Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Source for how the SPLC determines hate groups

I've found a discussion of this in a compendium of articles on hate crimes.[1] It starts at page 141[2] of an article on defining hate crimes and looks at how the SPLC, specifically Mark Potok does this. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a good source for the article. TFD (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep seems OK to me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The chapter author (Randy Blazak) basically talked with Potok, giving the reader the echo chamber version of SPLC's process. Admittedly problematic in designation process are the "low consensus" groups, which get named after they are "talked through" (by SPLC staff?). Also a bit dated. The source does not consider the criticisms that have arisen since publication in 2009. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So who else will be able to tell us what their actual polices are, other then them (or those who know how they operate? But your point about being dated is valid, as long as you can show their polices have changed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't use Blazak, but should be cautious. After all, Blazak did not mention criticisms published before 2008. The selection policies, per se, may not have changed, but there is a long line of criticism about the motivations behind the policies. – S. Rich (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a source for what the policies are, unless they have changed we can use it. I fail to see what we need to exercise caution over, as long as we do not say this is anything more then this is how they define hate groups.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There's certainly criticism about the motivations, and we include that criticism extensively — much of which is from partisan opinion sources. Fair enough. But your objection to including a non-partisan, reliable published academic source discussing the SPLC's methodologies rings rather hollow. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the "high consensus" "low consensus" distinction should be useful. Of course, our readers should also know that this material is coming from SPLC/Potok by way of Blazak. More detail should be included in the main SPLC hate group list article than in this one. Motsebboh (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell skimming I'd strongly disagree with the claim that SPLC have solid criteria as listed in the book. Yes they may operate on a consensus basis, and that may be a valuable point to mention, but shared opinion about the world being flat or the Knights of Columbus being a race hate group doesn't make it so. This article [3] wasn't what I was looking for but calls the SPLC a partisan attack group and enforcer of ideological orthodoxies whose greatest expense is fundraising. I was actually having a quick look for some claims to SPLC having criteria and while I didn't see anything the aforementioned article was a very interesting read. 人族 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not up to us to second guess how scholars writing in academic books determine what credence to give to their sources. Funny that one would question that type of source yet clamor for the inclusion of fringe opinions expressed by people with no expertise. TFD (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Philanthropy Roundtable" op-ed you link was written by a noted right-wing political adviser and opinion pundit. It is Mr. Zinsmeister's opinion, and while we include many opinions in this article, his opinion cannot outweigh or override a scholarly factual source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Is he a right-wing political adviser and opinion pundit? It looks like he's worked for both sides of US politics. I enjoyed the linked article by the way. Which scholarly sources is his opinion not permitted to override? If you're referring to the 2006 encyclopaedia reference or the Free Legal Dictionary which relies on 2003 or older material, those sources are at best dated. That's fine for history, not so much for contemporary analysis. Most of the references in this article are simply media links - New York Times, HuffPost etc so a field 'expert' seems relevant to me. 人族 (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The info one finds on Randy Blazak, shows him to be every bit as publicly opinionated as Zinsmeister. That being said, the suggested book chapter by Blazak seems to include a faithful recording of Mark Potok's version of the SPLC's hate group selection process. It would seem to be a good source for the "Hate group and extremist designations" subsection provided the reader is told where it is coming from in-line. Motsebboh (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

For gods sake, 人族, that's not an "article". It's an opinion column on a partisan website, and referring to it repeatedly as an article -- even after it was pointed out to you that it's an opinion column -- really doesn't help your credibility. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So he worked for Moynihan. So did lots of neoconservatives. He's always been right-wing. His writing is not to be taken literally. Otherwise, the the article on the former VP would begin "[he] is an American dog and former VP of the U.S. that suffers from rabies." Maybe fakenews has been so successful that you actually believe that to be true. TFD (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again we seem to be getting sidetracked from the main issue which is about using the Perry/Blazak source for the Hate Group section of the article. Maybe Doug Weller or another editor can give a try incorporating some of its material into our article and then we can go from there. Motsebboh (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that concern about the Blazak chapter is a sidetrack. But I'm also concerned about whether the SPLC is careful in its hate group designations. Isn't clear that the designations are simply opinions, and not subject to scholarly review? – S. Rich (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No, concerns about "the Blazak chapter" is what we should be discussing here, if anyone has concerns about this source. It's not a sidetrack. The sidetrack is debating the merits of the SPLC's hate group list which is not our job. Motsebboh (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay relooking at p142-143 to try to extract some sort of criteria. Potok claims that hate is necessary but not sufficient. The group must have a name, not just be a collection of folk. The group must have some platform based on the supremacy of their members' reference group. Third the group must be involved in activity based on its belief that others are less than them. Potok accepts that 'antigay groups' are weakly identified as homosexuality being a sin is a common religious concept. Anti-illegal and neo-Confederate groups are also deemed low consensus. The problem is this criteria seems to be ... flexibly applied or even ignored when 'necessary'.

Take for instance this passage by one noted 'hate group': To love people who identify as gays or lesbians means to extend grace to them: to welcome them as friends, to care for them when ill, and to respect them as persons whose creation was ordained by the God of the universe and for whom the Son of God died. ... And such love means being willing to accept accusations of bigotry, hatred, and ignorance if, on behalf of truth and love, our yes to God and no to sin means that our antagonists refuse to hear what is, for them, a difficult message, however lovingly expressed. Does it espouse hate? Nope. Does the group have a name? Obviously. Does the group espouse some form of supremacy? The group believes their views are right, that's not supremacy. Is the group espousing the view others are less? No. Based on the given criteria SPLC's hate group isn't. What other criteria do they use that isn't given in the linked book? Here's another old quote 'We MUST vigorously [oppose Christian fundamentalists]... Monsters, one and all. To do any less would be to roll out a red carpet to those who would usher in a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, nationalistic militarism, and superstitious theocracy.' Does it espouse hate? Obviously. Does the group have a name? Yes it's an organised foundation and this quote is from HuffPo. Does the group espouse some form of supremacy? Yes ... but it's not ingroup superiority so much as selected outgroup inferiority - those they deem enemies of the United States. Is the group espousing the view others are less? Absolutely. Those holding the wrong view are monsters that should be opposed - how domestic enemies should be dealt with isn't spelled out. Based on the given SPLC criteria this is manifestly a hate group, except it's not according to SPLC. I'm not trying to argue original research here - that's banned by Wikipedia, I'm just noting there's an obvious inconsistency between the criteria allegedly used as the basis of decisions, and the practical outcomes.

Mmm wait, am I misconstruing things and is this what you consider merit sidetracking? How about Blazak's CV [4]. Looks like a prior connection with SPLC but it's not a strong link - a report published through them, and more recently a board position with them. Brian Levin has previously served as Associate Director-Legal Affairs for SPLC. Can't see if the other authors have links but given one is Canadian and another British it's less likely. It's enough to suggest that the book is written by authors who at the very least sympathise with SPLC - note that doesn't automatically mean the content is inaccurate or prejudicial. 人族 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I you want to know why the SPLC considers the Family Research Council a hate group, read their article where they explain it. The definition of hate speech is fairly clear. While it is protected in the U.S., it is illegal in every other developed nation. Here is a link to a Canadian decision on someone convicted of distributing pamphlets that were homophobic: Hate speech "incite[s] the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects." It does not matter what connection an author has with the SPLC so long as his writing has been accepted by an academic publisher it is a reliable source. Publishers like Praeger publish works by people of different opinions, but it expects that they get their facts right and accurately acknowledge the degree of acceptance their opinions hold. Unlike blogs by people who fear minorities represent an existential threat to America. TFD (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

More superfluous discourse. At this point Blazak is being used in a very limited way, in one paragraph, to confirm a couple of fairly obvious things about the SPLC. Motsebboh (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the recently added material is fringe and it also appears to be an attempt to WP:COATRACK this article. Some of the particular incidents have also been discussed in the past and general consensus was to omit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

SRich added a comment that criticized the SPLC for listing the Alliance Defending Freedom solely because it "opposes efforts of the LGBT community to impose its agenda on those who disagree with them for religious reasons." That agenda according to them is promoting pedophilia and their "efforts" to oppose it are criminalization of the LGBT community. I think the SPLC is well within the mainstream here. TFD (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, and a good number of recent additions have been in that vein. Indeed, some of them added material ignoring previous discussions and consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you claiming that ADF efforts to stop the homosexual agenda are part of a conspiracy to criminalise homosexuality? Kinda confused as not even the SPLC make that claim, and their organisation bio is skewed - they claim for instance that an ADF attourney's views on the Matthew Shephard murder were debunked, but their source is the homosexual offshoot of Media Matters which is itself a political organisation. Based on a quick look around it appears that only 1 witness claimed Shephard's homosexuality was the cause for premeditated murder, and she later recanted. Many, perhaps most of those involved in the case ultimately concluded sexuality was not the motivation for the attack. Sorry tangent I know but if SPLC can't get their facts right and rely on skewed sources ... 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Fringe? Coatrack? Cherry picking? Check the archives?

I've just seen a number of reverts justified with "fringe", "coatrack", "cherry picking", "check the archives" justifications. How these rationales apply mystifies me. The Washington Post, Washington Times, Townhall.com, Weekly Standard, Hudson Institute, National Review, Huffington Post, Vox, Harpers, a Vanderbilt University professor, Ken Silverstein, Larry Wilcox, etc. fall into these categories? "Fringe", per WP standards, comes within WP:FRINGE guidelines, with deals with fringe theories. The essay WP:COATRACK deals with coatrack articles. The "archives" justification is most astonishing – the Allison Stanger NYT piece was mentioned in Talk last month and the WP editor pointed out how her comment "most certainly did blame the SPLC's description of Murray, along with other "faulty information," as "the catalyst for shutting off the free exchange of ideas at Middlebury."" Lastly, WP:CHERRYPICKING does not preclude selection of WP:NOTEWORTHY material from a variety of sources; in this series of edits the cherry-picking has been done to sanitize the article of criticisms of the SPLC. – S. Rich (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The fringe refers to sources such as townhall. Cherry picking refers to the practice of scouring the internets and trying to find any negative statement that exists about the SPLC then cramming it into this article. Same thing for undue. Coatrack refers to the attempts to turn this article into "Everything negative that's ever been said about the SPLC". The archives comment references previous discussions on Middlebury, Silverstein etc. and is frankly self-explanatory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, Townhall is not fringe. They've got a correspondent assigned to the White House and many notable commentators contribute to their articles. Given that there are different opinions about the SPLC, WP:BALANCE demands that we add in these noteworthy and continuing criticisms. Please check your POV. (I have, and I'll admit that I do not like the way the SPLC has gone over the last decade.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, having a corresponded assigned to the White House these days does not guarantee non-fringe status. And like I said, this is a whole bunch of cherry picking. Please read through the archives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Lots of unsubstantiated removals including good sources like Harpers and National Review. I've reinstated most of it except townhall.com where a case could be made for inclusion. The rest you should discuss here. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please quit it with the WP:STALKING and revenge reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please keep it civil. As I said: I preserved the parts of your edits I considered improvements. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It was a 99% revert. You restored pretty much all the text, just removed some extraneous sources. You also did that without discussing it first here. Or, apparently without reading the discussions in the archives. You're doing revenge reverts cuz of our dispute elsewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that valid notable sources should preferably not be removed. David A (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: the removal of this text. If the objection is "shock value" is there an objection to restoring the content ($68million in assets in 1996) without the quote? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

These are all noteworthy sources, from the left and right. And they serve to show the criticism has continued over the years. Objection to Townhall as "fringe" is purely POV. It has been mentioned twice on the WP:RSNB and once on the WP:NPOVN. The NPOVN listing dealt with an article that Thomas Sowell wrote in 2010. – S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Views that are not reported in reliable secondary sources are fringe. The opposition to the SPLC comes primarily from people who support what they call hate groups. For example the social media sites of Mike Adams, who SRich quotes, are "littered with hate speech against gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer people. He condemned “the gay lifestyle” and likened same-sex marriage rights to “rape.” He called trans people mentally ill and asserted that any doctor willing to help with gender-reassignment surgery should be charged with mutilating a mentally ill person." (Daily Beast)[5] Ken Silverstein and Laird Wilcox are also mentioned. Silverstein is a founder of CounterPunch, a controversial left-wing publication, while Wilcox has been ignored in the mainstream for the last 20 years. TFD (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Naturally, many members and fellow travellers of organizations that the SPLC condemns as hate groups dislike the SPLC. However, the criticism presently found in this article generally doesn't come from such people. With so many highly opinionated internet magazines now, judging which ones have enough clout to be used for opinion is not clear-cut. However, Silverstein, who wrote extensively for Harper's as well as for Counterpunch, is clearly a worthy critic; so is Wilcox who has co-written a highly regarded monograph on extremist groups [6]. Motsebboh (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, all criticism, except from Silverstein and Wilcox, has come from supporters of groups described as hate groups or people who subscribe to those views. While Wilcox's 1992 book on American extremism is highly regarded, his writing in the last 25 years has been self-published and generally ignored. Chip Berlet, who is one the leading experts on the American Right, said, "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter...He simply can't tolerate people who are his competition in this field." And Silverstein is the founder of a controversial left-wing journal. In any case those are only two writers, who are extensively quoted in right-wing websites because they are the only two people who do not subscribe to their beliefs who are critical of the SPLC. TFD (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK J.M. Berger, Alexander Cockburn, and the Montgomery Advertiser have not been members or supporters of any of these groups. Neither is Stephen Bright, a harsh critic of the SPLC, who is not mentioned in this article. Are any of us supposed to be impressed by Chip Berlet's knock on Wilcox? Didn't Berlet work for the SPLC at some point? You repeatedly dismiss critics of the SPLC as fans of the listed hate groups. In doing so, I suspect intentionally, you not-so-subtly associate such critics with hate groups as a whole rather than with the few groups they defend against the charge; i.e. these people hate the SPLC because they like (all?) the hate groups it lists. Of course, your approach also induces circular reasoning. Critics of the SPLC support hate groups. Why? Because they criticize the SPLC. Motsebboh (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I was quite clear that outside the supporters of views the SPLC describes as hate, their are a very few set of individuals who have criticized the SPLC, but their view have received no recognition in reliable sources, which is the criterion for inclusion, per policy. Alexander Cockburn of course is the co-founder, along with Silverstein, of Counterpunch and I said, "AFAIK, all criticism, except from Silverstein and Wilcox, has come from supporters of groups described as hate groups or people who subscribe to those views." Could you please read my comments before misrepresenting them so that discussion will be more productive. TFD (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think I read you quite well. Are you proposing any specific edit to the article? If not, I don't have anything to add. Motsebboh (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This line of reasoning still seems to me like "heads I win, tails you lose". It is not logically possible to contradict the SPLC's categorizing of people as "hate groups" without implicitly "supporting" those people. Once a person ends up on the list, with or without justification, anybody who says they shouldn't be on the list does not count because by saying that, they become "supporters of a hate group". Somehow "being a hater" is infectious: defend one, and you become one. That is the feeling I get when I read what TFD writes.

"Except for" does not help if you still try to find something wrong with everybody you cannot smear in that way.

I think such reasoning has no place in Wikipedia and should be ignored. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's similar to the moon landing. You say that we should balance the view that man landed on the Moon with the view it was faked. Maybe it was faked, maybe there is a homosexual agenda to molest children or an Islamic conspiracy of world domination. I don't know, but just think we should follow policy on neutrality. Maybe that means heads NASA wins and tails the moon landing skeptics lose, but that's the policy and you should argue with it on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlike the Moon landing, we are not talking about verifiable scientific proof, but of personal subjective opinions from the SPLC. It is perfectly possible to be a critic of certain of their listings or agendas without remotely subscribing to bigotry, supremacism, or genocide. David A (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have been debating pseudoscientists for decades, and your argumentation closely mimics theirs. When one doubts their opinion, they often justify it by introducing another controversy, equating their opinion with the party that is clearly in the right. Usually, they use Galileo for that purpose. Using such bad reasoning hurts your case, so please continue doing it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It certainly is, but there are few examples. And although you say that claims someone subscribes to bigotry, supremacism, or genocide is an unverifiable personal subjective opinion, it is not treated that way in social science or legal proceedings. Stop Islamization of America for example has lost cases in the U.S., the UK and Canada when the courts decided that they promoted hate. In some cases the SPLC was used as an expert source. Hob Gadling, the difference is that we are not trying to determine whether the SPLC or the groups they investigate are right, but what the perception of them is. It could be for example that there is a homosexual agenda. But that's something to argue about elsewhere. All the matters is what mainstream opinion is. Incidentally, do your pseudoscientific sparring partners ever say that we should defer to mainstream scientific opinion? TFD (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox contributed a chapter to the volume The Cultic Milieu, which was edited by Jeffrey Kaplan and sv:Heléne Lööw, both notable academics. Kaplan and Loow evidently didn't feel he was fringe. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"This is the Talk page for discussing improvements to the Southern Poverty Law Center article . . ." What improvements are you recommending TFD? Don't be afraid of specifics. Motsebboh (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

For me the comparison with scientific consensus is a weird one, the hate group classification is not a matter of science, it boils down to a matter of opinion, and the reader shouldn't be blinded to a singular one if others exist that are verifiable and relevant - it seems to me that the disagreement boils down to some editors not thinking anything is relevant when it comes to criticism or classifications. I believe reasonable notability has been demonstrated not only in this section but in other discussions, we're not talking about random self published bloggers here. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So you think social science is an oxymoron and legal opinion is just opinion. But policy does not draw that distinction. Motsebboh, the topic of this discussion thread is stated in the first posting, where SRich objected to the removal of some criticisms. Perhaps we should discuss them one by one. Let's start with one of SRich's edits discussed above: "Professor Mike Adams criticized the SPLC because "Their reason for the characterization [of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)] was simply that the ADF opposes efforts of the LGBT community to impose its agenda on those who disagree with them for religious reasons."[7][8] The ADF claims there is a "homosexual agenda" that targets children for pedophilia and Adams himself holds controversial views on the topic. However, the text does not explain why the ADF is listed or that the criticism is fringe. TFD (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Good. We're making some progress. I agree with you that the Mike Adams criticism doesn't need to be in the article because it doesn't meet the level of media weight we should expect. Next item . . ? Motsebboh (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted it to NPOVN. I will look through the other criticisms and post my comments. TFD (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

See: WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Southern Poverty Law Center .28SPLC.29. – S. Rich (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"Incidentally, do your pseudoscientific sparring partners ever say that we should defer to mainstream scientific opinion?" - Some of them actually do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Adam's criticism doesn't meet the level of media weight required? Okay so what level of weight is required? I would suggest criticism of the SPLC is at the very least simmering for instance: http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/academic-study-splc-hatewatch-biased/. And what counts as controversial? I skimmed Adam's Twitter feed, once I found it, and in the past month or so there's nothing in it that counts as "... hate speech against gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer people" unless the bar is far far lower than I realise. Is it who is offended, the number offended ...? Without having seen Adam's 'controversial' views in detail I'd consider it well within the realm of possibility that his views are widespread. 人族 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think the Wilcox thing is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw Cockburn was removed. It looks like this was the last discussion on that, from 2014. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Charles Murray/Middlebury College

The rationale for excluding material critical and supportive of the SPLC over the Charles Murray/Middlebury affair would be what exactly? This received vastly more coverage and comment in major news and opinion sources than did the extremist labeling of Ben Carson, or the hate group labeling of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or Laird Wilcox's opinion of the SPLC, all of which are presently included in the section on controversy over the SPLC's hate group and extremist listings. Let's hear substance please. Not "hasn't achieved consensus". Motsebboh (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS. The consensus to include the material is where exactly? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Trying to be a pisser, I see. Motsebboh (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC) And your substantive reason for wanting to exclude it would be what? I don't like it? Just doesn't seem right? Hasn't got consensus? Motsebboh (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A: That is (as far as I can see) a personal attack. B:It is also correct, you need to make an argument for inclusion. You make the case, then we either accept it or reject it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You have not presented in your edit any reliable sources that say there was a controversy, merely opinion pieces. As I have explained to you, weight requires coverage in reliable sources in order to be included. Anyway, the writing makes no sense: "Following the disruption of a presentation by Murray at Middlebury College in March 2017, some commentators were critical of the SPLC's description of Murray." Yes, one followed the other in time, but the connection is not explicit. Since Stanger's op-ed was published the day after the full moon, we could write, "following the full moon, some commentators defended Murray." TFD (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

When one editor explicitly asks to hear something other than a vacuous "hasn't got consensus" and the next editor basically says "hasn't got consensus", I would call that trying to be a pisser. Four Deuces' comment seems to be in somewhat the same vein as his objection to including the FRC advertisement/petition material. Let's find a really pettifogging, objection to the material since there really isn't any other kind. All one needs to do is replace "Following the disruption . . " with "In response to the disruption . . " and his second objection disappears (unless, that is, he expects the sources themselves to say "I am explicitly writing the following to criticize the Southern Poverty Law Center's role in the the shutdown of Charles Murray's speech at Middlebury College on March 2, 2017). As for his first objection, when there is significant back and forth in major news and opinion sources there is controversy. We don't need news articles to explicitly call it a controversy, though, in fact, many news sources contributed to its becoming a controversy by bringing up not only the SPLC's labeling of Murray, but also some of the disrupters' reliance on that labeling. Motsebboh (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Who died and left you in charge? Wikipedia policy requires consensus. It takes big brass balls to say "I don't want to hear that consensus isn't on my side." If anybody is engaging in "I don't like it" behavior, it is you toward a core policy, Verifiability. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Good, were making progress Malik. Verifiability. I think I know what you're referring to regarding verifiability but I don't want to jump the gun. So perhaps you could explain. Motsebboh (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You cannot say "in response to the disruption either" unless you make the connection explicit, that is, explain the connection between the SPLC article about Murray and the disruption. Otherwise it appears as if the disruption was undertaken on the orders of the SPLC. You should recognize that everyone has a world view which allows them to connect events which not everyone shares. I imagine you think that the SPLC is behind a conspiracy to undermine the American way of life and exerts power over hooligans and mislead people who take their marching orders from it. Hence the connection is self-explanatory. The assumption when writing text is that readers cannot necessarily draw the same connections and they have to be spelled out and reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?? Here's the now deleted item:

* In a January 2014 profile of controversial political scientist Charles Murray, the SPLC labeled Murray a "white nationalist." Following the disruption of a presentation by Murray at Middlebury College in March 2017, some commentators were critical of the SPLC's description of Murray.

It makes clear that the critics (and defenders) are not writing about some supposed SPLC orders to disrupt the Murray/Middlebury event but rather the SPLC's 2014 description of Murray as a white nationalist. Motsebboh (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the connection between the SPLC labelling and the disruption? Did the labelling cause the students to disrupt or alternatively were they unaware of the labelling? I am sure in your mind there is some sort of connection, but it needs to be made explicit. TFD (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That would call for OR. I'm having difficulty following your full moon analogy. If every article on the Middlebury protest mentioned the full moon yes, we would mention it. As Motsebboh explains that's all we're doing here: mentioning a fact which (every?) journalist whose articles we cite felt was relevant. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Of course we are not supposed to engage in OR, but sources are. For example, we cannot report what we saw at the talk, but we can mention what was reported about it in reliable sources. If you do not think that is any connection between the SPLC and the protests, then it is OR to imply there was. You need to explain what the connection is found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

More obfuscation. Frankly, the only thing you've said in this thread that makes any sense, TFD, was your minor "following the disruption" point, which, as I correctly noted, would be corrected by replacing it with "in response to the disruption." It does not matter whether or not the SPLC's criticism of Murray caused the disruption, because the edit in question is not saying that it did; just as it does not matter whether or not the 2012 shooting at the FRC was caused by the SPLC's labeling of the FRC because the edit (not yet removed) is not saying that it did. In response to both events, some writers responded with criticism of the SPLC which found its way into reliable sources. Motsebboh (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

When mention the disruption if it had nothing to do with the SPLC article? TFD (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the Mulberry Bush is blossoming again after the last archiving. In the last discussion there really wasn't a consensus one way or the other. Well, I'll suggest this: Add a section to the article about the "Impacts/Influence of SPLC hate-group/extremist listings/designations". The good, bad, and the ugly could be presented with appropriate balance. – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TFD: I suppose you mean "WHY mention the disruption if it had nothing to do with the SPLC article?" I never said the SPLC article had nothing to do with the disruption. It's not our job to decide that issue one way or the other. I said that the edit in question doesn't say that it did or that it didn't. Rather, the edit simply notes the existence of reliably sourced criticism of the SPLC by some people who apparently thought the SPLC article DID have something to do with the disruption. Motsebboh (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not our job to decide that issue one way or the other, nor is it our job to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." So tell what connection the SPLC had to the disruption and provide reliable sources, or leave it out as implicit synthesis. TFD (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Edit in question implies no such thing, and I think you know that. Actually, I think you just hate not getting the last word, however, weak. Motsebboh (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Then why do you want to mention the disruption, if it had nothing to do with the SPLC article? TFD (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Goodnight Motsebboh (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Your objection was that no source drew a connection between the SPLC's categorization of Murray and the incident at Middebury. Our article never claimed a direct connection but here are several sources that do. Certainly they can't all be dismissed. The relevant portions are bold-ed.

• The once-valuable (and now hateful and vile) Southern Poverty Law Center has long labeled Charles Murray an “extremist” and a “white nationalist.” The SPLC’s label not only contributes to lazy headlines and borderline-slanderous reporting, it also seems to have partly inspired the violent attack against Murray at Middlebury College. National Review
• Intelligent members of the Middlebury community — including some of my own students and advisees — concluded that Charles Murray was an anti-gay white nationalist from what they were hearing from one another, and what they read on the Southern Poverty Law Center website. NY Times
• No matter. The professors who admitted to Professor Stanger that they’d never read a word Murray had written led their students in the chants that drowned out whatever he planned to say at Middlebury. While the anti-intellectual nature of this juvenile stunt is appalling, what’s worse is that college professors and students at an elite, expensive American college would outsource their thinking to an outfit like the SPLC. Real Clear Politics
• Murray bristled at the SPLC’s characterization of him and blamed it for provoking protests among college students who have failed to scrutinize his work. Washington Post
• College officials framed the decision to allow the event to take place as being about free speech. But critics said that Murray shouldn’t be treated simply a person with whom they had differing political views. Many noted that he is classified as a white nationalist by the Southern Poverty Law Center PBS
• Angry protesters shouted down an eminent scholar [Murray] and sent a female professor to the hospital. A crazed gunman entered a D.C. public policy shop and shot an employee before being disarmed. Someone mailed a suspicious white powder to a Scottsdale advocacy group [...] The victims in each case were targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center. USA Today
• In light of the events at Middlebury and the accusations there and at Villanova that Murray is a "white supremacist," some wonder why we haven't disinvited him [...] As to the the allegations against Murray, some are demonstrably untrue, others are robustly controverted. Murray is not an "admitted racist and sexist," as some claim. He himself denies the charges, strenuously, and we recommend reading his response to the Southern Poverty Law Center's attacks. Philly.com

James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD, you are obscuring the fact that information from the SPLC is motivating certain people one way or the other. This occurs when you say "the disruption, ... had nothing to do with the SPLC article?". We are discussing edits to the article in that the properly sourced information from the SPLC has had impact or influence on society. It is just like saying "The FBI has used information from the SPLC to help ...." – S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My point is that if there is a connection, it should be mentioned, if there is no connection it should be removed. Personally, I imagine that a speaker best known for his theories about the inferiority of black folks would have excited a disruption even if the SPLC had not called him a white supremacist three years earlier. TFD (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your "what if the SPLC hadn't called Murray a white supremacist" is unknowable and thus can't be, as you recommend it to be, the basis for either including or removing the edit. However, what is known (as Mr Lambden's edit reminds us) is that both the disrupters and their critics prominently mentioned the SPLC's description of Murray as a crowd motivator. Motsebboh (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

For some reason your phrasing, which we were discussing, does not say that. it says, "Following the disruption of a presentation by Murray at Middlebury College in March 2017, some commentators were critical of the SPLC's description of Murray." So lets avoid the post hoc fallacy. TFD (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD: Am I misunderstanding or are you saying you'll support restoration only if we state the connection between the SPLC's listing of Murray and the Middlebury incident explicitly? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I want to see that the dispute has been reported in reliable secondary sources, not just opinion pieces. Do you know if the comments were picked up? The problem with this sort of opinion is that although columns may appear in mainstream media, the only secondary sources that repeat the comments are publications like Breitbart. Hence they don't meet weight. If it's significant, then the media should be reporting it. TFD (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@TFD: As I've already said, the fastidious "post hoc ergo propter hoc" objection is solved by replacing "following the disruption . . " with "in response to the disruption . . ". Let's not go around in circles. Allison Stanger's New York Times published criticism of the SPLC's labeling of Murray has not been repeated by any sources more reputable than Breitbart? I haven't actually checked but that would surprise me. Also, what Wikipedia policy are you relying on with that objection?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsebboh (talk • contribs)

References

Christian Knights of the KKK Citation

Here is a cite for "largest-ever civil award for damages in a hate crime case.".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/07/25/klan-chapters-held-liable-in-church-fire/b60f73dd-f17b-4102-8bad-e7bd3f7de10b/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.57.109 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Y (added) – S. Rich (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi, please change the archive.is URL from short form to long form: http://archive.is/KRona#selection-209.154-209.249 --> https://archive.is/20130903112619/http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism/law-enforcement/law-enforcement-training

This is per Wikipedia:Using_archive.is#Use_within_Wikipedia to prevent link shortening which is policy. Thanks, -- GreenC 00:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the better edit is to remove the reference. The info is dated in that the FBI does not now receive training from the SPLC. This old claim by the SPLC should come from an independent source. – S. Rich (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There's very obviously no consensus for that, this has been discussed at length above. I don't think anyone is going to take issue with the url fix though... Fyddlestix (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done, per request. – S. Rich (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Motsebboh has been blocked as a sock of Badmintonhist (talk · contribs)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Badmintonhist. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

American Thinker

American Thinker may be conservative, but it is not described as "far-right". It has been mentioned on the WP:RSN 6 times, and none of the mentions question its reliability. – S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable and while it's not "wholly" far-right it does publish far-right pieces and authors. It's a crap source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If it is not reliable then the case should be discussed on the RSN. Otherwise "far-right" is simply a personal view about the publication. – S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The term far right is normally used to describe neo-nazi and fascist groups, i.e., groups to the furthest right in the spectrum, although journalism uses it more loosely. Still we should always use unambiguous language. But it is not a reliable source, it publishes opinion pieces by people who are not experts. Here for example is an article about how Obama "faked" his birth certificate. Two of the contributors listed on the Wikipedia article are banned from the UK for fear they might incite hatred against Muslims. One of them appealed and lost. TFD (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thankfully WP is not based in the UK. And thankfully WP bases editing decisions on the WP:5P2, which limits editing "based on personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions". When editors say so-and-so source is "far-right" or "far-left" without consensus from the community, they are simply injecting their own 2¢ into the editing process, which isn't worth much. So, we see American Thinker (and other sources) labeled as "far-right" (or "crap"), and then we see "far-right" described as "neo-nazi and fascist". Well then, editors who feel this way should edit American Thinker (and other articles) to reflect what the RS says about the political positions of those media. IOW, if American Thinker is "neo-nazi—fascist—far-right" then recruit the WP community to say so. Personally, I've found lots of real–true–actual "far-X" opinion about the SPLC, but I've ignored it and presented those opinions that are within the accepted bounds of accepted left–right opinion. Until American Thinker (and other left–right media sources) are determined to be outside of those bounds, editors must accept them in the article. They can best do so by setting aside their POV. – S. Rich (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree take this to RSN and lets see, but right now its RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

SRich, the United States also excludes people it considers a threat to national security. Ironically, the people you are defending want stricter controls over who enters the U.S. Slatersteven, I don't think it is productive to ask whether a magazine that publishes articles promoting birtherism is a reliable source. TFD (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a request for full protection at WP:RFP

Before the article gets fully protected: could all involved (all of you are experienced editors) try to form consensus here on the talk-page? Just do not revert back-and forth, keep your cool...essentially: just do not edit-war. I will be watching the page. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Immigration Reform Law Institute letter

Given accusations of liberal bias against SPLC, is it worth noting Obama's DoJ criticised them for violating professional ethics? Apparently they resorted to baseless and irrelevant smear attacks against FAIR and IRLI in court.

http://immigrationreformlawinstitute.org/Docs/EOIRDecision.pdf

人族 (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You would need to start with a reliable source, which that isn't. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Also does it critise SPLC, or some people? They may have represented SPLC but they also represented many other bodies. Thus it critises them, not the bodies they represented.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

While not stated clearly in the letter, it looks like Ms. Cho is SPLC staff counsel. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The letter does not critcize the SPLC for violating professional ethics, it criticizes their lawyers for violating professional conduct, that is, for being impolite to FAIR. Since no proceedings were taken, where the lawyers could have responded, there was no determination whether the judgment was correct. Hence reliable sources ignored it and the only place where one might come across it would be on websites of groups upset that the SPLC lists them as patriot or hate groups. Note too that lawyers are routinely admonished in court when objections against them are sustained or objections made by them are overruled. We don't put them into every lawyer biographical article and certainly don't inject them into those of their clients. TFD (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD, you take the court admonishment analogy too far. Courts and judges very rarely "admonish" lawyers. Having an objection overruled or sustained is a normal part of every day trial practice. With this in mind, the fact that OEIR recommended a reprimand for specific instances of unprofessional conduct is quite severe. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No court or judge admonished the SPLC lawyers. TFD (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

人族, how about we all stop wasting time with obviously unusable sources? We shouldn't need to be telling you this over and over. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Surely (As there is no evidence this is real) the correct title should be "alleged Immigration Reform Law Institute letter".Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, the circlejerk in here is real. So is this Arkon (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please lay of the PA's and judging other edds.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hahah sure buddy. Arkon (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we close this now, it is not going anywhere constructive.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Arkon (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The original pdf letter won't work as a source because it is PRIMARY. However, The Salt Lake Tribune is secondary and RS. Since it is concerned with FAIR, I think using it in the FAIR article is the best place (if at all). The fact that a reprimand was recommended is too tangential for this article. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This is one RS, I am not seeing how this is not just all rather undue. Also we do not know of the letter is genuine (still). Also it was about the layers, not the SPLC.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Per the SL Trib article, the SPLC lawyers sought to exclude FAIR from having input into cases. Seems to me that goes to SPLC's character not FAIR's. If the decision had gone against FAIR then I might have agreed. Feel free to argue it's too tangential a criticism for the article however I am interested in seeing balanced criticism added to this piece. As said elsewhere, the Americans I communicate with consider SPLC a political source not a reputable source. I'm aware views on this differ however as I say balance would be useful.

Roscelese, I supplied the primary source as it seemed the most appropriate start point for a legal criticism. If the criticism were sufficiently relevant then secondary sources could be sourced as per Arkon's SL Trib article. Since we've clashed in the past I'm going to assume this is a political issue as much as a source issue - Wikipedia does permit primary sources WP:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. 人族 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Balanced criticism" is contrary to policy, see "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". Even if it were, we would have to say why the SPLC considers FAIR a hate group, it we are going to criticize the SPLC for calling them that. For example they point to the founder's advocacy of eugenics, sterilizing members of inferior races, and his correspondence with holocaust deniers. The commonality in most of the criticism is not that the SPLC does not accurately describe what groups do, but that anti-Islamic, anti-LGBT, anti-black, anti-Jewish comments are justified and no hate is intended. TFD (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD, you are giving too much weight to the "Balance" policy – in favor of you own views. The policy deals with obviously UNbalanced views on certain subjects such as "conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories...." In this article we are not dealing with such topics. Rather, we are concerned with presenting legitimate viewpoints about the SPLC. Those views (which are contrary to your own), reflect a legitimate and large portion of the population, and they need to be presented to the readers. – S. Rich (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

And this is not about SPLC, but a bunch of lawyers who were representing many groups at the time (and thus may not when they spoke like this have been speaking for SPLC).Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

S.Rich, you appear to misunderstand the policy. The criterion is not our views but "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Views get emphasis based on their coverage in reliable sources not in a false equivalency between what fires up people who support what the SPLC considers hate groups and mainstream media (MSM). If MSM supported equivalency, they would not preface every mention of these groups by saying the SPLC considers them a hate group, without mentioning that some writers have disputed the description. You obviously think that the MSM is biased. However, it is not our role per policy to correct the bias in reliable sources. Instead of battling against policy across a range of article, you should get the policy changed. Maybe we should give equal weight to fringe views. Maybe we should tilt toward a right-wing American viewpoint. Those are issues of policy.

I do not by the way agree the emphasis the MSM provides in reporting stories and opinions. I do however think we should follow the policy anyway.

TFD (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The founder of FAIR thought that the 1965 immigration act was a mistake because it allowed non-European immigration into the United States, which would destroy the nation. That is the essence of the dispute between the SPLC and groups they describe as hate groups. I have no objection to saying that, but it is misleading to pretend that is not the major issue for most of the SPLC's critics. It's not that the SPLC wrongly identifies these groups, it's that the group think the position the SPLC criticizes is morally right. TFD (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD The MSM are biased and if you don't know that by now you should as even academic studies have proven this to be the case. Exactly how a particular media organisation is biased varies - most are left-wing, but a few are far left, or conversely right-of-centre. To simultaneously insist on MSM sources, and exclude media organisations that you (other editors) dislike is to insist on a left-wing bias. This is not neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人族 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Christian Post source

I wasn't going to restore the Christian Post source but this RSN discussion suggests it may be usable. I am surprised to see a defense of atheists in an evangelical publication. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Recommend leaving as is (in article). It is "RS" and simply listed in the footnote -- interested readers (who are certainly knowledgeable from the get-go) can decide for themselves whether it is worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend = the Christian Right will defend atheists who attack Islam. I don't see any reason to consider the source reliable. The author has no training or experience in journalism, except for working for the Christian Post. The other issue is weight. See "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Instead of looking for negative material to insert, you should identify the best sources and reflect what they say. If you want to believe that the Genesis story is literally true, and the religious right accurately understands the Bible, I have no objections, but that type of source conflicts with what is normally accepted as reliable. TFD (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a reasonable position. I don't feel strongly either way. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh... how in the world do you get "suggests it may be usable" out of that discussion? You got several editors saying not to use it. It's most definitely NOT reliable for this particular info. Please stop trying to cram non-RS stuff into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a list of approved as RS anywhere? As far as I'm aware CP is reliable but obviously others differ. As for the author having no training or experience - and I'm assuming this is a reference to Zaimov unless there's been another article suggested I missed, no training or experience in journalism is a questionable claim at best. A quick search reveals an MA from Dublin, a US BA, and almost 6 years with the Christian Post. So tertiary qualified and experienced, just perhaps not the right bit of paper or the right sort of institution for some. 人族 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"lobbying"

The New York Times article repeatedly refers to several organizations - SPLC only one out of many - "challenging" PP nominations. There is one instance of the word "lobbying" in the article but it's mostly described as "challenge". Focusing on this loaded term appears to be POV driven. Furthermore, there is nothing in the source which would suggest that it was this challenge that led to the Montgomery Advertiser NOT winning the Pulitzer, as the text you guys are trying to insert into the article falsely asserts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"Lobbying" was a direct quote from the source you removed without explanation. NYT describes it as a campaign with the challenge being part of the campaign. I have restored the claim with "campaign" instead of "lobby." You say there is nothing suggesting their success or failure was related to campaign but the NYT article says otherwise: The campaign included a letter to the board by George McGovern, the former Democratic presidential nominee. Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board. I have rephrased the text to reflect that correlation. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

First Lambden, you appear to be following me around Wikipedia in order to start edit wars in some kind of misguided strategy to roll that up into a "report" which would then result in a sanction. I'm just gonna note your behavior right here and now in case you do actually try to pull something like that. In the meantime, stop it with the stalking.

Second, there is only one instance where the word "lobbying" is used in the article: "But lobbying from outside is a relatively new phenomenon.". This is to introduce the topic and it refers to efforts by all sorts of organizations and individuals. It's not even clear that this is referring to SPLC itself, since that is discussed at the end of the article. Right after the quoted sentence the article goes on... to discuss some Pennsylvania senator, a completely unrelated matter. Other than that, there's a brief mention of SPLC at the end of the article, which is where usually writers put in the unimportant stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

And btw, the second source, Nieman Watch, is a statement by the guy who was head of Montgomery Advertiser at the time. So it's a claim being made by the guy who butted heads with SPLC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Another issue. With the "Despite this campaign...". That paragraph starts with the sentence "It is unclear what effect challenges have had in the four years since their consideration was allowed". Basically what the article is actually saying is that these challenges don't really matter. But omitting this sentence and inserting it into this article the way you did tries to imply that these series by MA were so legit that not even SPLC could stop it (also, why leave out McGovern?). So yeah, it's cherry picking and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Your response suggests you still have not read the Nieman Foundation source you've removed 2 or 3 times. Lobbying was a direct quotation from that source, from Bill Kovach, Curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University (not the "head of Montgomery Advertiser" as you claim) :

• The other point is, when this was nominated for a Pulitzer, Morris Dees, who is one of the great fundraisers for a lot of political figures in the country, mobilized some of the best-known and probably most liberal politicians in the country for whom he had raised money and they lobbied the Pulitzer Board against this series, the first lobbying that I know of of that kind, ....

Regarding your behavior, the saying goes: "If you run into an edit-warrior in the morning..." James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I run into you an awful a lot so I don't think that applies. I think the more appropriate saying would be "you're not actually paranoid if someone is stalking you and provoking edit wars".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it really your contention I'm the only editor with whom you've had conflict? At this point we may be numerous enough to start a support group. I would not object to another editor collapsing this unhelpful tit-for-tat. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

At this point, it may be necessary to take this to ANI. James J. Lambden is no stranger to performing in this manner. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The article is too tangential to the subject to include. TFD (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but even if it were not there is an issue of undue weight here, one article in one paper is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this is obviously undue. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The "one article" comment suggests you haven't carefully examined the sources or this conversation. Directly above are references to and quotes from the curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University whose credentials and notability are not debatable. I strongly support inclusion. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Who are you replying to? I didn't make any comment about "one article," and I assure you I've been following the conversation closely. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, if we're looking at that source, it definitely does not say that the SPLC engaged in lobbying. Read the section you're quoting more carefully: "The other point is, when this was nominated for a Pulitzer, Morris Dees, who is one of the great fundraisers for a lot of political figures in the country, mobilized some of the best-known and probably most liberal politicians in the country for whom he had raised money and they lobbied the Pulitzer Board against this series, the first lobbying that I know of of that kind, and without knowing anything about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s activities they were lobbying the Pulitzer Board not to recognize this work." At no point does it say that the SPLC as an institution was involved in this - my reading is that it's saying that Morris Dees, in his personal capacity, contacted liberal politicians, and that these people (not the SPLC) lobbied independently of the SPLC (he's very careful to avoid saying that the SPLC, as an institution, was responsible.) It's clearly WP:UNDUE to take every personal insinuation against Morris Dees and drop it in the SPLC article, especially when the sourcing connecting it to the SPLC itself is so sparse. It could possibly be placed on Morris Dees' own article, but not here. --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

John Egerton's July 1988 article in The Progressive ends with this sentence: "'What it comes down to is this: Morris Dees is[emphasis in the original] the Southern Poverty Law Center.'". – S. Rich (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So you're trying to synthesize an article from 1988 and one from 1999 to draw a conclusion that neither source directly supports?That's not how it works, as you (should) know very well. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No. I'm not trying to tie Dees to the SPLC as far as the lobbying effort went. The NYT article is explicit enough in saying the SPLC was behind the 'challenge'. Dees has been the driving force of the SPLC, and kudos to him for the successes. My point is you really can't parse Dees out of the SPLC, and the footnotes to the "lobbying" effort are clear enough on their own. – S. Rich (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If it would address your concerns to say instead that Dees (co-founder and chief counsel for the SPLC) campaigned against the nomination of an article series about the SLPC that would be fine. But I wouldn't know how to phrase that succinctly or in a way that implies perceptibly less correlation between the the campaign and the interests of the SPLC. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Synthesis is against policy. We don't "imply" things, we report what sources say. If they don't say what we want them to, then we can always write a letter to the editor. TFD (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Washington Examiner (etc) and the FBI

The Examiner (and other sources) have popped up in recent edits. In reviewing the RSN, I see the Examiner mentioned 10 times, with 3 threads devoted to the Examiner alone. (See: 218, 192, and 213.) While these threads are WP:TLDR, I see no consensus that the Examiner is non-RS. Moreover, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The Paul Bedard story of 2014 has old screenshots of the FBI's hate-crime page and thus is WP:V of what the FBI once posted. With this in mind, it is certainly RS about the fact that the FBI has scaled back its use of SPLC resources. Also with this in mind, I suggest (again) that we remove the FBI blurb from the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, it is clear that the FBI does still "share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems" with the SPLC (as of May 2017). Thus the lead is accurate.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

If you view the world from the perspective of "news" in the right-wing echo chamber, then you're going to view subjects in a very different way from mainstream opinion and find yourself constant battle against the policy of neutrality. I would avoid the Washington Examiner not because it is a poor quality news source, reliable sources has relatively low standards, but because it is not representative of what informed people think. Also, the source used in the article as I write is a column and columns do not meet rs even if they are published in quality news sources. Even though highly polemical news media, such as Fox, endeavor to ensure at least minimal journalistic standards in news reporting, that does not apply to their opinion writers. So while Fox News at 11 will provide news, its talk show hosts promote some seriously problematic conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would avoid the Washington Examiner ... because it is not representative of what I think; fixed that for you. You speak for yourself, not on behalf of "informed people". Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:. You are correct to a certain extent. See the exact quote which I have posted to the reference. But the Washington Examiner is correct too. The listing by the FBI of the SPLC as a specific resource is now gone. We are correct in using the EVIL conservative source in presenting the reader just the facts. – S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What the FBI said ""Upon review, the Civil Rights program only provides links to resources within the federal government," an FBI spokesman told The Daily Caller. "While we appreciate the tremendous support we receive from a variety of organizations, we have elected not to identify those groups on the civil rights page." So, no, The FBI have not stopped using SPLC as a "specific resource" rather a specific page no longer lists them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Same shit, different day. Opinion columns are not reliable sources for facts. See WP:RSOPINION. Please stop referring to opinion columns as "articles", because they're not articles. Please stop creating threads about "facts" supported by "articles" when you're referring to opinions expressed in the commentary section, the electronic equivalent of the op-ed page in a newspaper. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems RSOPINION can be a double-edged sword. We have a number of 'facts' using the SPLC as a reference (like, "so-and-so is a hate group/extremist" etc). Which of these are simply opinion? Such being the case, those refs might be deleted too. – S. Rich (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

can we keep this on topic. If users think SPLC is not an RS dispute it on the appropriate talk pages.Slatersteven (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

SRich, the difference is that the SPLC is a reliable source for facts, while columns, no matter who writes them, are not. Reliability does not depend on the political orientation of the writer. Some conservative media that observe editorial control and fact-checking are reliable sources for news while liberal columns published in prestigious newspapers are not. TFD (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite so. Again I say WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Labeling (and then rejecting) a source as "conservative" or "liberal" out of hand is not good editing. When the SPLC states its opinions ("we think the FRC is a hate-group") we should label those statements as opinions.– S. Rich (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)21:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No one objects to that. Sources are judged as reliable depending on whether or not they have a record of accuracy, not political orientation. Ironically, some editors dismiss the SPLC as "liberal." Also, reliable sources always provide intext citation when they say the SPLC describes a group as a hate group. What constitutes hate speech is a matter of opinion, although there is a general consensus in mainstream sources and legal decisions on what that is. The only debate is whether hate speech should be protected, which is a position that has much less support outside the U.S. TFD (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Philosophy Roundtable

"In 2017, Karl Zinsmeister of Philanthropy Roundtable criticized the SPLC, calling it a "political tool"."[9]

An editor added restored the above text with a note, "P Roundtable is a mainstream organization; restore, but omit quote." While the phrasing implies that, the group is not. It is funded by right-wing donors and its members provide donations to climate change denial, islamophobic, homophobic. anti-public education and other right-wing "charities." Zinsmeister was in the Bush Administration and Betsy Devos, the controversial education secretary and Amway heiress is another director. It also has ties to right-wing think tanks.[10] If we include this criticism we need to say where it is coming from. As a general rule, criticisms should only be added if they have been reported in reliable secondary sources, which establishes their significance and degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If ever there was an RS/mainstream organization, the Roundtable is one. If it were such an evil organization, I'd think the SPLC would categorize as such in one of their evil categories. Relying on rightweb.irc-onlne.org to determine its acceptability for Wikipedia is like the pot calling the kettle .... – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we use Right Web as a source, but it is helpful in providing links to reliable sources. Since you claim that the PR is mainstream then please provide a source. They by the way are an associate member of the State Policy Network.[11] The other D.C. associate members are all right-wing think tanks and pressure groups. The Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute and the American Enterprise Institute are there, but not Brookings. There's a new book, The Givers by David Callahan, the founder of Inside Philanthropy, which says PR was set up by conservatives who thought the Council on Foundations was too "liberal." Anyway all you have to do is read their website to see that they have a distinct political bent which should be explained if their opinion is provided. TFD (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Just because they are RS (are they?) does not mean their opinions of any subject are worthy of inclusion, nor does it say SPLC is a political tool it says "The Southern Poverty Law Center's extremist list isn't a Consumer Reports guide. It's a political tool", so lets at least try and represent what it says accurately.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

C-Fam

The comments from the founder of C-Fam are entirely appropriate. After all, Center for Family and Human Rights enjoys Special Consultative Status with United Nations Economic and Social Council. Need verification? See this listing. The fact that SPLC disparaged C-Fam and C-Fam's response is quite WP:NOTEWORTHY. Was the comment from Austin Ruse undue? Well, if so, it can be balanced by adding SPLC's own take on C-Fam. – S. Rich (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else getting pretty sick of this drive to add any-and-every source critical of SPLC that Srich can find? Incredibly transparent and not improving the article. No, Cfams view is UNDUE here. So is the Philosophy Roundtable, and a lot of the other stuff you keep repeatedly coat racking in. It's getting really old. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree that including this commentary is undue weight. We really don't need to include every single favourable or negative comment by every interest group, think tank or random political observer. There is justification for a few pars indicating the schools of thought supportive or against the SPLC, and maybe a representative example or two for each. But not more than that. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The NGO listing says, "A profile in this database and on this website does not in and of itself connote any affiliation with the United Nations, unless such affiliation is expressly indicated." Reuters ran an article about them last month, which is on the NBC News website, "U.S. Sends ‘Anti-Gay Hate’ Group to U.N., Fueling Fears Over LGBTQ Rights." "C-FAM's longtime leader Austin Ruse is often quoted saying he supports the criminalization of homosexuality, which he calls "harmful to public health and morals," Beirich said....Articles by Ruse have accused the administration of former President Barack Obama of promoting a "homosexual agenda."" It comes down to the supporters of the groups listed as hate groups dislike their inclusion. And "noteworthy" is determined by the coverage something has received in reliable third party sources - this has received none. TFD (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If this article does not mention C-farm why should we include their counter criticism? Again why is this worthy of note?Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Counting the whole sentences throughout the article, I see ≥100 which are supportive of or which relate to the successful history of the SPLC. (This count does not include the lede or history sections.) About 20 sentences have critical comments (and this count includes the Florida sheriff case sub-section which was decided against the SPLC.) For a long time this article was POV-laden in favor of the SPLC. (In fact, the "Notable cases" section was once titled "Notable victories".) Much has been done to achieve some balance. But back to counting – we have 3+ liberal sources (Silverstein, Cockburn, Wypijewski, Signorile, plus Milbank(?) and Egerton(?)) which are critical. Dees' and Potock's responses are noted, and can be expanded upon. Other sources/critics are non-partisan. And I leave it up to others to do the conservative source count. What's the bottom line? Really none when we are all pushing on the WP:POLE. But the addition of this very recent Roundtable criticism and the less recent C-Fam criticism serve to show that the SPLC is subject to on-going concern. If more balance is desired, then interested editors should come up with kudos. Anything that is WP:NOTEWORTHY is welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

POV does not mean balancing positive opinions with negative ones, but providing the same balance that exists in reliable sources. Comments are only "noteworthy" if they are covered in reliable third party sources. Your complaint about the SPLC is that they oppose groups that promote discrimination against LGBT people, but your edit pretends the criticism comes from a "mainstream" source and hides the reason for the criticism. Also, there is no way in hell that you would ever care about the opinions of Silverstein and Cockburn and are only presenting them because they make the SPLC look bad. TFD (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Also we would balance "positive" material not with random criticism but with specific counter points to the material we have here, not refutation of material we do not have here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Tagging

The addition of the NPOV tag has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, and I suggest that adding it repeatedly despite this fact constitutes disruptive editing. The article does not need a giant scarlet letter expressing a single person's displeasure with the fact that the article is not written exactly the way they prefer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The tag is not a scarlet letter. More than one person has expressed displeasure about the article. While the article has +384 watchers, the number of editors who have contributed is 1/10th that number; accordingly, tagging is helpful in order to draw more attention to the issue. (Perhaps {{POV check}} or {{Unbalanced}} would be more acceptable.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Count me among them. For specific objections see my comments in a number of archived discussions. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Page issue(s)

The see also for this page is empty. I'm not sure what other problems may or may not plague this page (not like grammar spelling, and content, but like if a section does not display properly.), so please feel free to post any issues you notice here as I do not want to fool around with the revision then end up reverting an edit expectedly and or messing the article up. Geekynerdyguy1996 (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

For your 14th edit, after creating your account 50 days ago, you thought you would post that? Talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve an article (WP:TPG), not for general moaning. Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well maybe the reason there is no See also's is because no one think any are relevant, there is no rule that says we must have section X.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed New Section: Links to Mass Shooters

Corkins' attack on the FRC has already been mentioned, but now it's been revealed that Hodgkinson has also been connected to the SPLC. I've not been tracking mass shootings, but the fact that 2 mass shooters are affiliated with SPLC may be noteworthy. Even the Snopes defence is a no but yes: [12]. The piece assesses whether the claim that SPLC is a left-wing smear group that incites hatred and violence against conservatives is valid but naturally finds the claim false. In its defence however it acknowledges that Hodgkinson appears to have approved of the work they did. True there's no suggestion that he used them to source a target list, as with Corkins, but the association is disturbing and raises the possibility of a trend. 人族 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well as Snoopes say it is false, and the link appears to be nothing more then the shooters liked SPLC on titter, no I do not think there is enough here to have a section.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that everyone who follows a person or group on Twitter is "linked" to that person or group in a meaningful way? Because that's quite literally the most absurd thing I've ever read on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems to me a no-brainer. Of course not. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What is Titter? O.o And there was no mention of Twitter in that article. The argument proposed by a number of articles I've seen is that SPLC equate political disagreement with hate speech and demand their supporters eliminate hate. No I'm not suggesting SPLC advocates violence. The fact 2 fringe followers of SPLC went on shooting sprees raises questions though. If SPLC adamantly oppose violence, then why did 2 of their followers commit one of the most horrific acts imaginable? The fact that they share views may be significant whereas the fact that Corkins and Hodgkinson both like the same brand of porridge - yes I'm making this up, would be irrelevant. 人族 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide why they do it, it is for us to repeat what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious that Hodgkinson was a violent man, perhaps because of the problems in his past, we can't say. But he had a history of violence that you can't blame on the SPLC. Corkins was mentally ill. What reliable sources have actually said the SPLC was the cause of their violence? I'm also curious about the argument that the SPLC demands its supporters eliminate hate - can you point to SPLC statements making this demand? Doug Weller talk 18:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, who was saying why? I merely pointed out a widely noted link. The FRC [13] said an SPLC fan tried to kill as many Republican members as possible, and that SPLC hate labeling is dangerous but since SPLC deems them a hate group, and since you want RS I guess we'll just have to go with [14] instead which says that the "SPLC should not be held responsible for their speech that led to this attempted assassination ..." Can't say I consider it an RS, but it seems my views are a minority here. 人族 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No, we are saying we need RS saying there was a link, not some random bloke on the internet (an Ernest Hemingway) saying there is a link. Moreover just because he was a fan of the SPLC does not mean it is relevant to them what he did, and more then Robert Lewis Dear can be included in articles about groups he supported.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Liking" on Facebook is a trivial connection. we have no evidence that the shooter had read the SPLC article on Scalise or that he was aware Scalise was one of his victims. In any case, the SPLC did not break the story that Scalise had addressed a white supremacist, anti-Semitic group founded by former KKK boss David Duke, it merely posted it to its website after it attained widespread coverage in mainstream media, including right-wing media. TFD (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this should be included in the article, but there is some sourcing related to this from conservative media saying the FRC shooter and the congressional baseball shooter were both in some way connected to SPLC and allegedly were influenced by their hate group listings: [15], [16], [17]. SPLC has responded calling the shooting an attack on democracy and condemning such acts of violence [18] and Snopes has published an article saying SPLC is not a a left-wing smear group that incites hatred and violence against conservatives: [19]--DynaGirl (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this ridiculous, and obviously bad faithed, proposal? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems we are discussing it because it's related to a current event and it's getting some coverage in sources, although I"m not sure the quality and quantity of the current sources supports it's inclusion in article. It certainly wouldn't warrant an entire section, as the proposer suggested, and I'm not sure it even warrants mention unless stronger sourcing emerges. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Criticism over listings in general

As suggested by other editors on the NPOV section I am starting separate sections to discuss specific changes. Discussion on general selection criteria for criticism and possible POV issues regarding that can resume there.

• Previous and related discussions[20][21][22][23][24][25] ... and much more

• Some sources

There is already a paragraph that was recently added about this with the recent Politico article. I merely added more sources (being careful to not overcite). This section can be used to discuss the changes (including the recently added paragraph).Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Either can we discus new edits, or accept there was no consensus for theses additions. Rehashing old arguments adds nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

References

NPOV issues – tagged at the article lede

Criticism has been white washed away from this page over and over, and yet another edit war seems to be in place over it. There have been numerous editors who contested the neutrality of this page or at least hinted at possible NPOV issues regarding criticism being removed from the page (just to cite the most recent sections and archives: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]), and this issue seems to persist. I am tagging it until such disputes and concerns are resolved. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Are there any of these previous discussions that you feel resolved inconclusively, or are you just unhappy with the conclusions? "I insist this tag remain until the page looks how I want it to" is a non-starter and not how the NPOV tag works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the issue has not been settled, look for instance at the discussion spawned from this section. For specifics, the only think that has been resolved via consensus is the wording on the lead section. Other issues are still at hand, as I pointed out by the same issues being raised again in the talk page (e.g. [37]) and in the article itself (see the recent edit war principle over a matter of undue weight being given to some controversies). I believe Aquillion raises good points on how articles criticizing the subject should be selected though I agree with Srich regarding the WSJ, as I mentioned below it seems to me that sometimes it doesn't matter how relevant a source is. I think there is room for a constructive discussion on a possible re-sctructuring of the section or at least we can try to reach some consensus on how we should select the sources to be listed in it (and consequently how we could address the issues at hand). Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please point to specific issues as directed by Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Simply believing there needs to be discussion about restructuring a section is not an NPOV dispute, it's an editorial discussion. Tags are not scarlet letters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are things you should use embedded lists for, but the entire criticism section is probably not one of those things, If it was written in prose of a suitable length, then it might convey the information better and with enough context to add some balance to the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

As I have stated many times, the criticism comes almost entirely from supporters of groups that the SPLC lists as hate groups. Mainstream media, academics, law enforcement and courts routinely report SPLC listings without any mention of "controversy." Per neutrality, we are able to mention if groups contest their listings, but only if we actually mention they are listed, i.e., not here but in articles about those groups. Some editors continue to mention comments made by the founders of a left-wing "radical" magazine, CounterPunch, eight years ago and other isolated opinions that have not been reported in secondary sources, contrary to "Due and undue weight". Most of this criticism comes down to a view that the claims of racists, homophobes, Islamophobes and anti-Semites are correct and therefore calling them "hate speech" is wrong. TFD (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling it doesn't really matter what mainstream media say. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the tag; it is not a scarlet letter and no specific issue has been identified for discussion here. As Roscelese astutely notes, "Tag this article until it reflects my POV" is not an acceptable use. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And I have re-instated it, please read this. There is no clear consensus on the subject, the issue at hand is due weight not given to so called controversies involving the article of the subject, and the discussion certainly is not dorment - you didn't even wait 24h to remove the tag. Some people have jobs, you know... Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it again, because it's not a scarlet letter and you have failed to identify any specific issue you believe needs remedying, as directed by Template:POV: The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. You have failed to identify any specific NPOV violation, instead pointing to some generalities about "restructuring." A desire for "restructuring" does not justify a giant scarlet letter tag on the entire article. If you don't have time to identify your specific claimed NPOV violation and open a discussion about that specific violation, then why do you have time to plop a tag down and walk away? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have identified the specific NPOV issue: Criticism of the subject of the article is consistently not given the due weight it deserves, as pointed out by multiple editors in a recurrent fashion (aforelinked), and there has been no consensus over this due weight allegation for a number of the various articles that keep going back and forth in the criticism section. Thus there is a need for discussing the criteria with which criticism is added/removed from this page - I and a number of other editors have questioned the neutrality with which it is done. Finally, it's not that I don't have time to discuss the matter - if it was the case I would not have started this section - I clearly said that you didn't wait enough time and promptly removed the tag less than 24h before the discussion even started. You did not gave an opportunity for discussion - look at the number of comments that were added after your speedy removal. I am re-instating the tag as I believe I have (again) identified the issue, there is relevant discussion on it, and no clear consensus on whether the matter has been resolved or not. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This is still way to vague to justify the tag. What specific changes do you think are needed to make the article npov in your opinion? Which criticisms are missing? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well the problem is a generic one (though not vague at all) - RSd criticism or labeling is constantly prevented from being added to the page, making it POVd. But let's go over the sources if you want to get specific. I won't do an exhaustive list because I suspect next it will be "although specific, that has already been discussed..." Yes, that is precisely the point. Multiple editors have already pointed out NPOV issues in multiple occasions, precisely because the problem is widespread and not specific to a punctual change.

• Criticism regarding hate group listings in general has been brought up in numerous occasions. It has received such ample, mainstream coverage that I'm afraid to overcite...
• Charles Murray - also mentioned several times in the past in this talk page - has received mainstream criticism.
• ... Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@TFD: Untrue, SPLC has been around a long time—they've done good work and have generally been respected, but recently I have seem more criticsm about them. It is recent but I have seen it in mainstream media and in published books, including the Atlantic. Fans of the organization can continue to deny it but there is no going back from this, their reputation is irreperably damaged from targetting writers, academics and libertarians. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The latest bit of criticism was published June 22, 2017, in the Wall Street Journal. The op-ed by writer Jeryl Bier is titled "The Insidious Influence of the SPLC" and spans 15 paragraphs. As far as I know, Bier is not associated with any of the "hate groups". – S. Rich (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal's editorial section printed a screed by a blogger for the Weekly Standard, and they share a dislike for the SPLC?!? I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather. I'll bet they also both hate Barack Obama and approve of Donald Trump, right? And in other news, water is wet. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the organization's prominence, having a wide range of op-eds about it are normal; it would be silly to try and list all of them.We should cover ones that are most prominent, ideally in cases where we can find secondary, high-profile, mainstream non-opinion sources citing or describing them. But "here's a thing someone said in an opinion piece" clearly isn't enough to include in an article for an organization this high-profile, no more than we would eg. include random opinion pieces in the page for a high-profile politician. Since the SPLC is well-known, prominent criticisms should be citable without going to op-ed pages and the like. EDIT: Also, since you said they weren't affiliated with any hate groups... a quick glance at Jeryl Bier's blog reveals that they seek to bring a "unique perspective on conservative politics and culture grounded in Biblical truth"; skimming their other posts there, it's pretty clear that their criticism of the SPLC is indeed rooted in sympathy with the politics of some SPLC-labeled hate groups - they seem especially critical of homosexuality and gays, which makes their claims of particular indignation at the labeling of the Family Research Council as a hate group extremely suspect. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

here "The propensity for violence is not a criterion for listing as a hate group. So sometimes groups that really have no propensity for violence, although their rhetoric might foment it, object to be listed with the Ku Klux Klan. I understand that." — I think they started losing support around the time it become clear they had crossed the line to attacking people for speech, any kind of speech, and they have been criticized in various sources for doing this for donations. I don't think it will be easy for them to recover from this, since it has reached the mainstream media. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep interjecting this unsupported claim that "they started losing support" — it's not clear that right-wing groups or libertarians ever supported the SPLC in the first place. Regardless, this isn't a general-purpose discussion forum to talk about the SPLC, so unless there's some specific changes that anyone's proposing to the article, we should probably close this thread as per WP:NOTFORUM. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I mean that it is clear that the media has recently started to pick up on criticsm of the SPLC which to me is highly unusual, but the nature of criticism in the press is quite different then the nature and substance of the criticism in book sources. Some editors have raised the issue that this criticsm is not discussed in any sources beyond the personal primary statements of organizations, that is simply not true: [38] [39] [40] and that is just what I was able to pull up casually searching Google Books. It looks like the only lawsuit they are going to be involved in is the one that is filed against them. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The first source you cite is a pretty straightforward discussion of the SPLC's methodologies for determining what is and is not a hate group, noting that some of its targets disagree with their classification. The second source you cite discusses the SPLC's office building, and I'm not really sure it's encyclopedic to include the book's recounting of third-hand unnamed criticism that... their offices are too nice? I suppose you're welcome to propose an addition of that material and see if there's consensus. The third source you cite is literally a lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist ranting that the SPLC is participating in a government coverup of its perpetration of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I don't for a minute think that "the world's leading conspiracy writer" would pass muster as a reliable source, but you're also welcome to propose an addition of such material. Otherwise, you're just soapboxing. Moreover, your inability to distinguish between reliable sources and utter nonsense suggests that you should review our guidelines for source reliability, particularly WP:FRINGE. Experienced editors should know better than to propose the inclusion of 9/11-truther garbage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the WSJ should return some of the 40 Pulitizer Prizes it has received over the years for printing screeds. Like the one received this year for Op-Ed contributions. And, BTW, the WSJ has been very critical of Trump over many, many months. The point is that SPLC is subject to criticism from a variety of quality sources. The SPLC's work should be able to stand up to criticism, but to often it does not. When it does not, WP should provide such criticisms to the readers so that they can decide. – S. Rich (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that attempt to POV-gloss over the content of the source but the second (Routledge) source is actually noting criticscms of their funding practices, and the office building is given as an example. Exact words, "spends a low percent of its income on its primary missions relative to most other non-profits" — The third source is not really making a WP:FRINGE statement with respect to criticscm of the budget, for which you can find numerous other sources if you were inclined. It depends on what you use the source for, if it is supported by other secondary sources, it is obviously not WP:FRINGE a policy which refers to ideas. "The SPLC has a very large budget" is not a WP:FRINGE claim and neither is the fact that it has been criticized for it. I would not need this source though, because the Routledge source is entirely sufficient for the same proposition. Or this secondary source discussing lawyers that used to work with them from Louisiana University Press. So yes, I'm familiar with our policies, the lecture isn't necessary. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As a law student, I actually researched some of Dees' cases, his "agency theory" work is quite interesting I'm not sure why it isn't covered in this article. But as you can see they have been criticized for how they handle money, Fuller is not the only attorney who has worked with SPLC who has been critical of this. (That is hardly criticism from a hate group.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

the second (Routledge) source is actually noting criticscms of their funding practices, and the office building is given as an example. The source is a book about buildings and the author (an architecture professor) can hardly be cited as an expert on funding practices of non-profit groups. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a good thing Dees' partner didn't have to file a lawsuit to get paid because he took on twenty cases instead of four and then quit because that would be pretty damning, when combined with criticisms from multiple other staff attorneys. It's unfortunate the Routeledge source doesn't provide a source for the statement, or any others in the book. However, the books that have been written about Fuller and the internal conflicts do provide citations. At this point, confronted with this kind of secondary source WP:RS it really is starting to seem like there may be a POV issue here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as they are talking about SPLC, and not just people who work for them. So can we have a quote?Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Re the {{npov}} tag added three times by Saturnalia0 (1 + 2 + 3): I have never seen a case where someone edit warring to add a shame tag to an article had a valid case, and this is no exception. If there is a specific issue, backed by a reliable source, start a new section on this talk with the issue and forget about the tag. If dissatisfied with the response, try a noticeboard such as WP:NPOVN. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Would those focused on adding the tag please review its documentation which includes the fact that the tag is removable if "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." This article is widely watched and the talk page is active, so attracting other editors is not necessary. If there is a specific NPOV problem, start a new section and identify it, with a source. If dissatisfied with the response, start an RfC to change specific wording—that is the way to attract third parties. Erecting a flag on the article cannot resolve a dispute based on an unhappiness with current wording—specific issues have to be addressed, possibly with the assistance of WP:NPOVN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The tag has been posted so that interested editors can comment as they wish. And we can assume they have looked at the archives. Removing the NPOV tag only serves to stifle the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's funny. Every time I have seen an edit war over a tag, it has been an attempt by one side to force a badge of shame on the article because presenting a specific issue is too hard, and presenting a case at WP:NPOVN does not attract their wanted outcome. The above comment by Srich32977 is deflection because it pretends to address the issue while saying nothing about a specific issue. Is there a specific issue? Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The side that was pushing in this case was the removing one. As I have already mentioned, the tag was instantly removed, there was no wait for this section to be populated with replies. It was removed again even if criteria for removal was not met and responses were supplied, as I have already explained above. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What is so hard to understand about {{npov}}? Add a new section on this talk page describing a specific NPOV problem—quote some inappropriate text in the article, or quote some text which should be in the article. Also explain why the issue violates NPOV, with reliable sources. After doing that, you could try tagging the article. However, the tag is for articles where there is not much activity—what point is there to it here other than to express discontent? The proper procedure would be to describe a specific issue, try WP:NPOVN, and use an WP:RFC to settle the specific issue. The tag is an irrelevant weapon which does not help anything. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I did precisely that. I had done it before, I just got more specific as editors requested more details. Anyway, I don't really care about the tag as long as the neutrality issues are fixed. I am starting a separate section for the issues raised in the link, discussion on selection criteria and general POV can resume in this one. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That diff (which shows your comment starting "Well the problem is a generic one" above) is a generic complaint that a reader would have to spend half an hour studying to extract whatever point is being made. A good-faith attempt to raises an NPOV issue would involve quoting some text in the article that has a problem, with an explanation based on reliable sources. Or, it would involve quoting some text that should be in the article, with an explanation based on reliable sources. What happened at WP:NPOVN when the issues were last raised? Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The tag is not to be emplaced so "interested editors can comment as they wish." The tag is to be placed when editors have specific, identifiable NPOV problems; preferably, in fact, editors would use the specific NPOV-section tags to specifically identify the areas they are concerned about. As the tag's own documentation states, any editor may remove the tag if no specific issue is raised. None has been. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, tags are placed as a warning to readers not to editors, otherwise they would be on the talk page. The same concern that some editors have about this article is common across the project. Neutrality does not mean balancing mainstream opinions with views common on right-wing blogs, but presenting views in proportion to their presentation in reliable sources. In a world with thousands of academic journals, 10s of thousands of publications and millions and millions of books, there are multiple opinions on everything. We cannot present every fringe view that appears in them, but only to the extent they receive notice. The SPLC lists as hate groups groups that claim gay people molest children, Islam is an evil religion, minorities are genetically inferior, etc., which consensus view sees as hatred. TFD (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I also think that the SPLC have diverged from its noble beginnings, and has started to target free speech and human rights activists such as Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. As such, the organisation is running the errands of Islamists, which is in no way any better than actively helping Nazists and the KKK. Maajid Nawaz sueing them for defamation, and criticism from reliable newspapers such as the Washington Post, should be notable enough for inclusion, yet seem to be systematically removed from the page. David A (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Soapboxing aside, I think we could expand Mr Nawaz rebuttal, and add any from Mr Ali. But we should not just add random criticism when the issue being criticized is not even covered in this article. If (after all) we have the criticism we have to also have SPLC's version, and the article becomes a bloated tit for tat catalog of a he said what to who.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

For example, if we have a criticism we should have SPLC's response to it, that is what NPOV means.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz has claimed that he will sue the SPLC at some point; no reliable source has reported that any such lawsuit has actually been filed in court. When and if one is, we can include it. The rest of your post is soapboxing and Wikipedia talk pages are not a place for you to work out your frustrations or personal conflicts with organizations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

And no reliable source except Fox has reported even that. I will be happy to see the article cover the case, if it appears in ABC, NBC and CBS, because then it will attract a range of reactions, so that we can present the information in a neutral manner. But I see no reason to accelerate something that has received no coverage outside the fringe into the mainstream. I would also suggest that anyone who wants to contribute in a neutral manner to stop reading the Daily Caller, Breitbart and similar sources because they are not reliable sources and do not represent the weight that articles require. TFD (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"The SPLC lists hate groups" — great, but they're a public interest law firm, and they have been criticized for this for decades. They have a huge budget, presumably to fund public interest legal work in towns like Montgomery, yet they don't do much but "monitor" hate groups. The disconnect between these two things is not very hard to see. The entire legal staff resigned over this in 1986, with the exception of Dees. You can check this source The most significant critiscm of SPLC has come from its own stadd. The fact that the article doesn't discuss it at all is a legitimate NPOV issue, and enough reason to tag the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

1986 was more than thirty years ago. The SPLC has done many other things in those intervening three decades, as this article amply documents from the reliable sources. Your opinion that "they don't do much" is just that, your unsupported personal opinion, and it has no place in this encyclopedia. Stop using this talk page as a soapbox. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Later that year (2003), SPLC, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and local attorneys filed a civil suit, Leiva v. Ranch Rescue, in Jim Hogg County, Texas, against Ranch Rescue and several of its associates, seeking damages for assault and illegal detention. In April 2005, SPLC obtained judgments totaling $1 million against Ranch Rescue member Casey James Nethercott and Ranch Rescue's leader, Torre John Foote. Those awards came six months after a $350,000 judgment in the same case and coincided with a $100,000 out-of-court settlement with Sutton. Nethercott’s 70-acre (280,000 m²) Arizona property, which was Ranch Rescue's headquarters, was seized to pay the judgment. There, I have just disproved your claim in 5 seconds of reading this article. Either propose a specific edit you think needs to be made or stop using this talk page as a forum to vent your displeasure with the SPLC. That's not what this talk page is for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No you haven't, I'm very much aware of what they do, they file occasional civil cases for damages. If you actually read the source I provided, you will see it is not my unsupported opinion. The fact that you think it is not relevant for WP:NPOV because it happened in 1986 is your unsupported opinion and WP:OR. The entire legal staff resigned because the emphasis of the group on monitoring right wing groups detracted from work like death penalty cases and other civil rights cases—obviously, these types of cases are often criminal/constitutional cases, not civil cases, and there are no money damages involved. Here is the page [41] I support restoring the NPOV tag, and it should be restored because there is no consensus to remove it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The article's history section already mentions that some employees left 30 years ago because they disagreed with the direction of the group, so it's unclear what you think should be changed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be added to the controversies section, as there is more to say about it then that. The critiscm was not only from those attorneys. [42] Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to pigeonhole part of the organization's history into a "controversies" section; if there's a decision made in the organization's past that has been criticized, it should be fully discussed in context of the growth, development, change and activities of the organization. Of course, to ensure there's not undue weight, we'd need to fairly comprehensively expand the "History" section as a whole. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, see: "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies": "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." TFD (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but a lot of articles have criticism sections, so I don't think that essay is widely followed. The benefit of criticism sections is that it helps readers identify the information they are interested in and keeps the article organized and the sections on topic. Would you support removing the criticism section from the Hamas article? There was significant objection to that and no one seemed to be aware of this essay. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Good articles don't have criticism sections. In Hamas for example, the "Children as combatants" is in the criticism section while the "Military wing" section does not mention that it has child soldiers. Wikipedia articles are written by editors who have varying levels of ability. Mostly these sections are written by people who have no desire to work to improve the articles, but merely want to add negative comments. But serious published tertiary sources do not have criticism sections. TFD (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The benefit of criticism sections is that it helps readers identify the information they are interested in— If someone is interested only in negative attacks on someone or something, we have the opportunity and responsibility to educate them by presenting criticism, praise, defense and neutral commentary in context and with due weight to each point of view as relates to their prominence in reliable sources, providing them with an opportunity to understand all sides and perspectives of the issue. We are writing an encyclopedia, after all, and our goal should be to provide readers with a balanced understanding of a subject, not to provide a one-stop copy/paste shop for everything negative ever said about that subject. We don't separate supportive views into a "Praise" section and we shouldn't separate opposing views into a "Criticism" section. That defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

In that case the existing controversy section should also be worked into prose that deals with the issue in a more detailed way. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So how about giving it a try and posting your suggested text here. The Criticism section exists in the way it does because of the NPOV warriors desire to just have a list of criticism with no desire to actually create a neutral or well written encyclopedia entry. Hence the reason it was unbalanced and (in many instances) made no effort to put SPLC's version of the story.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here to see what the SPLC's reaction was to being sued by Majid Nawaz, only to find that the the section is even more absurdly POV than it was when I last read it a year ago. I totally agree with Saturnalia0 and Seraphim System and their points here. At the moment this page is a bit embarrassing by the obvious lack of any discussion at all on the issue, other than in the "Criticism" section where - bizarrely - it is used just to field quotes from SPLC attacking the integrity of Nawaz! The NPOV dispute tag is definitely warranted. Fig (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Then draft some text for us to look at that source RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Having read through some of the debate history of the talk on this issue right here...I think we all know that's a complete waste of my time (which is precious - I'm not a wiki-bot...I have a real life), as you guys clearly have no interest at all in actually advancing this debate - only in obstructing it. Fig (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As to the legal action, as far as I( can tell no case has been launched and Mr Nawaz is fishing for crowdfunding donations to pay for the case. So about NPOV?Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says Nawaz has actually filed a lawsuit? Because we can't say Nawaz has sued the SPLC if he hasn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a bit more grist for the Criticism section: Ben Schreckinger writing in Politico today asks "Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way? The Southern Poverty Law Center -- led by charismatic, swashbuckling founder Morris Dees -- is making the most of the Trump era. But is it overstepping its bounds?" (Point is that the article needs these critical pieces so that readers can decide for themselves whether the SPLC is, today, such a great institution. Without such (ongoing) criticisms, the article is POV'd.) – S. Rich (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

[43] [44] – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's basically a re-hash of what's already in the article. For example, its first mention of criticism is from J.M. Berger, which is already in the article. Then it mentions Nawaz - already in the article. TFD (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So I ask again, who? what makes his views notable? Why is his opinion of SPLC worthy of inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Notes

Charles Murray

As suggested by other editors on the NPOV section I am starting separate sections to discuss specific changes. Discussion on general selection criteria for criticism and possible POV issues regarding that can resume there, if at all.

Regarding the Charles Murray listing:

• Previous discussion

• Some sources

Considering there was no opposition when I mentioned it in the previous section and that the opposition to addition on previous discussion seemed to be around an alleged relation with incidents in Middlebury College I imagine that an addition of the criticism regarding the listing without making a connection to Middlebury College would be acceptable for all parties? Although the relation seems clearly expressed by the sources IMO and the criticism is better understood with this context I'm ok with a compromise. I have added it to the article, please edit with improvements or revert and discuss if needed. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

And as I think was started before, as we do not discus this now in the article why add it? It's dead already.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Lets just cut to the chase, we have had the conversation adnausim.

Include this

Include I agree with Saturnalia0. The more notable and extreme cases of instigated witch-hunts need to be highlighted for public information purposes. David A (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Exclude this

ExcludeAs this was not deemed important enough to have in the article in support of SPLC why add it just as an attack piece (on I note (again) failed to put SPLC's side of the story as well).Slatersteven (talk)

Support for a listing isn't necessarily of the same prominence of its criticism, one can be large and the other non-existent. I haven't seen the SPLC's response to the criticism - if they made any - but please, feel free to add it if you are aware of it. Calling this an attack piece is what is an attack piece. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is, because if we do not include the controversy then why is his response worthy of inclusion, as was said last time. This is just including random criticism. That is (by it's very nature) what an attack piece is, an attack for the sake of an attack. Also it is not down to those who wish to exclude this more neutral and balanced. It is down to those want to include it (that is what NPOV means, putting both sides).Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not an attack, what the hell are you talking about? It's criticism, something that people and organizations who make controversial claims attract sometimes! Prominent criticism from reliable mainstream sources! If you think SPLC's response - which I did not find - should be added, then add it. If you believe my addition was otherwise unbalanced, then fine, revert. But that is not a reason to not include this controversy (again, not an attack). Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly if we were going to include any mention of the listing of Charles Murray, it would need to be far more balanced to meet NPOV standards. The proposed addition is sourced almost entirely to opinion columns, does not mention the SPLC's rationales for listing Charles Murray, does not note the long history of controversy over Murray's views and beliefs, which are widely seen as racist, and does not include the many defenses of the SPLC's listing. This is precisely why "criticism" sections are deprecated; including a section on controversies doesn't mean we uncritically present the opposing views. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Which would then means it would not be criticism but an analysis of a notable case (in the Notable cases section, where it is not deemed worthy of inclusion at this time), thus taking us back to what about it makes it a notable case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Which criticism is not a form of opinion? Please... Yes, it is the opinion of political scientists and journalists, what else is there to say about it - in favour or otherwise? Again, like the other editor, if you possess SPLC's response please add it. If you think my addition was unbalanced revert it. These are not excuses for saying the episode per se should not be listed. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude We do not have any reporting of a controversy in reliable secondary sources, just a few editorials. No reliable sources say that students protested Murray because the SPLC had written about him and in fact the information they published was available elsewhere. TFD (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Middlebury is not even mentioned. For Christ sake did you at least read what was proposed in this section? I precisely avoided that. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

No I did not read it. I suggest you include the text you want to include rather than ask us to click. Your text reads, "The addition of Charles Murray to a list of extremists and white nationalists triggered criticism over the group's listing of extremists. Political scientist Allison Stanger questioned the classification, calling it "incorrect"." That's tendentious writing, since it does not explain that Murray is best known for his views that blacks have lower intelligence. TFD (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not have any RSs to support that. I truly don't. Nor am I aware of any responses by the SPLC that other editors mentioned but did not supply. So, if you have those, feel free to include them. Or just point me where to look, I'll gladly add them. Then again, considering the other issues raised in the previous section I'd say it's a POV issue not to include certain events such as the one being discussed in this section and as I've said on my original comment and on responses, improvements are welcome and although thinking something was badly worded can be grounds for a revert it's no excuse to want to exclude the episode from being added altogether. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're not aware of reliable sources that discuss Murray's views on "race and intelligence," you really haven't tried looking. This is from the first page of Google results for "Charles Murray" and is an in-depth dissection of the racist and racialist underpinnings of The Bell Curve, Murray's putative magnum-opus. In short, Murray is part of a small fringe group that believe, in the face of a wide array of evidence to the contrary, that black and Hispanic people are genetically destined to be less intelligent than people of other races. Murray's adherence to scientific racism is the basis for the SPLC's criticism; if you don't know that, you have no business writing anything about Murray and the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Just an opinion piece, I don't see any mainstream RSs. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude – followers of this article may think I am not a fan of the SPLC, but the Middlebury incident is too far removed from the article topic. E.g., the causal connection is weak. Still I would add See also links to Middlebury and Murphy, with brief explanations as to relevance. – S. Rich (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Excessive criticism

Despite the complaints of some editors, there is excessive criticism in the article, which does not reflect how the organization is normally seen, but is more in line with right-wing blogs. Little of this material is sourced to secondary sources. Most of it appears out of the blue, without explaining context. It also fails to mention that most of the "criticism" is taken from the extreme right of the U.S. political spectrum, where the views that the SPLC criticizes are most popular, although some is taken from the extreme left. I extracted the criticism which can be seen below.

Controversy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
LEAD: The SPLC's classification and listing of hate groups – organizations that in its assessment "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics" – and its labeling of certain people and organizations as extremists, have been the source of some controversy. NOTABLE CASES: However, this has led to criticism from some civil libertarians, who contend that the SPLC's tactics chill free speech and set legal precedents that could be applied against activist groups which are not hate groups. COOPERATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT: The FBI discontinued its listing of the SPLC from its website-list of hate-crime resources in 2014. HATE GROUP AND EXTREMIST DESIGNATIONS': The process for determining which groups are included involves "talking through" cases that are not clear-cut. YEAR IN HATE AND EXTREMISM: Jesse Walker, writing in Reason.com, criticized the 2016 report, questioning whether the count was reliable, as it focused on the number of groups rather than the number of people in those groups or the size of the groups. Walker gives the example that the 2016 report itself concedes an increase in the number of KKK groups could be due to two large groups falling apart, leading to members creating smaller local groups. ASSESSMENT: In their study of the white separatist movement in the United States, sociologists Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile referred to the SPLC's Klanwatch Intelligence Reports in saying "we relied on the SPLC and ADL for general information, but we have noted differences between the way events have been reported and what we saw at rallies. For instance, events were sometimes portrayed in Klanwatch Intelligence Reports as more militant and dangerous with higher turnouts than we observed." In 2013, J.M. Berger wrote in Foreign Policy that media organizations should be more cautious when citing the SPLC and ADL, arguing that they are "not objective purveyors of data". CONTROVERSIES:Controversy over hate group and extremist listings[edit] The SPLC's identification and listings of hate groups and extremists has been the subject of controversy. Critics of the SPLC say that it chooses its causes with funding and donations in mind, and argue that people and groups designated as 'hate groups' are often targeted by protests that prevent them from speaking. The SPLC sometimes responds by reviewing its actions and backing down from hate listings, such as that of Ben Carson; however, it has stood behind the vast majority of its listings. In 2009, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) argued that allies of America's Voice and Media Matters had used the SPLC designation of FAIR as a hate group to "engage in unsubstantiated, invidious name-calling, smearing millions of people in this movement." FAIR and its leadership have been criticized by the SPLC as being sympathetic to, or overtly supportive of, white supremacist and identitarian ideologies, as the group's founder has stated his goal as ensuring that the United States remains a majority-white country. In an earlier Washington Times interview and in a book published in 2002, analyst of political fringe movements Laird Wilcox said the SPLC had taken an incautious approach to assigning the labels hate group and extremist. Mark Potok of Southern Poverty Law Center told The Washington Times that Wilcox "had an ax to grind for a great many years" and engaged in name calling against others doing anti-racist work. In 2010, a group of Republican politicians and conservative organizations criticized the SPLC in full-page advertisements in two Washington, D.C., newspapers for what they described as "character assassination" because the SPLC had listed the Family Research Council (FRC) as a hate group due to its "defaming of gays and lesbians." In the wake of the August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the FRC, in which a security guard was wounded, some columnists also criticized the SPLC's listing of the FRC as an anti-gay hate group while others defended the categorization. The SPLC defended its listing of anti-gay hate groups, stating that the groups were selected not because of their religious views, but on their "propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people... that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities..." In October 2014, the SPLC added Ben Carson to its extremist watch list, citing his association with groups it considers extreme, and his "linking of gays with pedophiles". Following criticism, the SPLC concluded its profile of Carson did not meet its standards, removed his listing, and apologized to him in February 2015. In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The SPLC said that Nawaz appeared to be "more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute," identified what it said were gaps and inconsistencies in his backstory, and rebuked his claim that British universities had been infiltrated by radical Islamists. Nawaz, who identifies as a "liberal, reform Muslim", denounced the listing as a "smear", saying that the SPLC listing had made him a target of jihadists. On June 23, 2017, Nawaz announced on the HBO show, Real Time with Bill Maher, of his intention to file a defamation lawsuit against the SPLC. He started a crowd-funding campaign on his main website. Mark Potok of the SPLC responded "Our point is not to make these people targets for violence... The point is to tamp down the really baseless targeting." FINANCES: In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser published an eight-part critical report on the SPLC, saying that it exaggerated the threat posed by the Klan and similar groups in order to raise money, discriminated against black employees, and used misleading fundraising tactics. The SPLC dismissed the series as a "hatchet job". SPLC's co-founder Joe Levin stated: "The Advertiser's lack of interest in the center's programs and its obsessive interest in the center's financial affairs and Mr. Dees' personal life makes it obvious to me that the Advertiser simply wants to smear the center and Mr. Dees." The series was a nominated for but did not win a 1995 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism. Despite an SPLC campaign against the nomination the series was one of three finalists. Starting in the 1990s, Ken Silverstein writing in Harper's Magazine and others were critical of the SPLC's fundraising appeals and finances, alleging that the group has used hyperbole and overstated the prevalence of hate groups to raise large amounts of money.

TFD (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit unclear on what portions of the hatted material is of concern to you. For example, the Montgomery Advertiser series comment basically repeats the WP article content. But you haven't said why or how the content is "excessive" in its criticism. Same thoughts applies to the Silverstein material. Which stuff is "extreme right" and which is "extreme left" and which is acceptable? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC) 01:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

... does not reflect how the organization is normally seen, but is more in line with right-wing blogs. Little of this material is sourced to secondary sources. Very funny. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Your first source is clearly labelled as opinion and therefore is not a reliable secondary source and is a primary source for Jon Gabriel's opinions. The column identifies its author as the editor-in chief of Ricochet.com, which is literally a right-wing blog. I am sure you would object if we flooded articles about Republicans with opinions written by the editors of Marxist blogs. TFD (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we consider the essay WP:OPINION and WP:NPOVS. We are free to re-state the various opinions we find in op-ed columns as long as they are described as such. (Indeed, mainstream journals publish letters to the editor that are properly vetted and labeled.) The issue is not one of fact-checking per se, but of what various "reliable sources" are saying, editorially, about the SPLC. These sources are not disputing the hard fact that SPLC was founded "in 1492 west of the ocean view". Rather they are commenting on whether the SPLC is staffed by saints or sinners. WP should provide such differing opinions. – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of these essays. Certainly we sometimes must summarize opinion pieces, but I have always found it better to use good secondary sources describing those views because they help us establish weight. The second essay is irrelevant too. Indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. But columns are not reliable sources per policy. Anyway it is misleading to present opinions without identifying the views of the commentator and their acceptance in reliable sources. Jon Gabriel for example describes himself as a "climate-change skeptic" and runs a right-wing blog. Unless a reader held similar positions, then would have no reason to provide any credence to his views on anything. If we were honest, we would say that people who agree with views that the SPLC derides resent the derision. TFD (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As I understood it op-edd peoices can be used if

A: It is by a recognized expert commenting on their field of expertise (Not sure this is the cased with these).

B: They are a being used for information about the person in question (Again not sure this is the case here).

Other then that I am not sure they should be used. But I do think that (for balance) some of the criticism of SPLC should be present, but it should be notable criticism (I think lawmakers criticizing them qualifies), not just some bloke in an op-edd piece.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That's when they can be used as sources of facts. TFD (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sum of sources? You means it's created buzz in the echo chamber but has received no notice in reliable secondary sources. But you would need reliable secondary sources to establish weight. The birther conspiracy theory by comparison attracted a lot of commentary in right-wing sources. But we were able to cover it because it drew the attention of the mainstream, and we were able to provide informed coverage. TFD (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Another critical article

Here is yet another article criticising the SPLC's witchhunt against Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

http://nypost.com/2017/06/30/the-tolerant-left-has-no-problem-bashing-those-who-speak-out-against-muslim-extremists/ David A (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet another opinion piece from a columnist right-wing newspaper. If you missed the heading "Opinion," then the title might have given it away: "Hypocritical leftists willing to give Muslim extremists a pass." Incidentally, the author provides no criticism of the SPLC, but merely repeats Nawaz' criticisms. TFD (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"Opinion piece" is not disqualifying for opinion; neither is "right-wing." The Post however is not the best source. I wouldn't source it directly but count it towards the sum of sources noting Nawaz's criticism. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bill Maher himself criticized the SPLC. Maher is a staunch liberal like Nawaz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.169.84 (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A staunch liberal who has controversial views on Muslims.[45] TFD (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

He criticized the SPLC not because of his view on Islam or religion. He criticized SPLC for listing Nawaz as anti-Islam when Nawaz is a Reformer of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.215.208 (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

He wants to reform them because he believes they have collective responsibility for terrorism and Maher agrees. That is an extreme position and contrary to mainstream opinion. Maybe Maher is right that Muslims are "evil and dangerous" people. But if we mention his views on the SPLC, then it is dishonest not to mention that is his view. TFD (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Maher does not remotely think that all Muslims are evil and dangerous. He simply thinks that the ideology of Islamism is evil and dangerous, and that no set of ideas should have special rights to not be criticised. He has also read most of the PEW Research opinion poll statistics, such as that 84% of the population of Afghanistan thinks that all adulterers should be stoned to death (which recurrently includes rape victims), or that Atheists are systematically put to death in 14 Islamic countries, and homosexuals in 10. If we can criticise the ideologies of Nazism and Communism, we should definitely criticise Islamism as well, even if we technically risk our lives by doing so, as critics of Islamistic doctrines are supposed to be put to death. David A (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic. The question to me is whether Maher is a recognized expert in any relevant field; if not, there doesn't appear to be any good reason to randomly include the opinion of one particular political commentator. We already include the SPLC's statement, Nawaz's opinion and the SPLC's rebuttal; I don't see a reason to include an extensive list of "he said, she said" comments from either side that amount to little more than "I agree" or "I disagree." It's uninformative and unhelpful. Unless you're claiming Bill Maher is a recognized expert in Islamic religious and political thought, and I'm pretty sure he's not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not. I was just defending him from false claims. David A (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we not have this in the article already? So W"what edit are people suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Maher's views on Islam is not the issue here. Rather, what does he, as a pundit and media figure, think about the SPLC? Keeping in mind that the editing standard is WP:NOTEWORTHY, he does add balance to the Left–Right chorus of SPLC critics. Regarding the NYPost/Callahan citation, the op-ed is more about how the Left (of which the SPLC is included), is going after people who criticize Islam by unfairly calling them extremists. So, Callahan's op-ed can be used as RS to re-state what Nawaz and Ali have said about the SPLC, but we'd have to omit what Callahan herself is saying. – S. Rich (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course his views on Islam matter. People who describe themselves as anti-Islamists oppose the SPLC's categorization of anti-Islamism as hate. If your opinion is that there is no such thing as Islamophobia, because anti-Islamists are correctly describing the danger it presents, I don't mind if this article says that, but it is misleading pretend that this view is mainstream. TFD (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand my point. If "he" (either Maher or Nawaz) has views critical of Islam, then we might present those views in their pertinent articles. But any such views ("anti-Islamism" or "anti-Islamist") do not involve the SPLC directly and it would be WP:SYN to include them. When it comes to "mainstream", the stream is very wide and we are in a poor position to say (in our own opinion) who is inside or outside the mainstream. – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That's why we should use reliable secondary sources that report on the "controversy" rather than primary sources. Reliable secondary sources reporting on Maher's criticism would mention that he has been criticized the SPLC and others for his comments on Muslims, whom he views as evil. What you want the article to imply is that even "staunch liberals" oppose the SPLC without mentioning that these liberals hold controversial views about Islam. It also pushes the false view that opposition to hatred of Muslims is a liberal issue. In fact mainstream conservatives, such as George W. Bush, are not Islamophobes. TFD (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Opposition to all forms of extreme fascism and genocidal bigotry should technically be a liberal issue. It does seem hypocritical of liberals to not admit this and stand for their principles. Also, Maher has still never remotely stated that most Muslims are evil. He simply thinks that the Islamic part of the world has severe problems, and largely needs reform. David A (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This may be the root of the problem: that "the Islamic part of the world has severe problems, and largely needs reform" magically turns into the totally different statement "Muslims are evil" when "quoted" by the Control-Left. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remember this isn't a forum to discuss what liberals, conservatives, etc think or should think. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Maher is right or wrong. We can't present his views and imply that they are typical of liberal views. Both David A. and Hob Gadling concede they are not. TFD (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I never did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"People who describe themselves as anti-Islamists oppose the SPLC's categorization of anti-Islamism as hate. . ." TFD (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC) : You should be more careful of your wording here, TFD. The term the SPLC uses for these groups is anti-Muslim not "anti-Islamist." Some have criticized the SPLC precisely because they believe it has blurred the distinction between opposing Muslims as people, i.e. being anti-Muslim, and opposing Islamism as a movement, i.e. being anti-Islamist (or anti-Islamicist) 68.0.204.180 (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly why I used the phrase 'People who describe themselves as anti-Islamists oppose'. In other words, that's how they describe themselves, not how the SPLC describes them. And indeed some of them have criticized the SPLC's description of them. The SPLC says: "All anti-Muslim hate groups exhibit extreme hostility toward Muslims. The organizations portray those who worship Islam as fundamentally alien and attribute to its followers an inherent set of negative traits. Muslims are depicted as irrational, intolerant and violent, and their faith is frequently depicted as sanctioning pedophilia, coupled with intolerance for homosexuals and women."[46] TFD (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have good sources for those "some" who "have criticized the SPLC precisely because they believe it has blurred the distinction"? I think that is an important point. That blurring is occurring all the time, even on this Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That was your comment, so I think you should provide a source. The SPLC's definition of anti-Muslim does not blur the distinction and their listings of anti-Muslim hate groups provide evidence for why they think they are anti-Muslim. TFD (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"That was your comment, so I think you should provide a source" What are you talking about?

"The SPLC's definition of anti-Muslim does not blur the distinction" That is exactly what I meant when I said "occurring all the time, even on this Talk page". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be straying off topic. I have explained what I meant, and see no reason to constantly rephrase my comments so that you may understand them. TFD (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you have not explained what you meant. From context, the "comment" you were talking about when you said "That was your comment, so I think you should provide a source" was written by the IP, and the user you were talking about was me. Direct contradiction, so something is wrong here. If you want to be understood, you should be clearer.

No matter. Coming back from this tangent: The IP did not answer my request for a source, so there does not seem to be a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You wrote above, "This may be the root of the problem: that "the Islamic part of the world has severe problems, and largely needs reform" magically turns into the totally different statement "Muslims are evil" when "quoted" by the Control-Left." I imagine that means that you think the SPLC is blurring the distinction between hateful and legitimate criticism of Islam. If we had a reliable secondary source discussing that view, it would be helpful. BTW, Nawaz did not use the term "Control-Left" in that sense. He was referring to Corbyn and his followers who he believed were in alliance with Islamists, which is not an accusation he made against the SPLC. TFD (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

"You wrote above": When I said that, I referred to your statement "Maybe Maher is right that Muslims are "evil and dangerous" people." So, if anything, I was talking about you blurring the distinction by misrepresenting Maher, wantonly replacing "Islamism" by "Muslims".

As long as such sleights of hand are rampant on this Talk page, constructive cooperation is not possible. So, please stop misrepresenting people's statements.

"Nawaz did not use the term "Control-Left" in that sense" Doesn't matter. It fits. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It only fits if you blur the line between mainstream and left-wing opinion. It's sort of like the Glenn Beck chalkboards where he draws lines from George Soros to Karl Marx to NBC. TFD (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

An obviously left-leaning organization

It needs to be stated in the lede that the SPLC is a left-leaning organization. I don't think any reasonable individual will argue the fact that the SPLC leans to the political left. Saxophilist (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a term that mean different things to different people. If by left-leaning, you mean someone who would not be welcome at a KKK picnic, then that would be correct. If you mean socialist, then you would be wrong. TFD (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please consider this – Meet the black man who converted 200 KKK members by becoming their pal. Promoting engagement and discussion is the way to improve society ... and WP articles. In this article we need to be concise and open about what the SPLC is. And let the SPLC say what it is. – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There was already an RfC about this and the answer was no, it should not be added to the lead at least not with the wording and the sources that were proposed. Feel free to add it to the article body if you can find a good spot for it and compile reasonable sources, but as TFD mentioned it should probably be liberal or left-leaning instead, which is what RSs actually use to refer to the SPLC.[47][48][49][50][51] Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

We do have organizations that are described as liberal, but the difference is that they were set up in order to advance liberal issues. Not every issue divides the nation along a liberal conservative axis. Opposition to discrimination against minorities is a mainstream position, not a liberal issue. TFD (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

[sarcasm] Oh, come now. You know that conservatives hate black people. [/sarcasm] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the KKK, I suppose you could call the SPLC conservative-leaning, considering the KKK's historical ties to the Democrats. However, on other issues, the SPLC generally leans left. Saxophilist (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol. But seriously, WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, because that's what the SPLC does... I'm not really interested in what you think about politics TFD, more so in what RSs say. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Never understood this issue, I do not see "left" as a pejorative, and yes they are left leaning. But we go with what RS say (not what I think).Slatersteven (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)