Talk:Center for Immigration Studies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The SPLC and IRC claims

Neither the SPLC nor IRC provide evidence of their claim. As such, it must be identified as a claim, not proof of that claim. To identify it as a claim is not an ad hominem.Psychohistorian 20:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then say it is "claimed", but don't attack the claimants. This article isn't about them. -Will Beback 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you see calling a group "liberal activists" to be an attack on them? I'm trying to figure out how you think I attacked them.Psychohistorian 21:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What purpose does that description of the groups serve? -Will Beback 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When evaluating an attack on a group (and associating a group like CIS with radicals like FAIR is an attack), it is usually worthwhile to identify the attacker.Psychohistorian 21:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

According to whom is FAIR radical? You seem to be bringing in a lot of judgements. I don't see that listing CIS's history is an attack. -Will Beback 21:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You should be aware that the SPLC article that you referenced in the article claims or, to be generous, insinuates very strongly that FAIR is in bed with Neo-Nazis. By then linking CIS with FAIR, they are seeking to damn CIS by association. The SPLC article is an attack piece plain and simple and it provides no source for any of its claims for CIS.Psychohistorian 16:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't require that our sources provide sources. -Will Beback 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We require that our sources be reliable. An unsourced claim by a left wing political activist group who has been accused by other, third party, sources of working to overinflate the number of political racist groups is hardly a reliable source.Psychohistorian 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The SPLC is considered a relaible source under WP:RS. -Will Beback 23:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources are incredibly fuzzy and you can't say 100% that a site is reliable or not (with very few exceptions). However, considering the SPLC has a bias and that it has run into trouble before with the kind of misrepresentation that I think is going on here, it fails on at least two guidelines for determining reliable sources in the policy.Psychohistorian 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The SPLC is used as a relaible source in many articles. If you assert that a source is unreliable because it has been accused of bias by others then CIS and FAIR are not relaible sources either. Anyway, is there any dispute over their claim that CIS was founded by John Tanton as an offshoot of FAIR? If so we can include that viewpoint too. -Will Beback 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence given to prove or disprove their claim. If I posted on the page for Abraham Lincoln that he had come from Mars and posted as a source a web page written by the National Enquirer, it would meet the same standards as a reliable source that this claim by the SPLC is meeting.Psychohistorian 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The source for saying that CIS is nonpartisan is Time magazine's Special Investigation "Who left the door open?" dated Sept 12, 2004. I don't know how to reference it in the article, however.Psychohistorian 18:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Time Magazine list the source for calling CIS non-partisan? -Will Beback 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Two third party sources, Harper's Magazine and Montgomery Advertiser, have independently shown that the SPLC, though it claims to be about ending racism, practices insitutionalized racism. One of those investigations was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. That makes the SPLC unethical. They also (among other sources) showed that the SPLC, despite being a non-profit, is highly profit driven. That not only makes the SPLC unethical, it makes the SPLC money-grubbing. The SPLC provides no support for its claim written here. That claim is supports the SPLC's agenda. So, we have an unethical, money-grubbing organization making a statement which supports its agenda. Do you really want to make the claim that it is anywhere near the same level as a reliable source as a third party neutral source?Psychohistorian 20:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Time magazine is profit driven, even "money grubbing", as well, and also accused of bias. -Will Beback 20:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Time magazine is profit driven and not a not-for-profit. That's different from being a not-for-profit which is profit driven. As for being accused of bias, what third party neutral source has accussed it of bias? Name a Pulitzer Prize finalist level investigative piece which has shown Time magazine to be unethical.Psychohistorian 21:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So they're both profit driven, at least according to some sources. The desire for profit is not a component of WP:RS. I don't see that we're going to have a resolution between the two of us to this issue. If you like, we can file an RfC to invite other editors to add their input. But since the assertion isn't disputed by anyone I don't see the need. -Will Beback 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The issue isn't whether they are both profit driven. The issue is that the SPLC, by at least two independent neutral third party sources (one of which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize) is unethical and, despite being a not-for-profit, is profit driven. An unethical organization which makes an unsupported claim which supports its agenda is not a reliable source. As for an RfC, I think that would be a good idea.Psychohistorian 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethics are not really the point either. TIME/Warner AOL has done unethical things and lost many lawsuits, I'm sure. I've read numerous articles complaining about various aspects of that entity. The magazine itself was cited for shady dealing on subscriptions a while back. But that doesn't effect the quality of TIME's reporting. The point at hand is reliability. Has the SPLC proven significantly unreliable in their reporting? -Will Beback 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethics does factor in since the SPLC has a horse in the race regarding illegal immigration. Time Warner doesn't have a horse in the race on that issue. The fact that you've read of someone somewhere making some sort of ocmplaint about Time Warner really doesn't compare to two neutral third party sources doing an investigative journalistic article (one of which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize) discussing how the SPLC, which let's remember, has a horse in this race, is unethical. I recommend that anyone who wants to comment on the RfC read the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center first.Psychohistorian 23:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

<-- What "horse" does the SPLC have? Do they have an economic interest in illegal immigration? I've never heard before. It seems more likely that TIME/Warner would have a conflict there, due to its many businesses. The Advertiser article addressed the SPLC's fundraising, as I recall, not its reporting. All we're concerned about is the quality of their reporting. Anyway, the actuality of what they are reporting is not disputed, so I'm not sure why there is such resistance to using this source. -Will Beback 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the SPLC article? I suggest you read it so we have some baseline common unerstanding.Psychohistorian 00:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the horse the SPLC has in this, they were identified as "the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker of the civil rights movement" (that's a quote from Millard Farmer, the famous death penalty defense lawyer). They stir up fear, get millions of dollars in donations, and spend two-thirds of that money on "administrative expenses". For more on the SPLC's "horse" in stirring up fear and riding the donations to fight it all the way to the bank, the Harper's article is [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3e5cb925c4.htm here]Psychohistorian 01:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the SPLC reporting on CIS? Is CIS an anti-civil rights organization? FreeRepublic is hardly an unbiased source, why are you linking to them? -Will Beback 04:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a Harper's article at the FreeRepublic site. If it were FreeRepublic's own words, I wouldn't be linking to it. Please read the SPLC's article on Wikipedia. The SPLC accusses groups of being anti-civil rights so that it can artificially inflate "the threat" so as to get more money to fight it. If you read the SPLC's article on Wikipedia, you'll see that it shifted its focus from domestic racism to illegal immigration.Psychohistorian 11:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The information you're referring to comes from an article in the paleoconservative magazine Chronicles written by Kevin Michael Grace. Grace also writes for VDARE, a leading anti-immigration website that is far more extreme than the Free Republic site. If you don't think he's biased in this matter then that's indicative. Every group that the SPLC investigates tries to rebut the reporting by claiming that the SPLC is unethical. The neo-nazis and white nationalists hate the SPLC, and unfortunately many editors with those associations have edited the Wikipedia article. -Will Beback 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically what informaton are you referring to when you say it comes from Chronicles?Psychohistorian 23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming that it was your source for the SPLC's interest in immigration since that is the only mention of immigraiton in the article. -Will Beback 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The SPLC's interest in illegal immigration is clear enough by the simple fact that it has articles on the subject on its website.Psychohistorian 00:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In the message above you asserted that, "If you read the SPLC's article on Wikipedia, you'll see that it shifted its focus from domestic racism to illegal immigration." After I pointed out that the source of that assertion is an extremist magazine you now say that you believe it because of your own review of their website. Sorry if I don't find this pair of arguments to be convincing. The SPLC is a perfectly reliable source for this fact, despite what the neo-nazis, white nationalists, and other opponents may say. -Will Beback 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First you say that I'm the one saying it, then you say "despite what the neo-nazis, white nationalists, and other opponents may say". Why don't you just come right out and make your accusation directly?

It is objectively true that the SPLC has many articles on its site regarding illegal immigration. They wouldn't have them if they weren't interested in illegal immigration.Psychohistorian 11:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement concerning the SPLC is grammatically awkward: "The Southern Poverty Law Center has described the founder of CIS and many groups associated with it as linked to openly racist organizations." As written, CIS is apparently not a racist orgainzation yet its founder and organizations linked to it are racists--odd but logically viable. Lastly, the word "linked" is a weak articulation (and fodder for libel litigators). Infonomics

Shameless POV pushing by CIS

CIS has shamelessly worded the article to push their POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.163.233 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

non-notability of right-web

Seeing as how Will has already established that he removes sources for non-notability and seeing as how this site is from a non-notable source (the author isn't listed and I can't even find a bio on the editor anywhere on the web, let alone one that highlights his notability, in line with Will's standards, this source is being removed for lack of notability. Incidentally, I remain puzzled as to why he'd remove one source on the grounds that it was an Op-Ed and then restore another source that he knew to be an Op-Ed. That looks like he's trying to exert a double standard, but (assuming good faith) I'm sure there's a legitimate reason-75.179.153.110 (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The issues are not comparable. In this case, we are asserting a simple fact - the founder of this organization. We are using reliable sources to do so. With the other article, an editor is seeking to add a long block quote of opinion published by an advocacy group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What we need here is an objective standard on which to base the claim of reliability of source. Instead of providing one, you've made the assumption that if it agrees with you, it must be a reliable source and if it doesn't agree with you, it must be an advocacy group. That is not how to write NPOV. Grayson's claim about "princely lifestyles" and Mexico's failure to invest in social welfare for its poor is fully supported by the sources which come before it regarding corruption and economic disparity. On the other hand, there is no neutral third party non-partisan corroboration for this Right-wing watch claim. Grayson is a notable source, whereas the writer of the Right-wing source is not even identified. The Right-wing source is clearly a partisan advocacy group no matter how much you wish to gloss over that fact.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The material about the founding of this group is sourced to several separate sources. Salon.com is a reliable source. So is the SPLC. The continued deletion of properly source, neutral material is disruptive. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already been through this, now you're just trying to get us going in circles. Salon is an Op-Ed. Your reinserting it establishes that you have no problem using double standards for articles, but if Op-Eds don't belong, then it should be removed. The SPLC is not a reliable source. The continued reinsertion of improperly sourced, POV material is disruptive. If you feel that this is incorrect, feel free to create an RfC.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that the Salon article is an Op-ed. It appears to be a piece of investigative journalism. Nor have you provided any evidence that the SPLC is not an unreliable source. Please do so before deleting them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

There is no source given for the statement that its director is Mark Krikorian. There is no source given for it having roots in FAIR. The SPLC is not a reliable source (a fact which has been amptly demonstrated by Harpers and the Montgomery Advisor. In the future, cooperate with other editors. Blindly reverting other editors work is non-productive and hostile. You should strive to work -with- other editors, not against them. That means that it would be more productive to discuss reverts you want to make in the discussion page before making them. -198.97.67.57 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The SPLC is indeed a reliable source, used for scores of Wikipedia articles. Whether or not they raise too much money is irrelevant. If you want to work with other editors I suggest you get a username, rather than using a variable IP which makes it hard to communicate or follow your edits. I don't recall you discussing this edit, and I don't see you seeking consensus. If you'd like to add some rebuttal from the CIS to the SPLC charges I think that would be appropriate. Deleting it entirely is inappropriate. As for the director, let's find a source for who runs the thing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not other articles use the SPLC as a source is irrelevant to whether or not the SPLC is a reliable source. Those other articles aren't perfect - that's why they are constantly being improved. I didn't discuss this edit because it didn't look like anyone was presently working on this article. Do you have some set of articles that you squat on to make sure they say exactly what -you- want them to say? I mean, I was surprised at just how quickly you came out of nowhere to blindly revert my edit. It was as if I had intruded on your private property or something.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The SPLC isn't the only source for the assertion that CIS was founded as an offshoot of FAIR. I've added additional sources to support that assertion as well as sources for the director and for the overall appraoch of the organization. As for pages that I watch, yes, I have 9,594 pages on my watchlist including this one. It isn't my proivate property but I do watch for users, especially anonymous users, who delete sourced info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You also, as in this case, blindly revert edits when unsourced content is pruned. Incidentally, the source you provided for the claim that CIS was an offshoot of FAIR doesn't say that. I'm sure that was an oversight on your part and I expect it will be corrected shortly. For now, I'll put a {fact} tag there and wait a week before removing it if a source isn't provided in the meantime.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This source, among others, seems to give clear support for the assertion.[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to conceed on the SPLC *if* you are willing to identify the source using the same standards you are trying to use on IIUS (I don't know why you are trying to use different standards in each case - the only difference I see is it depends on your politics - another word for that is "hypocritical", but if there's another reason, you should mention it). That means identifying the SPLC as "the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker of the civil rights movement" (with a source for that identification, of course). -75.179.153.110 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source. However since the assertions about this subject can be found in many sources there's no need to fight about it. If we wanted to use the most derogatory quotations about every group then some groups would be identified with epithets perhaps more negative than the one you mention. Rather, we should use the most common descriptions of groups found in reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you this once. Now I'm repeating myself. If you stopped treating Wikipedia as your private property and started working as a member of the community, maybe you wouldn't be acting so careless (I can only assume you're acting careless because you are stressed out and you are stressed out because you are treating over 9,000 artices as your personal property). Like I said, now I have to repeat myself. The reason I removed the statement in the topic sentence that CIS is connected to FAIR is that the source provided (labelled [2]) does -not- say that.

Wikipedia can only stand to benefit if people stop trying to guard over 9,000 articles from being worked on by others. -75.179.153.110 (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you just removed a source on the IIUS article on the grounds that it was, you claimed, an op-ed. The definition of an op-ed was subsequently provided and it was pointed out that the source does not meet the definition. However, the Salon article you've readded here as a reference for the statement that CIS is connected to FAIR -does- meet that definition. So, you removed one source on the grounds that, you claimed, it was an op-ed - you readded another reference that does meet the definition of an op-ed. I'm sure this was an accident on your part and not an attempt to enforce a double standard. I expect you'll fix it shortly. -75.179.153.110 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

is an opinion piece by a non-notable individual published on the website of an advocacy organization.

i'ts hard to follow your indendations. Why did you delete Salon.com? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You've already established in the IIUS article that you, Will, remove articles for being Op-Eds. While the Grayson article does not meet the definition of an Op-Ed, the Salon article does. Therefore, in line with your own practices, the Salon article was removed. To do otherwise would be a double standard. I'm sure you don't want to be guilty of upholding a double standard.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Salon can be considered a partisan source the same way that CIS is. It is a reliable source for c=facts. The CIS quotation you added is mostly opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is non-constructive and rude for you to be digging your feet in the sand here while giving only a small fraction of your mental capability to the issue. Focus, please. The definition for an Op-Ed doesn't have anything to do with partisansip, so whether Salon is partisan is irrelevant to whether or not the Salon reference is an Op-Ed.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you deleting it? What's your evidence that it is an op-ed piece? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Request for comment

• Should reporting from the Southern Poverty Law Center be acceptable as a source for Center for Immigration Studies? 23:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, isn't this about how the "reporting" (or claims) should be labelled not whether it's included or not? The RFC is supposed to be stated "briefly and neutrally". Please do so. JASpencer 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's truly amazing that you have false claim after false claim of SPLC being "biased" but don't see a blatantly racist group like FAIR as such. Or that you repeatedly ignore the evidence that CIS has a long history of association with racists like Tanton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.23.113 (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tanton and Institutional Relationship

The SPLC, in their most recent report, admits no technical institutional relationship between Tanton and CIS in the passage below:

'But Krikorian, who has been the executive director of CIS since 1995, shrugged off the idea that Tanton had any influence there. “We’ve never had any institutional relationship,” Krikorian told the Intelligence report in an E-mail. “He’s never been on our board or served as an employee, he’s never even been in our offices.” He said Tanton “had some role back in the mid-80s in helping rustle up money for CIS,” but added that he and Tanton had no “personal relationship.” Krikorian sounded a similar note in 2004, when he testified before an immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. “He wrote us a check, I think it was a year ago,” he said of Tanton. “It was the first check I have seen from him in nine or 10 years. … We have no institutional relationship.” That may be technically true.'(http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/splc_nativistlobby_022009.pdf)

Keep in mind that all of the other resources cited are based on the SPLC's work. In the first sentence, the SPLC is arguing that Tanton had inflence rather than any founding membership. Secondly, they agree with Krikorian that Tanton and CIS technically have no institutional relationship. (may be, may be not...not very decisive)

So, if it is "technically true" that they have no "institutional relationship" how is it that you think he was a founder?

If not technical, then it's speculation. Things like this go in a section called "controversy" or "reception" or whatever you'd like to call it.

One last thing. The entire SPLC report is almost completely based on letters from Tanton to others. No letters TO Tanton. So they are taking the person who they frame as a despicable racist, at his word. Strange?Griffy013 (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Biased wiki entry

This whole wiki page on CIS makes me wonder how credible these wiki pages are. This page is nothing more than a promotion of CIS as if it were some neutral think tank. 67.87.222.46 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)BiblicalTalkBob

Founding board and current board

Why are we listing both of these? I don't recall this much detail on any other non-profit.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose we list the current board, and perhaps add a line saying something like "former board members include..." and then list any notable (blue-linked) names.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My reason was because there seemed to be much interest in who the founding members were.Griffy013 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable members are worth mentioning. I'm not sure the value of including two lists of obscure people.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea. I just worry that the founding members question will surface in the future. Do notice that the non "obscure" members on the founding board are the ones still on the board. If it is done your way (only including "notable" members in the founding list) it will result in redundancy (though it is currently redundant, just less so since it includes "obscure" members). I hope that makes sense. Is your main issue with the founding members information or just the general length of the article? Griffy013 (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there are other issues with the article. But I don't see the purpose in listing the entire founding board and the entire current board. So far as I know, Mark Krikorian, John Tanton, and Carol Iannone, are the only "blue-linked" people involved with CIS, thought I'd think a couple of others might be notble enough for articles.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue linked or not, as to your question of "Why are we listing both of these?," my answer is because there was debate about founders before. Thus, it is important regardless of how other articles are written. I'd be more willing to only put some of the new ones rather than delete the founders.Griffy013 (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did this debate about the founders occur? The only founder I've seen mentioned is Tanton.   Will Beback  talk  00:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. There was a debate as to whether Tanton was a founder so I thought a list of the founders would be important.Griffy013 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the beginning. Why do we need two lists?   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, enough with the talk...time for some action! Let me know if the changes suffice. Undo if it does not. It's bed time so I'll follow up tomorrow evening.Griffy013 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bipartisan?

If the Center is bipartisan, it should be easy to find a citation for it from a secondary source. The definition of bipartisan:

bipartisan, bipartizan, two-party, two-way (supported by both sides) "a two-way treaty"

Harldy, bipartisan, since they are openly anti-immigration. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Immigration issues don't necessarily follow party politics. I don't think it's necessary to say anything about the partisan political affiliation, or lack thereof, unless it's a significant issue as demonstrated by discussions in reliable 3rd-party sources. While I'm on that topic, we should trim the various "stances" to those at least mentioned in 3rd-party sources. The full descriptions of each of this group's positions can be found on their website.   Will Beback  talk  17:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How many references do I need to supply from third party sources to back the statement of it being partisan to keep from it being reverted? This is getting silly. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

First, nonpartisan is not the same as bipartisan. You have repeatedly attempted to imply in effect that CIS is or may be lying to the public when it says it is a nonpartisan organization on its website. To support such a serious charge, the only evidence you provided are assertions that it is "partisan" by NPOV and non-RS groups, with no supporting facts given (e.g., records or allegations of affiliation with or support for a political party or campaign). Thus, on its face the insinuation does not belong in this article. But more than that: A truly RS source, the StateMaster encyclopedia entry on CIS, states that it is nonpartisan. It also says that CIS is a 501(c)(3) organization, which by IRS code means that it cannot be a partisan organization. As stated on the IRS website, such an organization "may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates." The fact that CIS is a 501(c)(3) charity and thus prohibited by law from being partisan is further supported by the fact that CIS is a qualified charity allowed to participate in the Combined Federal Campaign, a fact noted elsewhere in this article and not in dispute. Therefore, the FACTS and a truly NPOV RS source all support the claim by CIS that it is nonpartisan. Ron (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide the link to the "truly RS source, the StateMaster encyclopedia"? The closest I can find is this page on NationMaster, which is just a mirror of the Wikipedia article from years ago.[http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Center-of-Immigration-Studies] In any case, I agree that CIS is described as "non-partisan", in the sense that it isn't associated with a political party. It's also described as "conservative", but the terms aren't in conflict.   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)]

You're right about StateMaster, many thanks for the catch. I'm glad you agree that it is nonpartisan as the dictionary defines the term. The key fact is that it has 501(c)(3) status, which requires that it be nonpartisan (as defined by the dictionary). I see that this is very clearly explained in a nice WP article on American nonpartisan organizations, so I added a link to that. Since that article and its 501(c)(3) status remove all doubt that it is in fact nonpartisan, I removed the associated info as now superfluous, specifically the statement that the organization describes itself as nonpartisan (which was already redundant with the quotation that follows the paragraph) and the statement that media sources describe it as nonpartisan. Ron (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If you like me to start adding in the article where CIS is been shown to "fake, manipulate and alter statistics to fit their mold", I can do that:

• http://www.splcenter.org/intel/nativist_cisreports.jsp
• http://washingtonindependent.com/33085/advocates-blast-immigration-restrictionists-for-disseminating-faulty-data
• http://www.lib.utexas.edu/benson/bibnot/bn-84.html

I figured it would be more NPOV to not include that, however. There are plenty of WP:RS to support their use of "shaky/faulty/coaxed data" to try and paint immigration as "evil". Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with it being nonpartisan. Ron (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Conservative"

• "Kennedy for 40 years has been the engine driving immigration legislation in Congress," concedes Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies.
  • We'll miss Ted Kennedy, the immigration reformer Partha Banerjee. McClatchy - Tribune News Service. Washington: Aug 26, 2009.

• "The longer the healthcare debate drags out not only does it make it harder to get healthcare passed, it makes it harder to get immigration passed," says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies.
  • Obama's immigration retreat Opinion Blog Jim Mitchell/Editorial Writer [The Dallas Morning New - BLOG]. Dallas: Aug 13, 2009.

• "This is politically a real hot potato," said Mark Krikorian, director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, adding, "America has become a dumping ground for the State Department's problems - they're tossing their problems over their head into Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, or Omaha, Nebraska."
  • Risking Israel's ire, US takes 1,350 Palestinian refugees Patrik Jonsson. The Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Jul 7, 2009. pg. 2

• "According to the Center for Immigration Studies (a conservative think tank), illegal immigrants may get as many as 300,000 of the jobs the stimulus program may create. That is why I urged the House leadership to work to ensure that the E-Verify program, which helps employers determine that their workers are legal, receives a long-term extension."
  • Local officials await stimulus money Jeff Brooks. Ocala Star - Banner. Ocala, Fla.: Mar 26, 2009.

• The program could go a long way toward ensuring illegal immigrants are not hired for stimulus jobs, according to recent studies by two conservative groups -- the Center for Immigration Studies and the Heritage Foundation.
  • 03/17/09 e-verify Craig Troianello. Yakima Herald - Republic. Yakima, Wash.: Mar 17, 2009. pg. B.1

• . (The conservative Center for Immigration Studies in July estimated a 1.3 million decline in undocumented immigrants in the previous 12 months, an 11 percent drop from August 2007).
  • Safe harbor U.S. response to undocumented children unacceptable Anonymous. News Journal. Daytona Beach, Fla.: Nov 19, 2008. pg. A.4

• THE Center for Immigration Studies is a well-known conservative think tank advocating for more restrictive immigration policies. Its representatives have consistently attacked immigration reform proposals while pushing for policies to reduce the number of non-citizens entering the U.S.
  • Bum rap / Claims of lack of cooperation between Houston police and immigration anti-gang efforts are unfounded. Anonymous. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Oct 5, 2008. pg. 2

• Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., said that declining numbers of illegal immigrants could be another reason to explain the higher levels of English fluency and citizenship.
  • Census study finds a greater blend; State's immigrants are becoming more assimilated. Number of English speakers also rises, survey says. Teresa Watanabe, Francisco Vara-Orta. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 23, 2008. pg. B.1

• "A lot of legislation is introduced simply for political purposes so congressmen can point to them and tell lobbyists and constituents that they are doing something," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies.
  • Bill would streamline path to residency for GI families Josh Brodesky. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Jun 1, 2008.

• "There's literally no difference in the positions of Barack Obama, John McCain and Hillary Clinton," explains Steve Camarata, the director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative group based in Washington.
  • IMMIGRATION IS OUT AS ISSUE; LITTLE DEBATE IN PRESIDENTIAL RACE Billy House MEDIA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE. Winston - Salem Journal. Winston-Salem, N.C.: Apr 13, 2008. pg. 1

• Others question whether non-citizens should even be permitted to serve. Mark Krikorian of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, argues that defending America should be the job of Americans, not non-citizens whose loyalty might be suspect.
  • Posthumous citizenship awarded The Associated Press. Telegraph - Herald. Dubuque, Iowa: Mar 26, 2008. pg. A.9

• "You have to expect reversals or lulls in this business, and this may be another lull," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.
  • Immigration issue routed to state level; Activists foiled as interest wanes on national stage Howard Witt. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Mar 24, 2008. pg. 1

• Mark Krikorian, of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, argues that defending America should be the job of Americans, not non-citizens whose loyalty might be suspect.
  • U.S. soldiers become citizens in death Helen O'Neill. The Augusta Chronicle. Augusta, Ga.: Mar 23, 2008. pg. A.4

• "His amnesty views will actually echo through the rest of the political system, giving Democrats advantages in a lot of races that have nothing to do with him," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies.
  • IMMIGRATION FOES OFFER NO AMNESTY TO MCCAIN; [SOUTH PINELLAS Edition] JOSE CARDENAS. St. Petersburg Times. St. Petersburg, Fla.: Mar 3, 2008. pg. 1.A

• Steven Camarota of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies says offering non-emergency Medicaid to illegal immigrants would be more expensive than leaving them uninsured and in need of occasional hospital care. In those cases, hospitals lose money, and taxpayers pick up the tab.
  • Rising health care costs put focus on migrants; Tension over uninsured sparks curbs on benefits Richard Wolf. USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Jan 22, 2008. pg. A.1

• "The Pew study points to some of the long-term problems," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors conservative immigration policies.
  • Immigrants' children grow fluent in English, study says; Latinos see the language as the key to success, Pew research shows. Anna Gorman. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Nov 30, 2007. pg. B.1

• Jessica Vaughan , senior policy analyst with the conservative- oriented Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, agreed that there are various definitions of a sanctuary city but said Virginia Beach fits the bill.
  • The 'S' word; [VP - The Virginian-Pilot Edition] GILLIAN GAYNAIR. Virginian - Pilot. Norfolk, Va.: Apr 12, 2007. pg. A.1

• 'The whole point of this program is to try and create additional penalties other than the inconvenience of getting caught. It's supposed to disrupt the revolving door at the border,' said Steve Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., that supports reducing legal and illegal immigration.
  • FORTRESS AMERICA Third in a four-day series on border control CRIMINAL CROSSING Border sections in Arizona and Texas are hot zones for apprehensions, where the threat of long jail terms is replacing 'the inconvenience of getting caught.'; [Final Edition] Story by Michael Riley. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Mar 6, 2007. pg. A.1

• "It's not clear that the impact is what some immigrant-rights advocates think it might be," said Steven Camarota, director of research for the conservative Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C
  • Citizenship requests spike as new hurdles loom; [Home Edition] Anna Gorman and Jennifer Delson Los Angeles Times. Journal - Gazette. Ft. Wayne, Ind.: Feb 26, 2007. pg. 8.A

• "This is a way to do it that everybody is for but has no real effect on the overall immigration flow," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank. "It shuts up the critics."
  • Immigrants deported right from jail The Associated Press. Bennington Banner. Bennington, Vt.: Feb 2, 2007.

• According to Mark Krikorian, director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, if the United States were to lose a number of its low-paid illegal workers in the nation's agricultural fields, employers would adjust.
  • Rotten Oranges; Show Our; Work Ethic; [FINAL Edition] JOSEPH H. BROWN. Tampa Tribune. Tampa, Fla.: Jul 23, 2006. pg. 1

• "It seems as though (President Bush) truly rejects the moral legitimacy of immigration enforcement," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C
  • All eyes on Congress as lawmakers try to reconcile two vastly different immigration reform proposals Sara A. Carter. Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Ontario, Calif.: May 27, 2006.

• John Keeley, with the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative Washington, D.C., think tank that supports stricter immigration control, pointed out that the United States' northern border is twice the length of its border with Mexico.
  • CIVILIANS TO HELP GUARD CANADA BORDER; [REGION Edition]Lornet Turnbull The Seattle Times. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Jul 31, 2005. pg. A.5

• A record 34 million legal and illegal immigrants live in the United States, nearly one-third of them from Mexico, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank in Washington.
  • Immigrants undeterred STEPHEN WALL. The Sun. San Bernardino, Calif.: Nov 24, 2004.

• But these efforts, which often help illegal immigrants, ignore the real problem, some say. "There is a high cost to cheap labor," says Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank.
  • A new strategy for immigrants' healthcare ; An old global concept grows in the US to teach - and demystify - good health.; [ALL Edition] Kris Axtman Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Apr 1, 2004. pg. 02

• But enforcing the more mundane aspects of immigration law actually throws up obstacles for would-be terrorists who need time to hatch sophisticated schemes, said Steven Camarota, a researcher for the conservative Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.
  • Feeling the 'profile pinch' Pakistani fears civilliberties being eroded; [Metro Edition] Rebeca Rodriguez. San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, Tex.: Feb 16, 2003. pg. 08.B

• If private companies accept the cards, that's their business, said David Simcox, chairman of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies.
  • Paper chase: Mexican ID wins stamp of approval Sam Scott, Staff Writer. Morning Star. Wilmington, N.C.: Aug 10, 2002. pg. 1.A

• "It's a bad idea," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative, largely anti- immigration, Washington think tank.
  • U.S. visit a big step for Fox's agenda Bob Deans, American-Statesman Washington Staff. Austin American Statesman. Austin, Tex.: Aug 24, 2000. pg. A.6

• 'There's tension and division, especially among Democrats,' said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative Washington think tank. 'It really does become a difficult position for them.'
  • Worker visas next battle High tech using clout in push for more foreign programmers; [Rockies Edition] Lisa Friedman MediaNews Washington Bureau. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Jun 18, 2000. pg. I.02

That seems like a broad and deep enough collection of sources to support the assertiuon that the CIS is "widely described as conservative".   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Why divide groups into 'liberal' or 'conservative'? Bluebye (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

partisan identification

User:Quark7 reverted my changes (here, here) without any explanation. What was wrong with my changes? There was (and now is again) an obvious inconsistency between the first sentence (which calls CIS "nonpartisan") and the third sentence (which says that most sources call CIS "conservative"). Moreover Will Beback kindly did some research in 2009 that shows an overwhelming majority of sources (not just "most") label it "conservative." The ones that call it "nonpartisan" appear to be outliers, so if there was anything wrong with my edits it was that they were too generous to CIS. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand the definition of "nonpartisan." It does not mean politically neutral. Please read the WP article on "nonpartisan" American organizations. CIS objectively meets the definition of "nonpartisan." This issue was raised and resolved a long time ago on this Talk page. As for your claim that "most" sources label CIS "conservative," you can't say that unless you have read every description of CIS from every single separate reliable source and counted them, and provided that body of evidence. All a neutral article can accurately say is that some sources label it as "conservative." Even saying that much borders on being misleading, because ascribing a political ideology to a group that states "Our board, our staff, our researchers, and our contributor base are not predominantly "liberal" or predominantly "conservative"" amounts to giving no more than the writer's uninformed opinion unless the writer has proven that the group is lying. As for your removal of reliable sources that don't label the group at all, you provided no justification for removing that information, which is directly relevant to getting a better understanding of the group. Quark7 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting where you're coming from. So how about this. We remove the wishy-washy 4th sentence ("Some media sources..."), which improperly suggests that "conservative" and "nonpartisan" are mutually exclusive, and change the first sentence to: "The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a nonpartisan,[1] politically conservative[2] non-profit research organization..." Your thoughts? --Nstrauss (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Coat rack?

Could this article be considered a Coat rack? It seems to be more about pushing the views of CIS than about CIS itself.  Randall Bart   Talk  02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article seems to be about the media arguing back and forth and little actual content. Wikipedia does not care whose feelings are hurt or who said what to who when, unless that is the topic. Quotes and counter quotes should be removed. Simply say side one disagreed with side two. Student7 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Center for Immigration Studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205170320/http://www.cis.org:80/articles/2005/back905.html to http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back905.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708002442/http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/static/splc_nativistlobby_022009.pdf to http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/static/splc_nativistlobby_022009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes

Any think tank working on controversial areas like health care, economic policy, etc will receive criticism and pushback from opposing think tanks, op-eds, government agencies that they criticize, etc. Previous material was absurd and cherrypicked when it was not glaringly wrong. Look at politifact for instance - their statements on CIS were misrepresented. I have reomved nonsense from the lead and summarised a lot of the back-and-forth in the article body in a balanced, NPOV way. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

SPLC

It has been suggested in another thread that SPLC's opinion of this organisation should not be included as Undue, unless mentioned by third party RS.

Is this valid?Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise we're using disputed self-published claims calling various people racists for belonging to or supporting the org. The view should be either removed, or else limited to analysis that is published in multiple high-quality reliable sources per WP:REDFLAG.

I'm not even really seeing SPLC's view mentioned in RS's, much less asserted. PolitFact looked at the claim and declined to even rate it as true or false. Without the opinion being prominently featured in multiple high-quality RS's, it doesn't belong, or at any rate it doesn't merit 7 kilobytes of text. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not, half the section is taken up with CIS's rebuttals. However what is SPLC?Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

But you may have a valid point about it being too long, can we not have one sentence about SPLC and one about CIS's response?Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I guess this is what you were referring to! Yes I agree completely. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

So can anyone explain why SPLC's opinion of CIS is relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It is an old and generally well-regarded advocacy group that has long focused on civil rights causes and accusations of this sort. However, it does make an awful lot of such accusations. That's one reason I suggest sticking to what has been said in RS's about the accusations rather than simply sourcing to the org's own press releases that make the accusations. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

So (in essence) then they have acknowledged expertise and experience in the field and thus there opinion of CIS is of note? So on fact this does not fail WP:REDFLAG as this is exacerbate their area of expertiseSlatersteven (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that only means the view itself is properly sourced to SPLC. It doesn't help us figure out WEIGHT.

Some people argue that SPS's and opinion pieces can't be used because there's no way to establish weight for them (yes, this is a real view that some people have!); I think that is a useless approach, but that there is a very real problem that WP policy doesn't tell us how to determine appropriate weight for SPS material.

If the subject matter of the claim didn't amount to people calling other people racist, I wouldn't even pay attention to this problem and I would say, SPLC is viewed as something of an authority on this subject, give them plenty of space, end of story, because I am an inclusionist who likes very long, wordy articles. But since the claims are essentially a character attack, and since the RS commentary makes clear that there is ample basis for debating CIS's reports one way or the other, and since RS's generally do not describe CIS as a hate group, but instead regularly cite it as an authority on immigration, I think it is important to stay anchored to RS commentary about SPLC's claims.

At the same time, I don't think there is any part of WP policy that gives us a clear-cut answer, because the policy on WEIGHT refers only to "reliable, published sources", yet we obviously can't perhaps we shouldn't treat SPS's the same as secondary sources for WEIGHT purposes just because they are sometimes acceptable for VERIFIABILITY purposes—IMO this would might upend our basic policy of reliance on the editorial judgment of RS's and meanwhile the actual policy language is completely silent on SPS's. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think policy needs changing this is ot the place for that discussion. SPS's are acceptable is they are acknowledged experts.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I, too, thought that was the beginning and end of it until recently. But as another user pointed out to me, the SPS policy doesn't tell us how much weight to afford an SPS view. An annoying observation, but I don't see how to get past it. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Raise it at the RS notice board or other policy pages.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems like Politifact wrote an article about the SPLC's designation of CIS without taking a position one way or the other, which was reprinted in the Miami Herald and the WashPo gave the CIS's director a rebuttal op-ed. So RS coverage supports us giving a brief mention of the SPLC's designation. However, RSs haven't given it that much weight (considering all the times they quote CIS in exactly the same way they quote other thinktanks that no one disputes the respactability of). NPalgan2 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's what keeps getting me. If the hate group "designation" were taken seriously, NY Times wouldn't keep going back to Krikorian for discussion of immigration issues. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not for us to second guess RS. There maybe many reason why they may go back to them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this statement even means. As we've said, RS's seem to largely ignore this claim by SPLC, and it looks like none have validated it. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There's an RFC going on about SPLC criticism of Charles Murray here. Talk:Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)#RfC_about_SPLC_identifying_Murray_as_a_White_Nationalist It has not closed yet, but consensus seems to be moving towards noting SPLC criticism in article body but not in lead. I would note that SPLC criticsm of Charles Murray seems to be quoted often in RSs, but there seems to be a comparable dearth of RSs noting the 'hate group' designation of CIS. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It means what it say, that we cannot know why (say the NYT) quotes him so we cannot use our ill informed guess work as an argument for whatever it is people are arguing for, what is that?). As to why do RS not refer to CIS as racist, how many of them use them as a source?Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok wise guy, then I'll assume that "don't second guess reliable sources" means we shouldn't second-guess the decision by RS's to ignore this fairly outlandish criticism. (And if you wouldn't mind explaining why you think citation by RS's is a sign of expertise for SPLC, but not CIS? Because that doesn't seem to make any sense.) Factchecker_atyourservice 19:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Can an admin step in now, this is getting personal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing personal about it. I asked for clarification and you didn't want to provide it, and I gave you a sarcastic response highlighting why I asked for clarification. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Can this now be closed, it is clear that some users are not interested in improving the article but just trying to make points about SPLC. I see nothing of value coming out of this discussion, which seems to mainly consist of contradictory statements and "sarcastic" responses, not attempts at co-operative editing. I think it is clear these is no consensus for (whatever, I am not sure what) change is being advocated for, I now withdraw my suggestion of reduction.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Policy is policy. The section needs to be rewritten based on what secondary sources have said about this dubious claim. Your repeated and silly accusations of bad faith are neither here nor there—take them to ANI. Article talk pages are not for complaining about users. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Reversion

"Politifact, when evaluating Frum and Romney's statements, noted that the estimates produced by the study had methodological issues but that overall "both the report’s authors and its critics have reasonable points", and that "no one has disputed that recent immigrants filled a surprising share (more than half) of the added jobs”." was changed to "Politifact, when evaluating Frum and Romney's statements, noted that they had used an estimate from the CIS report that used a poor methodology." which is misleading, and to then use that to say "CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors... by Politifact" is absurd. In general, this wikipedia article should *note* CIS's disagreements with Heritage, Cato, et al, but you don't just get to decide that they are right and CIS wrong. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The PolitiFact piece is clear in that the estimate that Frum and Romney used was (i) from the CIS report and (ii) that it was misleading and based on a poor methodology. Also, if the only problem you have is with the description of the PolitiFact content, you should tweak that content. You shouldn't mass revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to respond to the question. First off, the language you are using goes well beyond what the Politfact articles say. One of them refers to "methodological shortcomings" that "weaken the certainty" of Romney's estimate, the other refers to it as a "methodological preference" and doesn't even say it's flawed. How do you get from there to "Politfact said that it was misleading and based on a poor methodology", and how do you get from there to "CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors"? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Every scholar quoted by PolitiFact says that the methodology is crap:

* Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer for the Pew Hispanic Center, an independent research organization, separately told PolitiFact that there are "lots of methodological problems with the CIS study, mainly having to do with the limitations of small sample sizes and the fact that the estimates are determined by taking differences of differences based on small sample sizes."

* In October 2011, the conservative-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation issued a paper critical of the center’s analysis. Author Chuck DeVore conceded that Texas saw a net job gain of 279,000 in the period. But, DeVore said, there’s no statistical way to conclude how many of the jobs were taken by immigrants.

* the Dallas Morning News quoted Pia Orrenius, an economist and immigration expert at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, calling the methodology behind the 81 percent figure "misleading." Orrenius was quoted as saying the center’s second methodology — the one suggesting that 54 percent of gained jobs were filled by immigrants — was more reliable and also "typical for the nation."

Here's what PolitiFact says in its own words:

* we see two additional issues that call into question the accuracy of the study itself

* the methodological shortcomings also weaken the certainty of Romney’s statistic.

* On balance, we think that both the report’s authors and its critics have reasonable points.

* In the big picture, we agree with Chuck DeVore -- a conservative critic of the study -- that "trying to draw conclusions about immigration and employment in Texas in isolation from other factors is problematic at best."

So to sum up, every scholar contacted by PolitiFact questions the report's methodology and/or says the report is misleading. PolitiFact itself states that there are "methodological shortcomings", calls into question the "accuracy of the study", and agrees with a critic that the conclusion derived from the report is problematic.

Now, how should we summarize this content? It's clear that the scholars question the methodology and call the report misleading, and it's clear that PolitiFact finds that there are "methodological shortcomings" and that the conclusions drawn by the report are problematic. I think it's fair to say that PolitiFact thinks the methodology is poor, as was the language in the Wikipedia article pre-reversion. Even if that's unacceptable language to you, you can drop PolitiFact from the list of bodies that have challenged the CIS reports, and add an additional sentence with whatever PolitiFact summary it is that you prefer. Also, it's bad practice to mass revert content, most of which has nothing to do with your stated reason for reversion. Can you please restore all content that's unrelated to your quibbling over the PolitiFact articles? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The third bullet point in your list shows that the prior language was terrible and the reverts justified. How about we carefully track what Politfact actually says, attribute direct quotes to the individual critics (if we mention them at all) and thereby we'll avoid dramatic unsupported claims like the ones that were removed.

I suggest:

Assessing the competing arguments, Politfact found that both the CIS report authors and its critics made reasonable points, but agreed with one commentator that "trying to draw conclusions about immigration and employment in Texas in isolation from other factors is problematic at best."

Factchecker_atyourservice 16:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If that's the language you want, why didn't you add that to the Wikipedia article instead mass-reverting a bunch of unrelated things? This is what I suggest:

Assessing the accuracy of the study, PolitiFact noted that several scholars questioned the report's methodology and had found the results misleading. PolitiFact's assessment was that there were "methodological shortcomings" to the report but also that both the CIS report authors and its critics made reasonable points. PolitiFact did agree with one commentator that the CIS report's attempt "to draw conclusions about immigration and employment in Texas in isolation from other factors is problematic at best."

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted because like User:NPalgan2, I felt the prior version was better than your changes. The language we are discussing wasn't the only problem. Edits smaller than 5k may be easier to work with, I think. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet, the only reason you've presented for reverting the text is a minor quibble over the wording of the extent of PolitiFact's disagreement with the CIS report. Disgraceful editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

"Minor quibble"? Get thee to a dictionary.

What do you think needs to be changed? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I obviously want to restore my edits. If you want to tweak and discuss the PolitiFact content, go ahead and keep the PoltiiFact content out of the article or tweak it to whatever you feel is accurate, but no reason has been presented for mass-reverting everything else. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, minor quibble! PolitiFact literally says that the conclusion drawn by the CIS report is "problematic at best" and that it has methodological shortcomings! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Then say "PolitiFact has questioned the methodology calling it "problematic at best"".Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The CIS produced an two different estimates using slightly differing methodologies of the percentage of new jobs filled by immigrants. Politifact summed up the debate as follows "The report does acknowledge that "no estimate of illegal immigration is exact." But the methodological shortcomings also weaken the certainty of Romney’s statistic. On balance, we think that both the report’s authors and its critics have reasonable points. In the big picture, we agree with Chuck DeVore -- a conservative critic of the study -- that "trying to draw conclusions about immigration and employment in Texas in isolation from other factors is problematic at best." But we also agree with Mark Krikorian, the Center for Immigration Studies’ executive director, that "even if DeVore prefers a net-to-net comparison, immigrants still got a disproportionate share of new jobs."" I don't know how you get from that to Politifact "deemed [a CIS report] misleading and riddled with basic errors". More generally, CIS is one of many DC thinktanks that produce reports, whitepapers, estimates, etc. Other thinktanks that want more immigration criticize CIS's reports and CIS and other low-immigration thinktanks criticize them in turn. This is normal. You need 2ndary sources if you want to argue that CIS's work is unusually shoddy - and there is no evidence that Politifact in particular has labelled them so. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

PolitiFact calls study's conclusion "problematic at best" and says that it had "methodological shortcomings". If your quibble is that it doesn't precisely meet "deemed misleading", add a differently worded sentence for PolitiFact and leave the rest intact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Neither "misleading" nor "riddled with basic errors" is a fair reflection of what Politfact said
• If you want further changes please say a few words about why they are needed. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

To call a study's conclusion "problematic at best" is totally different from saying it's "misleading"? That's a quibble. If you feel strongly about it, throw your preferred wording about the PolitiFact content in at the end, but leave the rest of the content intact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue further about your misuse of the word "quibble" nor do I respond to commands Factchecker_atyourservice 18:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to write an essay on every sentence I've added to the article to meet the hidden complaints of editors who can't be arsed to read the content and sources that they mass-revert or explain why it's being reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the way Politifact summed it up was "On balance, we think that both the report’s authors and its critics have reasonable points." That's what's in the article now. As for the rest of the criticism, you don't respond to my point that you could pick any random thinktank in DC and collect all the times that someone has taken issue with one of their reports, but you need reliable secondary sources to make the case that the volume is unusual, otherwise it's shoddy SYNTH. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Scholars, fact-checkers and think tanks do not regularly chastise organizations for shoddy studies, yet that's the case with CIS, so the Wikipedia page should mention it, as it does for shoddy organizations like the Gatestone Institute and the Centre for Global Research. The lede should summarize the content of the article, so it's not SYNTH to summarize the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Really, you're going to argue that RSs treat the CIS like Michel Chossudovsky's 9/11 conspiracist Center for Global Research? Mark Krikorian had an op-ed in the Washington Post last week. Scholars and think tanks regularly criticise each other on the minimum wage, on health insurance, on lots of issues. You need secondary sources. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

But what if the correct narrative is not presented in reliable sources?? WHAT THEN?? How will we report the truth? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I'm also involved in a dispute with the folks at the Michel Chossudovsky page over whether I should be allowed to insert RS content that describes him and his Centre as conspiracy-peddlers. To be fair to you guys, Chossudovsky's Centre is nowhere near CIS in disrepute, but that doesn't change the fact that multiple organizations, scholars and fact-checkers have called CIS out on its bullshit studies, and the page should reflect that. Note that the page never stated in Wiki voice that "CIS publishes rubbish sources", it merely noted the wide range of criticism that CIS reports have received. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Funnily enough, you've described a scenario where RS's say what you want the article to say, and you're comparing it to a scenario where you want the article to say thing the RS's don't say. To be fair to you, I don't think you noticed. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I describe the Chossudovsku and the Centre in Wiki Voice as promoting conspiracy theories. In this article, I say that "Orgs ABC, Scholars DEF and News outlets GHI have deemed CIS reports misleading and riddled with basic errors". Both are accurate and consistent with the sources used. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Except that's not accurate or consistent with the sources used. Hence the problem. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Show how it's inconsistent with the sources used. So far you've quibbled with a PolitiFact description even though the PolitiFact piece said the reports conclusion was "problematic at best" and had methodological shortcomings. I look forward to see what you come up with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's inconsistent with the sources used because it doesn't reflect what they actually say, and instead makes much more dramatic claims that are not supported. This has already been explained to you. Words mean stuff. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Which sources there do not find CIS reports "misleading" or "riddled with basic errors". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

WHY DON'T WE INSTEAD START WITH A SINGLE RS THAT DID FIND THAT AND THEN WORK OUR WAY UP FROM THERE. THANKS, Factchecker_atyourservice 19:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You just claimed that those sources don't claim that CIS reports were "misleading" or "riddled with basic errors". Are you going to back up your erroneous claim or not? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to rebut something that was never established in the first place. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

? The sources used to substantiate the text are all sourced in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and as has been pointed out to you about two dozen times in the past few hours, those sources do not say what you are insisting they do. I don't see how you could have missed it. Gosh, how patient I am! Factchecker_atyourservice 19:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

All those sources say the CIS reports are misleading or riddled with basic errors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If only there were some way for you to show that! Alas, it is not possible! (Sarcasm alert: post some source text supporting your claim, or stop wasting my time.) Factchecker_atyourservice 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Writing op-eds and being involved in public debates doesn't say anything about one's academic credentials and the merits of one's views. Both Peter Navarro and Sebastian Gorka appear on/in credible news outlets regularly, but that doesn't detract from them being fringe figures who would uninformed views in the fields in which they claim expertise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable secondary sources stating that CIS publishes reports that are considered notably shoddy compared to other DC thinktanks, then show them. Just noting that there is a "wide range of criticism" isn't enough. You quote Alex Nowrasteh of Cato, for instance. But Cato is a libertarian thinkthank so its publications are criticized by progressives, liberals, conservatives, et al. Doesn't justify putting in the lead a paragraph like the one you wrote for CIS. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

But it's just a description of the content in the Wikipedia article... CATO, Heritage, lib think tanks, nonpartisan migration orgs, individual scholars, FactCheck.Org etc. have criticized the reports as misleading (see main body), and ledes should summarize the main body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If that were an accurate or noteworthy assessment, some RS would have published it. You're arguing we should use a bunch of debatable SPS commentary to generate a summary that is not supported by what secondary sources have said about the article subject. Sorry, nope. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fox news reporting they exaggerate [2] saying " some observers have called the findings into question" and quoting Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. So yes RS have discussed it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Saying "some observers have called the findings into question" ≠ taking sides. If Cato releases a report and CIS is quoted in the media disagreeing with it, are we going to put in Cato's article that "Cato is wrong and exaggerates"? NPalgan2 (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is not about CATO so this is an irrelevant "gotcha".Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a basic comparison as to how wikipedia articles generally deal with disagreements between thinktanks. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You are not making any coherent statement or argument about anything. Could you clarify what's on your mind? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Policy is clear, article talk pages are for discussing how to improve THAT article, not general Wikipedia policies or other articles. Each article is looked at on it's own merits. For example, a science think tanks views about science would be of note, it's views about it's favorite cheese (unless a scientific study) would not be.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Why are you posting your general thoughts about Wikipedia on this talk page? It's inappropriate. Article talk pages are for discussion of that article. Stop immediately before I call an admin. Etc etc etc"

Seriously though, do you have anything to say about this article? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Err you thanked me for one of my posts in this very thread. So yes I have been talking about THIS article. What I am asking is that NPalgan2 also talks about THIS article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Just showing you what silly criticisms about talk page use look like from the other end. Do you have a problem with the idea that this article should track what secondary sources have said about SPLC's claim? If not, I am not sure what we are discussing. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

There are so many organisations listed in the lead paragraph that supposedly have determined that CIS reports are "misleading and riddled with basic errors", that it seems best to organize subsections to deal with them to make things manageable. In general, I would say "deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors" makes it sounds like each of the sources listed has judged CIS reports *in general* "misleading and riddled with basic errors"; some of the claims are doubtful. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

US I.C.E.

The statements made by ICE in response to CIS’s report shouldn’t be in the lead because neither AP nor Politifact thought they were that consequential (and neither the direct quotes from ICE nor AP or Politifact said ICE explicitly called CIS's report misleading per WP:NOR).

There are 3 quotes where ICE spokespeople respond to CIS’s May 2014 report:

An ICE spokeswoman, Barbara Gonzalez, said Friday that in many cases cited in the report the agency was required by law to release the immigrants while their deportation cases are pending. "The releases required by court decisions account for a disproportionate number of the serious crimes listed in the report," she said. Gonzalez said, for example, that mandatory releases account for over 72 percent of the immigrants convicted of homicide.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/data-dhs-freed-thousands-convicted-immigrants

"We reached out to Gonzalez, hearing back from Carl Rusnok, a Dallas-based ICE spokesman, who emailed us similar information. "Convicted criminals come into the agency’s custody to undergo removal proceedings after they have already satisfied the terms of their criminal sentence," Rusnok said. "In many of the releases in 2013, ICE was required by law to release the individuals from custody, pursuant to decisions by the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Once in ICE custody, many of the individuals described in the report were released under restrictions such as GPS monitoring, telephone monitoring, supervision, or bond.”"

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jun/10/lamar-smith/lamar-smith-claim-about-obamas-prison-break-illega/

In a statement to The Daily Beast, ICE deputy press secretary Gillian Christiansen highlighted key points that CIS failed to address, such as the fact that convicted criminals are only sent into ICE custody for deportation proceedings once they’ve completed their criminal sentence. Many of the 2013 releases, ICE says, were required by law. For example, as a result of the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, the U.S. is required to release detainees whose home country either denies the return of its nationals or has diplomatic beef with the United States, such as North Korea or Cuba. Christiansen says some detainees with less serious offenses were released at the discretion of enforcement officers based on “the priority of holding the individual, given ICE’s resources, and prioritizing the detention and removal of individuals who pose a risk to public safety or national security.” Immigration court judges, on the other hand, ordered the majority of releases for people with convictions of more serious crimes. “For example, mandatory releases account for over 72 percent of the homicides listed,” ICE said.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/15/inside-the-center-for-immigration-studies-the-immigration-false-fact-think-tank.html

The AP story took no issue with CIS’s report, saying "the releases that weren't mandated by law, including [the] 28 percent of the immigrants with homicide convictions, undermines the government's argument that it uses its declining resources for immigration enforcement to find and jail serious criminal immigrants who may pose a threat to public safety or national security." Politifact was fact-checking Rep. Lamar Smith when he cited a CIS report. Politifact rated Smith's claim 'half true' because Smith called it the "worst prison break in American history" and "fail[ed] to acknowledge detainees had served criminal sentences and all releases weren't discretionary". But the CIS report itself did not claim that "all releases were discretionary" or call it a "prison break", it said the "vast majority of these releases from ICE custody were discretionary, not required by law". The Daily Beast writer’s opinion was that ICE had "highlighted key points that CIS failed to address”, but even that is different from saying ICE "deemed [CIS] to be misleading”. A Daily Beast writer's opinion needs attribution in any case as they often publish pieces by different authors that wildly disagree with each other.

Bottom line: if we're going to quote "highlighted key points that CIS failed to address”, that should be attributed to Caitlin Dickson, not current wording. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Politifact

Politifact has quoted the CIS literally hundreds of times. See here: http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=center+for+immigration+studies I see no evidence that they have less confidence in CIS's reports than the thinktanks on the other side of the issue. Here are the two citations out of the hundreds being provided to say Politifact has a negative opinion of CIS:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/19/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-hits-rick-perry-saying-40-percent-texa/ http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/dec/02/david-frum/david-frum-says-foreign-born-individuals-filled-80/

Money quote:

"The report does acknowledge that "no estimate of illegal immigration is exact." But the methodological shortcomings also weaken the certainty of Romney’s statistic. On balance, we think that both the report’s authors and its critics have reasonable points. In the big picture, we agree with Chuck DeVore -- a conservative critic of the study -- that "trying to draw conclusions about immigration and employment in Texas in isolation from other factors is problematic at best." But we also agree with Mark Krikorian, the Center for Immigration Studies’ executive director, that "even if DeVore prefers a net-to-net comparison, immigrants still got a disproportionate share of new jobs."

This is quite even handed. Politifact notes that getting precise numbers is difficult in this area and thus estimates are inherently subject wide error margins. It is misleading cherrypicking to put this in the lead as Politifact criticism of CIS. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

spurious reversion

I'm sorry can anyone explain these [3] reverts to me? The original version is much better sourced and neutral. For example, the new version mentions the Who Benefited from Job Growth In Texas? report. But then it removes commentary on the report from Passel, a scholar at the Pew Hispanic center. The new version mentions Matloff's report. But then it removes the response to this report by Shrek. Etc. This is sort of ridiculous. CIS publishes a lot of reports. Why are these being mentioned? Obviously because they've come under criticism and scholars have pointed out serious flaws with them. That's why they're in the article in the first place. But if you remove the actual criticism of these reports then this just becomes a seemingly random nilly willy completely pointless list of some reports that CIS has happened to publish. Which misleads the reader and does them no service.

And this is all well sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed Passel’s quote to politifact because if we’re quoting from Politifact it seemed best to use the way they summed up the dispute and link to the longer discussion: "On balance, we think that both the report’s authors and its critics have reasonable points.” (This quote was removed, and current version does not give an accurate impression of what Politifact says).

And Shrek of Heritage *was* quoted in the previous version " James Shrek of the Heritage Foundation argued that Matloff's methodology was a "highly misleading measure of ability”” This seemed enough as it’s one selfpublished source discussing another SPS.

The biggest issue is the lead paragraph "CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org and NBC News; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.“ is a mixture of wrong, undue and synth. The Poltifact part has been discussed in previous sections, another example is NBC news : "Sessions is citing the research of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views. PolitiFact has checked out claims made from this study before and found that this reading of the data is misleading.” http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fact-checking-first-night-republican-national-convention-n612081

But NBC is criticizing Sessions’s "reading of the data as misleading". Politifact criticized Morici’s reading as 'mosty false’. Neither NBC nor Politifact wrote anything to justify CIS reports being "deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors":

"The study he cited linked to numbers that showed that immigrants accounted for about 70 percent of the net job growth. While that study’s headline was that all of the new jobs went to immigrants, that only held true for a certain age range, which Morici misapplied to all workers. Morici is correct that foreign-born workers, both citizens and noncitizens, do disproportionately well in the job market. But the actual numbers fall well short of the 100 percent that he said. "All" is an overstatement.” http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/dec/02/peter-morici/economist-immigrants-have-taken-all-new-jobs-creat/

As I said further up, if there's material from reliable independent published sources that say CIS’s reports are shoddy, then let’s see them. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"But if you remove the actual criticism of these reports then this just becomes a seemingly random nilly willy completely pointless list of some reports that CIS has happened to publish. " Some editor just collected every time someone criticized a CIS report (sometimes blatantly misrepresenting what other sources said), or a factchecker criticised someone like Sessions, Frum, Romney or Morici citing them (including times when the other guy got details wrong) because they wanted to have the ridiculous lead paragraph. Immigration is an issue that cuts across the political spectrum, so CIS finds itself disagreeing with libertarians, liberals and pro high immigration conservatives. This is not evidence of a cross partisan consensus that CIS is a bad thinktank. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"I removed Passel’s quote to politifact because if we’re quoting from Politifact it seemed best to use the way they summed up the dispute and link to the longer discussion" - I don't quite understand what you're saying. What does "I removed Passel's quote to politifact" even mean? Bottom line is that you removed Passel from the article. You didn't put it somewhere else. It's not discussed somewhere else so you didn't "link to longer discussion", you just straight up removed it.

"The biggest issue is the lead paragraph" - the lede needs to summarize the article. Sure, if you spuriously remove all kinds of well sourced stuff from the body of the article then it doesn't make sense to summarize something that's no longer there. But that's a problem with your removal, not with the lede as it was. And best I can make it out in the above discussion you, and one other editor happen to think that "the sources are wrong". Well, too bad.

For the NBC source, it's pretty clear from the very next sentence after "PolitiFact has checked out claims made from this study before and found that this reading of the data is misleading" that the story is criticizing BOTH Sessions and the study. And just to be clear we can add the Politifact story that the NBC source cites [4].

Your last paragraph is a pretty clear statement that you are engaging in original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It sounds to me like he's saying he eliminated the direct quote from a Politfact piece and replaced it with Politfact's own summary. If so that would seem to be fine. And, we can't go writing article leads that make contentious claims not found in any source. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not what he did though, and we're not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Politifact quoted several people on either side of the issue, I just quoted the sentence where Politifact summed up its opinion "on balance... yada yada yada". NPalgan2 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And btw, why the heck did you make this revert? It's just a straight up error correction. The fact that you did this sort of suggests that you're here basically to edit war or making straight up revenge edits. It's like you didn't even read what you were reverting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Presumably because that edit was preventing him from making this proper revert. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive how? Because he forgot to add a single word back to the article? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Because he's reverting straight up error correction just to edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the grammar, but as I said, I removed the whole "Sherk notes that ..." sentence as undue. If you want to reinstate that sentence, please justify. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: also note how laborious it would have been to perform this edit without use of the Undo feature. You're making a trivial non-complaint. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't forget to replace that word because I removed the entire sentence. Currently the paragraph on Matloff/Shrek is: "UC Davis professor Norman Matloff wrote a report featured at CIS arguing that most H1-B visa workers, rather than being "the best and the brightest", are mostly of average talent.[34][35] James Shrek of the Heritage Foundation argued that Matloff's methodology was a "highly misleading measure of ability".[36]" This just states that Matloff's work has been published on CIS's website, and Shrek at Heritage disagreed. Matloff's work on the H1B visa has been published in a peer reviewed journal http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/MigLtrs.pdf. If anything, Shrek's criticism of Matloff is the UNDUE bit as Heritage's blog is a self published source and Shrek isn't a notable expert. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: if you're gonna revert and edit-war, do it properly. If you think its too "laborious" then come back when you have time. I'm still going over the dispute here, but there is no excuse to being lazy. (Admittedly, I too am sometimes lazy, but that's wrong too) VR _talk 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: It wasn't me who reverted, but he did do it the right way. Please pay attention. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Migration Letters

Regarding this journal, best I can tell, it's not completely junk - it's not one of those "pay to publish" scams or "we'll print anything with the word 'migration'" in it, but it's not a very highly ranked journal. RePec has it ranked at ... 1009. One thousand and nine. Below "Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci". But that's for economics related work so maybe there's some other discipline specific ranking which has it a bit more legit. But basically it looks like one of those things where you publish throw away work or if you're desperate or if you, ahem, want to push a political agenda without referees calling you on it, and then when it comes to write up your CV you wonder if you should really include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Matloff was invited to contribute to a special issue on U.S. migration because of his H1-B work. And the impact factor wouldn't matter as much for him as his immigration hobby is irrelevant to his career in computer science. Current wording about Matloff/Sherk is fine, without this nonsense about Matloff being 'refuted' because Sherk noted median H1-B salary is ... drumroll ... 74k (which is pathetic considering almost all postdocs are on J-1s). NPalgan2 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of a policy that says peer reviewed scholarship should only be used if it appears in a top-ranked journal. Also, when I look at the rankings, I seem to see a rank of 963 out of 2113. It appears more specialized journals are further down the list.

@Volunteer Marek: I also don't think it is helpful to baselessly accuse the authors of pushing a political agenda. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The point is that given that he's not an expert in this area and this is a pretty low ranked journal, including it is probably UNDUE. And if we do include it, then yeah, we need to include the criticism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the ranking provides a basis to limit the weight. Even with the journal's narrow focus, it still receives what looks like a middle-of-the-road ranking, and we also have no problem using analysis that is not peer-reviewed.

I'm not sure which criticisms you mean, but offhand I don't see a problem with discussing criticisms of the journal article. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

If organisations are going to be labelled ideologically, it should be done in a *consistent* manner across wiki, viz here Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#RfC_on_lead_sentence. CIS rejects the 'conservative' label, most often RSs describe it with some variant of "which supports lowering levels of immigration", the NPR ombudsman wrote an entire article on left/right labelling of the group arguing that it was a politically diverse organisation. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Katz award

If the "Katz award" is notable, there should be reliable secondary coverage of it. Until such coverage can be demonstrated, this text[5] doesn't belong in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone archive pre-2017 discussions on the talk page?

There's no point in having discussions from 2008 on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I set up the script for the archiving bots EvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You can't call somebody a white supremacist on WP based on a Wired blog post.

there are policies n stuff Factchecker_atyourservice 21:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

From the tea leaves of your unexplained revert--I sense some disagreement on this point? Do you notice that all the sources more serious than a Wired blog post don't actually call Tanton a white nationalist? Factchecker_atyourservice 01:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: Why do you keep calling it a blog post? EvergreenFir (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Who cares? Go read WP:REDFLAG. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice's edit summaries are extremely deceptive. Not only do multiple high-quality RS support the language in the article, but the user has now reverted the same content four times in less than 24 hrs. The user was explicitly warned about edit-warring on his/her talk page[6]. The user then proceeded to scrub the 3RR warning from his/her page, which shows that the user was aware of the warning[7]. The user also keeps removing content unrelated to the edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times writes about Tanton regularly but does not call him a white nationalist.

The SPLC is an activist group and this article already contains the views pushed in its self-published press releases, which are not RS's and cannot serve as the basis for a factual claim in Wikipedia's voice that Tanton is a white nationalist.

The Wired article is low quality, simply repeats the SPLC label, and even if this weren't the case, you, again, need multiple high-quality reliable sources explicitly making the claim that Tanton is a white nationalist. I sincerely doubt you will find such sourcing. The fact that NYT doesn't call him a white nationalist should be all you need to know, brah.

Thus, what you're looking for is something like the following: "The Southern Poverty Law Center has said that Tanton is a white nationalist." Factchecker_atyourservice 18:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Hill says he wants a white ethnic majority and the NYT says he opposes immigration on racial terms. The other RS call him a white nationalist. That's sufficient for the label. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you merely dispute the WN label that RS have given to him and which he blatantly is (given his white nationalist views), why do you keep deleting all kinds of unrelated content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In other words, neither The Hill nor New York Times calls him a white nationalist but an activist group does, so we attribute the claim to the activist group that is making the claim. Like I said. This is WP 101. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone who wants an white ethnic majority and hates immigrants on racial grounds is a white nationalist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if "hates immigrants on racial grounds" weren't rancid unsourced garbage, the above would be SYNTH. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on April 7, 2018

Please fix this typo: "was involved was involved in". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer -  Fixed. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

research organization

Not sure where the "consensus" could have possibly come from, but this seems like a silly debate. CIS is obviously a research organization - sources indicate that they receive grants from the US Census Bureau for research. To make the argument that they aren't a research organization because you don't agree with their political leaning is being dense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl.jensen (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wanna share a secondary independent source that describes the funding and purpose of funding from Census Bureau? That would be helpful.. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"a wide range of think tanks"

Aside from Cato and Center for American Progress, I'm not sure any other think tanks have have come out with discrediting articles re: CIS. Some of the other conservative ones use their research frequently, such as Heritage. That section in the concluding sentence of the opening seems unhelpful and should be edited or removed. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I see at least the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Cato Institute, Urban Institute and Center for American Progress. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

John Tanton as Founder

Is there any notable source that actually credits John Tanton as the founder of CIS? Tanton himself denies this, and the frequently cited New York Times article never says that Tanton founded CIS. Does anyone have any credible, non-biased source that CIS was founded by Tanton? Otherwise this should be removed from the article. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Hill says he founded CIS. NYT says he helped start it. I didnt even bother to check the other sources. Those two seem sufficient.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

NYT says he helped start it, Politfact says he helped start it, so we probably shouldn't call him the founder if they don't. Pretty straightforward right? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If other RS dispute that he founded CIS, add that to the article. Stop deleting what other high-quality RS are saying and stop lying in the edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the correct approach is to say what the better sources say, rather than present a poorly sourced claim as "fact" and then "rebut" it with the better sources. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hate immigrants on racial grounds is from the NY Times. No, it's not SYNTH to call a duck a duck. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't from NY Times. Post source text or stop making this obviously false claim. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"While Dr. Tanton’s influence has been extraordinary, so has his evolution — from apostle of centrist restraint to ally of angry populists and a man who increasingly saw immigration through a racial lens... Dr. Tanton grew more emboldened to challenge taboos. He increasingly made his case against immigration in racial terms." Tanton said, "One of my prime concerns is about the decline of folks who look like you and me... for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that."[8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't call him a white nationalist or say he hates immigrants. I don't understand why you are having trouble reading this? It says he "increasingly saw immigration through a racial lens", it says he "increasingly made his case against immigration in racial terms". Then a quote demonstrating exactly what NYT described.

Why are you not satisfied sticking with what the source says? Factchecker_atyourservice 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

White nationalist is a concise way to give this information. Please explain why you scrubbed all sources and content (even sources that explicitly refer to him as WN) if you just want to tweak the language a little. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"White nationalist" is source misrepresentation that quite possibly amounts to WP:LIBEL. If you think the language has equivalent meaning (it doesn't) then you should have no problem using the precise language the NY Times uses. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Since you've stopped talking and resumed editing can I assume you're dropping this stick? Factchecker_atyourservice 20:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The real editing questions are WP:UNDUE & WP:SYN. The article John Tanton is balanced, with the controversy relegated to subsections. This article violates SYN because it is taking controversial (ad hominem) material about Tanton himself, putting it into the lede, thereby serving to "show" CIS itself is "bad". For some balanced non-Wiki discussions, see Politifact and Snooes. (As of now, Factchecker atyourservice's version is acceptable.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Where are we on this? We agree that "helped found" is the appropriate descriptor for his role. Does that mean eugenics comments are relevant? Surely they would be if he is the sole founder, but if he played a role? Would appreciate contribution here so we can stop rvt's SoccerSalvatore (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

An anti-immigration think tank that a eugenicist had any hand in founding? Yes, his views on eugenics are relevant.Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Not getting drawn into an edit war with an obvious sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've launched a sock puppet investigation which includes a diff of the edit summary where our new SPI admits to being a sock of yesterday's blocked editor and hilariously accuses me of being a meat puppet. This probably won't take too long to resolve. I vehemently disagree with their edit, but I'll leave it until the investigation resolves. If somebody else wants to revert, be my guest. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't speak in riddles, Simonm223--this isn't a stand-up act where a nudge-nudge will do. Which edit? Which SPA? (Which is what you meant, I presume.) Drmies (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Somebody long since blocked. It turned out they were a perennial joe-jobber with a tendency to find other recently blocked accounts and then mimic them as if they were sock-puppeteers trying to circumvent a block for the purpose of... stirring up shit for their own amusement? Anyway, long story short, they were an obvious sock but with a different sock master than I'd assumed and it all got sorted out. This whole section can be closed off now. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: calling Tanton the "founder"

Courtesy ping to @Oshwah: as protecting admin. I'm not submitting this as an edit request because it may require discussion, but I wanted to point out that the discussion has implications for which version of the page to protect in the first place so it's sort of... prior-ish to that in a way? I guess? Anyway, this is not merely a matter of WP:WRONG because Wikipedia's police on administrator application of page protection makes specific reference to BLP concerns, stating:

"When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as . . . poor-quality coverage of living people."

I realize that CIS is a group, but the effect of the prose is to associate its members more strongly with a controversial figure. Under WP:BLPGROUP this is problematic if the group is small and thus the association imparts more directly to the individual members. CIS has only a couple dozen contributors and staff so that seems significant.

Anyway the problem, and one part of an ongoing dispute, is the apparent misstatement of Tanton's relationship to CIS.

Tanton is generally described in newspapers as a donor to CIS, or as a person involved in founding the group. The New York Times, in multiple articles, says that Tanton helped to start CIS. It never says he started CIS by himself, and never describes him as the founder. PolitFact, a well-established fact-checking desk, similarly says he "helped" found the group, as does a major social justice organization, the Anti-Defamation League. The more dramatic, contrary formulation comes from self-published matter by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a different activist organization, and from some weaker sourcing that repeats that description.

Of the sources repeating the SPLC formulation instead of the NYT/ADL formulation, only one is a serious journalist, and, respectfully, he's less reputable than the author of the NYT piece and The Hill is less reputable than The Times. Meanwhile, PolitFact is no more reputable than The Hill, but is specifically geared toward factual correctness.

The other source presented to contradict NYT and PolitFact is a Wired blogger who, a quick Google search reveals, is currently writing stories about the Condom Snorting Challenge and video game controllers, so her online posts have nothing to say in contradiction of an NYT reporter who's a multiple time Pulitzer also-ran or a respected fact-checking desk. (Note, she was also insisted upon repeatedly by Snoogans as a source for calling Tanton a white nationalist, the subject of the recent revert warring.)

The WP practice of mentioning multiple opposing viewpoints is for opinions and theories, not dueling sets of facts. When a less-established writer in a lesser-quality source is contradicted by pedigreed fact reporting in the New York Times, and confirmed by PolitFact and even other activist organizations such as ADL, we leave the lesser sourcing out. This is crystallized in the WP:V sub-policy WP:REDFLAG, otherwise known as "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", which requires "multiple high-quality reliable sources" for any fact that is "apparently important". This implicitly requires that we prefer higher-quality publications over lower-quality publications when sourcing particularly sensitive facts. Words matter, and when the reporting is in conflict, we defer to the better reporting. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, why is the page fully protected? I was going to restore an edit that was reverted because it didn't cite a source, and simply add the source. We customarily add when a source is needed - we don't automatically revert it, the latter of which indicates a problem in itself. The information belongs in the article, and can be cited to this NYTimes article. There are several others that substantiate Mark Krikorian as a nationally recognized expert on immigration issues. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing in that source that substantiates that Krikorian is a "nationally recognized expert on immigration issues". It's not only unsourced, but patently false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? The source states...One of them, Mr. Krikorian said, is the lack of a national system for employers to verify that new hires are legally authorized to work. He also noted that the United States still has no system to confirm that foreigners leave the country when their visas expire. And in the very next paragraph it states: Other experts said the report was an... Why do you think the Times used "Other experts" if not referring to the preceding expert in the paragraph above? But experts disagree, expert, listed under experts, the url title "Why policy expert supports Trump's immigration ban, and so forth. I now see that there is opposition to his expert opinion which is fine as long as all relevant views are included per NPOV. Mark Krikorian may not support your POV, but he is considered an expert, and that information belongs in the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The NY Times piece refers to Krikorian as a critic, but it does say "other experts" in a way which could also refer to Krikorian. PBS refers to "experts" in a vague sense about the people consulted in the story. Hudson is not RS. I have no idea what procon.org is. A "url title" is insufficient. None of the sources directly describe Krikorian as an expert or do so in an indirect way (e.g. tout his knowledge, describe is prolific research output). And it's for good reason. He runs a crackpot outfit that produces shoddy research, as extensively documented in this Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that probably explains why the NYTimes uses him. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the reasoning goes something like this:

(1) Wiki editor Snoogans has unique insight about the nasties at CIS

(2) Thus we need to ignore what New York Times and other high quality sources say about CIS, and instead look for lower-quality sources that say things that align more closely with personal views of Wiki editor Snoogans, even though that is the opposite of what WP policy says to do

(3) ??? (a lot of people forget this step)

(4) PROFIT

Factchecker_atyourservice 16:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, none of the sources, including the NY Times directly describes Krikorian as an expert, touts his knowledge or describes his prolific research output. He's usually cited along with other CIS figures (Jessica Vaughan) as go-to figures for the anti-immigration take. When RS have fact-checked the reports that Krikorian has authored, they usually find them to be shoddy (source: the millions of sources cited in this Wikipedia article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I am talking about you reaching into low-quality sourcing to contradict higher quality sourcing on the factual matter about whether Tanton was CIS founder. At the present moment I'm not bothering to argue with you about the frankly obvious fact that he is regarded as an expert because I don't care about it very much. If I did care, I'm sure sourcing could be found. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

, , , addressing Snoogans' arguments with the "expert" title. Krikorian has testified before Congress dozens of times, has three published books, is frequently invited to debate other immigration experts such as Cato's Alex Nowrasteh, etc. Regardless of your personal political stance and your disagreement over his policy prescriptions, the man is an expert on immigration.

Again - the topic at hand - are there no high quality sources that can pinpoint Tanton as THE founder of CIS? It is referenced in this article, as being a matter of fact, multiple times, and Fact Checker has made a great series of posts demonstrating that this is clearly misleading and should be removed. Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Krikorian hasn't published any peer-reviewed research. Testifying in front of Congress means absolutely nothing. All kinds of pseudoscientists testify in front of Congress. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans do you agree we should say that Tanton "helped" start CIS since that is what the best sourcing says? Factchecker_atyourservice 21:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No, "helped found" and "founded" are both OK and can both be reliably sourced. According to this study, CIS intentionally obscures Tanton's role in its founding.[9] We can mention that when we discuss whether Tanton "helped found" or "founded" this organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That article has some pretty serious issues. For one, neither of the two cited studies (on page 359) mention Tanton at all. Certainly CIS has tried to distance themselves from his association, as the article points out, but this article hardly supports the claim that he founded CIS. The Sohoni and Jaret articles, for reference Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so we'll just say he "helped found CIS" per the good sourcing and then we can probably ignore that random sociology journal article per WEIGHT. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme - I apologize for the delay responding to your ping here. Did you still have questions about this? Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Lorty, Oshwah - I've forgotten all about it, but thank you for responding. I'm now trying to come up with some humorous quips for an upcoming SignPost article, but think I may need a few more beverages 🍹 to kick-start my funny bone. Don't want to mess that up discussing serious stuff. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)    

Looking at the citation and view stats for the Sociological Focus article, I don't think it has had much impact. So achieving Balance related to Woods's view is problematic. But trying to do so is getting too deep into the weeds for an encyclopedic article. Let's just mention that Tanton had a role (e.g., "helped found" and omit POV characterizations) in the founding. The present text suits me just fine. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

that's certainly the most accurate language Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts I had on this, wanted the opinion of everyone:

The SPLC admits no technical institutional relationship between Tanton and CIS in the passage below:

'But Krikorian, who has been the executive director of CIS since 1995, shrugged off the idea that Tanton had any influence there. “We’ve never had any institutional relationship,” Krikorian told the Intelligence report in an E-mail. “He’s never been on our board or served as an employee, he’s never even been in our offices.” He said Tanton “had some role back in the mid-80s in helping rustle up money for CIS,” but added that he and Tanton had no “personal relationship.” Krikorian sounded a similar note in 2004, when he testified before an immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. “He wrote us a check, I think it was a year ago,” he said of Tanton. “It was the first check I have seen from him in nine or 10 years. … We have no institutional relationship.” That may be technically true.'(https://www.splcenter.org/20090131/nativist-lobby-three-faces-intolerance)

Keep in mind that any reference to Tanton as the founder cites this exact SPLC article. In the first sentence, the SPLC is arguing that Tanton had inflence rather than any founding membership. Secondly, they agree with Krikorian that Tanton and CIS technically have no institutional relationship. (may be, may be not...not very decisive)

So, if it is "technically true" that they have no "institutional relationship" it seems misleading to characterize him as the founder.

If not technical, then it's speculation. This loose connection should be included in the lengthy criticism/controversy section of this page, not in the introductory paragraph. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? user:SPECIFICO user:Factchecker_atyourservice Darryl.jensen (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Personally I thought this debate was resolved long ago. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Likewise. Given there seems to be consensus regarding the "technically true" language should we now move the Tanton references to Criticism section? user:Darryl.jensen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateMike729 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, sounds like this is finally all cleared up, yes user:Darryl.jensen? Gonna go ahead and move Tanton to criticism as per consensus. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds cleared up to me Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

According to Otis Graham, the founding board member of CIS, Tanton played "no part" in founding the organization at all (page 139, "Immigration Reform and America's Chosen Future", his autobiography). We ought to at least mention that the guy who founded the organization disputes that Tanton played any role in the founding...ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

References