Talk:NumbersUSA/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV?

This article struck me as very POV when I first edited it--it was more or less a booster piece for NumbersUSA. I took out some of the more overt statements of support for NumbersUSA and added a website that offers background and critique of the organization to provide some balance. However, it would help if someone could offer some more researched pieces of information to counterbalance what is likely POV wording and presentaiton of "Facts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.76.184 (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

SPLC considers NumbersUSA an anti-immigration organization

NumbersUSA claims SPLC considers it as an immigration-reduction organization which is not true. SPLC considers NumbersUSA to be an anti-immigration organization. Claiming otherwise, is POV pushing from NumbersUSA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.163.233 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NumbersUSA does not oppose immigration. So it's not an anti-immigration organization. It opposes many categories of immigration, but does not call for a temporary moratorium on immigration. What the SPLC calls NumbersUSA is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.220.10 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

July 24 edits

In addition to the citation cleanup and infobox, I've reworded quite a bit of the article to try to remove some of the supportive bias. I'll wait on removing the neutrality tag for now, though. I considered removing the entire "Statements" section, which is really just their brochure. Do they provide any information not already present in the article? Afowler (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued deletion of info on Tanton

Information and wikilinks to John Tanton continue to be removed. The fact that the New York Times states that he "fostered" the organization is more than enough to consider him a "key person." The wikilink in the criticism section must remain, because the entire point of that criticization is that the SLPC is focusing on John Tanton specifically. Regardless of his current affiliation with the organization, his involvement is important enough for the Times to mention in multiple paragraphs. Afowler (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing Unfounded Statement

Afowler, in your own words, "the New York Times states that he "fostered" the organization" [so that makes him a] "key person." The New York times article does NOT say that John Tanton founded the organization, so your edit of the page to list John Tanton as a founder is inaccurate. The NumbersUSA staff comment to a News21 supplies an entirely plausible account that Roy Beck founded NumbersUSA with his own money while he worked for John Tanton. That means Roy Beck didn't want to quit his day job until he had his own organization up and running. It seems perfectly believable to me. To put John Tanton as the founder is nothing more than an allegation. What's more, there is plenty of other material in the article that mentions the John Tanton connection, so the link is made. LamaSu (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• From outside government there is John Tanton, founder of a multitude of anti immigrant, disguised as ‘immigration reform’ nativist organizations: Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Numbers USA, Pro English, and others that replace the Know Nothing Party, the Immigration Restriction League, Order of United Americans and Order of the Star Spangled Banner organizations of the 1800s. [1]

• Lurking behind Tancredo are Dr. John Tanton’s various front groups, including the virulently anti-Mexican Federation of Americans For Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and NumbersUSA. [2]

• CIS is part of an anti-immigration syndicate founded by John Tanton, a retired ophthalmologist from Michigan who also founded NumbersUSA and the Federation... [3]

• John Tanton, a retired small-town Michigan ophthalmologist who helped organize Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Numbers USA and the Center for Immigration Studies, says money along won't win the immigration debate. [4]

• After the scandal, Tanton resigned as FAIR's executive director and focused on developing another project, US Inc., which is essentially a financial umbrella group for his network. He remained on FAIR's board of directors, and the group continued to court controversy. According to Form 990 returns filed with the IRS for 1988 to 1994, FAIR received nearly $1.3 million from the Pioneer Fund, which issues grants for research to prove Hitlerian notions of the biological superiority of the white race. And in 2001, Tanton-founded groups like the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA, US Inc., and FAIR were granted a total of $220,000 by eccentric rightist billionaire Cordelia Scaife-May of the Scaife Family Foundation. [5]

• NumbersUSA was founded in 1996 by John Tanton, a retired eye surgeon who has contributed to a network of 13 anti-immigration groups, three of which the Southern Poverty Law Center designates as hate groups. [6]

• During the 1990s, Tanton's U.S. Inc. adopted a new tactic, creating programs called NumbersUSA, The Social Contract Press (which publishes "The Camp of the Saints"), and Pro English. Although these units would often present themselves as independent, tax forms make it clear that they are merely programs of U.S. Inc.[7]

• According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups and right-wing extremist organizations, NumbersUSA is one of the more moderate of a number of anti-immigration organizations financed by U.S. Inc., a nonprofit "conduit" organization founded by Michigan opthamologist John J. Tanton. Tanton denies that his group finances NumbersUSA.[8]

• When his colleagues rejected his extreme ideas, he took a hard right turn toward unabashed anti-immigration with a virulently racist tone. Chief among the groups Tanton has founded or funded are: NumbersUSA, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). All of them are regularly cited in media accounts as valid sources of information on immigration. .. According to Public Research Associates, a racial justice watchdog group, NumbersUSA shares office space with ProEnglish, a group also founded and financially supported by Tanton that has a history of making anti-Latino, anti-Catholic statements. [9]

That's from a couple of minutes of searching Google. I'm sure more sources could be found.   Will Beback  talk  16:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Come now -- selectively sifting through the Internet's galaxy of opinionated sources to buttress a dubious case isn't in the NPOV tradition of Wikipedia. ChulaOne (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • If you have better sources than please add them.   Will Beback  talk  17:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• • The SPLC has attempted to publish and promote a smear by association: the allegation of NumbersUSA as a Tanton umbrella group. The NYT, among other publications, has parroted these claims. Whether or not Mr. Beck worked for Tanton or not at the time of NumbersUSA's founding is a triviality. No one lists the SPLC's founding donors on its Wikipedia page's history. Nor does it detail the past employment history of Morris Dees or other founders. NumberUSA has testified before congress, successfully prevented amnesties, and worked for environmental and social concerns for 15 years. Are these contentious anecdotes really the most important facts in its history? Two of four sections on the NumbersUSA Wikipedia entry contain claims by the SPLC, an organization with a clear bias against the political aims of NumbersUSA. Such claims should be re-located to the Controversy section at the bottom of this article. It's like printing criticisms by Republicans in half of the sections on the Wikipedia pages for Democrats, hardly a NPOV.  Arimanes (talk)   7:43, 12 October 2011 (EST)

• • Is being associated with John Tanton a smear? That's a dim view of the man. In any case, many publications have made the connection. On Wikipedia, the greatest weight goes to the most prominent view. While the NYT isn't error-free, just claiming that they parroted another source isn't proof of an error. I'm sure they did their own research into the matter. Organizations don't testify before Congress - people do, often on behalf of organizations. If there are notable events in the organization's history that have been reported in reliable sources which aren't included then let's add them.   Will Beback  talk  12:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the association with Tanton is a selective emphasis of fact with a predetermined goal, which is to smear. If it weren't perceived as a smear, it surely wouldn't be so controversial on this talk page. You are correct that organizations don't testify directly to congress.  :) I agree that additional facts should be added. An inordinate proportion of this history is dedicated to making prejudicial claims. At the least, I think that these claims should be condensed. They don't require three separate sentences. One with appropriate citations would suffice.

Will, if something is said often enough it is true? Using mulitple baloney webpages that probably all come from the same ultimate false source is unfounded. The New York Times is an extremely pro-immigration newspaper, and they chose to use the word "fostered." LamaSu (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is concerned with what is verifiable, not with what is "true". "Fostered" is very similar to "founded", so there's not a large gulf between the assertions. The current text reads:

• The organization was founded in 1997 with the support of anti-immigration environmental activist John Tanton[3] and by former journalist Roy Beck, its current executive director.

That seems verifiable.   Will Beback  talk  17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Fostered" is absolutely distinct from the word "founded." I'm not getting into quoting dictionary defintions. LamaSu (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of that, we have multiple reliable sources that describe Tanton as the founder. If you like, we can also include the viewpoint that he didn't found the organization.   Will Beback  talk  17:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about the reliable sources. The source you quoted above says, "founded in 1997 with the support of anti-immigration environmental activist John Tanton." But when I looked at the Wikipedia article history for that quotation, I got: [The organization was founded in 1997 with the support of anti-immigration environmental activist John Tanton ref name="nyt_littleknown" cite news |first= Robert|last= Pear||title= Little-Known Group Claims a Win on Immigration|url= http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/us/politics/15immig.html%7Cwork= New York Times|date= 2007-07-15|accessdate=2008-07-24 }} and by former journalist Roy Beck, its current executive director.]

So it looks like the source is claimed to be that New York Times article by Robert Pear, but I can't find that sentence in the article. I did paste part of the quote into dogpile search, but it didn't give me the original source. I do not have time to do more research into that right now.

You also quoted The Washington Times in your list, (that's a conservative daily), but it says, "who helped organize." I have no problem saying that Tanton was involved, fostered, gave money, et cetera.

I have to go now, but will check back tonight for replies. LamaSu (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The last text I quote is taken from this article, not from a source. It's the text that you deleted twice.[10][11] As I wrote above, there are numerous sources which call Tanton the founder. We can also include the view that he was merely the fosterer. Since it's contentious, I suggest we omit "founders" from the infobox entirely and leave the nuanced discussion of the matter to the text.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I did not get back to this on Friday. I am willing to go with your suggestion that we omit "Founders" from the infobox entirely and leave the nuanced discussion of the matter in the text. I contacted NumbersUSA on Friday and asked them if they had any proof of who founded it. They said they are willing to dig up the paperwork, but it will take some time. LamaSu (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

On SPLC Statements

"SPLC considers NumbersUSA to be an anti-immigration organization." SPLC has lost credibility. Maybe the SPLC accomplished great things in the past. If you google Alexander Cockburn and SPLC you'll eventually turn up a link to his article stating, "I’ve long regarded Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center as collectively one of the greatest frauds in American life. The reasons: a relentless fundraising machine devoted to terrifying its mostly low-income contributors into unbelting ill-spared dollars year after year to an organization that now has an endowment of more than $100 million, with very little to show for it beyond hysterical bulletins designed to raise money on the proposition that only the SPLC can stop Nazism and the KKK from seizing power." LamaSu (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Shall we compile a list of all the sources that have called NumbersUSA "anit-immigration", or even "anti-immigrant"? The text is probably misleading if it only lists the SPLC.   Will Beback  talk  17:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice that I did not change the text. I'm just giving a heads up. LamaSu (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that WillBeback wants us to accept his blowing smoke and claiming to be against advocacy groups while hopefully having us overlook that the SPLC is also itself an advocacy group the best way of handling that is to contact NumbersUSA and have them notify members to add the ratings to their individual legislators profiles. Over 900,000 people acting in concert over a thousand in each district will be hard for the amnestyists on Wikipedia to bulldoze. RichardBond (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Organizations against NumbersUSA

It is pretty easy to charter an organization to apply for foundation grant money and claim on the basis of minimal membership and I doubt many of the organizations detractors have the size 900,000 members or broadness of membership of NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA probably has more Latino members than either LULAC, MALDEF or NCLR LaRaza. RichardBond (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's my impression that NumbersUSA doens't have any members. Rather, it has people who've signed up to receive their alerts. These so-called members have no discernible rights or obligations within the organization and don't pay any dues. There are no membership meetings that I'm aware of. Even the claim of 900,000 email addresses is probably a cumulative total, not the number that are still reachable. So the idea that this organization has almost a million members needs to be taken a very large grain of salt.   Will Beback  talk  16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there are 900,000 people who would disagree with you they choose to join and what they send and actually that is the number that is still reachable. If it were a cummulative total it would be higher but there is a degree of churn. If LULAC has 115,000 members then it is still larger in terms of Latinos but there are literally tens of thousands of Latino activists in NumbersUSA. Also if members of other organizations like the ACLU and Americans for Democratic Action can post their ratings of legislators it is not going to be easy for amnestyists on Wikipedia to keep info on legislators immigration stance out of the hands of the public since those 900,000 are largely online. RichardBond (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that there are tnes of thousands of Latino activist in NumbersUSA? And what do you mean by "activists in NumbersUSA"? In what respect are these thousands of activists "in" the organization?   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Polling and they are activists the same way anyone else is by internet faxing and phoningRichardBond (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many kinds of activism beside emailing and phoning. Anyway, I don't see this thread as leading to improvements in the article, so unless there's something else...   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What I am concerned about is selective removal of organizational ratings. I have not gone around stripping ADA or ACLU ratings from legislators profiles. However someone on the other side here at Wikipedia has removed NumbersUSA ratings on the basis that they are not NPOV well ADA and ACLU ratings are not NPOV either. If you do not like an organization's position an intelligent person would not censor them, the fact that someone got a low rating from them should instead be seen from a mirror perspective as a positive. I would not vote for someone with a high ADA rating.

As for other means than phoning and faxing there is mediagenic direct action and I wholly support it especially as a means of increasing phoning and faxing by citizens. RichardBond (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did that. Most were added by an unregistered user last week. Organizational ratings are not used in Wikipedia political biographies for a variety of reasons. In most to the articles I edited, it was the only rating. In articles where I saw ratings from other advocacy organizations I removed those as well.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Having gone over them I saw that the ratings from organizations that you agreed were left up. What you did was wrong the basic information should have been left up even if descriptors were changed by you. I will put only limited effort into correcting your error but with 900,000 people from NumbersUSA online you are going to be left with a choice between allowing info from those organizations you disagree with to be treated with the same respect as info from those that you do or lock up all 535. With that number of online activists you are going to be very busy limiting disemination of info by members of organizations to those you agree with. RichardBond (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How dare you speak of bias and anonymity. Which one of us is closely related to the former head of the Mexican Consular Department and is not hiding under an assumed name without showing what their other contributions have been. RichardBond (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'll point to the articles where I missed similar ratings please list them so I can remedy my omission.   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe in the right of people I disagree with to post information on who they endorse see above. I just do not consider it an endorsement that relates to my choice. I repeat.

What I am concerned about is selective removal of organizational ratings. I have not gone around stripping ADA or ACLU ratings from legislators profiles. However someone on the other side here at Wikipedia has removed NumbersUSA ratings on the basis that they are not NPOV well ADA and ACLU ratings are not NPOV either. If you do not like an organization's position a fair and intelligent person would not censor them, the fact that someone got a low rating from them should instead be seen from a mirror perspective as a positive. I would not vote for someone with a high ADA rating.

RichardBond (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Population organizations

The article was just added to Category:Population organizations. But this organization appears interested only in the population of one country, the U.S. Further, it doesn't appear concerned with "natural increase"- only with U.S. population increases due to immigration. An organization that's just interested in keeping people out of a specific geographic area doesn't seem like a good fit in this category. To use an extreme example, the KKK tried to keep blacks from settling in white neighborhoods, but I wouldn't consider them to be population organization on that account. What are our sources for this characterization?   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I'm going to remove the category. Please find sources before adding it back.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
hello today in this new section we will talk about an age old question. Are elephants purple when exposed to the element argon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahnoahdawg (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 January 2010 (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 17:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC "monitorng"

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.

---

With all due respect, this is not relevant enough to include in the lede of this article. If and until the SPLC targets NumbersUSA as a "hate group", it does not seem WP:NOTABLE to include. Is this type of sentence listed on every single group that the SPLC "monitors"? I think not. Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that it probably doesn't belong in the lede, but it's worthy of mention in the body, at least. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but even a body mention would probably need some corroboration by secondary reliable sources and we should be careful about using the word "monitored" in wikipedia's voice if that's not the source phrasing. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we're all on the same page here Darryl.jensen (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2019 (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.

Let me add my voice to the above - this is undue for the lede, and not even supported by the source, which makes no mention of "monitoring" by the SPLC. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)