Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Categorization or List

Take 2, since the first try generated no consensus. So, two questions here:

• Should Wikipedia have information on groups that the SPLC designates as hate groups?
• If so, should this information be in the form of a category, or a list?

(If you're going to link to a policy page, it would be helpful if you'd provide a quote so we know what you're referring to.)

• Yes - its tracking of hate groups is definitely notable, and Wikipedia already has both List of designated terrorist organizations and Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator (some subcats of which also include lists). So it's clearly not unprecedented, and it's also notable. I have no opinion on whether it should be a category or a list. Roscelese (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes - this is an authoritative list and therefore quite helpful. Ditto about category/list, although leaning slightly towards category, for convenience. Dylan Flaherty 04:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strong No - A list might be okay for "information on groups that the SPLC designates as hate groups" if is it presented as the SPLC's list, not an actual list. But then why have that at all since a simple link to the SPLC will suffice? Designated terrorist organizations come from a reliable source, a national government. They have encyclopedic significance. Hate groups as listed by the SPLC would come from a source that has admitted it is trying to smear certain groups, not in so many words, of course. SPLC's listing is not encyclopedic, except to the extent that a hyperlink is made to the SPLC web site for the SPLC's list on an as needed basis, or except for mention on the SPLC page itself. Giving the SPLC's list an encyclopedia page would give its list qualities of reliability, etc., that its list on the SPLC site does not now have, and that is not the mission of Wikipedia. It may be the mission of SPLC, but not Wikipedia. On a related note, a list of actual hate groups would be a strong magnet for trouble.

And a category is inappropriate per WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT.

Procedurally, I am not comfortable with attempting to gain consensus in a new section for something that had no consensus so recently, as in a day ago. The existing section was entirely appropriate for continuing the conversation. By having this new section, it essentially nullifies the previous one, and if the editors there do not comment here, suddenly their votes have disappeared. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already asked you to specify what policies at WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT you're referring to, since I see nothing there that would preclude the creation of a category. Now I'll also ask you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups." Roscelese (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The list is the more likely of the two, and that suffers from serious problems as I stated. So I'll pass on spending time on the CAT problem for now. As to the smearing, see, for example, the Tom Brokaw matter here: "SPLC's Cowardly Lyin'", FRC, 8 December 2010. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand. When I ask you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups," I mean that I want you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups." Roscelese (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the other issues you raised: 1. Procedurally, I started a new section because I wanted to discuss the alternate possibility of creating a list. Hopefully some of the editors from before will contribute their opinions as well, but I think it's neater this way. (I don't see what you're worried about with opposing votes being lost - of the people from the previous discussion who haven't commented here yet, the number of supporting and opposing is the same.) 2. What makes the government more reliable than an organization whose mission is, largely, tracking hate groups? I suppose the Simon Wiesenthal Center is also not reliable, because it is not a government and it is biased against Nazis. Roscelese (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to hear you actually answer her question. If you don't, I will give "Huckleberry Finn" as a Christmas gift to a teen. Dylan Flaherty 04:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Easy answer. You misquoted me. The full quote is, "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups, not in so many words, of course". The key phrase is "not in so many words, of course". However, I have linked to an article where Tom Brokaw questioned the SPLC's action. There's a RS if there ever was one. The focus here is on Wikipedia, not on it editors. Tom Brokaw, not LAEC. And Tom Brokaw or the like did not question the Simon Wiesenthal Center on why it was smearing Nazis. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has an impeccable reputation. As the Tom Brokaw matter shows, the SPLC does not.

Huckleberry Finn is outstanding writing and beloved by almost everyone, including myself. That said, the book comment was genuinely funny. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Then provide that evidence in "not so many words." Even if Brokaw had said anything of the kind in the unreliable source that you cited, his own personal opinion, as someone completely unaffiliated with the SPLC, would not be a substitute for the admission you are claiming exists. Roscelese (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no need for the category. People should be able to find the up-to-date on the SPLC website. LAEC, could you please stop linking to sites that cannot be used as reliable sources. I find them just as offensive as you find pornography. TFD (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean, I think it would be useful as a navigational tool - so that articles about the groups would all be in one place or all accessible from one place. Roscelese (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We could have a list with links, which would be easier to maintain. We probably do not even have articles about most of the groups, so it could be helpful in showing that. TFD (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of the alternatives I was suggesting. So, to be clear, do you, like LAEC, oppose the idea of Wikipedia's having this information, or is it just that you oppose a category? Roscelese (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD, good to have you back. I do not oppose pornography, unless it is illegal. I know the ref is not necessarily a RS, but we are talking in Talk and Tom Brokaw is the RS contained in the link I provided, and he directly calls into question the SPLC motives for labeling certain groups as hate groups. I see that Tom Brokaw/SPLC exchange and I am not impressed with the SPLC's response, and it appears neither is Tom Brokaw. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

^Pls. note that this comment misrepresents the source in multiple ways: Brokaw says nothing of the kind, nor is his personal opinion (ie. not a news broadcast on which he is host) a reliable source. Roscelese (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the category because the terminology is specific to the SPLC and will no doubt cause disruption over dozens of articles. But a list article would be fine, if someone wants to copy over the 900+ organizations and provide internal links. TFD (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear (again), the proposed category would be something like "Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center," so it would be quite clear who was doing the designating. Roscelese (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD is exactly correct. And in saying "copy over", that reminds me of the potential for WP:COPYVIO. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh - do you also support a list? (I really should have made two separate headings so this would all be clearer.) Roscelese (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support a list, but for the problems TFD and I have discussed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The category would have no utility and would soon be out of date. We can always mention in individual articles that groups are listed by the SPLC as hate groups. I do not see btw any copyright problems with copying a list but you may wish to check it. Incidentally if you were to create a category at a later date, having a list with internal links would make the process a lot easier. TFD (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I've addressed your contention about reliability - do you really think there would be a copyvio problem, given that the information would likely be presented in a different way (I see no reason to organize by state, as their website does - moreover, this would mean that individual branches of groups would not have to be listed more than once)? Roscelese (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What would the list consist of? Just the list the SPLC has? If so, we don't need that list here, and it would be an inferior source since it wouldn't be updated as well as the SPLC's version. A category, however, would be highly appropriate for hate groups in general, but not limited to the SPLC's. TFD's point about the disruption it would cause is a good one though. I say, don't do either. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There could never be a category "Hate groups" without including who designates the group as a hate group, for the same reason the "terrorist groups" categories are by designator. Roscelese (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Right so I'd say it's definitely not something we should do... and the list is merely redundant to the SPLC's and less up-to-date. There's a reason to have List of designated terrorist organizations, since it includes more than one authority's designation. I doubt that is feasible in this case? If we could include groups designated by other authorities, it would be a good idea to have the list. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think it would be useful as a navigational tool, but that's a decent point, and it would be an even better list if it had more than one organization's info. We could add the ADL. The article hate group says the FBI also tracks hate groups, which I confirmed on their website, but I can't find a public list. Roscelese (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Be cool if we could find the FBI list. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did find this, useful for the article as it recommends SPLC. We already knew that, but could add it. I didn't find an FBI list either, and I think I would have if one existed. They keep track, but don't publish the list apparently. I would think they wouldn't, it would give the groups a heads-up. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I saw that as well - guess there's no list we could use. Do you think we'd be able to start an article with the SPLC and ADL, though? (Any other monitoring groups I might not be thinking of? I found something called Hate Directory, but no reliable info on the creator's credentials, so I wouldn't include it.) Roscelese (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure... the Anti Defamation League "publishes a list of the "ten leading organizations responsible for maligning Israel in the US", which have included a group calling for the United States to "stop funding Israeli apartheid"." That's not much to go on is it? What it looks like to me is that the SPLC is it. It maintains the list on which the FBI depends and no other organizations feel the need to duplicate the SPLC's work. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I found at first, too, which isn't very useful, but then I dug a bit and found this, which has at least a few. (the "movements" category on the sidebar also includes the KKK and others). Roscelese (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The ADL lists the American Front's ideology as "Anti-Semitism, White supremacy, Third Positionist". The WP article already puts them in the category of "White supremacist groups in the United States". We also have a category, "Antisemitism in the United States", and could create a sub-category for organizations. We could also create categories for third position, etc. TFD (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's actually a discussion going on now over whether it's acceptable to categorize groups as anti-Semitic, since previous consensus is that they can't be categorized as homophobic. An attributed list would solve the POV issue. Roscelese (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it would not. No one wants to be labeled with a negative category, just because it's "attributed." I know three public libraries that are defrauding the government of millions. Should there be a "defrauder" cat that attribute the allegation to me? Some libraries even cover up child pron crimes. Should the "child pron" cat be added to the pages of various libraries? And the cat you seek, even if attributed, would still suffer from all the other problems discussed by the various editors above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you cute. Since your opinion is so clearly authoritative, as substantiated by dozens of reliable sources, how about you try adding "Cat:Libraries that LAEC thinks are committing fraud" to the articles and see what happens? Maybe you'll get an A on your school project. Roscelese (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Really, I'm not joking, you've just made my point. Besides that, I view your last comment as incivil. Between that and your driven efforts to promote your view, I will now ascribe less weight to your contributions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Roscelese (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have been thinking about this, and I have come to the conclusion that a category called Category:US hate groups would be valid. The hate groups of course aren't going to like it, but heck that is just their bad luck. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support after contemplation. We should absolutely not consider what hate groups "want" when making editorial decisions. I'm amenable to either list or category form. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This would be a list or a category of hate groups designated as such by some official agency I assume such as the FBI, right? Sounds okay to me but why are we discussing it on the SPLC talk page? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some reliable sources that don't accept the SPLC's categorization prima facie? We have plenty of demonstrations of reliable sources that do. Let's not travel down the fringe rabbit hole... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the FBI have a list? There are a number sources, some used in our Wikipedia article and hardly "fringe" (Harper's, The Nation [well the Nation is a bit Lefty in its orientation], The Montgomery Advertiser) that have accused the SPLC of exaggerating hate group threats. The FBI has been known to exaggerate too but I think we would be safer and more "official" with its list if we're going to have one. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Becritical's recent edit, the FBI recommends the SPLC's list. Roscelese (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that any organization that makes the SPLC's hate group list should have this fact stated in the article, in addition to any category or list. Dylan Flaherty 01:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To be more precise, Roscelese, The FBI lists the SPLC as a resource in it's hate crimes effort. However, as far as I know the FBI doesn't simply accept the SPLC's list of hate groups as its own. Again, why use a private organization's list as opposed to the list of the federal government agency which officially investigates hate crimes and hate groups? Badmintonhist (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)\

The SPLC hate group list is generally used by researchers etc as the list to use. See one of the links BeCritical gave above. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I think I would go with a more official kind of list, Kim. One that's got the U.S. government behind it. Besides, the more I read from sources that the SPLC hasn't yet designated as hate organizations , such as Harper's and The Nation, the more it seems as if the SPLC has a pecuniary interest in exaggerating hate threats. I'm not sure we should be giving a charity that gets failing grades for raising lots of money that it doesn't use on its mission such weight in our encyclopedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We obviously disagree here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How long do we let editors like Badmintonhist just make things up, and/or push fringe facts/conclusions not supported by mainstream sources and deserving of no WP:WEIGHT? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Not supported by mainstream sources"--what exactly would be mainstream sources if Harper's, The Nation, The Montgomery Advertiser, and Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard are not mainstream in your estimation? Drrll (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What sources support the statement "the SPLC has a pecuniary interest in exaggerating hate threats"? Are there enough to rise above a fringe viewpoint? You guys are are simply cherry picking those 3 or 4 sources from over 20 years of the SPLC's existence and trying to use them to legitimize fringe viewpoints. It's dishonest, inappropriate, and it certainly looks like you're more concerned with being sympathetic to their cause than you are interested in reflecting what is commonly accepted by nearly all mainstream sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• No to category. Undecided to list or template. Based on my personal Wikipedia experience:
  • Small categories that I have been involved with are quickly deleted or turned into templates:
    • Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Discussed December 4 to 14, 2010. Deleted.
    • Category:International Christian Leadership. Discussed December 15 to 28, 2010. Deleted and Template:The Fellowship Navbox created.
  • Templates that I've created are kept, watched, and maintained:
    • Template:The Fellowship Navbox. Created December 30, 2009. Discussed January 31 to February 2, 2010. TfD withdrawn.
    • Template:Goodwill Industries Navbox. Created February 21, 2010.
    • Template:Chick Publications Navbox. Created June 22, 2010.
  • --Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes to list. The SPLC hate map says that it lists 932 active hate groups. It would be good to have a list that is restricted to groups that already have a Wikipedia article.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's return to my first objection. What is the point of using the SPLC's list as opposed to the FBI's list? I have the feeling that the major purpose for some editors is to bloat the list with non-violent but politically rightish organizations which certain editors dislike. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. If you want me to cite policies WP:POV and WP:UNDUE for starters.

1. The FBI publishes no such list.
2. The SPLC's list is accepted prima facie by all the reliable sources and government organizations we've seen. By any preponderance of the available reliable sources, the SPLC is accepted as the authority on hate group tracking and categorization.
3. Couldn't it also be said that the "major purpose" of some other editors is to push fringe viewpoints sympathetic to hate groups?

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If such a list article is created, it should specify for each group listed whether it is designated as a hate group by the SPLC and whether it is designated as such by the ADL. The ADL is a far less ideologically-charged organization than the SPLC and thus has more credibility on such matters. The 'Resources' section on the FBI page on hate crimes lists both the SPLC and the ADL. It should also include reliably-sourced responses to the designation, such as the response in the Washington Post by the Family Research Council. Drrll (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is your declaration that the SPLC is "ideologically charged" and therefore "has less credibility" based on your own opinion, or do you have some sources to back up your assertion? So far, this looks more like a case of ideologically-motivated Wikipedia editors trying to inject a fringe viewpoint not supported with demonstrated weight in reliable sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I dunno, Blax. The Nation calls Dees's outfit "one of the greatest frauds in American life," Harper's calls it "basically a fraud," The Washington Post calls it "controversial;" all sorts of liberal once-allies have turned against it, complaints about the way it treats black employees, tons of money raised by pushing the "danger" posed by hate groups but little actually spent on seeking justice for hate's victims, horrible official ratings as a charitable organization, big annual salaries for Dees. I wouldn't think we would be anxious to sully the pristine reputation of our noble Wikipedia project by relying so heavily on the dubious virtues of such an organization. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Whow, lets see. The Harper quote of about their financial strategy, they do not say if their work is suspect. The nation link I cannot find. The Washington post link is an opinion piece of someone labeled a hate group, geez, how surprising. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh Harper's Ken Silverstein very much questions their work as does ol' Alexander Cockburn (tough name to be born with) over at The Nation. There is an intimate connection between the SPLC's hate group danger pushing and its finances since the hate group alarm is integral in filling the coffers of the organization. It apparently needs plenty of money to fight the hate group problem and secure justice to its victims but very little of this money actually goes into substantive programs for those purposes. Dees does manage to set aside $350,000 of it for himself each year. Most of the rest adds to the richness of its treasury. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's already covered under Southern Poverty Law Center#Finances, which already takes up one fifth of the article. TFD (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Kim, the Washington Post piece Badmintonhist was referring to is a straight news piece. Drrll (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence it is a straight news piece:

• It is listed in the "politics" tab of the Washington Post web site, instead of the "opinion" tab.
• It is written by a person on the staff of the Washington Post Staff, unlike a guest from another organization.
• Phrases like "I think" or "I want" or "I believe" are absent. Lots of opinion pieces are written in first person.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, there is plenty of support in reliable sources that the SPLC is an ideologically charged organization. For starters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Newsweek, and The ABA Journal all call the SPLC liberal. The premier publication of the SPLC, The Intelligence Report describes itself as "the nation's preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S.," not something like "monitoring radicals in the U.S." Their very active blog, published by The Intelligence Report staff is subtitled "keeping a eye on the radical right." In Ken Silverstein's (no conservative) words from Harper's, the SPLC "has a habit of casually labeling organizations as 'hate groups.'" Drrll (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On the one side, we have your synthesis of sources complaining that the SPLC is too successful at raising money. On the other, we have the FBI using their hate list as a resource. What should we really care about? Dylan Flaherty 02:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Your synthesis of sources complaining that the SPLC is too successful at raising money." That's not his only argument. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I went after his strongest; the rest are worse. For example, it's a simple fact that hate groups are not associated with liberalism in America, so you'd expect a liberal group to monitor hate groups. Stieg Larsson, who monitored hate groups in Sweden, was a communist. Therefore, the fact that a hate-watching group is liberal does not make it at all biased. Dylan Flaherty 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

While true hate groups in the US are largely on the right, the SPLC doesn't limit its criticism to just hate groups, but to what it considers hateful speech and radical actions. Hateful speech and radical actions are hardly monopolized by the right. Drrll (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC monitors "patriot groups", like the John Birch Society, because they share some beliefs (such as the New World Order) and membership with hate groups. On the other hand, the radical Right in the U.S. is a hundred times larger than the Left, and there have been no violent actions by left-wing groups for over twenty years. TFD (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I was referring primarily to hateful speech and radical actions by individuals rather than groups, which the Intelligence Report staff regularly report on. But haven't there been violent actions in the past twenty years by such left-wing groups as environmentalist, animal rights, antiwar, and anti-globalization groups? Drrll (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course there have. But "hate group" and "terrorist group" aren't synonyms. Some animal rights groups commit terrorism in the name of protecting animals, but one could hardly argue that they hate humans. On the other hand, many of SPLC's groups haven't committed violent actions, but it would be equally difficult to argue that neo-Nazi groups are not full of hate.

Also, can we end this tangent about their finances? It's already covered in the article, and it has apparently no bearing on the credibility of their list. If no one has - not only one source contesting the credibility of their list, because there exists strong consensus on the credibility of the list from other sources, but a substantial number of reliable sources contesting that credibility - then there is no reason not to use it. Roscelese (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources are required to state that the SPLC is "ideologically charged". TFD (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what I asked for were sources that support Badmintonhist's statement that the SPLC is less credible. What I got was a few editors trying to cherry pick disparate sources and distort their meaning to give validity to a fringe viewpoint. Reliable sources, academia, and the government all regard SPLC as authoritative on hate groups; Wikipedia doesn't give equal voice to fringe viewpoints, and at this point I'm questioning whether the article gives undue weight to those viewpoints already. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, in support of a category. If there is insufficient consensus to support a category, at least have a list. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, I came in late this time, but gave my vote above. It looks like 5 to 3. How much is needed for consensus? - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: So, are we going to do this? - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a list in the works on one of my subpages, but I ran into some difficulty (mainly as to what to do if a group isn't in SPLC's or ADL's formal list, but they discuss it elsewhere) and then I got distracted. You're welcome to contribute. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

oooo... neat! What is your source of SPLC's list? Did you go through the Hate map state by state or was there another page on the web site that gave a list of groups? --Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking the category would be good. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I used their ideology list rather than their map, because the map includes a lot of redundant chapters. (Eh...I'm thinking a category would be better, mostly because SPLC's list is a lot more comprehensive than ADL's, but consensus appears to be against it unless I've miscounted, so I'd better just do what I can with the list.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Announcement: I decided to be WP:BOLD and create the categories Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Anti-Defamation League, using User:Roscelese/List of designated hate groups. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

FBI partnership

I found that the FBI actually formed a partnership with the SPLC. This should probably be in the article in a special section. What do others think? [1][2]; this might be of use for something [3] [4] BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Two years ago, the FBI and the Department of Justice began to work with the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Urban League on the Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative. " BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is notable, relevant and should be included in this article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Drrll (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's save some time here: does anyone actually object? If not, let's move on. Dylan Flaherty 13:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks guys for the vote of agreement. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to edit this, feel welcome. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:34, 25 December 2010 (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

The associated web site is at http://www.startdebatingstophating.com/ (note: © 2010 Family Research Council at bottom of web site)

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"".[5] 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:

• The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112407042.html
• The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/15/family-research-council-top-gop-lawmakers-fight-back-against-splc-hate-group-label/
• Slate: http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/12/15/boehner-cantor-bachmann-pence-and-more-against-the-southern-poverty-law-center.aspx
• SPLC: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/12/15/splc-responds-to-attack-by-frc-conservative-republicans/

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:

1. The information comes from secondary reliable sources, not the primary websites of the relevant organizations
2. These organizations received support from prominent public figures, including Governors and the incoming Speaker of the U. S. House
3. The organizations were designated hate groups solely by the SPLC and not by the ADL
4. The SPLC actually bothered to issue a lengthy response to the FRC and its supporters
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 [6]. 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:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. 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 [7] 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 [8] 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 [9] 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 [10] 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 [11]), 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 [12]) 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 [13]) 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)

Criticism or controversy section

I was on the edge about suggesting this before, as it's usually better (I think per MOS) to keep criticism and controversy in-line. However, especially with the section above, there seem to be a significant number of reliable sources which are critical of the SPLC, and which would be disruptive to the general flow of the article if not focused into a summary. So what do people think of putting most of the critical material (such as financial section and new info) in its own section? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, as long as we have two separate criticism sub headers, one by groups listed by them as hate groups, and one from third parties. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As of this revision, why does the "Finances" section begin with criticisms of SPLC's finances and center largely around them? Why not call the section "Criticisms of the SPLC's finances" or similar? Or maybe, perhaps more consistently with WP:NPOV, why not begin with a summary of SPLC's finances and then get to the criticisms of what some regard as excess holdings and fundraising costs? ... Kenosis (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but I'm suggesting there are enough criticisms they need their own section; and probably our sources mainly cover criticism in this area. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the idea of a criticism ghetto. There's not much criticism that belongs in the article -- we don't need a long list of "Sons of Aryan Death denies being a hate group as does Cousins of White Power Hour, as does..." -- and it's best to deal with it briefly and in context. Dylan Flaherty 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I dug up a few more RS which criticize [14] [15] as well as info supportive of SPLC like the FBI stuff, and now we have the congressional stuff. It's not a ghetto, it's keeping the article from becoming a criticism/response. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading through these while looking up information. The first article talks about an org named "We are Change" that was branded a hate group. On the one hand, it does claim to be peaceful. On the other, they're 9/11 "truthers", which is a fringe (chiefly) Libertarian view that does indeed enable right-wing extremism. I was unable to find a site for "We the People" (even after plugging in the quoted statement). As for Republic of Texas secessionists, the complaint seems to be that they were slow in adding them to the list, not that the label is wrong. It complains that the Hutaree, all of whom are imprisoned, were not listed, and it also repeats an accusation about the Pulitzer Prize thing. It quotes a zinger out of Ken Silverstein's piece for Harper's, but I can't find the original article to get some context. Finally, it quotes a much milder complaint by Alexander Cockburn. Frankly, if this were in a Wikipedia article, we'd be laughing at it for undue synthesis, but I guess all's fair in journalism.

Where's all this coming from? Well, this is an opinion piece from the New America Foundation. The NEF is a radical-center org, whose goal is to play down the left/right dichotomy, which is what the SPLC plays up. There's the bias right there, as well as a question of notability.

The second article is an opinion piece from National Catholic Reporter, whose web site is practically blank, but does have an article here that calls it a liberal Catholic paper. In any case, it has complaints about how successful the SPLC is at getting contributions, but doesn't seem to be suggesting that they inaccurately label hate groups. Their main concern is that, by highlighting web sites of hate groups, this will lead to censorship. While this is a reasonable concern, the decade since the article was published do not seem to support it.

I'm not averse to including criticism, but I hope we can do better than this. Dylan Flaherty 04:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

L::::I do not think it improves article to scour the internet for critisms. The fact that it is so hard to find criticism of the SPLC, and that it all comes from fringe groups, means that it lacks notability. The comment by Laird Wilcox is of signicance because it was published in a major book about political extremism, but it does not seem to have attracted any attention outside the far right itself. An opinion piece, such as the one from the Christian Science Monitor, is not a reliable source except for the opinions of its writer. TFD (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This "fringe" mantra is silly, especially if it is meant to imply that criticism of the SPLC is limited to the right-wing fringe. Periodicals such as Harper's and the Nation are not on the right-wing fringe. Folks such Millard Fuller, Stephen Bright, Ken Silverstein, and Alexander Cockburn are not the right-wing fringe. The description of the SPLC as "controversial" is not right-wing when it comes from the Washington Post. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial" is not a criticism; it's an observation that the thing has been criticized by others. Roscelese (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and do you think that WaPo would bother with that "observation" if it were only fringe groups who were criticizing the SPLC? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on the current state of the news media? Yup. But my opinion isn't what matters - does the WaPo article go into detail? Roscelese (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. But Silverstein, Cockburn, Bright and other progressives do. In fact, the bitterest criticism of Dees and his outfit comes from folks one might think would be his ideological allies. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The criticism definitely does not all come from fringe groups. Some of it is from highly reliable sources, as already reflected in the article. Christian Science Monitor and National Catholic Reporter are pretty good sources, even if they are opinion pieces, which of course are regularly used on Wikipedia when from RS and with attribution. But let's say that the opinion pieces alone would be insufficient for inclusion: they are not alone, but rather build upon or analyze other more reliable sources we have, such as the Advertiser. Of course we shouldn't scour the web for criticism, but we should not ignore it from reliable sources either. We should note the fringe group complaints, and we should give appropriate coverage to the RS criticisms and things like Congressmen signing criticisms. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And let's be realistic. There is a real and quite legitimate concern that an article like this could turn into either a fawning advertisement or a hit piece. However, given recent developments with reliable sources, that is just not going to happen. Yes, we/I found more RS critical of the SPLC, but also more to say which has greatly strengthened its high standing in scholarly and official circles. So people, please relax a bit here, we're doing fine. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a lengthier article from Slate about the controversy. TFD (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Slate.com is normally considered an RS, but I'm not so sure about the Slate blogs. However David Weigel seems to be a reliable journalist, per a quick perusal of his article. He seems to be lefty, not righty, which I mention because one would normally consider SPLC a lefty. So I don't find a problem with using this as an RS. Nice find. Anyone else? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream view of the SPLC is that it is a respected organization that accurately identifies groups that promote hatred against minorities. That view is shared by Fox News and the FBI. While these groups dislike the categorization, we cannot give the same parity to their positions. TFD (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but there isn't a question of doing so on this talk page. The criticism section would be from RS, and not do anything besides a bare mention of the fact that hate groups sometimes don't like the designation. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus against such a section and I don't see any reason to change this. It is fine to say that "The criticism section would be from RS", but nobody has shown that such sources actually exist. What reliable sources not already included in the article need to be added to the article in this new section? Every time this question gets asked the only response is the same old listing of opinions from political commentators from the right wing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, When one of the main points of criticism is that SPLC has moved from its original mission to becoming more of a left wing attack dog group, that they are more interested in silencing debate from those whom they disagree with then its core mission, who is the criticism going to come from but the right wing? If a acknowledged right wing journalist, wrote a obejective article giving explicit detail on how the SPLC's serious flaws, would you deny its value just cause of the writer political leanings? I want to understand what, in your mind, is a reliable source. Ucscottb4u (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you haven't been keeping up with the discussion. The sources are listed above, but I'll try and consolidate them later today. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but I think I'm up to speed. You are still presenting nothing but political editorial opinion. WP:NEWSORG seems to be on point and none of the authors cited fall into the category of "specialists and recognized experts." "Specialists and recognized experts" would consist of folks with academic credentials (such as the two scholarly articles that you have moved around) or practical experience (such as the FBI) in dealing with hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit I haven't but my point is more general. I have followed this for a while (atleast a year or two now) and consistently seen any attempt at honest criticism brushed aside, because the author of the criticism was "right wing." There are definetly issues with mission creep within the SPLC, how serious the issue is, is where the debate really should be.Ucscottb4u (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than mission creep, the SPLC's mission has changed as the times have changed. The biggest change is the recognition of the dangers of hate speech as well as the attempted mainstreaming of such speech. The bottom line is still that regardless of the perception of the right wing, mainstream news organizations and academics continue to rely on the SPLC as an important and accurate source for information on hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter whether critics are right-wing, but whether their criticism is informed. There are for example informed sources that criticize anti-hate laws in other countries. If they also criticized the activities of the SPLC in being anti-free speech then we could report that too. But no one has found any. TFD (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

We have to remember to be careful about the "expert" thing. It would backfire, since there are many subjects where you have criticism from people who don't have degrees in a subject, but are nevertheless experts. Also, you have "experts" a lot of times where they have doctorates but are nevertheless irrational people going against the scientific consensus, for example the American College of Pediatricians. So it's very very very iffy to rely on expertise, and much more reliable to look at the venue in which the material is published. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition, what we have with certain criticisms of the SPLC is multiple opinions in multiple reliable sources building upon each other and expanding the same information. So to ask that the authors also be experts is not correct in this case. We may or may not need a separate section, but questioning whether these sources are reliable enough for inclusion, especially when taken together as a whole, doesn't seem to me a productive path. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

more questionable edits

For previous (stale) discussion, see Talk:SPLC - Badmintonhist's proposed changes.

After other editors disputed an earlier round of edits, Badmintonhist responded with what appears to be a brush off. More recently he continued to remove and reword content without discussing here first. I have reverted and restored content from the following two edits:

1. 07:24, 26 December 2010 Badmintonhist (talk | contribs) (62,028 bytes) (→Hate group listings: The FBI lists the SPLC as a resource for information on hate groups BUT it does not specifically recommend the SPLC's list of hate groups.) [16]
2. 06:36, 29 December 2010 Badmintonhist (talk | contribs) (62,080 bytes) (→Criticism of overheated rhetoric: I think that this wording more accurately summarizes what is found in the source.) [17]

In the first one, instead of improving the content in question, he simply removed it as well as the reference to the FBI. I believe this kind of edit is meant to diminish the credibility of the SPLC. The second edit's changed wording reads like lawyerspeak and further diminishes the content's impact. Discussion in the thread above has not properly addressed specific edit summaries like this [18] "Take to Talk. Changes this big have to be explained in more detail" -- which, as BeCritical noted (above), "is disruptive of normal WP process, as he was reverting almost entirely [19] to the changes he himself had just made." Badmintonhist has not answered to that concern, one which I and others share. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

+ this edit [20] removed significant points of the SPLC's notability from the lead: "legal victories against white supremacist groups" as well as its tracking of "militias and extremist organizations" both of which were there before. Also mentioned in discussion thread about lead changes, below. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The current formulation about the FBI & the SPLC says that the FBI recommends the SPLC's list of hate groups as a resource, but as Badmintonhist said, they do not specifically recommend the hate group list--they simply recommend the SPLC in general as a resource on hate groups (linking to the SPLC's homepage). Drrll (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate response would have been to correct the entry, as PrBeacon did rather easily, rather than delete it -- especially since the addition of the material was agreed to (if I remember correctly) by four editors with no negative opinions voiced. I believe even Bad himself at some point advocated adding the FBI.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, except he didn't do it properly and as it stands now it's still incorrect. The FBI website lists the SPLC as a resource. It doesn't list the SPLC's list of hate groups as a resource. See the difference. I don't really blame Beacon, however. He needs practice actually editing articles rather than being mainly a heckler and kibbitzer on talk pages, and I'm rather proud of him for attempting to do some substantive editing here. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To the distinction over what the FBI is endorsing as a resource, the SPLC's list is how the Center designates hate groups. Thus the connection seems logical to me. Regardless, Badmin's recent change [21] seems okay, as it implies the connection -- I tweaked it a bit for readability. But I think we can do without the unfunny sarcasm, Badmin -- I think you of all people should not be criticizing anyone else's preferred way of collaboration. Some of us are more comfortable discussing things on the talkpage, first, especially when relatively new to an article. Disagreements are not 'heckling' and it is certainly fair to bring up what appears to be agenda-driven editing when it interferes with article improvement. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The sum of the SPLC's hate group activity is not simply the list, and certain entries on it, such as the Family Research Council, are probably of little interest to the FBI. As I said I am (sincerely) happy that Beacon is now spending more time on substantive edits to the article and actually doing a decent job with them. This is definitely preferable to his excessively frequent talk page tendency to assume that other editors are "agenda-driven." Badmintonhist (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... As long as you ignore the mounting questions about your contentious edits (and edit summaries), instead choosing to take weak personal jabs, we can only assume you are here to whittle down the SPLC's relevancy. So your editorial opinion of article improvement and talkpage discussion means about as much as your edit count. Why do you keep removing endorsements of the hate group listings instead of working to improve them? -PrBeacon (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"We can only assume . . ." What you mean "we" Ke-mo sah-bee?? Our task as editors is neither to build up nor to "whittle down" the SPLC's relevancy. It is to describe the organization accurately according to reliable sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we as in other editors who object to your contributions. Your prickly condescension is unconstructive and distracting. You still have not answered the question: why didn't you improve the FBI content instead of removing it (along with the FBI website reference)? -PrBeacon (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Looking at the FBI web site, I think that the FBI's Civil Right Program's focus is on hate crimes rather than hate groups. Because of this, I think they would not use the SPLC's list of hate groups as a resource, just the crimes that SPLC identifies and researches. Because of this, I support the current sentence in the article, "The Southern Poverty Law Center is named as a resource by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Bureau's fight against hate crimes." --Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have hidden my research to support my thoughts in a collapsable box:

Does the FBI investigate hate groups?

I think there are two pages on the FBI web site that are most relevant: Hate Crime—Overview Domestic Terrorism: In the Post-9/11 Era Five paragraphs from Hate Crime—Overview: My comments are in italic. Investigating hate crime is the number one priority of our Civil Rights Program. Why? Not only because hate crime has a devastating impact on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance plant the seeds of terrorism here in our country. The opening paragraph does talk about hate groups, but especially in the context of domestic terrorism. A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties. I suggest that the SPLC hate group listing is more about hate speech than about hate crimes. Hate speech that does not lead to hate crimes is not investigated by the FBI's Civil Rights Program. In 2009, the passage of a new law—the first significant expansion of federal criminal civil rights law since the mid-1990s—gave the federal government the authority to prosecute violent hate crimes, including violence and attempted violence directed at the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community, to the fullest extent of its jurisdiction. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act also provides funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate, prosecute, and prevent hate crimes. This references crimes against the LGBT community. So anti-gay comments by the FRC, if they lead to hate crimes, are relevant. In 2007, we announced this renewed focus on racially-motivated killings from the civil rights era, involving FBI agents from more than a dozen field offices who—with the assistance of our law enforcement partners, community leaders, and the media—identified cases and then began tracking down witnesses and locating family members, pursuing leads, reviewing law enforcement records and other documents, and seeking closure for family members. Other pages in the FBI website say that they partner with the SPLC (and others) to investigate cold cases involving hate crimes. Hate crimes directed at the U.S. government or the American population may be investigated as acts of domestic terrorism. Incidents involving hate groups are also investigated as domestic terrorism (the FBI's Civil Rights Program cannot investigate groups, only individuals). Another mention of hate groups, again in the context of domestic terrorism. Two paragraphs and a list from Domestic Terrorism: In the Post-9/11 Era: Again, my comments are in italics. Today’s domestic terror threats run the gamut, from hate-filled white supremacists…to highly destructive eco-terrorists…to violence-prone anti-government extremists…to radical separatist groups. The SPLC has files on white supremist groups (Ku Klux Klan, Racist Skinhead, and White Nationalist) and radical separtist groups (Black Separatist and White Separatist). One particularly insidious concern that touches all forms of domestic extremism is the lone offender—a single individual driven to hateful attacks based on a particular set of beliefs without a larger group’s knowledge or support. In some cases, these lone offenders may have tried to join a group but were kicked out for being too radical or simply left the group because they felt it wasn’t extreme or violent enough. We believe most domestic attacks are carried out by lone offenders to promote their own grievances and agendas. Hate group listings are useful, but not enough. FBI must investigate members and ex-members. Other domestic terror threats: Eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists: As pointed out earlier in talk, these groups are not on SPLC's radar. Sovereign citizens movement: These groups are on SPLC's radar. See [22] and [23]. Anarchist Extremism: These groups are not on SPLC's radar. The SPLC is a listed resource for FBI's Civil Rights Program, but the Civil Rights Program does not investigate hate groups. The SPLC and Hatewatch are potential resources for FBI's Domestic Anti-Terrorism Program, but are not listed as such on FBI's website.

It has been my understanding for years and years, that the Southern Poverty Law Center is among the preeminent organizations for monitoring and documenting hate group activities. Before organizations like FRC were listed, I doubt most people would have taken this much issue with it. And now that FRC is listed, it seems like the SPLC as a resource has suddenly has a much more stringent burden of proof, including the very question of whether it is a credible source, let alone a credible resource. Somewhere in this very long, drawn-out recent discussion, I sense a great deal of recursive hairsplitting. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. No doubt that the SPLC is "among the preeminent organizations for monitoring and documenting hate group activities." This would not mean, however, that its list of hate groups would be beyond dispute. The criteria for designating an organization as a hate group is inherently subjective. The SPLC may be quite faithful in adhering to its own criteria in its listing of hate groups, but the validity of that criteria is a matter of opinion. To illustrate, the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover undoubtedly had technical proficiency in monitoring and documenting the activities of "subversive" groups. That does not mean that Hoover's FBI was beyond reproach in deciding which groups it considered subversive. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a fair assertion...it's not like J. Edgar Hoover was never known for his overreaching. Still, if the criteria itself needs more external consensus, I wonder if the Simon Wiesenthal Center also compiles a similar list. SPLC can't be the only operation to maintain such a list. Though, as I understand, being a hate monitoring organization is inherently extremely dangerous work, and it's reasonable that there might not be too many organizations willing to very publicly do similar work. If I recall, SPLC had their headquarters destroyed in a terrorist attack earlier in their history — I think that was around the same time they were famously suing the Aryan Nation for damages on behalf of a victim, and later succeeded in bankrupting that group. The inherent problem with legitimate hate monitoring is that it necessarily makes the monitor a magnet not only for criticism, but also for deadly crimes against them. One of the things over the years that has given SPLC so much notability is how they have persevered even in the face of terrorist attacks, assassination attempts, etc. They have a strong accumulated credibility as being one of the "good guys", so to say. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which part of SPLC's criteria is the point of contention? - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no present point of contention as to whether or not the SPLC's list of hate groups should be included as an FBI hate crimes resource. It's basically been decided here that the SPLC itself, but not its specific list of hate groups, should be credited as such a resource in the Wiki article. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I don't understand what the fuss is about. No one here seems to argue that the SPLC doesn't adhere well to its own clear criteria. And the criterion that includes among hate groups those that use libelous pseudoscience to denigrate categories of human beings for their immutable characteristics, seems very scientifically sound, as per the common definition of hate. I can imagine no more credible source on Wikipedia than accredited peer-reviewed scientific consensus. - Gilgamesh (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(: I argue that the SPLC does not adhere well to its criteria and (as well) its criteria is not clear. :) --Kevinkor2 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As I had hoped to make clear the fuss had pretty much ended before Gilgamesh weighed in with his "It has been my understanding . . ." comment. I probably shouldn't have responded initially because I was really just making an academic point. The questions of whether or not the SPLC's criteria for hate groups are consistent and/or whether or not its concept of hate is "scientific" should probably wait until such time as they actually involve proposed edits to the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Badmintonhist, about waiting until proposed edits. I agree. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the 'fuss' has not ended because you continue to make questionable edits and refuse to discuss them here. I believe Gilgamesh was talking about the fuss over the SPLC's credibility for its hate group listings. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific here, Pr. Which specific edit or edits did you have in mind? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Lead -- Version 1.1 Revisited

Somehow the lead got changed apparently w/o any discussion and certainly w/o us ever reaching consensus. I am repeating what I wrote earlier since it received some favorable response. The discussion is back in archive 5. The following is my proposal:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization internationally known for its free legal defense of hate group victims, monitoring of hate groups and their activities, and educational programs promoting tolerance. The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations which denigrate or assault entire groups of people for attributes which are beyond their control. SPLC publishes a quarterly Intelligence Report that investigates extremism and hate crimes in the United States.

The SPLC was founded in 1971 by Morris Dees and Joseph J. Levin Jr. as a civil rights law firm based in Montgomery, Alabama. They were quickly joined by civil rights leader Julian Bond who served as president of the board from 1971 to 1979. Its litigating strategy involved filing civil suits for damages on behalf of victims of discrimination with the goal of financially damaging the groups and individuals who directed the discrimination. While they originally focused on the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists, throughout the years they have become involved in cases concerning illegal segregation by groups such as the YMCA and Alabama State Police, welfare rights, work place rights for women, the constitutionality of the death penalty and its disparate application to African Americans, and the rights of adequate representation for poor African Americans in criminal trials.

I would also suggest a third paragraph that would focus on a summary of the history and current state of the SPLC's education programs and a fourth paragraph (see [24]) for guidelines on the size of a lead section) that summarizes the section on "Tracking of hate groups".

It was properly pointed out that "welfare rights, the rights of women, the death penalty, and the rights of criminal defendants" were not currently in the article. They should be -- this is the problem with working on the lead with the article in flux. The Encyclopedia of Alabama (see [25]) would be the source for this material -- it states:

Advocacy on behalf of women in the workplace and welfare recipients also resulted in landmark decisions. During this time, the organization also focused on the racially unbalanced death-row populations in U.S. prisons. SPLC provided legal representation in individual cases of poor black defendants who had not had the benefit of adequate counsel in their original trials. SPLC lawyers argued successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court that Alabama's laws regarding the death penalty were unconstitutional and won the freedom of 11 inmates in 1980.

A summary of this would be added in the subsection "Notable Cases"Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the first paragraph [26] two weeks ago, based on talkpage discussion at the time as well as the previous change by User:K [27]. As I said in the edit summary, the then-second sentence ('The SPLC is internationally known...') made the quote ("dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society") mostly redundant, so other problems with it would be moot -- since I agree with other editors about trying to avoid quotes, per WP:LEAD, especially in the very first sentence. I also thought it worked well to include the home city in the first sentence..:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization based in Montgomery, Alabama.^[2] The SPLC is internationally known for its legal victories against white supremacist groups, its tolerance education programs and its tracking of hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations.^[3][4][5] The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations that it has determined "have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."^[6]

As for the second and possibly third paragraph, I'd like to see that material worked into the body text first, as you've indicated. I would also support including the "dedicated" quote somewhere like the History section. Fwiw, I've tried rewriting the final sentence to eliminate the quote, but no luck so far. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to briefly encapsulate what is found in the body of the article. Welfare rights, workplace rights for women, the constitutionality of the death penalty, and the right to adequate counsel in criminal proceedings aren't in the body of the article now, so why bother with them? They can be added to the lead later, if and when they become part of the body. The body does talk about at least one religious Establishment Clause case and an immigration case. Why not mention those aspects of of the SPLC's efforts instead? Badmintonhist (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This section sounds good. I agree we should first put the material in the body. Then, decide whether we're finished for now with adding sections/material to the body. Then rewrite the lead accordingly. But we already have body sections which could be used in the lead. It would be fine to edit the lead to include the "Tracking of hate groups" section. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Badmintonhist continues to remove significant points of the SPLC's notability, this time from the lead: [28] -- which conspicuously omits "legal victories against white supremacist groups" as well as its tracking of "militias and extremist organizations" both of which were there before. This edit is yet another example of what I brought up in the previous thread, More questionable edits. I'm restoring those points to the lead. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I largely modeled my recent editing of the lead after the North Shoreman's proposal above. Although he and I have had our differences I thought most of his proposal was fine. As for PrBeacon's very recent edits to the lead they are okay with me too, though he needs to take care not emphasize the "Pr" part of his name when editing articles on subjects that he likes. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one here who is making questionable POV edits. Unless you can provide specific diffs of edits where you think I'm in the wrong here, I'll assume your warning/advice is simply another attempt to deflect and distract. And since you don't know what my username means, don't starting pretending to in some sort of veiled insult. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe we've pretty much decided to edit the article before the lead? If so, messing with the lead is just temporary edits, till a consensus lead can be worked out on the talk page. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On reopening discussion of the lead

I was happy enough with the one that existed about three edits ago. Not to pull any punches, the opening sentence now is an encyclopedic monstrosity. As for reopening discussion of the lead, it all depends on whether we want to be editors or whether we want to be complacent SPLC acolytes who were perfectly happy when much of the article was copied directly out of on-line SPLC publications. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Most of the plagiarism seems to have been the work of a self-styled history academic, though not our beloved North Shoreman. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

With that attitude, it looks like serious editors will need to work around you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I tell it like it is, baby. You haven't exactly been Mr. Congeniality yourself, my fellow retiree. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between not pulling punches and creating negativity where it doesn't need to exist. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ten Commandments image

A rather minor issue but does the article really need the photograph of Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument? It does look rather nice and may add to the article's visual appeal but is it all that pertinent to an article on the Southern Poverty Law Center? Is it supposed to show readers what the SPLC delivered them from? Thoughts? Badmintonhist (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't need be in. Frankly, I don't see why the monument needs to be mentioned at all in this article. It seems like a very minor incident unrelated to the mission of the SPLC, and a better fit for the ACLU article. Drrll (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture is appropriate since it is EXACTLY what the lawsuit was about. Separation of church and state is a very important issue and received much more coverage in reliable sources than, for example, the whole FRC situation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it was put there, in part, because it looked nice on the page which is kind of ironic since the SPLC din't want the thing viewed on public grounds. This reminds of a more important issue, however. In the lead, North Shoreman, why don't we include the SPLC's involvement in Establishment clause, and immigration cases which are actually in the body of the article rather than those other issues that are not? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree it doesn't need to be there, but why not? It's cool. And relevant to the article. And agree that whatever's in the lead should be in the body. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ranch Rescue

Interesting how Becritical didn't see fit to remove repetition of "El Salvadorans" even as he removed other repetitions.Strde (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I commend Stride for adding useful information from a reliable source (The New York Times) to this subsection, I think that Becritical's wording was fine. Repeating "El Salvadorans" is innocuous. Repeating "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" twice gives one the impression that the editor is trying to make a political point. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, eliminating the rep. that they are illegal aliens while keeping the rep. that they are El Sav. gives one the impression that Badmintonhist is trying to make a political point. My position is consistent, your position is not.Strde (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"El Salvadorans" was BeCritical's wording, though I'm fine with it. Just out of curiosity, however, what political point would I have been making? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't read your mind any more than you can read mine, but I can spot inconsistency. Becritical showed his own bias by ignoring the repitition of "vigilantes" and "El Salvadorians", while cleansing the repetition of illegal aliens. Do you not see that?Strde (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "El Salvadoran" is preferred to "El Salvadorian." Sometimes writers avoid repetition when referring to the same thing simply because of the monotony of repetition, sometimes for other reasons. In the case at hand repetitious use of the adjective "illegal" when referring to the two people from El Salvador gives the impression (to me, at least) that the editor is trying to emphasize that status to create more sympathy for the vigilantes (or would you prefer "good samaritans"?) who stopped them. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, I would prefer consistency to your bias. There you go again trying to read my mind and pigeon-hole me. You don't get it do you? Your bias is coming through crystal clear.Strde (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw the repetition of "illegal" as POV, true. I don't know how else to designate the two groups, except by repeating "El Salvadorans." However, vigilante is not a POV term. It is only POV relative to a person's idea about the behavior. If one were to think that, in the case that the government does not perform its basic duty to protect the people from illegal acts, the citizens have a right and duty to take matters into their own hands (and I think that's pretty much what Ranch Rescue would say), then it's a positive-POV term. If the reader thinks that only governmental agencies should enforce the law under all circumstances, then it's a negative-POV term. In the end, it's a neutral term since its POV can't be determined. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Illegal Alien is not a POV term. If one were to think that, in the case that the government does not allow enough immigrants into the country, would-be immigrants have a right and duty to take matters into their own hands (and I think that's pretty much what Illegal Immigrants would say), then it's a positive-POV term. If the reader thinks that only legal immigrants should be allowed in the country under all circumstances, then it's a negative-POV term. In the end, it's a neutral term since its POV can't be determined. Agree?Strde (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but repetition would be POV because the reader is certainly programmed over a lifetime to think negatively about anything "illegal." Thus making it plain once that their status is "illegal" is sufficient. Certainly repetition of "El Salvadoran" is, at least, less POV. At any rate, your change to the article didn't make it any less POV. If you can think of some way to designate groups which is less POV than the way I did it, then I'm all for that. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose every dispute in Wikipedia is a tempest in a teapot but this is a tempest in a teapot inside a miniature ship caught in the tempest in the teapot. I've complimented Strde for bringing in the New York Times article and its info about the incident, but let's not get hung up on the terms we use to describe the man and the woman from El Salvador. The time would be better spent on finding other reliable sources for other incidents that are as yet described solely by the SPLC in this article. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol, agree. And I'm going to edit the section assuming you know that it was 2 people a man and a woman. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just caught your latest edit of this incident, Becritical. It's good. Kind of reads like a police report. Remind me to recommend you for a barnstar one of these days. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

lol, thanks :D :P BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-encylopedic Fund Raising Section Revisited

The issue was brought up before Xmas (see archive 6) and there was discussion about streamlining the sectionand eliminating unnecessary quotes -- something that is considered good with the other editing going on. The best way to determine whether something in wikipedia is encyclopedic is to compare how the same material is treated in other encyclopedias. They seem to manage to cover the same material w/o resorting to inflammatory quotes or discussions of Pulitzer Prizes.

From the Encyclopedia of Alabama ([29]):

"The dramatic, and often heroic, work of the SPLC has not gone without its critics. Questions have been raised in local and national media about changes in SPLC's fundraising tactics as it has grown to become "one of the most profitable charities in the country," as noted in Harper's magazine. Critics contend that efforts at marketing the organization for potential donors have taken the focus off the important work of the organization, such as its early efforts to fight the death penalty."

From West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (original article pasted at [30]):

"In addition to being the subject of continuous vitriolic attacks by extremist organizations, whose activity it monitors, the center was the subject of strong criticism by Washington, D.C. based writer Ken Silverstein. Writing in the November 2000 issue of Harper's Magazine, Silverstein accused the center of raising millions of dollars from fund-raising and investments but spending only a portion of the money raised on its civil rights programs."

The Encyclopedia of Business at [31] states (located by Badmintonhist):

In November 2000, the organization and Dees were profiled in a highly critical article in Harper's magazine. The writer of the article echoed comments made over the years by other critics: the firm's emphasis on fundraising well beyond its current needs, its relatively small percentage of black employees, and the reputed unhappiness of many who worked there were all touched on, with some calling Dees the "televangelist" of the civil rights movement. He responded that many of the complaints had been made by disgruntled former employees and that the endowment was necessary to keep the organization positioned for long term survival.

The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties covers the issue in more details (start at [32] and then switch to Amazon to get the rest of the section -- I can’t paste from either site) but it still zeroes in on what’s relevant by focusing only on what the Advertiser and Silverstein w/o inflamatory quotes.

We should be able to reduce the section to one paragraph representing the SPLC position and one on the criticism, eliminating the quotes and limiting it to Silverstein and the Advertiser in the text with other references, per BeCritical's suggestion, included as footnotes.

My suggestion for text:

Starting in 1971 the SPLC utilized fund raising efforts to build up its endowment, stating that all its activities including litigation are supported by fundraising efforts, and it does not accept any fees or share of legal judgments awarded to clients it represents in court. At the end of 2010 the endowment stood at $189.7 million. Dees has stated that the large endowment is necessary "for long term survival". 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%.

The SPLC has received criticism for excessive fundraising, high salaries for officers, and disproportionate reserves. In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser ran a series alleging the SPLC was financially mismanaged and employed misleading fundraising practices. In 2000 Harper's Magazine published an article by Ken Silverstein with similar criticism and updated the charges in 2007. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree to the extent that we should eliminate quotes. Also, the last paragraph "Sociologists Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile..." is unnecessary. But I see no reason to eliminate historical detail which gives context to the criticisms, or other information. Considering the sources I don't think this is undue weight as it is, and giving a summary of the criticism and its context is useful to the reader. What I noticed about those articles is that their articles are much smaller than ours (2977 is the largest I could copy/paste, versus our 4945), so our more detailed article would naturally have more on this subject. The article here looks about the same size as ours, and gives criticism about the same amount of space. So looking at the other encyclopedias, I note that they WEIGHT it about the same as we do now relative to their articles. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, I can't help being persuaded when I look at the section that the information dug up by WP editors belongs in the article. It's a pretty succinct rundown of what seem to me to be substantial claims or information, such as the American Institute of Philanthropy rating. It's in order now. There is a question about whether we should have the Pulitzer in there. I tried to solve that by seeing if RS also mentioned it, and found a couple that did. So anyway, I hope others here will respond to this so we can try to come to some consensus, especially about whether it violates WEIGHT. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. My initial reaction is that were the present article about one quarter of its present length with an encyclopedic tone maintained throughout (rather than the golly, gee whiz, aren't they wonderful! tone that much of the article still exudes) then a section on its finances something like the one suggested by the North Shoreman might be okay (though even then its failing charity grade should not be omitted). This, obviously, is not the case. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Rather off topic, though not unrelated to the SPLC's finances: one of the great omissions of this article is that it fails to give the reader an idea of the financial reality of the SPLC's successful lawsuits for monetary damages; to wit: that the groups and people that it sues are routinely already impoverished and therefore cannot provide any substantial portion of the damages that are won. I notice in the case of Michael Donald's mother the article mentions that the United Klans of America was forced to turn over its "national headquarters" because it could not pay the $7 million dollar judgment against it. What the article doesn't say is that these headquarters were a warehouse worth a whopping $52,000. Must have been some palace. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) PSS. The Montgomery Advertiser series, I believe, said that the SPLC raised something like $9 million by pushing the McDonald slaying with its contributors. The money did not go to McDonald's mother. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a really good observation and I hope there can be some way of putting it in the article, because it gives context to the SPLC's money hoarding. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 08:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd argument -- the rest of the article is bad so let's make this section bad too.

As far as the McDonald case, there is no indication that the SPLC misrepresented in its fund raising that the money was going to McDonald's mother or that she was dissatisfied with the result. Let's remember, the SPLC can't file criminal charges -- their only option is civil action. You seem to be very confused over who the bad guys were (the KKK), who the victim was (the McDonalds), and who actually did SOMETHING about it after government failed to (the SPLC). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:51, 5 January

2011 (UTC)

In the better late than never department a couple of corrections here, one very minor and one quite major. The family name of the murder victim and his mother was Donald not McDonald. That's minor, but he the North Shoreman's contention that the government failed to do something about Donald's murder is not minor and it is simply false. One of Donald's murderers was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, the other was convicted, sentenced to death, and eventually executed. These convictions came before the SPLC's lawsuit, not after it. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Building a strong endowment fund is essential for any charitable organization -- especially an organization that has long term plans to continue to provide free legal service to people who need it the most. Calling it "money hoarding" implies that there is some nefarious purpose to it. In reality, people voluntarily decide what charities they contribute to and the attacks, largely from the extreme right, on the fund raising has been visible for a good while. Fully informed people continue to vote with their pocketbooks to support the SPLC and the SPLC is still generally seen as a positive force in the areas of civil rights, education, and exposure of bigotry. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is by Stephen Bright published by Ken Silverstein on the Harpers website? What do people think of it as a source? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

More of the same. It adds nothing to the information that is already in the article. Rather than doing any original research, Black relies on the published results of others. It is non-encyclopedic to fill up an article with endless quotes that all support a single conclusion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, who's Black? Do you mean Bright? Speaking of black (and white) however, some people are sophisticated enough to realize that the enemy of my enemy may not always be such a "good guy." Badmintonhist (talk) PS As for the "right wing" mantra, not one of the criticisms that I have yet seen in this section of the article comes from the right wing. Not one. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sophisticated enough to recognize an orchestrated effort to attack the SPLC on a phony issue when the real agenda is hate groups whining about being labeled hate groups. I first saw Harpers being promoted as the final word on the SPLC by the League of the South and other neo-confederate and non-KKK white supremacist groups. Later they were promoted by the anti-immigrant groups and now the gay bashing groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes Tom, but as you say, more of the same, and this time, by an expert in the field, isn't he? So an expert confirming the RS? We wouldn't use this source since as you say it's repetitive, but it's an argument against this section being UNDUE as it is. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? Mr. Bright is at expert at fund raising? Has he done any actual investigation of the SPLC? Written a peer reviewed article on the subject? Is he widely quoted on the SPLC in reliable sources? All you have is a letter he wrote declining a speaking engagement. As reliable sources go, pretty lame. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

. A corollary of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset is that if my enemy puts forth a third party's argument then that third party must also be wrong. Speaking of sources, another potential one would be the work of John Egerton a highly respected journalist who wrote about Dees and his operation in one of the essays in Shades of Gray (1991) published by the Louisiana State University Press. Articles similar to this essay had previously been published in a couple of periodicals, one of them was The Progressive. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it's certainly not the very best source, but experts come much lamer than "Stephen Bright (born 1947) is president and senior counsel for the Southern Center for Human Rights and teaches at Harvard University and Yale University Law Schools and the Georgetown University Law Center...Bright received the American Bar Association’s Thurgood Marshall Award in 1998; the American Civil Liberties Union’s Roger Baldwin Medal of Liberty in 1991; the National Legal Aid & Defender Association’s Kutak-Dodds Prize in 1992, honorary degrees from Emory, Northeastern, Louisville universities, the University of Central England, and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and other awards." I could see you asking for peer review if this were a hard science article, but it's not. As the president of a similar institution [33], even one whose focus is different, I would think he would be an expert on whether it's proper for the SPLC to raise funds in the way it does. Further, since the SPLC's actual fundraising practices are not in question, but rather whether they are proper, he doesn't need to be an expert in fundraising, nor does he need to have done research. He merely needs to be in a position to determine whether they are proper. Since this question has several facets including: he's not an expert directly in fund raising but does head a similar institution; the source is his letter, which isn't RS. The venue is less-RS because it's a blog, but it is the blog of Harper's Washington Editor, and Harper's is an RS. So factors which detract from it being and RS: it's in a blog, and the person isn't an expert on fund raising per se. Factors which advance it as an RS: Bright is president of a similar institution to the SPLC, quoted on the website of an RS by an editor of that RS. He does seem to be quoted [34] [35] [36] It might be an interesting question for the RS noticeboard. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Other notes on finances

""The Center’s Endowment has been built by setting aside each year a portion of the funds we raise. The Board decided that the Center should continue to save and invest until such a time when the income from the endowment was either adequate to support our programs, or the exigencies of fundraising made it necessary to invade the fund. Based on the foundation practice of spending approximately 5.5% of assets each year, our current endowment of $190 million would not begin to support our existing programs." If we could source this we should put it in the article

Another interesting source Unsigned edit by BeCritical

Endowment Fund The quote on how the SPLC uses its endowment fund describes pretty much how ANY ORGANIZATION utilizes an endowment fund. This is why we should give very limited weight to claims that the SPLC endowment is excessive IF those claims fail to provide ANY analysis of the size of the endowment within the actual context of the SPLC. '

The audited financial statement of the SPLC shows that its operating expenses for the fiscal year ending in October 2009 were $29,613,634 while the net income generated from the endowment fund was $29,486,045 -- not quite at the break even point.

The SPLCs Form 990 states, as required by IRS regulations, the goal of its endowment fund (Schedule D pages 4-5) 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.” There is no sourcing that suggests that (1) this is an improper goal for an endowment fund or that (2) the actual amount in the fund goes beyond this amount. In fact, building an adequate endowment is exactly what the SPLC should be doing.

Bright’s mention of the SPLC’s “$175-million operation” (which refers to the size of the endowment) is misleading and relies on the reader concluding that this is such a big number it must be bad. Similarly, this sentence attributed to Silverstein:

"Dees had previously promised that when the SPLC's assets reached $55 million, the organization would cease fundraising; when the endowment neared that sum, he increased the amount to the now surpassed $100 million."

is a distortion. $55 million may have been an adequate endowment at one time (it was actually said in 1978!!), but now even the $100 million amount would be inadequate. The continuing effort to post additional numbers WITHOUT ADEQUATE CONTEXT is a NPOV violation.

Excessive Salary Your Another interesting source is interesting with regard to claims that the SPLC’s officer compensation is excessive. The tables on page 6 suggest that Dees’ salary may be high but not extremely so -- it certainly falls well short of the most extreme cases that the article mentions. I imagine it also falls well short of what the senior partner for a national law firm earns. The only source mentioned to support the case was Silverstein’s reference to a 1998 magazine survey -- much less reliable today than it would have been in 1998. Somebody has to be at the top of any list -- what we lack and what is very relevant to WP:WEIGHT is what does being at the top of such a list mean? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good research and analysis. I don't have time to fully respond right now, but If you had a dollar in 1978 it would be worth $3.36 now. So $55 million times 3.36 = 184 million, and the current assets of the SPLC are 189 million. So essentially, they are at the point they said they would cease fundraising [37]. Their compensation may be excessive, but it's not excessive relative to that of other organizations of the same nature. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, Dees, both a lawyer and a businessman, had no real concept of inflation when he said that fundraising (apparently, as aggressive now as ever) would cease when the endowment reached 55 million. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that suggested text? It would be WP:OR. We could just say that "as of 2010 the SPLC endowment of 189 million, when adjusted for inflation, had slightly surpassed the 55 million landmark stated by Dees in 1978." That's a statement relating pure simple math, which is allowable and not OR. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not suggested text. It's a point related to the sincerity, or lack of same, in Dees's "promise.". Even an economic ignoramus such as myself makes some rough allowance for inflation when estimating future economic needs. When Dees said that fundraising would be scaled back when the SPLC's endowment reached 55 million did he really think that the value of 55 million would remain constant? What I'm arguing is that the North Shoreman's point about inflation is cogent only if Dees was an economic babe in the woods back in 1978, and somehow I get the feeling that Dees hasn't been economically naive for a long, long time. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I guess. Does it really matter? The level Dees talked about has been surpassed, even if he did mean "adjusted for inflation." Whether or not the criticism is valid, that's what we seem to have from RS. Not only do the SPLC's fundraising practices look wrong to them, but Dees said what he said and that was not followed by the board over the years (under either interpretation). It's also silly to think that Dees would make such a statement and not mean "adjusted for inflation." So let's just make the most liberal assumption since it doesn't matter here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still a matter of weight and calling a living person a liar (as the article certainly does now) requires a very conservative approach to the source. My original suggestion to reduce it all to The SPLC has received criticism for excessive fundraising, high salaries for officers, and disproportionate reserves is accurate without giving undue weight to a few very partisan statements. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still a matter of weight. How relevant is an erroneous statement made 32 years ago to this article? What Silverstein actually said was:

Back in 1978, when the center had less than $10 million, Dees promised that his organization would quit fund-raising and live off interest as soon as its endowment hit $55 million.

Of course a very sophisticated economist can make an error on the future rate of inflation and the rate of return on investments. The issue is not whether there would be inflation but how much inflation would a reasonable person expect in 1978 and what rate of return could a reasonable person expect on investments in 1978. And of course $55 million WAS NOT sufficient for the SPLC to live off the interest. The SPLC should have closed its doors because of something Dees MIGHT have said in 1978?

I say "might" because Silverstein neglects to provide either a source for the alleged statement, the context it was said in, or even an exact quote. Once again, a less than ideal source with limited relevance to the article.

Silverstein plays fast and loose with his interpretations elsewhere in the article. He says that the SPLC could have lasted 4.6 years w/o any further fund raising -- a completely nonsensical argument that totally ignores the purpose of an endowment. The wikipedia article suggests ONLY that Dees made an outright lie (32 years ago) -- there are two many other possible interpretations. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We could take that sentence out entirely, since it's not really relevant to the case that the SPLC fundraising practices seem wrong to the RS authors. You make a good case. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To anyone who wants to field it. What other civil rights charities, or charities in general, for that matter, expect to provide services in perpetuity off their investment income? And perhaps more to the point, have the SPLC's fundraising appeals told average Joe donors that this is what their contributions were all about, not present cases, really, but rather the building of an enormous surplus so that the SPLC could conquer future generations of haters merely with its investment income. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ford Foundation and the Harvard University Endowment. TFD (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, HUGE operations begun by the fabulously wealthy such as the Ford Foundation, or a fund connected to a venerable, centuries old institution such as Harvard. Not a start-up operation such as Dees's which solicits donations from the great unwashed (relatively speaking) by stating that these funds are needed for pressing, immediate concerns. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Here you go here[[38]] or here [[39]] or here [[40]]. The first listed start up endowment fund:

"The Board projects that the Endowment Fund needs to reach $500,000 to be self-sustaining enough to generate enough annual revenue to support the District's student initiatives."

Just because I responded doesn't mean that I buy into the elitist argument that Harvard gets to operate with a different set of rules than start-up operations.

Your concern for "the great unwashed" doesn't sound too sincere. Any actual violations of law? Anybody successfully sued the SPLC for taking funds under false pretenses? Any survey of contributors that suggests a significant number are unhappy with their donations? In reality, all we have is Silverstein et al telling people how they OUGHT to view their donations. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And your predictable defense of anything and everything that Dees has done doesn't sound too intelligent. Any fund-raising literature from the SPLC explaining to the great unwashed that their donations are part of an effort to create a self-sustaining SPLC fund so that their grandchildren, or great grandchildren, perhaps, won't have to contribute? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There ought to be someone else around her to ask about the criticisms and see whether they are really based on anything. WP should include someone who can really evaluate such things. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done my best to stay above/out of the fray, but it's time to point out that this whole thread (nay, this whole talk page) reeks of a few editors who seem intent on interpreting sources and advocating a viewpoint. Certainly these fringe assertions regarding finances are not accepted (or even acknowledged as legitimate concerns) by reliable sources or the general public. Over the last twenty years there have been so few sources that one can count them on one hand, which doesn't even come close to meeting due weight for inclusion. The length to which editors are attempting to wrangle policy and link sources to "prove" a point is absolutely shameful. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You're being a bit harsh, Blax. No need to be so disdainful of the group of editors who allowed the article to be built on plagiarized material from the SPLC. That's who you're talking about, right? Anybody can make a mistake, and we're getting them under control now. Yes, it's true that the reliable sources who've written about it (John Egerton, Laird Wilcox, Stephen Bright, Ken Silverstein, Alexander Cockburn, Jerry Kammer, and the Montgomery Advertiser) have strongly criticized the SPLC's financial operation; yes it's true that the SPLC has gotten miserable ratings from the American Institute of Philanthropy and Charity Navigator; but I think that editors should at least have a chance to demonstrate that there are reliable sources that support the SPLC's financial tactics. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A bit harsh? Ironic, considering you recently devolved into calling an editor stupid. Any way you slice it, it's obvious there are two or three of you are pursuing a fringe agenda that isn't supported by a preponderance of sources. Have at it with confidence, as I have no doubt the rest of us will tire of going in circles with someone who is motivated by ideology instead of policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I didn't call our friend stupid, Blax. I said that his predictable defense of any and all things Dees didn't sound too intelligent. And that was only after he called me insincere . . . whoops! I mean after he said that my concern for the "great unwashed" didn't sound too sincere. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between "I don't think you are being sincere" and "you don't sound too intelligent". To the larger point, you're being tendentious and ignoring several policies, guidelines, and general consensus. Please take your axe to another grindstone. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm possibly, possibly. Though, it's arguable either way. In any case, as you should know, Blax, insults tend to escalate, which is why one should avoid being the first to throw one. On the other matter my axe is comfortable where it is; it likes it here for now. You see, as perhaps you didn't notice, the "general consensus," on this section of the article, at least, seems to favor my point of view. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No sir, it's not arguable -- Tom simply stated his belief that you're being insincere (not a personal attack), and you called him stupid (a personal attack). Peddle your false equivalence to try and justify your behavior elsewhere; You were the first, and you certainly have no standing to act sanctimonious or justified. The only redeeming statement in this entire section is your admission that you're pushing an agenda (obvious as it may be without your acknowledgment). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes sir, yes sir. Tom called me insincere and I simply stated my belief that certain of his edits "didn't sound too intelligent," not that they were positively stupid. No, he was definitely the first, but I've already forgiven him. As for you, Blax, I would suggest you quit trolling the talk pages to harass editors who actually edit the article not just its discussion area. I used to good naturedly kid PrBeacon about that, but he has come along splendidly and is actually making some defensible edits to the article, BUT YOU . . . ZILCH! Moreover, your failure to detect obvious massive plagiarism in the article indicates to me that you have never been interested in its integrity, only in guarding it from serious, un-acolytish editors. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Which policy or guideline recommends weighting editors' opinions based on the breakdown of their edits across namespaces? Does it mean I can ignore your opinions, since I have nearly twice as many article edits? Does it mean I am more willing to discuss changes, since I have five times the number of talk page contributions? Does it mean I am more valuable, since I have made four times the contributions you have? Perhaps your high article edit count means you frequently engage in reversion cycles and edit wars... Perhaps we should base respect on the number of times someone's mainspace edit has been reverted. Falling back to ad hominem justification is as sad as it is unexpected, so instead of continuing to devolve into pissing contests, let's leave the advocacy, fringe viewpoints, personal attacks, and original research behind and work with in policy. Feel free to take the last word... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I really can't help responding to this thread, because the latest round started with so many incorrect assertions. Let's pick them apart:

Certainly these fringe assertions regarding finances...

WP:FRINGE is determined by WP:RS, and thus they cannot be fringe assertions.

...are not accepted (or even acknowledged as legitimate concerns) by reliable sources...

Untrue, the sources are RS in and of themselves, and are acknowledged as RS by other sources, notably ones like the Christian Science Monitor and other encyclopedias.

...or the general public....

Whether the general public says anything about anything is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.

...Over the last twenty years there have been so few sources that one can count them on one hand, which doesn't even come close to meeting due weight for inclusion....

There are more sources than that, especially if you count the other encyclopedia articles. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BeCritical, I have no problem with you disagreeing with my assessment, however my point is that a reading of the past few weeks' discussions looks like two or three editors who try to tie together disparate sources to draw conclusions and give prominence to viewpoints that aren't generally held. A reading of the sources, and a general familiarity with most reliable sources, shows the SPLC is a respected organization without a dark shadow of shady financing and questionable leadership. It is clear to me that instead of Wikipedia reflecting the generally held view of a preponderance of sources, some are attempting to use Wikipedia to give prominence to those alleged shadows. That's not what we're supposed to be about. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right in everything you say there, except I'm not expert enough to know whether they are shady in some respect. There are editors here who would like the article to go too far in both directions. Nevertheless the discussion has so far been fairly polite and productive. Just because people have differing views based on their own standpoint is not a reason to say they don't have their place in creating an overall NPOV article. As to whether the SPLC is shady, I think they are most likely as shady as most institutions such as the ACLU which sends me letters of the most detestable rhetoric. I used to send them back an analysis on their questionnaires saying basically how POV pushy they were. The SPLC cries HATE GROUP, MURDER, MAYHEM, INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF GROUPS, and people donate. Maybe the reason there are more groups is that the SPLC splintered them. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree with your logic, BeCritical. What you describe is the golden mean fallacy -- one does not create a neutral article by treating all viewpoints as equal and then seeking a middle ground. Policy dictates that articles should reflect viewpoints with the weight it's accorded in reliable sources, and I don't think any of the recent discussions have been in furtherance of that goal. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to substance, it is interesting to me that the criticism of the SPLC by highly respected charity watchdogs, well-known journalists, and well-known progressive thinkers and activists doesn't seem to have been met with anything like an equally weighty and cogent response from third party reliable source defenders. I remember a previous discussion concerning Hillary Clinton's association with Media Matters for America. Someone observed that relatively few major media outlets linked the two together. I made the counter-point that among those outlets that actually covered Media Matters most either described or assumed a link between the two. I think the situation here may be somewhat similar. Among the charity watchdog orgs., journalists, and political commentators who have actually devoted some time to studying the SPLC's financial operation, which ones have mounted a rousing defense of it? Badmintonhist (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Another failure in logic (see evidence of absence); the absence of sources disproving an allegation is not an argument that those allegations deserve weight. The proper evaluation is against how the organization and its practices are reported in all reliable sources, and given that academia, media organizations, and the government all seem to hold the SPLC in high regard, I don't see how this is weighty enough to warrant endless discussion and more than a sentence in the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but among the reliable sources that have actually reported on the SPLC's finances what is the consensus? RS's that allegedly "hold the the SPLC in high regard" don't really count for the purposes of this section of the article, unless they have taken a good look at the SPLC's financial operation. Some may appreciate its effort against Klan remnants, enjoy its list of "hate groups, may be pleased to see that it is adding groups who disapprove of homosexual behavior to that list, but all this has no real relevance to the SPLC's finances. If only one or two somewhat "iffy" sources had said that the operation was dubious then your point would be stronger, but it is far, far more than one or two. AS I mentioned before it's the likes of Stephen Bright, Ken Silverstein, John Egerton, Laird Wilcox, Alexander Cockburn, Jerry Kammer (a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter), Millard Farmer, the Montgomery Advertiser, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, the American Institute of Philanthropy, and others. For the section on the the SPLC's finances we have to ask "what do reliable sources say about those finances?" not "do most reliable sources hold the SPLC in high regard?" Badmintonhist (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly how it seems to me. Unless someone can come up with a different analysis in RS about the SPLC's finances. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

BeCritical I disagree with your claim that this latest thread has been productive. Instead I see circular arguments and speculation unsuited for discussion of article improvement. In this and other threads, Badmintonhist continues to apply his skewed sense of collaboration: judging editors by edit counts, dismissing objections as 'heckling' and 'trolling' [41] [42], and ignoring questions about his edits by various means. As I said before, his prickly condescension is destructive and diversionary. Incredibly patronizing statements like "I used to good naturedly kid PrBeacon about that, but he has come along splendidly.." [43] are just his latest attempt to reframe his nastiness. As usual he's counting on wearing other editors down, but I'm getting closer to taking this kind of continual disruption to the next step in WP:DR. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is at least the second time, Pr, that you have used the adjective "prickly" to describe my behavior. I can't help but feel that this is a an indirect way of calling me a prick. For the time being I'll let it go, but my patience is not infinite. Normally I only allow my spouse to make such comments. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you really just make up your own definition out of whole cloth, and then act all sanctimonious? Let's consult Merriam-Webster (emphasis mine):

prick·ly

adj \ˈpri-k(ə-)lē\

1 - full of or covered with prickles; especially : distinguished from related kinds by the presence of prickles

2 - marked by prickling : stinging (a prickly sensation)

3 - a : troublesome, vexatious (prickly issues) b : easily irritated (had a prickly disposition)

A sad attempt, sir. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A sad attempt at humor, perhaps. Did you REALLY think I was serious, Blax? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Blaxthos, it's not the golden mean, I would never say that. It's NPOV, but what happens with Wikipedia is that you don't get a golden mean, but from all the POV pushing arises NPOV in the end. Hey, I know it doesn't make sense, but it's usually true. The only time it isn't is when the subject is such that it attracts POV pushers but no neutrals and also attracts no POV pushers from the other side. That's because the only place that it can stick under the rules is NPOV, so the pushing actually tends to stick, as a statistical kind of thing, at NPOV. So POV push on both sides plus NPOV rule tends toward NPOV. Not a golden mean, which would not be correct.

PrBeacon, I agree that he's headed toward a lynching like Dylan, but then so is Blaxthos and you maybe. You're all nasty to each other. As an example of where the discussion took us, I think we would have no trouble now taking out the sentence "Dees had previously promised that when the SPLC's assets reached $55 million, the organization would cease fundraising; when the endowment neared that sum, he increased the amount to the now surpassed $100 million." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I don't disagree with your edit deleting the reference to Dees's "failed promise," BeCritical, but for propriety's sake, don't you think you were a little quick on the draw in doing it this abruptly? Badmintonhist (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew you didn't disagree with that or you would have said something above. And I knew no one else here would. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have attempted to stay away from this article to let things sort themselves out and hope that the group of editors that are obviously trying to use a few sources to include material that does not belong in the article would stop. That does not seem to be happening at all, and in fact the material being added does not belong and the "discussion" on this talk page is nothing more than a pissing contest on a merry-go-round. I would be very supportive if other editors who are not obviously trying to discredit the SPLC, an organization that the majority of reliable sources deem to be exactly what the SPLC states itself to be, want to remove the added material and get this article back to the way it should be. Let's stop letting the POV pushers run this article into the ground now. Dave Dial (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to specify what text you are talking about. Perhaps you are talking about the state of the article some time before I came along. There's nothing specific in what you say that can be responded to (so, to other editors, please don't, as this is very inflammatory and one should not respond except to specifics). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dave -- It will remain nothing but a "pissing contest" until the editors who have consistently opposed the agenda represented by one or two editors start to both speak up and, above all, focus. Three editors other than myself have expressed some sort of general dissatisfaction with the editing style, but have not really addressed the proposal to actually replace the language with a more neutral account. I'm pretty sure I know what language you probably contest, but you do need to be clearer. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically? The whole financial criticism section is poorly sourced, based on opinion pieces with no unbiased facts to back up the criticism. It's absurd, and unfounded. The SPLC has stepped in to try and stop hate groups from hurting the most vulnerable of society, who become the most vulnerable because of who they are, at the time of their ordeals. Just like the Humane Society steps in to try and help abused and vulnerable animals, they put out heart wrenching stories and highlight the most extreme cases. As do the charities who try to find a cure for cancer(the American Cancer Society, etc.). The criticism of the SPLC and their money raising(calling it "money hoarding", etc) is just plain incorrect and not backed up by the facts. It's undue weight to have added this section, and the changes made should be changed back. Dave Dial (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This [44] is perhaps an earlier version that you may have found as more acceptable. I certainly do although some of the changes I've suggested below should also be made to this version -- specifically a clarification of what the significance of the numbers and ratings awarded by the charity watchdogs are. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Improper use of sources

The list of sources below 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.

It is pretty audacious to ask, as Badmintonhist does, why there aren’t more sources making a “rousing defense” of Silverstein’s sloppy work or Cockburn’s two sentences. The answer that comes immediately to mind is that serious scholars don’t find it appropriate to address brief mentions in popular magazines when doing serious academic research.

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 [[45]]

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 [[46]]

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. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[Continuing] 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.

While I still prefer my original recommendation, 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.

I left out the reference to high salaries since it doesn’t fit with this paragraph but it could be added back along with the explanatory info. that BeCritical had identified earlier in the discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[Continuing] Using BeCritical's source, I suggest the following:

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) 13:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks to me like some very good research and suggestions. The context you give is really great. I'm not entirely sure about eliminating the other sources though, because 1) the venues they were published in are too RS, and 2) there are other RS sources including other encyclopedias which give them about as much weight per their amount of text as we do per our text. So rather than trust my own judgment or yours, I would trust the way other RS have treated the subject on that score. What we can do is to give context, rather than eliminating the very fact of the RS criticism. Certainly we can't eliminate the Advertiser, not sure if you're suggesting that. So, agree we should give more context and I like your text for that. Disagree we should entirely eliminate the critics even if they aren't being fair; even if they are indeed misleading, per WP:MAINSTREAM: we aren't trying to have truth. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if you don't want to leave out the Advertiser, how would you respond to someone who said that the other sources are really just saying "the problem is still there?" If there was a problem at the time of the Advertiser, has something changed, and if so what changed? Yes, I know I should do the reading, but I think you've already done it for me. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on a single year, 2008. The Center, after all, has existed for forty years and its poor charity ratings (example: failing an audit by the Better Business Bureau of Fairfax County, Virginia in 2003 because of the high percentage of its budget devoted to fundraising and administrative costs) are not confined to 2008 alone. The Center now, apparently, refuses to cooperate in giving info to the BBB. I'm no financial expert but it seems to me that 2008 might not be the best year to assess the distribution of the SPLC's income since that total income, especially investment income, was probably down due to the poor economy. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

BAD -- The income is irrelevant to those particular efficiency calculations -- the calculations deal exclusively with expenditures. The numbers for the calculations are taken directly from the first page of the Form 1099 for earlier years which are available using the Wayback Machine[47]. For the fiscal years ending October 2003 through October 2007 the program expenses exceed the AIP's 60% threshhold and the Charity Navigator's 66.7% except for 2003 (65%) and 2005 (66%).

You can't really do the calculations using the Silverstein figures from the 2000 article since he omits the total expenditures and the general expeditures. However if you use the general expenditures for 2002 (1.9 million -- you would actually expect it to be lower in earlier years) -- and use other 1999 numbers from the article you come up with around 63% efficiency.

BeCRITICAL -- I am saying eliminate Cockburn since he wrote only 2 sentences about the SPLC in an article primarily about something else. As far as Silverstein, I have no problem with saying what you suggest -- in his opinion, "the problem is still there". The rest is simply redundant and this is both an appropriate summation and similar to what you have done elsewhere in this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the strongest criticism of the SPLC's finances has not been so much about the percentage of its expenditures that goes into providing services but rather the percentage of its income that isn't expended; the percentage that effectively becomes its profit. . . to presumably create a future self-perpetuating fund. If 90 percent of the expenditures of a charity is used to provide the promised services it nevertheless has some explaining to do if half its income isn't spent in the first place. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, you are saying that the ratings reflect percent of expenditures, rather than percent of income spent in certain ways? So the breakdown of expenditures could be fine but the criticisms of excess cash still valid? I'm really not studying this deeply as I don't have time or enough POV here to care that much, but is that correct? Yes, we could eliminate Cockburn. Hmmm.... "On average, the SPLC classifies an estimated 47 percent of the fund-raising letters that it sends out every year as educational, including many that do little more than instruct potential donors on the many evils of "militant right-wing extremists" and the many splendid virtues of Morris Dees. According to tax documents, of the $10. 8 million in educational spending the SPLC reported in 1999, $4 million went to solicitations. Another $2.4 million paid for stamps...Back in 1978, when the Center had less than $10 million, Dees promised that his organization would quit fund-raising and live off interest as soon as its endowment hit $55 million. But as it approached that figure, the SPLC upped the bar to $100 million, a sum that, one 1989 newsletter promised, would allow the Center "to cease the costly and often unreliable task of fund raising. " Today, the SPLC's treasury bulges with $120 million, and it spends twice as much on fund-raising-$5.76 million last year-as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses. The American Institute of Philanthropy gives the Center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors, estimating that the SPLC could operate for 4.6 years without making another tax-exempt nickel from its investments or raising another tax-deductible cent from well-meaning "people like you."...A National Journal survey of salaries paid to the top officers of advocacy groups shows that Dees earned more in 1998 than nearly all of the seventy-eight listed, tens of thousands more than the heads of such groups as the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Children's Defense Fund. The more money the SPLC receives, the less that goes to other civil rights organizations, many of which, including the NAACP, have struggled to stay out of bankruptcy. Dees's compensation alone amounts to one quarter the annual budget of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, which handles several dozen death-penalty cases a year. "You are a fraud and a conman," the Southern Center's director, Stephen Bright, wrote in a 1996 letter to Dees, and proceeded to list his many reasons for thinking so, which included "your failure to respond to the most desperate needs of the poor and powerless despite your millions upon millions, your fund-raising techniques, the fact that you spend so much, accomplish so little, and promote yourself so shamelessly." Soon the SPLC win move into a new six-story headquarters in downtown Montgomery, just across the street from its current headquarters, a building known locally as the Poverty Palace...." Hmmmmmmmmmm I didn't know that Dees statement on stopping fundraising was repeated in a newsletter; We should calculate the inflation on that 1989 newsletter statement [48]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if SPLC will have the balls to name Congress a hate group? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

$100 million in 1989 was roughly equivalent to $140 million at the beginning of 2000, and is roughly equivalent to $186 million today. W.r.t. the somewhat extensive recent discussion and debate here about the finances section (currently the last section of the article), I'd advocate making it much simpler while keeping most or all of the existing RSs critical of the amount of holdings, reserves, Dees' salary, etc. Seems to me the essential point of the criticisms the SPLC has received from some of the charity/philanthropic community, as well as from some of the legal-aid community, is actually fairly simple. The SPLC keeps much higher portions of money and holdings in reserve than some of the charity watchdogs, and some of the more shoestring-budget legal-aid providers, would like to see.
..... The "Poverty Palace"??--hmm, that's somewhat telling, if true. (There's definitely some cognitive dissonance associated with an apparently well-to-do legal advocate of the poor--normally we imagine such advocates wearing rumpled suits in court and working out of paper-stuffed ramshackle offices.) I sure would like to know a bit more of the local knowledge on this, e.g. who locally calls it this? Everybody in Montgomery? SPLC employees too? Something Silverstein heard in the barbershop down the street? etc.--though I doubt i'll have my curiosity satisfied here ;-) Truth be told, though, if my organization had been burned out of my offices, as happened to the SPLC, I might be inclined to try to make sure in the future that at the very least the organization's building(s) had a very wide security perimeter with a state-of-the-art security apparatus--at least that's my off-the-cuff take on it. .... Kenosis (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

List of sources on finances

I hope that other editors will add to this list, if I have missed any.

Used in the article:

• Panel Discussion: Nonprofit Organizations

• Endowment Supports Center's Future Work

• Financial Information SPLC site

• Andrea Stone, "Morris Dees: At the Center of the Racial Storm," USA Today, August 3, 1996, A-7

• Dan Morse. "A complex man: Opportunist or crusader?", Montgomery Advertiser, February 14, 1994

• “Hate,” Immigration, and the Southern Poverty Law Center By Ken Silverstein

• The Conscience Industry by Alexander Cockburn The NationNovember 9, 1998

• The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance

• This Week in Babylon By Ken Silverstein

• Financial Information SPLC site

• BBB on the splc

• Charity Navagator

• American Institute of Philanthropy. Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report. December 2008.

In a paragraph we've almost agreed to take out:

• [http://books.google.com/books?id=r59bGyH4lOAC The white separatist movement in the United States:

"white power, white pride!"]

• [Rory McVeigh. Structured Ignorance and Organized Racism in the United States. Social Forces, Vol. 82, No. 3, (Mar., 2004), p. 913 JSTOR]

Additional sources:

• A good example of Obama's warning about the media focusing on 'sexier' stories CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

• National Catholic Reporter

• The Southern Poverty Business Model HARPERS BLOG

• ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ALABAMA

• THE FREE DICTIONARY

• ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BUSINESS

• Encyclopedia of American civil liberties, Volume 1 By Paul Finkelman

BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your list In a paragraph we've almost agreed to take out is improperly titled. There has been no discussion of it. I believe you are the one that moved the material from elsewhere in the article. It is necessary in this section until such time as the more extreme and misleading language is removed -- then it should be restored to where it was originally placed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A few miscellaneous items

Would it be "audacious" to expect a serious journalistic defense against the Montgomery Advertiser's Pulitzer-Prize-nominated series or to various very low grades from the Better Business Bureau, the American Institute of Philanthropy, or Charity Navigator?

I still haven't heard an answer to a previous question: Do the the SPLC's fundraising appeals routinely, or even occasionally, tell prospective donors that their contributions go toward the building of a budgetary surplus in order to create a self-perpetuating fund?

Should Joe Levin's response to the Montgomery Advertiser series stay in the article? On one hand it appears to be the SPLC's "offical" response to the series. On the other hand it is rather impertinent in both senses of the word. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)