate when he claimed "that is an example of how that the SPLC so "casually" labels organizations as hate groups." Maybe in your crowd gay bashing is done "casually" -- all the more reason why this article should not just "casually" accept your POV and imply that the SPLC's differences with the FRC is only a matter of science.

It is interesting how you make a claim, without any factual support, and then expect others to produce facts to rebut it. The phrase "prominently reported by reliable sources" certainly could be proved objectively if it were true, but the fact of the matter is that a single mention of something in a half dozen or so newspapers over a very short period of time just doesn't qualify as prominent. Let me repeat what I said earlier regarding this unsupported prominence claim:

Specific to the ad issue, I went thirteen pages deep at Google News Search looking for a combo of "John Boehner" and "Southern Poverty Law Center." Virtually all of the references are to non-reliable sources. Notably absent were ANY newspapers other than the Iowa one, any television networks other than FOX, any reliable news websites other than the couple mentioned, and any local television. With all of the reliable sources for news available, the fact that only a very, very few even covered the ad strongly suggests that wikipedia should not cover the ad.

The bottom line is still that the only "news" in the entire story is that another hate group is whining about being called a hate group. A single mention of this whining in the Washington Post does not make this the news story of the year as you would like to have us think. You still haven't explained why if this is such a big, giant news story the FRC had to buy an advertisement in order to get its message out. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we might need some third-party involvement here, since the discussion is still going on and there is no resolution. It is one thing to argue that the FRC ad is not notable. It is quite another to argue that the designation of the FRC and other Christian organizations as hate groups is not notable, or that 23 members of Congress and four governors signing a petition in opposition to the SPLC's action is not notable (see [36]). I would challenge those who are spending such time and effort opposing the inclusion of this information to visit the Wikipedia pages of those Christian organizations labeled as hate groups and to remove any information on that designation from those pages on the grounds that it is not notable. If it's notable for them, it's notable for the SPLC. Otherwise, we would be using a double standard for organizations' Wikipedia pages depending on the ideological positioning and political correctness of those organizations. We wouldn't want to do that!!! :) And Badmintonhist has listed a number of other sections of the article that are, at the very least, flirting with being improperly sourced, and which have received much less furor from editors concerned about adherence to Wikipedia policy.

In response to Tom's question as to why the FRC had to take out an ad to get its message out: First of all, I provided a whole bunch of sources that covered this issue, including Fox News (if that even counts as a reliable source to oh-so-lefty Wikipedians). So there was mainstream coverage. Second, mainstream news organizations other than Fox News tend not to pay much attention to the "messages" of conservative Christian organizations. So the fact that FRC placed an ad may say more about its perception of media bias than it does about its perception of the notability of the story. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much... :)

We ought to reach consensus on at least mentioning this controversy on the page. This has gone on far too long, and there really is no good reason not to include it. Badmintonhist is to be commended for pursuing the issue in spite of the repeated attempts at brushoffs.184.74.22.161 (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We did reach consensus on mentioning the FRC in the article -- the consensus was to delete it. Here is what was in the article prior to December 19:

Organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object to this characterization:

The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) argue that the SPLC's claim that the CofCC is tied to white supremacists is inaccurate.[85] Gordon Lee Baum, chief executive of the CofCC, said that many of the specific allegations were wrong, including allegations that he used the word "nigger" and that he attempted to recruit a leader of the fascist Aryan Nations.[85]

In a Winter 2010 Intelligence Report article, the SPLC labeled the Family Research Council as a hate group for putting out "demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities." The law center highlighted comments by Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the FRC, who told MSNBC host Chris Matthews that gay behavior should be outlawed. Council President Tony Perkins called the designation a political attack by a "liberal organization".[86]

The discussion on this is in Archive 7 in the section "Issue with hategroup listing section". This current discussion, as you acknowledge, has totally failed to generate interest enough to reconsider a consensus decision that was made little over a month ago. Indeed, this discussion started just three days after the previous consensus was reached.

Your argument that because the SPLC is mentioned on the wikipedia articles on the gay bashing groups then it should be mentioned here ("If it's notable for them, it's notable for the SPLC") is totally off base. There are over forty organizations with wikipedia articles that are labelled as hate groups by the SPLC. By your logic, all of them should be treated individually in this article.

No, not at all. By my logic, if this controversy is significant and notable enough to be mentioned on those organizations' pages, it is significant and notable enough to be mentioned on the SPLC's page.184.74.22.161 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your argue that it is media bias that caused the paid advertisement to receive such limited coverage. Be that as it may, wikipedia policy treats these mainstream news outlets that overwhelmingly ignored the story as reliable sources. A few mentions of the issue over a few days does not warrant treating the FRC denials any more significant than any of the other 900+ organizations that don't like being called hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I was only responding to your snarky question about why the FRC took out an ad. And there ARE reliable sources on this controversy which I have listed above. Your argument about the FRC being no more significant than "any of the other 900+ organizations that don't like being called hate groups" is absurd in that it ignores the fact that FRC is a much larger, more prominent, and more mainstream organization than the others listed by SPLC as hate groups.184.74.22.161 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, in all that you quoted from the Intelligence Report about the FRC, there may have been objectionable things said about gays, but there was no name-calling, even though the SPLC said that there was by those groups. If the Teaching Tolerance program is as significant as you describe it, then by all means expand it. As Badmintonhist pointed out, the sourcing for the controversy over the FRC, etc. is far better than much of what's in the SPLC article now.

Even though the FRC is the most prominent of the groups designated as hate groups in November by the SPLC (most prominent among all groups designated?), what do you think about removing all specific mention of the FRC from the proposed text and instead generalizing it to the group of organizations that the SPLC recently designated? Most of the sources that mention the FRC also mention the other organizations, as does the statement signed by Boehner, etc:

In November 2010 the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that it says propagate falsehoods about LGBT people "that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities" and engage in "groundless name-calling." Some groups on the list have disputed the hate group label. Soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, among other public officials, signed a statement that expressed solidarity with the organizations and defended their right to exercise the First Amendment. The SPLC disputed that it was seeking to infringe on the free speech rights of those groups.

Drrll (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Have to disagree, in part, with my "teammate" Drrll. I think that the the Family Research Council should be mentioned by name or, at least, mentioned along with certain other fairly prominent organizations which the SPLC has designated as hate groups. The Federation for American Immigration Reform comes to mind (this group not, of course, in the context of "gay bashing"). The North Shoreman points to the open letter signed by Boehner and others as not getting big press coverage, however this was the second round of stories involving the SPLC and the FRC. The first round, just after the SPLC designated the FRC as a hate group was covered by the Washington Post, the Washington Times, MSNBC, and Fox News, among other media outlets. The FRC's Tony Perkins and the SPLC's Mark Potok appeared together on Chris Matthews's Hardball. The SPLC has devoted several articles in its online publications to the FRC's reaction to the hate group designation. This alone, I would think, would satisfy the North Shoreman who seems to have preferred Wikipedia's article on the SPLC when it was basically written by the SPLC. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Hate group angry about being called a hate group. In other news, water still wet." //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Liberals trying to paint conservative Christians as bigots, and then whitewashing a supposedly unbiased encyclopedia from any mention of the backlash. In other words, water still wet."184.74.22.161 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

By Blaxthos's implicit reasoning Wikipedia would be free to report any incidence of the SPLC naming an organization a hate group but would never be free to report the response of the group so named. How convenient! 14:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Badmintonhist (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I now understand that there was a prior consensus reached not to mention this controversy. Obviously, there is no consensus now. I would respectfully suggest that the prior consensus was totally off base and that the issue should continue to be revisited--with third-party involvement if necessary.184.74.22.161 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that "Wikipedia would be free to report any incidence of the SPLC naming an organization a hate group but would never be free to report the response of the group so named." This debate is over whether or not to list specific organizations by name at all. IF WE DECIDE TO INCLUDE SPECIFIC GROUPS, then the issue would be how detailed the SPLC description of its rationale should be.

As I've said before, the pro-FRC action wants a very vague summary of the SPLC position, limiting it to opposition to the non-scientific positions of the designated hate groups. This is entirely inadequate since it is the manner in which the non-scientific information is proselytized by the FRC and others that qualifies them as a hate group. They seem to want a very weak and distorted version of the SPLC position placed in the article simply so they can emphasize the rebuttal -- a rebuttal that fails to address the actual issues raised by the SPLC.

This is not an issue of liberals "paint[ing] conservative Christians as bigots." The fact that someone may in good faith believe such nonsense, however, means that the article needs to be clear what the SPLC actually does base its determination on. Christians then can then decide whether calls to outlaw homosexuality, as Peter Sprigg of the FRC has advocated, are hate speech or simply an expression of Christian values. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that I would call the listing of the Family Research Council as a hate group in this article a "pro-FRC action." A while back on this thread I said "whatever else the North Shoreman or other editors would add to (the SPLC's rationale for labeling the FRC as a hate group) they are free to propose it." No suggestions were forthcoming. So much for wanting "a very vague summary of the SPLC position." Badmintonhist (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made it clear that my first choice is the status quo. Drrl has made numerous proposals that refuse to budge from the limited description. I don't intend to "bargain against myself" by moving off my main position when I see no movement on your side. If you "anti-SPLC" (is that better?) folks want movement, address my concern and present language that you can live with.

It also seems clear that on the separate issue of including the paid advertisement that there is agreement that, as a separate issue, it received little coverage by reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-SPLC," perhaps, only when measured against the North Shoreman's "at least as royalist as the king" defense of any and all things SPLC. I'm reminded of Sean Hannity's knee-jerk defense of any and all things Republican and the MSNBC punditry's attacks on any and all things Republican. I've noted in those cases that were a high level paid Republican operative to to take Hannity's place he (she) would probably be less partisan than Hannity because he (she) would probably feel some constraint against being totally unfair to Democrats. Similarly, any Democratic operative who took, say, Olbermann's place for a night or two would be embarrassed to be as vituperatively anti-Republican as Olby. Back to substance, there has been appreciable movement on "our" side, North Shoreman. In case you didn't notice, you alluded to one at the end of your last statement. You seem to be the bargainer moving in circles here. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, have you compared the most recent proposals with what I originally proposed? I have made numerous concessions to you in various changes since then. Have you made any concessions? If you don't propose anything, you can keep taking the position that what Badmintonhist and I propose is never good enough. Also, there has been sufficient coverage of the statement from Fox News to The Huffington Post to the SPLC itself, among others. Drrll (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Drrll, thanks for keeping this discussion going. I have made minor suggested tweaks and updates to one of your recent proposals, and I have added sources. Here it is:

In November 2010 the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that it says propagate falsehoods about LGBT people "that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities" and engage in "groundless name-calling."^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Some organizations on the list have disputed the hate group label, and the Family Research Council has characterized the designation as a political attack on it by a "liberal organization";^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] in response to the controversy, FRC received a statement of support from soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner, then-Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and several other public officials.^[11]^[12]^[13]

To those who have spoken against the inclusion of this information on this page: I would ask that you give good-faith, serious consideration to this proposal. The proposed sentences are amply sourced, rendering the arguments against inclusion specious if they are based on notability and sources grounds. Leaning on the results of a prior consensus just doesn't cut it when the consensus is as obviously wrong as it is here. It also does not advance the purposes of this encyclopedia. If you find this proposal to be inadequate, please edit in good faith by making alterations that you believe would render it acceptable--rather than finding tendentious reasons to continue opposing it altogether. Also, to those who have taken the position that this controversy should not be mentioned on the grounds that it is not notable enough and/or lacks reliable sources, I would respectfully suggest that you visit the FRC's Wikipedia page, where this same "non-notable," "not-adequately sourced" information has been given an entire paragraph in the lede (in spite of the fact that FRC is arguably a more prominent national organization than the SPLC is). I would ask that you be consistent by opposing the inclusion of this controversy on the FRC page as well.

Bottom line: This situation is notable enough that it belongs on the FRC Wikipedia page and the SPLC Wikipedia page, but it does not belong in the lede on either. I have addressed the FRC issues on the FRC page, and I am addressing the SPLC issue here. I am giving this situation one more try before tagging the page as unbalanced and/or POV.184.74.22.161 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, he comparisons between this page and the FRC page are irrelevant. The FRC is one of over 900 different groups labeled as hate groups. No case has been made that the FRC is more significant than any of the other groups. After an initial flurry of activity in some news articles, the issue is rarely discussed in reliable news sources.

As I've also said before, the summary of the SPLC position is not adequate. As deplorable as the non-scientific arguments advanced by the FRC are, this is not the reason that the FRC was labeled a hate group -- it s the hateful nature of the presentations of the non-scientific arguments that need to be described.

As I've also said before, the statement that Boehner et al signed did not even mention the SPLC. The statement received even less coverage than the original SPLC classification of the FRC as a hate group and the FRC response. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Very curious line of argument here. According to the North Shoreman "It is the hateful nature of the (FRC's) non-scientific arguments that need to be described." Whereupon the North Shoreman declines to have Wikipedia describe the arguments that need to be described. ???

Badmintonhist (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the SPLC -- its purpose is primarily to write about the SPLC and its views should be given priority It's purpose is not to rehash in detail debates on specific subject matter -- the FRC denial of SPLC can be noted without hauling out their whole hateful agenda. Rather than having a debate over how much of each side to put in the article, my preferred course remains to leave out any discussion of specific hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Gosh I'm lost again. The FRC denial of the SPLC can be noted without hauling out their whole hateful agenda. But the North Shoreman apparently doesn't want the FRC denial of the SPLC in any form in the article. Did the North Shoreman mean noted in the article on the FRC? I'm confused. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see it now. The North Shoreman must have meant that " the FRC denial of the SPLC cannot (rather than can) be noted without hauling out their (the FRC's, I presume) whole hateful agenda." No, if this is what the North Shoreman is trying to say I would have to disagree. Whether that agenda is "hateful" or not is, of course, quite subjective. I daresay that its members probably don't think that the Family Research Council has a "hateful agenda." However as to the main point, whether or not the whole FRC "agenda" (however one cares to describe it) needs to be included if we bring up the matter of the SPLC's categorization of the FRC as a hate group and the FRC's response, I see no reason to go into great detail. Any reader of the SPLC article who wants to know more about the FRC's "agenda" can consult the Wiki article on the FRC. Any reader of the FRC article who wants to know more about about the SPLC's agenda can consult the Wiki article on SPLC. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I would prefer to have you on board with the language that's included, but that's never going to happen if you don't make your own proposal. If you don't propose anything, I support going ahead and adding material to the article since we currently have three editors for it and one against it and since the discussion has gone on for so long. Drrll (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh, no, most editors don;t participate in the discussion as it is rehashing the same stuff over and over again. So, for the record, I think the addition is not done. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to hear your rationale for keeping the material out of the SPLC article, Kim. No, it wasn't a HUGE news story, but it was substantial and probably garnered more coverage, some of it by reliable sources, than anything that the SPLC has done in quite a few years. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your numbers are pretty off. Considering prior consensus and others who have objected to the inclusion of this. Dave Dial (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this carcass is leather -- there is no consensus for inclusion, and the intent here seems to be to continue the debate ad infinitum until everyone else gives up. Time to archive this thread and move on. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, you could make the case that some editors are just holding off on making proposals until the other side gives up. Drrll (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Editors against inclusion don't have to make proposals. The earlier compromise was to include a summary line of general objections. Recent discussion in a previous thread against singling out specific groups even includes one of Drrll's ideological cohorts, Niteshift36, who objected only six weeks ago. I agree this current thread has gone on too long and the anon-IP's threat of using the {unbalanced} tag is highly inappropriate. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What is inappropriate is the effort by some efforts to sanitize this article to prevent any mention of the controversy created by SPLC in regard to its recent hate group listings. The absence of that information renders the article unbalanced and makes third-party intervention appropriate.184.74.22.161 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of making such remarkably false accusations, why don't you review the earlier compromise discussed in talkpage archives. Article tags like {bias} and {unbalanced} are not to be used as bartering chips. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. I think the article is unbalanced and POV the way it is now, and that several editors are intent on keeping it that way. If that were not the case, there would not be pages and pages of strained attempts to keep this obviously-relevant information from being mentioned. This is not even a close call. Wake up, folks!184.74.22.161 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

PrBeacon hit the nail right on the head here, IPs demands are inappropriate. _WM¹ 07:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lot of chatter following the paragraph I proposed a few days ago, but very few actual responses to it and/or efforts to improve it. I will wait a few more days to see if there is any substantive feedback.184.74.22.161 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also commend other editors to the recent discussion on the Family Research Council page, which has been much more reasonable and productive than the discussion on this page and has many points that are quite relevant to the discussion here. One editor pointed out that it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to invoke a prior consensus and attempt to shut down all discussion when (a) that consensus is questionable at best; and (b) there is clearly no consensus now.184.74.22.161 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reporting on the SPLC in the Washington Times

Hi everyone,

(See an old discussion, Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 3#Reporting on the SPLC in the Washington Post.)

I disagree with BozellHammer's edit summary,

No, we do not use the Wash Times as a RS on what is and is not "liberal."

I believe we can use the Washington Times as a RS to classify an organization as liberal.

However, in this case, the Washington Times did not classify SPLC as liberal. Here is the relevant paragraph from the article: (Bold added by me.)

SPLC was founded in 1971 as a law firm to handle anti-discrimination cases and won notice for fighting against the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups. But conservatives say the group has become nothing more than a liberal money-raising machine, and even some liberals have accused it of financial mismanagement and misleading fundraising practices.

The Washington Times is not stating a fact, "the group is a liberal money-raising machine". Instead it is stating a related opinion, "conservatives say the group is a liberal money-raising machine".

I call this process "reification". We use it all in the time in Wikipedia articles. Instead of saying, "The FRC is a hate group", we say "The SPLC considers FRC to be a hate group". It changes a statement of fact to a statement of opinion.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

While that Washington Times reference may not classify the SPLC as liberal, plenty of reliable sources do, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, and msnbc.com. I believe that there is sufficient reliable sourcing to describe the SPLC as liberal. Plenty of conservative groups have that descriptor in their WP articles, including the FRC. Drrll (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they state it as a fact that would be fine, but when they quote an opinion like the Washington Post article, it is not valid to use as a label. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Post article, like the others I listed do call the SPLC liberal. They aren't quoting the opinion of others. Drrll (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What article(s)? Where are the links? -PrBeacon (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are the links to the Washington Post and New York Times articles. Drrll (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We must distinguish between facts and opinions published in reliable sources. In order to present opinions as facts, we need sources that they represent a consensus view. In order to mention the opinion at all, we need to establish that it is notable. One of your articles that is over 10 years old. Please do not Google-search for descriptions that match your POV but find good sources about the SPLC are represent them correctly. TFD (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To the The Four Deuces, could you please rephrase, or explain precisely what you mean, when you say "we need sources that they represent a consensus view." Badmintonhist (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD, the various sources I mention are news stories that describe the SPLC as liberal. Do you support keeping "conservative" in the opening sentences of such groups as the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defense Fund, FreedomWorks, and the American Enterprise Institute (which, by the way is the only group that has "conservative" sourced)? Drrll (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You have done this before - you Google mine for quotes that back up you viewpoint. Anyone can do that. A neutral editor finds the best sources and represents what they say. Personally though I would support removal of the term "conservative" if it is just based on the same type of sources. TFD (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I used Lexis-Nexis to find the numerous news stories where the SPLC is described as "liberal." Certainly The New York Times and The Washington Post articles are among the best sources. At a minimum, it should be stated that the SPLC is described as liberal by various news organizations (and I'm most definitely not referring to conservative sources). Drrll (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Drrll, the database used is not the important part here, it is the fact that you are searching for a particular point and using only those sources that have been cherry picked by your choice of search terms. This is entirely contrary to the principle of NPOV, as we are supposed to let the sources write the article without editorializing or imposing our individual points of view, whatsoever they may be. Misusing sources in this way is highly dishonest, and needs to stop. Now.

Kevinkor2, that is not what wikt:reification means, though attributing a point of view can be a way of increasing the NPOV-metric of an article.

We should not cite The Washington Times for anything. They are not a real news source and should be given no weight. The Washington Post is fine, though. 98.180.37.93 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Washington Times is a unificationalist shrill paper and is not in any way reliable. _WikiMan^One 22:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not cherry-picking when a large percentage of the top news organizations describe the SPLC as "liberal." Whenever their ideology is discussed in news reports, it's almost always said that they are "liberal" or at least "left-leaning."

The Washington Times may not come close to the reputation of The New Times, but it does as far as amount of bias present in its news reporting. I'd be fascinated to see the outcome of an inquiry on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as to whether The Washington Times is a reliable source for its news reporting. Drrll (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Times not a reliable source for news? Would that be cherry dropping? Badmintonhist (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too quickly, could it possibly go through the Noticeboard like Drrll suggested? I'm just not that comfortable with newspapers which do stuff like described in this article.. in the Washington Post, but obviously mine is only one point of view and I could be completely off here. _WikiMan^One 01:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we need an instance of someone wanting to use it as a source and then someone objecting for it to go RSN. The Moon speech was creepy, but I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence that he has had any editorial influence there (except perhaps on reporting on the Unification Church?). Drrll (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Times is a reliable source for news. However opinions written in newspapers are not notable and therefore should not be used. Also, you should find a source that explains what it means by liberal. TFD (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Times is more reliable source for calling some group liberal than SPLC for calling some group so-called "hate group". But SPLC is used as source in most of Wikipedia articles about right-wing groups that SPLC ideologically opposes. --Dezidor (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What kind of source do you recommend for that? I assume you're not talking about a news source. Drrll (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As someone who lives in the DC area, most people that I know around here view the Times as the comedy shrill paper more than anything else. It's a paper subsidized by the moonies. _WikiMan^One 16:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps most of the people you know "support liberal causes," "watch MSNBC," and "hate Fox News and anything connected to it," so your sampling of opinion may be skewed, WikiManOne. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't even reply to the gist of my argument against the Times, that it is financed by a fringe religious group whose leader consider's it his spokesperson. It's a moonie business, what more do you need? Also, I don't see what fox news or msnbc have to do with anything here.. I would strongly oppose it if someone were to use Glenn Beck as a neutral source as well, if they use fox news reporting, it wouldn't be as bad. But your comment is off topic, Badmintonhist, who my friends are is none of your business and quite irrelevant to whether the Times is a reliable source. _WikiMan^One 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Times is not reliable at all. It is telling taht peoiple try to keep pushing this 'newspaper' as a reliable source. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, if we count the Washington Post as reliable, we should consider the Watchtower to be reliable. Witnesses are more mainstream than the moonies, imo. Heck, take any church's publication as reliable if we're using the Times as reliable. Even LifeNews.com! _WikiMan^One 17:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who originally brought your acquaintances into the discussion, WikiManOne, not I. Newspapers may be financed by all sorts dubious enterprises or, at least, enterprises that some people or other people regard as dubious. That's not the test. If the Washington Times publishes all sorts of falsehoods, that's another story. Tell us about it if they do. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between facts and opinions. The facts reported by the Washington Times are generally reliable. However the opinions expressed in the WT are not facts and must be attributed in line. Whether or not we report them depends on WP:WEIGHT. The opinions expressed are WP:FRINGE and therefore have no weight. TFD (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, did you even read the Washington Post article I provided? Also, if the "facts" reported by the Washington Times carry due weight, then we should be able to find the same facts in other newspapers that are reliable and not a moonie business. _WikiMan^One 17:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] is that enough? _WikiMan^One 17:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not especially compelling stuff, WikiManOne. The Moon speech is almost nine years old and obviously went against the grain of the people who actually report and edit at the Times. Your other examples are largely taken from partisan sources and don't really involve major stories any way. The CNN example involved Insight Magazine, not the Times. "Owned by the same company" doesn't mean that much. Incidentally The Christian Science Monitor, with the name of the founding Church right in its title, was a highly respected newspaper for years. Just think, "nutty" Christian Scientists. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, in either case, using the Times in an article on the SPLC is inappropriate given the barbs going both ways between the organizations. [42] [43] Both media matters, Think Progress and the SPLC are legitimate and valuable media watchdogs and their opinion on matters like this should be given due weight. [44] _WikiMan^One 18:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Washington Times is like no major city daily in America in the way that it wears its political heart on its sleeve," said the nation's leading journalistic watchdog, the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), in 1995. 'No major paper in America would dare be so partisan.'"

arb break

Sorry for some confusion: The source I was talking about was the Washington Times, but I refered to an earlier discussion about the Washington Post.

In our particular case,[45] there is no fact that needs to be supported by a reference to the Washington Times. :( I was looking to the future when commenting on the edit summary. ):

If/When in the future, there might be a fact that can be supported by a reference to the Washington Times, we can bring the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The WaPo and NYT sources only mention the 'liberal' label once each, with no explanation or further reporting on the implications. Neither of those articles discuss the supposed political agenda of the SPLC which Drrll is pushing for. So far I don't even think those sources are enough to even qualify the label in some way like "the Washington Post describes the SPLC as 'liberal' " because they don't. As TFD says, we need to see a consensus view of that opinion as fact, in RS and preferably of scholarly weight-- sound familiar? -- in order to pass WP:Due. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

How many arbitrary times does an article need to use the label? BTW, there are many other sources that describe them as "liberal." Do you support removing "conservative" from groups like the FRC, where it is used unqualified and unsourced as a fact in the opening words of the article? Drrll (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your bringing up other issues doesn't help this discussion. You didn't answer PrBeacon's argument which I am in full agreement with. Having a source describe an organization ONCE out of the hundreds of times they report on them is not reason to include that as a label of them. _WM^O 18:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The term 'arbitrary' seems fitting for those sources, though not in the way you probably mean. Feel free to provide additional sources for consideration but they must be more substantial about the 'liberal' label. Not suprisingly you continue to cast the FRC as politically parallel to the SPLC, which is clearly not the case. In fact the FRC's own website uses the 'conservative' label and it appears throughout the article with other sources so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find a third-party RS for the lead there. We can't say the same for SPLC. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The SPLC is at least as liberal as the FRC is conservative (just take a glance at the SPLC's "Hatewatch" blog). Where does the FRC call itself conservative on its website? It's not on their homepage or "About" page. "Conservative" may appear throughout the FRC article, but it is mostly unsourced Drrll (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Their newsletter is called Social Conservative, you can't possibly be arguing that they don't consider themselves conservative. Either way, the point is irrelevant. We're talking about the inclusion of Liberal for SPLC, not about the FRC. _WM^O 00:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is irrelevant. What is relevant is what reliable sources say and what's the WP standard, applied equally to all groups, for labeling groups. Drrll (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cherries, anyone? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a fan of consistency, eh? Drrll (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of your standards in consistency. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As in? What does Fox News have to do with anything? Drrll (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you know exactly what I am talking about. FNC criticism vs. MMfA criticism i.e. double standards. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

American Institute of Philanthropy

See [46] To make it easier, I'll copy it here: American Institute of Philanthropy is NOT WP:RS Redux

Found additional reference and updated material previously posted above here, in bold face font:

Studies of AIP's methods raise major concerns about the validity of the conclusions reached, and indicate it cannot be considered a reliable source. For one, AIP reviews only 500 charities, where Charity Navigator reviews over 5,400. How does AIP select the charities it reviews? Does it have a particular bias? There appear to be a large number of liberal groups on the AIP review list, along with a small number of pro-military groups.

Groups have been improperly categorized by AIP. For example, the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Fund was improperly categorized as a veterans service organization, despite the fact it is incorporated as an educatonal foundation whose purpose is to build and maintain the Veitnam Veteran’s Memorial in Washington, DC. VVMF was not organized to provide any services to veterans, is not a service organization, has never considered itself a service organization and, perhaps most importantly, it has never promoted itself as a service organization.[1]

AIP has been criticized by philanthropy experts for the validity of its evaluation methods and its conclusions. A study reported in the Stanford Social Innovation Review-an award--winning magazine covering successful strategies of nonprofits, foundations and socially responsible businesses--found that AIP and other questionable watchdog groups:

Rely too heavily on simple analyses and ratios derived from poor-quality financial data; Overemphasize financial efficiency while ignoring program effectiveness; and Do a poor job of conducting analyses in important qualitative areas, such as management strength, governance quality and organizational transparency.[2]

Specifically, this study found that a "gotcha" mentality and lack of transparency were AIP's biggest shortcomings, saying it was "difficult to understand what specific adjustments AIP made to a given nonprofit's ratings and why."[3] This study's authors concluded that, as donors make important decisions using potentially misleading data and analyses, the potential of groups such as AIP to do harm may outweigh their ability to inform.[4] They suggested:

A more effective nonprofit rating system should have at least four main components: improved financial data that is reviewed over three to five years and put in the context of narrowly defined peer cohorts; qualitative evaluation of the organization's intangibles in areas like brand, management quality, governance, and trnasparency; some review of the organization's program effectiveness, including both qualitative critique by objective experts in the field, and, where appropriate, "customer" feedback from either the donor or the aid recipient's perspective; and an opportunity for comment or response by the organization being rated.[5]

Please note the last two items in the above list. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 3:18 am, 17 May 2009, Sunday (1 year, 9 months, 8 days ago) (UTC+1)

A second study, Rating the Raters: An Assessment of Organizations and Publications that Rank/Rate Charitable Nonprofit Organizations, provides a separate, critical assessment of AIP and its counterparts. The major findings are:

Approaches and criteria are not the same. The methodologies and criteria used vary significantly among the various rating and ranking organizations. Evaluation criteria may not be readily apparent. Not all nonprofit rating and ranking groups make it easy for the donor to determine the evaluation method and criteria used. Evaluators may use criteria that are overly simplistic. Simple financial ratios and/or measurements that apply in some circumstances may not apply in others. Evaluators focus on financial measurements and overlook program effectiveness. *Financial "efficiency" is assessed by AIP and most third-party ratings groups as a percentage of contributions received. This tends to be their primary focus. Competence of the evaluator is critical and difficult to determine. It is virtually impossible for donors to determine the relevant credentials, expertise and experience of the rating organization's staff. At AIP, a small staff size and below-par salaries suggest that it does not employ enough individuals with the necessary credentials to provide quality, in-depth assessments. Evaluators often derive revenue as a result of their rating reports, creating an obvious conflict of interest and questioning whether these groups are motivated by the desire to inform potential donors or by the media attention that improves their revenue stream. AIP, for instance, charges a fee for a sample copy and requires membership as a condition for receiving its annual rating reports. AIP blatantly and egregiously ignores Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP), established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. These set stringent criteria for the treatment of fundraising and program education expenses. This deliberate disregard results in financial ratings by AIP that greatly vary from those issued by the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, which follows GAAP, and other groups like Charity Navigator, presenting an erroneous picture of a nonprofit organization's financial practices, especially its fundraising activities.[6]

^ Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. A Response to the American Institute of Philanthropy's Evaluation Of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. Washington, DC: Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. p. 1. [1] Accessed 4-12-09. ^ Lowell, Stephanie, Brian Trelstad, and Bill Meehan. “The Ratings Game: Evaluating the Three Groups that Rate the Charities.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. Summer 2005, pp. 39-45. 2 Accessed May 16, 2009. ^ "Lowell, Stephanie, Brian Trelstad, and Bill Meehan. “The Ratings Game: Evaluating the Three Groups that Rate the Charities.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. Summer 2005, p. 42. 3 Accessed May 16, 2009. ^ Lowell, Stephanie, Brian Trelstad, and Bill Meehan. “The Ratings Game: Evaluating the Three Groups that Rate the Charities.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. Summer 2005, pp. 39-45.4 Accessed May 16, 2009. ^ Lowell, Stephanie, Brian Trelstad, and Bill Meehan. “The Ratings Game: Evaluating the Three Groups that Rate the Charities.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. Summer 2005, p. 43. 5 Accessed May 16, 2009. ^ Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. A Response to the American Institute of Philanthropy's Evaluation Of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. Washington, DC: Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, p. 2-3. [6] Accessed 4-12-09.

Consequently, AIP cannot be considered WP:RS for purposes of the charity ratings in this article, which should be removed. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 7:16 pm, 16 May 2009, Saturday (1 year, 9 months, 9 days ago) (UTC+1)

We can remove this later if necessary. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether AIP is a reliable source or not, multiple reliable sources have reported on the AIP's ratings of the SPLC, so the point is moot. Drrll (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. You cannot base an edit about an organization with a discredited source. Especially in the lede. Dave Dial (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dave. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bothering y'all about the list again

So SPLC has done their yearly update and I with my little list am left panting in the dust. Would anyone like to lend a few minutes to see what groups have been added (other than Stop Islamization of America, which I've already got)? If everyone does two or three states, or one or two ideologies, it'll be finished much quicker than if I have to Google everything all over again. :) ? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC

(watch) There are issues regarding this page which has been discussed at length for months without a clear resolution. The issues are: (a) whether the Southern Poverty Law Center's 2010 designation of certain organizations as hate groups is notable enough to warrant inclusion on this page; (b) whether the responses of any of those groups--which were designated as hate groups due to their positions regarding homosexuality--to the designation are notable enough to warrant inclusion; (c) whether a letter of support signed by 23 members of Congress in reaction to the SPLC's designation of one particular organization is notable enough to warrant inclusion; and (d) whether the sources offered are reliable and notable enough to be cited.

I would appreciate comments and feedback, especially from those who have not been involved in the conversation to this point. Thank you.184.74.22.161 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: the original wording above was not in line with RFC guidelines -- "brief, neutral statement of the issue" -- so I've moved subjective argument and proposed wording to the discussion section below. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC) revised 28 Feb.

Also, previous discussions relevant to this RfC:

Most recently, Talk:SPLC (currently top thread above| (albeit improperly titled in non-neutral, judgemental fashion)
Talk:SPLC - archive, December 2010
RS/N archive, December 2010

If anyone is willing to give a concise summary of these threads here, I think that would be a start to providing recent context. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

References

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ [4]
^ [5]
^ [6]
^ [7]
^ [8]
^ [9]
^ [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232421]
^ [10]
^ [11]
^ [12]

Discussion

The issue appears to have been discussed and decided by some editors before other editors arrived on the scene, so to speak. Although there appears to have been an initial consensus not to include this material, there has been consistent and sustained opposition to that consensus by multiple editors since December. Multiple proposed solutions to the problem have been offered by various editors, but have not been satisfactory to those editors who supported the prior consensus. While I respect the process of the talk page, I strongly believe that the current consensus yields an article that is unbalanced.

I have proposed that the following language be added to the page in the section regarding "tracking of hate groups--hate group listings."

In November 2010 the SPLC designated as hate groups several organizations that it says propagate falsehoods about LGBT people "that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities" and engage in "groundless name-calling."^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Some organizations on the list have disputed the hate group label, and the Family Research Council has characterized the designation as a political attack on it by a "liberal organization";^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] in response to the controversy, FRC received a statement of support from soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner, then-Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and several other public officials.^[11]^[12]^[13]

I am open to altering or abbreviating the proposed language if there is a consensus that it would be beneficial to do so. I believe that the conversation up till now has yielded more heat than light. 184.74.22.161 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are over 900 groups designated by the SPLC as hate groups. In all the debates nobody has been able to make the case about why this single group should be emphasized over all of these others. There was a brief spike in interest at the time that these groups were classified as hate groups, but in the months since that time the issue has virtually disappeared from reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the SPLC position is inadequately expressed in the proposed language. This [47] describes the reasons behind the hate designations and this [48] provides details on the individual groups.

The proposed sentence:

"In November 2010 the SPLC designated as hate groups 'several organizations that it says propagate falsehoods about LGBT people "that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities" and engage in "groundless name-calling.'"

is totally inadequate to summarize the myriad of reasons why these groups were classified as hate groups. The proposed language is extremely POV by omitting the specifics -- specifics that the FRC has totally failed to rebut. The apparent intent is to serve up a softball presentation of the SPLC position so that the FRC can knock it out of the park. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Oppose. I have commented earlier, but the arguments why to not include it are not mentioed at all, so I would like to balance the RfC with the following. The SPLC lists something like 900 hate-groups, many have objected to the inclusion. Zeroing in on a few recent additions and their responses while leaving out the remainder is very much undue. The proposed language is pretty much only focused on one group that protested the claim, the Family Research Council. As such, adding the proposed language is a very obvous case of undue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Kim van der Linde's analysis. I would cite Wikipedia:Recentism in support of her opinion, also. The entire history of SPLC hate groups should be covered in a balanced manner that does not emphasize the recent period. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Approve . . . of a brief mention of the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council (and possibly its listing of a a few other groups) whose listing as a hate group has caused notable controversy. It is rather silly to pretend that the listing of organizations such as the FRC and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which have substantial mainstream political clout, is no more notable than the listing of some dozen member survivalist militia in Michigan. Moreover, I find it telling that some of the same editors who do want the FRC's designation as a hate group by the SPLC placed in the LEAD of the FRC article don't want it mentioned ANYWHERE in the the SPLC article. Could that be because they do not want any copy in the article that even indirectly questions the SPLC's hate group expertise? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, false equivalence won't do. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Approve. As Badminontohist pointed out, substantial reliably-sourced controversy resulted from their designation of conservative Christian organizations as hate groups, and these groups, unlike the myriad of others designated as hate groups are supported by a number of high-profile public figures. Drrll (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There are a whole bunch of groups that had a lot of press surrounding their hate-group designation. Singling one out of 900 is only POV pushing. I have said before, I think a generic hate-groups don;t like to be called hate-groups section should definitely be included. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Really, Kim? A "whole bunch" that had " a lot of press"? Your ally on this issue, the North Shoreman, contends that even the FRC did not receive enough press to merit a mention. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

From my initial research into this, I don't think that you'll find anywhere near the same amount of reliably-sourced press about reactions to designations by other groups than that for the FRC, etc. If it matters, we could speak generically about these groups (given that the initial reporting mentioned multiple groups and given that the high-profile supporters mentioned other groups) instead of singling out the FRC (even though the FRC is far more prominent than the other groups). Drrll (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per everyone above, and every previous RFC and discussion on this subject. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment. A Daily Caller story points out that while the SPLC designates several Christian organizations as hate groups, it doesn't designate any Muslim organizations that use similarly harsh language when discussing gays. Drrll (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment from anon IP

Is the SPLC paying for this advertisement?

It's almost amusing how the SPLC's cheerleaders have shot down every piece of criticism of this group so that the controversy section might lead one to believe the only quibble people had about them centers on their finances. There is a hard core of editors who act as gatekeepers and aren't the slightest bit interested in a balanced piece.

This joke of an article is the reason why Wikipedia is such a total waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.114.2 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." Please see WP:TALK for how to use talk pages effectively. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Slow edit war

Okay, I have seen this going back and fourth now a few times. I am sure it is in the wrong version, who cares, work it out here at the talk first. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As the current version excludes the BBB content which Badmintonhist does not like he has no incentive to properly discuss it. (See previous thread). We can only expect more stonewalling [49] based on his own personal interpretation of what the non-rating means. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, if he does not want to discuss it and the remaining editors reach consensus, I guess the text will be changed as soon as the consensus is reached. Having the page protected in your preferred version does not mean it stays that way as soon as the protecting is lifted, especially if consensus is reached.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC

On the contrary, I'm all ears. However, I do hope that any editor[BEACONBEACONBEACON] who objects to the substance of my edit will make a SUBSTANTIVE case that is worthy of my attention. I've got musical obligations to attend to. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, which should bode well for a swift and solid solution. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Awright, let's get started. Here's the sentence in question: Charity ranking organizations such as theBetter Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance do not score the SPLC. Here's the source of that sentence [50]. Now what is wrong with the sentence in question? First, as a relatively minor point, there are no "organizations such as" here. There is only the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance. True, an alliance does consist of multiple organizations, but as a unit here there is only one charity rater mentioned in the source, the Alliance.

More importantly, of course, the real "news" in this source isn't that the Alliance "(did) not score the SPLC," the real news is that SPLC "declined to be evaluated" {"despite written BBB Wise Giving Alliance requests"). Our Wikipedia article is not about the the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance, it is about the SPLC. Why would we possibly construct a sentence based on this source which simply says that a particular organization did not score the SPLC when we know from that source that said organization did not score the SPLC because the subject of our article declined to be evaluated.? A good case could be made that the source should stay in the article provided that the information be expanded to include the important part here -- the SPLC's unwillingness to be rated by the Alliance. My earlier edit to this effect was reverted by my fellow retiree, the North Shoreman. In effect, I offered him (and any other editor) a tacit compromise by removing both the sentence in question and its source, explaining that if the source were used at all, it needed to be used properly and not for an inherently deceptive "Alliance did not score the SPLC" statement. The North Shoreman apparently accepted this tacit compromise because he made no further edit on it. That's where our colleague PrBeacon came in. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we know why the SPLC did not want to be evaluated? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, though I suppose the Better BUSINESS Bureau's ferocious reputation for "gotcha" evaluations of of the BUSINESS community might have played a role. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we obviously would wade into original research territory there. Agreed? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

More like unoriginal humour. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, so what does it say that the SPLC declined to be evaluated? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't refusing to provide the requested info a refusal to be evaluated. What is misleading or factually incorrect with simply saying that the BBB was unable to rate them because they wouldn't provide the requested info? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all with that edit. The problem will be in the reaction of certain editors. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The real issue here is that as long as he thinks he is right about the content, Badmintonhist will revert three different editors and still feel justified in his actions. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we know 1) the BBB requested the documents. 2) SPLC did not provide them. 3) there was no rating because no documents were provided, therefore no ratings could be done. Is there anyone that disputes those 3 things? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I dispute the encyclopedic value of this information. You guys have no idea why documents weren't provided, and you're attempting to include this information to cast some sort of aspersion on the subject through implication. That's a pretty clear violation of WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no real case for synthesis here if a reliable source says that it did not evaluate the SPLC because the SPLC did not provide the information it requires. Are you actually questioning whether the Alliance's real reason for not evaluating the SPLC was the SPLC's failure to turn over the requested information, Blax? Whether including the "full story" as far as we know it from the source is unfairly prejudicial toward the SPLC is debatable, I suppose. That's why my edit to include neither the information nor the source is basically a compromise. We are not talking about earth-shattering information here in either case, but what exactly would be the point of merely including the obviously deceptive "charity rating organizations such as the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance do not score the SPLC."? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was not clear in communicating my point -- it has no encyclopedic value; it adds nothing to the article. Including the non-information ("they weren't rated"), especially when the source doesn't give any reasoning or response by the SPLC, serves one purpose -- to imply that there is some nefarious and shady reason behind it. Doing so, even implicitly, is synthesis and a violation of the neutral point of view. Hope this helps clarify. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to unnecessarily dwell on the things where we might disagree, Blax,I would agree that simply saying that the SPLC was not rated by the Wise Giving Alliance is rather vapid information (or "non-information," as you say). What you've just said, however, does invite the question as to why on March 1, at 7:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, you reverted my edit which eliminated this "non-information." Badmintonhist (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no synth in stating that the BBB was unable to provide a rating because the SPLC failed to provide the requested documents. The SPLC is an org full of lawyers. If the BBB put up publicly that they asked for the documents and had not actually done so, do you honestly belief it would last 24 hours? Synth is a totally empty excuse. The only synth here is your concocted reason that it is casting aspersions. Stating factually that The BBB requested documents and the SPLC never provided them isn't an accusation of anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

AAhh, two legendary Wikipedia editors embroiled in a dispute. I'll split the difference here. I think that Niteshift is substantially correct in his last statement. This certainly isn't a case of synthesis, however, one could make the case that the fact that the BBB requested certain information from the SPLC which the SPLC did not provide is not especially encyclopedic, i.e., that it lacks sufficient weight to be included, and that including it would tend to unfairly prejudice the reader against the SPLC. After all, participation in the BBB's Wise Giving evaluation is entirely voluntary. It is not a legal requirement (had it been the SCLC's noncompliance would likely have a much bigger and more newsworthy story). The SPLC was invited to participate in a voluntary program and declined the invitation. There is no pressing need to put this in our article on the SPLC. However, there is no excuse whatsoever to include the sentence that I deleted from this article, that "charity ranking organizations such as the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance do not score the SPLC," as if the decision not to have the SPLC evaluated were the Better Business Bureau's rather than the SPLC's. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't even addressed WP:DUE at this point. One step at a time. Some editors can't seem to agree on the facts, let alone whether or not they belong. The 3 facts I listed seem pretty clear. I still don't see an actual dispute of those facts. Tough to decide if something is being given undue weight when we've yet to determine what the facts of it are. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Government Funding?

Does or has the SPLC received government grants? The financial section didn't mention this one way or another. It should be explicit about any funds that originate from the government. JettaMann (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

They do not receive any government funding. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention of financial criticisms in lead

While the good father (Santiago) may have acted rashly in trying to place the SPLC's F grade by a charity rating organization in the article's lead (it is already mentioned in the "Finances" section) the point of whether the financial criticism of the SPLC should be mentioned in a more general way is worth considering. The lead is supposed to summarize the major points of the article, yet the substantial "Finances" section with its criticisms of the SPLC from The Montgomery Advertiser, Harpers, The Nation, and the American Institute of Philanthropy is not represented at all. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Badmintonhist. WP:LEAD actually speaks directly to the need of mentioning criticism/controversies: "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more." Drrll (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed here many, many times, and the overwhelming consensus has been it does not belong. There has been nothing new to add, so I don't see consensus changing because a brand 'new' editor who has made two edits is trying to add it again without discussion. But it's once again very predictable to see the response time, and actors, here. Dave Dial (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change and, in any case, consensus should be based on Wikipedia policy not on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Dave, we wouldn't want to do something as radical as consistently following WP policy or the MOS for an organization as unassailable as the SPLC. Drrll (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the table of contents and the lead it seems to me that every section of the article EXCEPT THE FINANCES SECTION is at least concisely represented in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Care to put together a proposal for an addition in the lead on this material? Drrll (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure I could come up with one quickly enough, but fair-minded person that I am I thought we should allow for some discussion first. However, if you, Drrll, acting boldly, feel compelled to submit one of your typically judicious and finely crafted formulations for our consideration, then be my guest. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem as long as the boldness is limited to the discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right about letting the discussion progress some before a proposal, Badmintonhist. And thanks for the compliments. Drrll (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have said before that the lead should be expanded to four paragraphs to cover program activities in greater detail. The discussion on revising the lead eventually petered out due to an inability to achieve consensus. There is no reason to believe that any new proposals will be more successful. A proposal to simply add criticism to the lead is a bad idea that has been repeatedly rejected in the past.

Similar problems with the "Finances" section. Efforts were made to make it more balanced and accurate but that likewise went nowhere. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

PS In line with the section added below, it should be noted that the AIP claim is not put in the proper context. The following is language proposed (see archive 7) for the "Finances" Section that puts much of the criticism in a proper perspective:

According to Charity Navigator, SPLC's 2008 outlays fell into the following categories: program expenses of 68.0%, administrative expenses of 14.3%, and fundraising expenses of 17.6%.[112][113] Both Charity Navigator and the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) place these percentages at the low range of acceptable. Charity Navigator gave the SPLC an overall rating of two stars out of a possible four and in 2008 the AIP's Charity Ratings Guide gave the SPLC an "F" rating for "excessive" reserves.[114] When reserves exceed the amount that would be spent over three years, the AIP automatically ignores ratings in other categories and awards an “F”. In 2010 the SPLC reported its endowment at $189.7 million. The SPLC on its most recent Form 990 states the goal of its endowment fund is “to have an endowment large enough to sustain its current level of activities, to fund new projects and lawsuits as the need arises, and to protect the center from inflation.”

Critics have also claimed that top officials in the SPLC are paid very high salaries. According to Charity Navigator, in the fiscal year ending October 2009 the SPLC’s Chief Executive Officer received a salary of $299, 598 and Morris Dees, as Chief Trial Counsel, received $303, 936. The median salary for a CEO of a charity the size of the SPLC in 2008 was $265,000. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you as far as expanding the lead in general, and though it would be a good idea to expand other material at the same time we add criticism to the lead, WP:LEAD seems to indicate that criticism is especially important to include. In the 'Introductory text' subsection of the 'Elements of the lead' section, the only thing specifically mentioned there is criticism/controversies. The proposed text you provided for the 'Finances' section looks pretty good. I would add in the second paragraph that a National Journal salary survey in 1998 put SPLC top salaries higher than nearly every advocacy group in the list (78 groups total). Drrll (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Opposed. Undue. And the two editors patting each other on the back here once again apply a different set of standards when it comes to articles on subjects which they don't like. Compare with FRC and their fight to remove criticism there from the lead. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My approach to the two articles (the FRC and the SPLC) is quite consistent. I'm in favor of specific criticisms of those organizations (if supported by reliable sources) being mentioned in the body of each article. In the lead of each I'm in favor of a general statement making reference to the kind of controversy or criticism each has been subject to, without giving undue weight to any particular critic. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

While I might be inclined to view the compromise wording at the FRC lead [51] as a mild concession to ideological opposition, I wouldn't go so far as to say you are quite consistent. At the moment ~~you and~~ Drrll actually seems more reasonable than most of the pro-FRC crowd, but that seems to be more indicative of others' non-collaborative heel-digging. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC) revised 28 Feb.

Oppose - very cute watching right wing pov pushers and their various approaches to various articles. On one hand we have editors saying "no criticism" over at Live Action (organization)'s page and we have people demanding to add criticism on this page. Criticism should be included if its notable and not undue weight, what is suggested here fails those standards and should not be included. On the other hand, the SPLC's stance on FRC is notable and due weight and should be included in the FRC's article. There is a difference in magnitude of the criticism here. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the article on the SPLC already contains quite a bit of criticism of the SPLC. Just take a look at the "Finances" section. What we're debating here is whether or not there should be a passing reference to this criticism in the lead (as there currently is, by the way, in the FRC article). Since the lead is supposed to briefly summarize the body, including references to controversies what is your policy based argument for keeping it out? I just don't like rightwingers is not a policy based argument. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not misquote policy, Badmintonhist. What it actually says is "including any notable controversies" (emphasis mine) -- just because a controversy exists doesn't qualify it for mention in the introduction. While I'm not taking a position on whether this controversy is notable, what we need to be discussing is whether a preponderance of all sources (not just the cherries) gives it enough weight to mention in the introduction. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that "Finances" is one of the five substantive sections in the body of the article. Since the lead, ideally, is supposed to stand by itself "as a concise overview of the article," what would be the rationale for omitting any reference to anything found in one of the article's five main sections? Badmintonhist (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The horse won't fit through the front door, so you want to try to bring him through the back? I find your argumentum ad forma unconvincing (and rather transparent). The appropriate gauge for inclusion is WP:WEIGHT -- is the premise generally recognized or accepted? I'd say not -- a handful of sources, some almost two decades old, doesn't really give much credibility. For the record, I heard the SPLC referenced just this morning on NPR and several other news programs, but not a single mention of any concern regarding their reputation or financial practices... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Include. I think a single sentence in the lead indicating that the SPLC has been criticized for its finances is essential. It is well-documented and the lead should indeed indicate all substantial issues.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the documentation is very weak and anecdotal. The only significant analysis is over 16 years old. There are problems with the AIP analysis (as detailed below and in Archive 7) and the Charity Navigator analysis actually gives it a low, but acceptable rating. Some mention in the lead may be warranted once the finance section is more balanced, but it hardly serves the intent of WP:LEAD to highlight a flawed part of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't have a problem with the insertion that Kim made, it covers the other sources that have had some questions about the finances of SPLC, even if they are "very weak and anecdotal"(which I agree they are). It comes down to undue weight, and as long as the AIP is not considered, I think there are enough reliable sources to insert the sentence Kim did. I am 100% against any mention of the AIP, they are not a RS and should not be considered, but there is enough in the article from other sources for a mention in the lede. Dave Dial (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Kim specifically mentioned "charity watchdogs". After you eliminate AIP, you are only left with Charity Navigator, which gives the SPLC a passing rating, and the BBB, which the article states doesn't give a rating to the SPLC. The other criticisms come from the Montgomery Advertisers 16 year old investigative report and opinion pieces by Alexander Coburn and Ken Siverstein that contain no original research. I am repeating below the analysis and suggestions I previously made (Archives 7).

Some folks want some reference in the lead to finances; many others would like a clean and unbiased finances section. Rather than separating the two, let's combine both issues so that it is a win-win for everybody. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not married to my wording, but when we have a substantial part of the main text devoted to finances and the related criticism, I think this should be mentioned in the lead. If the main text section needs cleaning, I suggest we just add a small sentence to the lead so it follows the WP:LEAD guidelines and if the finances section is cut down a lot and there is no criticism left, the lead will follow automatically. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It makes little sense to tinker with the lead when there is a serious POV problem with the main article. NPOV as POLICY trumps WP:LEAD as a GUIDELINE. Help with reaching a consensus on the finances section and the lead will handle itself. Can you defend the sourcing of the criticism as anything other than dated and anecdotal? By defending, I mean looking at the actual sources, as I've done, and arguing that they rely on sufficient investigation to support their opinions -- this is an issue of WEIGHT.

The current lead is two paragraphs and seven sentences long. Considering how much else is left out of the lead, the relatively small section on finances (much of which is NOT criticism), should not be given 12% of the lead. In addition to the other problems with your language, it is not balanced. Being able to raise funds is actually a positive thing and the two academic sources in the last paragraph of the financial section speak positively of the SPLC's accomplishment of its mission. When the entire lead is expanded, as we attempted to do earlier, that might be the time to consider adding the finances.

When it does get to the time when it is appropriate to add something on finances to the lead, it should start with something like this:

"The SPLC has been very successful in financing its operations through direct mail campaigns." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Weaknesses of the finances section

[copied, with modifications, from Archive 7)

The reference to multiple reliable sources sources is misleading. The main problem is how some of the poorer sources are given undue weight in the article. In particular is this section which is based entirely on Silverstein and Cockburn.

In 1998, columnist Alexander Cockburn, from The Nation, wrote that SPLC had done little with its funds and used unjustified fear as a tactic to extract money.[108] Similarly in 2000, Harper's Magazine published an article by Ken Silverstein critical of the SPLC noting the poor ratings from charity ranking organizations and that it spent twice as much money on fundraising as it did on legal services.[109] In 2007 Silverstein wrote a follow-up saying that the SPLC had only been more successful in fundraising since the year 2000 and that its endowment had grown exponentially, but the imbalance between monies spent on legal services and fundraising was still present.

Neither Silverstein nor Cockburn made any type of study or original research involving the SPLC -- they wrote editorial opinion.

Silverstein, for example, opens his 2000 opinion piece with the outrageous claim that “The SPLC spends most of its time -- and money -- on a relentless fund-raising campaign.” Powerful charge, but where is the math? Silverstein does use some fuzzy math -- stating that out of $44 million raised “only $13 million [was spent] on civil rights programs.” The problem of course is that civil rights programs are not the only focus of the SPLC -- Silverstein leaves out the expenditures on the their half of its activities, its entire litigation program, Then later Silverstein says that the SPLC spent 5.76 million on fundraising -- hardly “most” of its $44 million income in expenditures.

In fact, the actual percentage, based on 2008 figures of Charity Navigator cited in our article is 17.6% -- once again, hardly most. What it does spend “most” of its income on is program expenses (68%) and administrative expenses (14.3%). So how reliable can Silverstein be when he makes such flagrant false claims?

And what was Silverstein’s “Investigative Update” (“This Week in Babylon”) for 2007? It appears that he did nothing but open an envelope. From that article, “Last week, a reader sent me the SPLC's 2005 financial filing with the IRS, which is required by law for charities.” Silverstein spends a grand total of one paragraph reciting three numbers from the return and drawing conclusions. Maybe 15 minutes of study?

And what of Cockburn’s “investigation”? The article cited “The Conscience Industry” is once again merely an opinion piece. It consists of 14 paragraphs of which only ONE PARAGRAPH mentions the SPLC. Within this single paragraph there are TWO SENTENCES referring to the SPLC. ...

But let’s get back to the 68% spent on its program expenses mean. What exactly does that figure mean. According to The American Institute of Philanthropy source (cited in our article):

In AIP’s view, 60% or greater is reasonable for most charities. The remaining percentage is spent on fundraising and general administration. Note: A 60% program percentage typically indicates a “satisfactory” or “C range” rating. Most highly efficient charities are able to spend 75% or more on programs. (see [[52]]

Charity Navigator says:

Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive zero points for their overall organizational efficiency score.(see [[53]]

As anybody can see, the percentage spent by the SPLC on its program activities, rather than being some fantastic departure from the norm as Silverstein and Cockburn would have people believe, is actually somewhere at the lower end of acceptable. The article should eliminate the Silverstein and Cockburn language and expand the info. from the AIP and Charity Navigator which show what the actual percentages mean.

After eliminating the Cockburn/Silverstein material, we come to this:

SPLC stated that during 2008 it spent about 69% of total expenses on program services, and that at the end of 2008 the endowment stood at $156.2 million.[111] The SPLC's fundraising methods are somewhat unconventional and critics accuse it of leveraging fear to solicit donations, and say that top officials in the SPLC are paid very high salaries.[102] Charity ranking organizations such as the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance do not score the SPLC. According to Charity Navigator, SPLC's 2008 outlays fell into the following categories: program expenses of 68.0%, administrative expenses of 14.3%, and fundraising expenses of 17.6%.[112][113] In 2008 the American Institute of Philanthropy's Charity Ratings Guide gave the SPLC an "F" rating for "excessive" reserves.[114] In 2010 the SPLC reported its endowment at $189.7 million.

The above should be changed as follows:

According to Charity Navigator, SPLC's 2008 outlays fell into the following categories: program expenses of 68.0%, administrative expenses of 14.3%, and fundraising expenses of 17.6%.[112][113] Both Charity Navigator and the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) place these percentages at the low range of acceptable. Charity Navigator gave the SPLC an overall rating of two stars out of a possible four and in 2008 the AIP's Charity Ratings Guide gave the SPLC an "F" rating for "excessive" reserves.[114] When reserves exceed the amount that would be spent over three years, the AIP automatically ignores ratings in other categories and awards an “F”. In 2010 the SPLC reported its endowment at $189.7 million. The SPLC on its most recent Form 990 states the goal of its endowment fund is “to have an endowment large enough to sustain its current level of activities, to fund new projects and lawsuits as the need arises, and to protect the center from inflation.”

I have eliminated the BBB reference which says nothing significant, the 2008 endowment figure since a more current figure is available, and the repetitious SPLC statement since it basically agrees with the Charity Navigator statement. I have added interpretive info that explains what the figures mean and the SPLC’s own explanation for the size of the reserve.

Using sources provided by BeCritical's, I suggest the following with respect to salaries:

Critics have also claimed that top officials in the SPLC are paid very high salaries. According to Charity Navigator, in the fiscal year ending October 2009 the SPLC’s Chief Executive Officer received a salary of $299,598 and Morris Dees, as Chief Trial Counsel, received $303,936. The median salary for a CEO of a charity the size of the SPLC in 2008 was $265,000.

Of course, it seems like the more you eliminate the fiery rhetoric and concentrate on actual objective numbers, the less justification for going into any great detail on the subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The North Shoreman's figures (based on one quite atypical economic year, incidentally, 2008) entirely ignore the problem that I mentioned earlier and the one that Harper'sand the Nation are most concerned with; not the percentage of the SPLC's expeditures that are devoted to things other than providing services but rather the percentage of the SPLC's income which isn't listed as expenditure in the first place, because it is salted away in the SPLC's treasury. However, even were we to accept the North Shoreman's language here, which I have absolutely no intention of doing, the financial criticism/controversy would still merit a sentence in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not true. The 2008 figures are not atypical but are the most recent avalable -- the percentages are in the same range for all the years available. I believe the figures for the other periods are in archive 7, but if they're not you can obtain them from the sources provided. Also my language fully covers the question concerning reserves however unlike the current version it also includes an SPLC explanation. This is the balanced language that you object to:

"... AIP's Charity Ratings Guide gave the SPLC an "F" rating for "excessive" reserves.[114] When reserves exceed the amount that would be spent over three years, the AIP automatically ignores ratings in other categories and awards an “F”. In 2010 the SPLC reported its endowment at $189.7 million. The SPLC on its most recent Form 990 states the goal of its endowment fund is “to have an endowment large enough to sustain its current level of activities, to fund new projects and lawsuits as the need arises, and to protect the center from inflation.”

Why are you opposed to including the SPLC explanation?

Why are you in favor of including the "F" rating while keeping out the clarification of how that was determined?

Why are you in favor of retaining the expenditure percentages while opposing an explanation that the percentages fall in the acceptable range?

Why do you favor including a criticism for high salaries while opposing information that puts SPLC salaries in proper perspective? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

One has to give a grudging admiration to the way the North Shoreman, in true lawyerly fashion, manages to skillfully tailor information to advance his cause. Any true picture of the SPLC's financial modus operandi would have to include its income versus expenditures for a typical year or a series of them (certainly not 2008, a terrible year broadly for investment income) to give the reader some idea of how the SPLC has managed to build up its nearly 200 million dollar treasury. It did not descend upon the organization as the result of some huge contribution from on high but rather by puffing the dangers posed by hate groups to the charity-giving public. It was this huge difference between income and outflow that caused the SPLC to fail a Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance audit in the early 2000's [54]. This also helps to explain WHY the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance no longer rates the SPLC. It's because the SPLC no longer cooperates in giving the BBB the information it needs to give the SPLC a rating. [55] Badmintonhist (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)PS: Perhaps this will make it clearer: The SPLC brings in oodles of money by claiming that contributions are urgently needed to fight pressing, imminent dangers then proceeds to use, by charity-rating standards, a very small percentage of these proceeds to actually fight those imminent dangers while banking and investing the rest.

Badmintonhist, you're certainly a persistent advocate for your cause. The problem is that the assertions make and the analysis you present aren't generally accepted by anyone other than the fringe. It's certainly not accepted by academia, most mainstream sources, or the government, all of whom routinely defer to the SPLC as the de facto authority on tracking hate groups. If financing was such a big concern, we wouldn't see the SPLC in such a prominent position. It's time to grind your axe elsewhere. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And your role in our noble project, Blax, seems to have become that of a mere kibitzing partisan. I could tell you to go grind your axe elsewhere though I think that it would be better for you to find some topics to work on substantively. As for your recent argumentum ad populum, I hadn't realized that you regarded the Montgomery Advertiser, The Nation, Harper's Magazine, Charity Navigator, and the the Better Business Bureau as the fringe. By the way, there is no inconsistency at all, between an organization doing a good job in tracking the activities of hate groups (something that a couple of competent folks with computers could do) on the one hand, and on the other, raising far more money from donors than it actually needs to do its work. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Make that argumentum ad vercundium, Cicero.

This section has a reference to the BBB that says nothing but, "Charity ranking organizations such as the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance do not score the SPLC." Since this says NOTHING about the SPLC's finances, it really does not belong in the article. Such rankings are based on purely voluntary disclosures which the SPLC, for whatever reason, has decided not to furnish. This non-disclosure may have implications in the minds of the SPLC critics, but it has no relevance unless some reliable source explains WHY the disclosure was not made. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but why would you restore the quoted sentence to the article which deceptively says nothing about the SPLC's decision not to furnish the Alliance with these disclosures, thus leaving the reader with the impression that the decision not to rate the the SPLC is the Alliance's not the the SPLC's? Badmintonhist (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

'deceptively says' is your (biased) inference. You don't want SPLC's response to the CharityNav "F" rating, but you do want your own version of context to the BBB's non-rating. And you resort to your combative editing with "NO, no, no" [56] and boldly remove the statement without consensus. After I revert according to WP:BRD, you remove it again with the insult "No, it requires some common sense" [57] . As we've seen repeatedly here and at the FRC article, your version of common sense is heavily biased against the SPLC. More double standards. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No one else, including the North Shoreman, is wasting any more effort on this, Beacon. The reference that was used to say that the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance did not rate the SPLC clearly stated that it did not rate the SPLC because the SPLC did not cooperate in supplying the Alliance with the required information. Either one uses the reference properly and provides the clearly stated reason why the Wise Giving Alliance did not rate the SPLC or else one doesn't use the info at all. To simply state that that the Wise Giving Alliance did not rate the the SPLC when the source gives the reason why makes no sense at all. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what other editors are doing or how involved anyone else is. You removed the sentence over the weekend [58] , before your previous post above [59], and have not given others a chance to respond before reverting again [60]. I suspect that other editors are simply sick of arguing with you. Your pattern of tendentious edits and edits summaries means you should adhere to the Discuss part of WP:BRD more than most. And without your usual snide comments -- it wasn't too long ago that you dismissed objections as 'heckling' and 'trolling' [61] [62] in addition to more recent slights above. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

AIP not RS

This related discussion about AIP's non-reliability got archived separately but should be considered within the above discussion, imo, and it includes a link to previous discussion [63] from earlier in the talkpage archive. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

^ [64]
^ [65]
^ [66]
^ [67]
^ [68]
^ [69]
^ [70]
^ [71]
^ [72]
^ [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232421]
^ [73]
^ [74]
^ [75]

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[3] [3]

[4] [4]

[5] [5]

[6] [6]

[7] [7]

[8] [8]

[9] [9]

[10] [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232421]

[11] [10]

[12] [11]

[13] [12]

[14] [64]

[15] [65]

[16] [66]

[17] [67]

[18] [68]

[19] [69]

[20] [70]

[21] [71]

[22] [72]

[23] [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232421]

[24] [73]

[25] [74]

[26] [75]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]