Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 1

Criticisms of SPLC are over-represented

The Montgomery Advertiser story was a watershed development in the criticism of the Center, and virtually destroyed its credibility in Birmingham and Montgomery. Your deletion of that section removed a strong piece of contention against the Center, and it will be restored. I also think its disengenious to say that 'because of its work the Center has met controversy', etc etc. This is true to a point, but it should be noted that the Advertiser story was originally jumpstarted by employees of the Center who passed on hints that 'something isn't right over there.' It should also be taken into consideration the lengths the Center went to kill the Advertiser report, with threats of lawsuits and lobbying against its consideration for awards. I believe the Advertiser story, with the note that it was a finalist for a 95 Pulitzer Prize, are very important, because it indicates that it was well respected in the journalistic community even though the SPLC mobilized against it. A further note about the critical stories in USA Today, Harper's, and The Birmingham News would be fair. I've repeatedly tried to get people at the Center to respond to these allegations, and I've been shut out everytime. There is no mention of it on their website, except for the line about extremists groups trying to slander the Center. But I digress...

It is very hard to find this article credible when virtually all of it contains criticism of the Center's work. Whomever is making these edits does not serve even their own purpose very well by making this article so biased. What type of work does SPLC do? That question is not really answered here. One must distill that from the hailstorm of criticsm that appears here. Clearly the people who have placed this article on Wikipedia do not like SPLC. Clearly they have an agenda. Do they really believe this article could be perceived by any disinterested party as unbiased? -PS

I removed the link to Deeswatch because its broken, not because of its content. Saul Taylor 17:14, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the SPLC is an historically important institution in the USA, regardless whether you agree with them or not. They have been involved in many court actions aimed at disrupting organizations they do not like. However, it is no co-incidence that their legal targets are overwhelmingly euro-american christian heritage ones (i.e. "white"). Whether you like their targets or not, they are *NOT* unbiased, and their work has little to do with "poverty" per se. Why would that be in dispute? They are also associated with the web of race-based laws and regulations in the USA, whether you approve of those laws or not.

It seems to me the entry needs to make it clear that this is a very important group in the racial politics of America and that they make no pretense of their tilt. They are not universally admired in the USA although they have many very vocal supporters. This institution is one of the victors in the American "culture wars" of the past 40 years, and quite influential. I believe most educated Americans would say they are "anti-hate" as long as the targets of that hate are on their "preferred" list.

user:milesgl 11/01/04

Stuff and nonsense. The SPLC has, on numerous ocassions, targeted black seperatists, the new black panthers, muslim extremists, and racist mexican prison gangs. I can, if needed, locate the specific issues of their magazine, "Intelligence Report", in which they critisized and agitated against these groups. However, it would be instructive to point out that the vast majority of american "hate groups" are white, though, in terms of religion, they run from neo-paganism to christianity to athiesm, so I'd hardly say they single out "christian heritage." Irongaard 09:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user

The article should be rewritten and all of the "controversies" surrounding the organization should be posted in a seperate section entitled "criticisms".

Is this article neutral?

While this article presents a point of view in regard to the SPLC that deserves some attention, it will be difficult to term this "Neutral Point of View." The writer seems to be quite unabashed about his/her point of view regarding SPLC and it is not positive by any means.

I've moved these two paragraphs here. The first one seems redundant to me (the same info is in the first paragraph). And the second paragraph uses weasly passive voice to talk about criticism of the center.

"The center claims to be engaged in tolerance education, litigation against white supremacy groups, tracking of hate groups and sponsorship of the Civil Rights Memorial. SPLC publishes in-depth analysis of political extremism and bias crimes in the United States in the quarterly Intelligence Report."

"Some people have accused Morris Dees of practicing a modern-day form of McCarthyism using smear campaigns against those who question government actions. Others accuse him of exaggerating the threat of the Ku Klux Klan and militia groups as a mail order fundraising tool."

I've replaced the second paragraph with one sentence on the critic cited in the external links.mennonot 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

GETTING IT RIGHT. This article has gone through many edits. Some of these edits removed material and then added new material. However, an argument for removing material was not made. Further, many of these changes were made by anonymous users (IP address only). One must assume that SPLC is a controversial organization. Thus any article written about it from NPOV must be carefully crafted and contain as much attribution as possible. Diverse points of view should be presented and preserved. This article should not become a vehicle for slamming the organization as some versions have done. A review of past edits may yield material that can be restored. It might be helpful if contributors who have material from various sources engage in a discussion on this page about it. Information that can be defended should and will remain with the article through future edits. This is the nature of Wikipedia. It is an exercise in futility to engage in a tug of war between warring opinions each trashing the other's contributions. --MacSigh 17:21, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

I did some research on the SPLC, and found the Montogmery Advertiser series which was highly critical of Dees and the SPLC. I also located the roundtable discussion with the investigative team's editor, and added that as a link. I sent an e-mail to the Center, asking them to respond to the newspapers allegations and they did not respond. I also had a senior individual's e-mail at the Center, and they did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Checking the SPLC's Website, they have no mention of the allegations, only a brief line to 'attempts to smear the Center by extremists groups' in the history section. -Anon. User, Jul. 24, 2004

Can anyone tell me why all the criticism of the Center has been deleted, as have the critical weblinks?

Please sign and date your contributions to the Talk pages. Wikipedia:Wikiquette Willmcw 22:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hate groups

As an encyclopedia article about an activist organization, the main activities of the SPLC should be adequately covered. I've added a section on their tracking of hate groups. Their education effort sounds significant and, if so, should get a graf or at least full sentence. Willmcw 07:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is Nation of Islam listed twice?

My oversight. -Willmcw 21:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is bogus

The first paragraph is lifted directly from the SPLC site.

The SPLC is most certainly not universally known for its "tolerance education."

If anything it is mostly known for its racial hucksterism and scapegoating.

• Comment made by 4.230.249.20 Trampled 00:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's odd. The only time I've heard of it being known for hucksterism is your biased comment... 68.33.185.185 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Most NGOs are "controversial", as are most ideologies, political parties, government policies, religions, etc. Adding the word "controversial" adds no real information, but simply prejudices the mind of the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion of the controversy later. In general, adding "controversial" to the lead sentence is like adding "famous". Better just to describe the subject than to apply epithets. -Willmcw July 6, 2005 03:47 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement. One could as easily apply the word "controversial" to the lead sentence of Amnesty International, and it would also be factual yet also an epithet. I must say that this article is quite unbalanced, since the vast majority of it appears to be devoted to the "controversy", and almost none to the activities of the organization itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

I'm pleased that there seems to be an active group of editors committed to maintaining NPOV on this article. It's a subject I wish I knew more about. Certainly there is something behind the criticisms of their approach to fund-raising. Maybe there is also a low threshold of consideration for "hate group" status. Certainly they are not afraid of controversy. As I read up, I'll probably be adding some bits and pieces. For one thing, I know their new building is of some note in architectural circles. Dystopos 6 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

Edit warring on DSN placement

It seems an edit war has broken out over Willmcw's decision to move a long standing block of text from the education programs section into criticisms on account of it being critical. I'd like to hear some outside commentary by more neutral editors on this issue. My position is that the DSN paragraph is of a narrow focus that explicitly addresses the SPLC's education programs, which are discussed at length in that section. As such, it is distinct from general criticisms of the SPLC as a whole and fits better into the article by being placed in the context of their education programs. Moving it makes the article choppy as the topics now switch from education programs to general criticisms of the SPLC to Horowitz's criticisms back to their education programs as viewed by DSN.

I'll also note that I find it troubling that Willmcw and Jayjg now appear to be tag teaming their revert efforts on this article, presumably to avoid WP:3RR. This type of behavior is generally anti-consensus and seems to run against the Arbcom's recent warning issued to Jayjg: "3) Jayjg (talk • contribs) is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts." [1]. - Rangerdude 07:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If we have a criticism section then we should use it. Hiding Horowitz's role as organizer of the DNS gives his different groups excessive prominence. We can label it as his criticism of the education program. Please comment on the edits, not the editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Horowitz's involvement with DNS is not hidden and in fact is describes very openly at the DNS article. There's no need to selectively present qualifier details about sources, and unless it can be shown that Horowitz specifically authored the DNS article on the SPLC a simple link to DNS is sufficient to convey his involvement. Regarding comments on editors, seeking greater adherence to wikipedia principles, policies, and arbcom rulings is a legitimate exercise. Tag-team reverting to avoid WP:3RR is a form of gaming the system & thus is notable when it occurs. In this particular case, one of the participants was also warned by the Arbcom recently against his excessive tendency to engage in edit warring, so reminding him of that warning is accordingly appropriate. Rangerdude 16:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a criticism section for a reason; most articles are organized this way. Please follow Wikipedia convention, and please comment on edits, not editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I'd only reverted twice, so no "tag team" effort was involved in circumventing the 3RR. That is a spurious accusation about user behavior which doesn't belong on article talk pages. Getting back to the article, DNS's connection with Horowitz is sufficiently important in this context that it should be mentioned. Readers of this article will not necessarily follow every link. Relevant info should be listed here, and criticisms from the same source should be placed together. -Willmcw 23:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

This article will remain POV-tagged until such time as the opening paragraph is not lifted wholesale from the SPLC's site. The organization is NOT necessarily known for its "tolerance" programs: it's widely known as an extremely biased group.

I dont' see where on the SPLC site this text was taken from. If that is your objection then I think it is mistaken. -Willmcw 21:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No Controversy

Historically, the SPLC has been controversial only to racist organizations. It is very much known for tolerance education; its magazine, "Teaching Tolerance", is used in hundreds of public elementary schools across the country. Its numerous documentaries on civil rights subjects have both won and been nominated for Academy Awards. The group is most noted for its litigation; founder Morris Dees and other Center lawyers sue racist groups in civil court, holding them accountable when their members use violence against citizens. The group is undefeated in civil rights lawsuits, and has successfully bankrupted groups including the Mississippi White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, then the nations' largest hate group; the Aryan Nations, the nations' most violent hate group; and White Aryan Resistance (WAR), among others. Hundreds of police departments across the country find the centers' "Intelligence Report" magazine and KlanWatch invaluable in monitoring neo-nazi groups and milias for possible illegal and/or violent activity.

I am well versed in the modern civil rights movement, and have never heard anything negative said about the Center. I've spoken to many teachers who are enthusiastic about "Teaching Tolerance." None of the above, the Center's main work, is considered controversial. Dees is welcome in almost every town he files a lawsuit; he works pro-bono, and the communities are almost never supportive of their local hate groups.

The one exception to controversy is the Center's somewhat recent fight against the religious right. The SPLC was the primary group in suing to get "Roy's Rock" removed from the Alabama State Courthouse, and has criticized numerous religious right leaders, such as Pat Robertson. This, I can see a neutrality fight over. The rest of it all? I have to question the motives of the center's detractors.--unsigned comment by User:Texasmusician

The authors of the various exposés don't appear to have hidden motives, if that's what you mean.--Nectar 10:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree basically with Texasmusician. The criticisms may have merit, but they don't amount to a controversy central to the organization as it (frequently) is portrayed in this article. --Dystopos 15:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So Texasmusician's comment basically boils down to "if you don't buy the SPLC's witch-hunts, then you're a 'racist.' After all HOLLYWOOD and the NEA love them!" Forgive me if I'm too bored by the radical Left's constant bleatings of "racism" to respond much.Zuzim 03:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your boiler is contaminated with reactionism. --Dystopos 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zuzim - I'm not saying disagreement means you ARE a racist, just that most of the people I have met or heard of who do are. There are exceptions to every rule. But I should add it's not just Hollywood and the NEA - I live in Kootenai County, Idaho, the most Republican county in the most Republican state in the country, and the SPLC is very much loved here. And did you read what I said about police departments and other local communities, from Oregon to Mississippi? Cops and Galveston, TX residents are hardly "Hollywood". And I admitted that language used by the Center to describe the Religious Right is questionable and controversial. Did you even read everything I wrote? And of course, you really shouldn't say my comment boils down to "if you don't buy the SPLC's witch-hunts." Putting those words in my mouth implies I agree with you that they ARE witch hunts, which I most certainly do not. Keeping an eye on groups with violent histories, and suing people for inciting violence, is not a witch hunt. Conservative and liberal judges and juries alike have agreed (not that that's proof, but it's something). Texasmusician 10:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A litigation paragraph?

Shouldn't there be a paragraph about SPLCs litigation? My understanding is this aspect of the center is as imp't as education or watchdogging hate groups. Sadly, I'm not versed enough to author such a paragraph.

Yes, criticism

I'm trying to find this, but the link has been removed from the web. Their stance against black separatist groups is new. They used to say that the Constitution Party was a "group of concern." Harvestdancer 01:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

SPLC & Harpers

I just did a search of Harpers database & back issues. I could find no such article in Harpers. A google-search shows just questionable links to the article (American Restance, The Patriot, etc). An exact search for the article in question did bring up the article, but again, in questionable sources. In order to verify that the article is genuine, and not along the lines of the forged divorce papers, could we get a good source or verification that is indeed genuine. Rsm99833

Harpers' appears to not keep online records farther back than 2003.[2] Many libraries would carry back issues. --Nectar 09:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

JSTOR will most likely have backlogged articles. I'm confused as to where the issue of Harper's comes up though. If someone clarifies, I'll look it up in JSTOR --Tom12384 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What does your second sentence refer to? The section of this article we're talking about has Harper's in the title. The re-print in question is here.[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3e5cb925c4.htm] --Nectar

No luck in JSTOR. Though I don't know how much of Harper's they've got. Sorry. --Tom12384 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is on the Factiva database The church of Morris Dees Ken Silverstein 2031 words 1 November 2000 Harper's Magazine 54-57 Volume 301, Issue 1806; ISSN: 0017-789X English Makgraf 06:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Morris Dees Divorce Papers

Does anyone know where to get these papers and are they relevant to this article?

The papers are a forgery. A really bad one at that. They can be found on the Internet on various extreme-right-wing websites. It's been discussed before. It's irrelevant to this article. Rsm99833

Horowitz claims

In the article, there is a claim by Horowitz that "the SPLC targets people who disagree with them while they ignore virtually other racial supremacy groups." I'm looking at hatewatch.org, and am not clear as to which groups are being ignored. Rsm99833

Looking over this page I see Horowitz says that:

• Although the SPLC denounces extremist religious groups like the Jewish Defense League and Westboro Baptist Church, no mention is made of even a single extremist Muslim group. Similarly, while far-right groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens are tagged as hate groups, the SPLC withholds judgment on extremist leftwing groups.

Buth that doesn't seem to agree with our statement. Perhaps we should reword our statement to say "... while they ignore left wing and Muslim extermist groups." -Will Beback 23:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the haewatch map, I see they do include Muslim extremist groups. Left-wing hate groups, there's not a lot of them, and not to many actually come to mind or have active centers/mettings/activites. Rsm99833

ALF would qualify as left-wing, but supposedly they don't have meetings. Regarding the Muslim groups, it's tricky to deal with a source that is demonstrably wrong. I think we should just omit the sentence. There's no point in repeating something that is obviously incorrect. There's plenty of other criticism from Horowitz. -Will Beback 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

We have the claims by Horowitz in the David Horowitz section of the article but then basically repeat them later in Hate Group section (though those were previous phrased with the weasely "some have claimed" style. Shouldn't we just cut them out of the second section then? Makgraf 06:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add about the SPLC's involvement against eco-terrorist groups such as ALF, which can be labled as far-left.

Of course they would

Some organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object strenuously to this characterization of them, particularly those in the Other category. VDARE, for example, insisted that the SPLC's actions were doing more harm to anti-racism than to genuine racism.

Of course, this goes without saying that even if some or all of the claims are true, ANY group would strongly oppose to being labeled something so strong. That doesn't change ANYTHING. I strongly suspect that the wording of this segment - possibly the entire segment itself - is intended to mislead and deceive. --OneTopJob6 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What it means is that some organizations feel that SPLC writers have mischaracterized them or their views, and sometimes they may be right. That's their prerogative. --TJive 00:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fair to give groups which object to a characterization to be given at least a token reponse, though a fuller response would probably be best placed on their own article. Looking over all the groups I suspect that the majority do not argue with their placement on the list of hate groups. They may curse or criticise the SPLC, but I don't think the Westboro Baptist Church, the Aryan Nations Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, or the National Socialist Movement make serious arguments that they don't qualify. VDARE is one of the few groups that have really made an issue of it, perhaps in part because they see themselves as mainstream. -Will Beback 02:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

the latest POV issue

L0b0t replaces "describe" with "vilify". How is that NPOV? L0b0t describes the neo-Confederate movement as existing "for historical accuracy in reporting on the Civil War"? How is that NPOV? It simply replicates the movement's rhetoric without any context.Verklempt 19:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest claim 20 October 2006

I've moved this bit here--- "A former partner of Dees, renowned anti-death penalty lawyer Millard Farmer, has been quoted Harper's Magazine, November 2000 as remarking that Dees "is the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement"...Farmer went on to apologize to Jim and Tammy Faye. ". This purports to be from Harper's Nov, 2000, well Harper's is a weekly. Which of that November's 4 issues is it from. Also the website it is from cribbed it from a now suspended website hosted at www.dixiehosting.org. So I'll look at the actual back issues tonight and see what they say. Cheers. L0b0t 17:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Same story here (?): [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a8384576ae3.htm Free Republic (reprint of Washington Times article)]--Fix Bayonets! 19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, after a very pleasant afternoon in the microfiche room at the NYPL, I can say with certainty that that is indeed the from the Harper's magazine. L0b0t 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that effort. However, since the quote is about Dees instead of the SPLC, I think we should move it to Dees' biography. -Will Beback 22:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Going to the library is more of a pleasure than an effort, but thanks. L0b0t 22:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dees quote

The Dees comment was preceded by this:

"Today, the SPLC spends most of its time--and money--on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate."

— Ken Silverstein, Harper's Magazine, November 2000, as found here: American Patrol

Therefore, the context (and article) concerns the SPLC, and is not limited to Dees alone.--Fix Bayonets! 09:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, there is NO reason to take this out of the article. This is a story in a major, respected, magazine about the SPLC. L0b0t 12:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to include that quote, the one that mentions the SPLC, then that's fine. But to include a quote only about Dees is irrelevant. -Will Beback 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not when the quote is a comment his fundraising work with the SPLC. L0b0t 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If it were, it would say so. The quote doesn't mention the SPLC. -Will Beback 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I contend that in context, the quote references both (Dees, SPLC), and should remain. --Fix Bayonets! 12:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, the Harper's article is about Dees' fundraising work with SPLC, and the quote is comparing Dees to a fundraising religious huckster, so it is very germane to this SPLC article. L0b0t 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We've got plenty from the Harpers article already. If you think it must be in here then place it with the other Harpers criticism. -Will Beback 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I made restoration of the Dees quote as originally placed. It is in the "original place" that the quote is most relevant.--Black Flag 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back down for now, but it really needs to go entirely; it's not about the SPLC. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote is comparing the founder and head of the SPLC's fundraising for the SPLC with the Bakker's fundraising work with PTL. How is that not germane to an article on the SPLC? L0b0t 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote is from the Harpers article. We have a whole seciton devoted to the Harpers article. Therefore, it belongs (if at all) in the Harpers article section. -Will Beback 21:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Harper's section is the best place for it but Jayjg just said it should go entirely, I thought that was already settled. L0b0t 21:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it really only belongs in the Dees article, but if there is consensus for it to go in the Harper's section, I would concede to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dees belongs in this article. I agree that it is okay to move to the Harper's section. I oppose any effort to delete it entirely.--Fix Bayonets! 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont' see a consensus to keep it. -Will Beback 00:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont' see a consensus to delete it.--Fix Bayonets! 08:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it's a new addition, and since there's no consensus for it to stay here, and since it's already in the Dees article, it should stay in this article. -Will Beback 08:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. (I assume you mean shouldn't). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox

The Watchdogs: A Close Look at the Anti-Racist 'Watchdog' Groups, appears to be self-published. That would likely discount it as a reliable source. Does anyone have any other information about it? -Will Beback 01:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilcox has also published critically on extremist groups. He is not a member of an extremist movement with an axe to grind. Furthermore, he has published other books with legitimate presses. I don't know anything about this book, but he is a credible researcher.Verklempt 02:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilcox certainly seems to be grinding an axe. I'm not sure how we can say he's neutral. -Will Beback 08:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read this book, so I'm not disagreeing with you about its contents. But Wilcox has written a book (that I;ve read) entitled "American Extremists" that is rather critical of such groups, which indicates to me that he does not play only one side of the fence.Verklempt 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dees quote

There is no consensus to delete the Dees quote. There are several editors who want it to stay. I ask you to leave it in. We can arbitrate the matter, if you want.--Fix Bayonets! 09:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact there is cosensus to keep the quote. L0b0t 10:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. --Black Flag 16:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Three in favor and two opposed is not a consensus. -Will Beback 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Add another vote for keeping the quote.--Monstertrucker 07:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing Harper's Magazine

The only issue I can see with citing Harper's directly is the article's availibility online. Harper's does not archive online, I went down to the ole NYPL and looked it up on microfiche. It is verifiably from Harper's but not available at Harper's website. L0b0t 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

user:Brimba, as you can see from the above discussions, this is a well sourced factual quote. How does it violate WP:BLP? Cheers. L0b0t 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1996 USA Today article

One USA Today article is used in several segments of this article to show a negative bias to the organization. I have posted it in full so it can be used as a reference in order to correct the POV issues.

The controversy section needs some clean up and proper sourcing. I have looked into the citations and having a section title "Fabrication of stories" when an editorial says the group "misinformed the media" shows a dangerous bias. The article currently states "The USA Today verified and collaborated the Charlotte Observer story, commenting further that the SPLC purposefully hid the fact that some of the fires..." when it did not. If anything it refers to one line: "For instance, in a recent report on arsons at black churches in the South, his Klanwatch newsletter included five 1990 fires in Kentucky. The article doesn't mention they were set by a black man."

As for the USA Today article, here it is cited in full so others can know what it says

USA TODAY

August 3, 1996, Saturday, ATLANTA FINAL EDITION

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A

LENGTH: 1360 words

HEADLINE: Morris Dees: At center of the racial storm

BYLINE: Andrea Stone

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY: WASHINGTON -- Morris Dees recently sold his passion for fighting hate to the Direct Marketing Association here.

In his "aw, shucks" Alabama accent, the founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) wove one "let-me-tell-you-a-story" after another. His tales of boldly suing racists riveted these junk mailers, themselves masters of hyperbole.

Later, at a VIP reception, Dees signed copies of Hate on Trial, his book on how he battled neo-Nazi leader Tom Metzger. Nearby, a college student told how Dees sold anti-balding cream through the mail.

For Dees, selling racial justice isn't much different than hustling hair cream.

Today, 25 years after founding the SPLC in Montgomery, Ala., Dees heads the nation's richest civil rights organization. At a time when the NAACP is struggling back from bankruptcy, this white lawyer's nonprofit center boasts assets of $ 68 million. Most was raised through the mail from 300,000 contributors, most of whom were white.

Their dollars helped Dees end segregation in public accommodations and government. They fund the center's Klanwatch and Militia Task Force, which monitor more than 800 hate groups. They underwrite Teaching Tolerance, a project that distributes free educational materials to 55,000 schools nationwide. And they finance precedent-setting lawsuits. Currently, Dees is focusing on the rash of arson fires at Southern black churches. The SPLC recently filed a civil suit against two members of the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan arrested in two South Carolina blazes. The men were later indicted on federal charges.

"He's been one of the most persistent seekers of truth and justice in the South," says Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a civil rights movement veteran.

Dees' crusades have made him a target of numerous death threats. The SPLC's first offices were firebombed by Klan arsonists in 1983.

Today, Dees and his fourth wife, Elizabeth, live with round-the-clock security at their 2,500-acre ranch in Mathews, Ala. Bodyguards follow when Dees travels.

"He's taken tremendous risks," says Ron Kuby, a white New York civil rights lawyer. "As a Southern white man, he's uniquely situated . . . to put the spotlight on racism in his own community."

Yet some black civil rights leaders and others have criticized Dees for running a "poverty palace." They say he raises millions by exaggerating the threat of hate groups. For instance, in a recent report on arsons at black churches in the South, his Klanwatch newsletter included five 1990 fires in Kentucky. The article doesn't mention they were set by a black man.

"He's a fraud who has milked a lot of very wonderful, well-intentioned people," says Stephen Bright of Atlanta's Southern Center for Human Rights. "If it's got headlines, Morris is there."

Critics say Dees ignores controversial issues such as affirmative action. Some former black employees quoted in a 1994 series by The Montgomery Advertiser say they often heard racial jokes or slurs from white staffers. They say the SPLC is a paternalistic organization where few blacks hold high positions.

Dees says such charges are the gripes of a few disgruntled staff members. He notes that two of the SPLC's five board members and one of four staff lawyers are black.

To some blacks, though, the complaints seem petty.

"This young man is to be honored, to be praised," says Mamie Till-Mobley, the mother of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old black boy whose 1955 murder for talking to a Mississippi white woman sparked the civil rights movement. "Anytime you do anything, you're going to be criticized.

But even critics say Dees, 59, is a genius at selling both his cause and himself.

His tour to promote his latest book on right-wing militias coincided with the one-year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. After that, he waded into the black church arsons.

Dees' arson lawsuit is similar to his 1987 case against the United Klans of America. In that, he won a $ 7 million judgment for the mother of Michael Donald, a black lynching victim in Alabama. In 1990, the SPLC won $ 12.5 million in damages against Metzger and his White Aryan Resistance. A Portland, Ore., jury held the neo-Nazi group liable in the beating death of an Ethiopian immigrant.

Critics say only a fraction of those settlements have actually been paid out by hate groups. Dees says what is recovered has paid to house and educate victims' families.

Dees came late to the civil rights movement. In college, he hawked birthday cakes by mail, using what he learned to later make millions marketing cookbooks and tractor cushions through direct marketing.

In the 1960s, Dees tended mostly to business and his law practice.

It was there, on the sidelines of history, that Dees transformed himself into a visionary civil rights lawyer.

In his autobiography, Dees writes that the Till murder "touched me so deeply that for the first time I seriously examined the Southern way of life." While a student at the University of Alabama, he watched as a black woman, Autherine Lucy, tried to enroll in the all-white school as white protesters jeered and threw bottles.

But Dees did nothing.

In 1961, as a young lawyer, he defended a white neighbor charged with beating a journalist covering the Freedom Riders, who had come to Alabama to integrate its bus terminals. During the trial, Dees sat next to Bobby Shelton, founder of the United Klans of America -- the group he would later sue in the Donald case.

After a black Freedom Rider asked him how he could defend a racist, Dees was shaken. "I vowed then and there that nobody would ever again doubt where I stood."

Still, it wasn't until he read the autobiography of crusading lawyer Clarence Darrow that he decided to sell his business and practice civil rights law.

In 1971, he and lawyer Joseph Levin founded the SPLC. At first, it focused on Alabama, forcing the state Legislature, state troopers and the Montgomery YMCA to integrate.

In 1972, Dees raised money for George McGovern, one of four Democratic presidential candidates for whom he's worked. His pioneering use of direct mail worked so well that the losing campaign ended with a surplus. His techniques have been copied ever since. McGovern rewarded Dees with 700,000 names.

Dees took the huge mailing list home to Montgomery. Contributions soon poured in. Last year, the SPLC raised $ 14 million. Its goal is to increase its $ 68 million endowment to $ 100 million and quit fund-raising.

As the center's coffers grew, so did Dees' fame. With his blond curls and toothy smile, he is often mistaken for a Kennedy.

Dees says people who criticize him are resentful of his success.

"I'm white. I had a business that made money. I wasn't active in the civil rights movement," Dees says. "Some in the old civil rights crowd may see me as an interloper because the (SPLC) is such a success."

He says his work is crucial today because extremists have not faded into history, as some black civil rights activists contend. Instead, they have "traded their sheets in for paramilitary uniforms." Or, as the recent spate of church fires indicates, they carry on their own private race wars.

"Don't tell me hate groups are less serious today," he says. "Don't tell me that they're paper tigers."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FGT2 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for posting this. The more transparent the use of source material, the better.--Ty580 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Montgomery Advertiser investigation

What is the name of the article? It must be sourced properly. FGT2 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to state........

This article needs to state how the splc is itself seen as a hate group because of its hate for groups that have different views then itself. The splc is also seen as a heritage hate group by many orginizations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.79 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Discover the networks

Do we have evidence that discover the networks is a reliable source? Specifically, focus on

Attributability, Editorial oversight, Declaration of sources, Corroboration, Recognition by other reliable sources, Age of the source and rate of change of the subject and Persistence. Review WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is a suggestion, not policy. The onus is on you to prove that it is not an acceptable source. L0b0t 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe discover the networks lacks editorial oversigh, corroboration, recognition by reliable sources and persistance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is more than a suggestion - it's a guideline on how to follow WP:V, which is a core policy. Another useful restatement is at Wikipedia:Attribution. I'm not familiar enough with DTN to know if they have editorial oversight, etc, but Hipocrite is correct that if they don't they should not be used as a source. -Will Beback · † · 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, a suggestion, NOT POLICY. It is also a guideline under dispute. DTN has jsut as much oversight as SPLC (none). If DTN is unacceptable then all sourcing to SPLC (other than to talk directly and only about SPLC) is also unacceptable. Cheers. L0b0t 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and unreliable sources can be used in articles about themselves. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to present as to why you feel that DTN is self published? If you have such evidence, let's see it. If you don't, then we are done here. L0b0t 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not reliable. It lacks verifiability from other locations, it has a strong bias, it is rarely corroborated and never cited by other sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing lots of statements of fact but NO evidence. L0b0t 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the website, and determined it was not a reliable source. You appear to dispute the reliable sourcing guidelines, but agree that this fails them. (Otherwise, why would you have argued that RS was a guideline, not a policy, and thus ignorable?) What does having those two sentences in the article get you? It gets you me, about to read the entire article and fix all of the sourcing problems that are likley therein. I guess it lets you link to some website you like - it dosen't do anything for that websites pagerank - wikipedia outgoing link are NOFOLLOW. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I just don't know WHAT you are talking about. What does a websites "pagerank" (I have no idea what that is) have to do with sources being acceptable. RS is just a guideline, and a guideline that is under dispute on a regular basis at that. Please edit this article, I'm sure there are more sourcing problems here. No one has asked you not to edit the article. I have asked you not to remove sourced info just because you seem to think that the source violates a guideline. I'm sorry if you disagree with me but your methodology of "I looked at the website, and determined it was not a reliable source." is not good enough. Cheers. L0b0t 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the website and found that it lacks verifiability from other locations, it has a strong bias, it is rarely corroborated and never cited by other sources. Very little "information" was removed as a result of my excusing of this source. WP:RS has not been in serious dispute for a very, very long time.Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If by "very, very, long time" you mean 29 JAN 07 - 06 FEB 07 on the talk page and 01 FEB 07 - 06 FEB 07 in the guideline itself. L0b0t 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is transparent you are not engaging in discussions, rather in pedantic argumentation. I have nothing more to say. Seek consensus for any future attempts to include wholy unreliable sources or remove maintence tags. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss with you but you are just presenting your own personal opinion rather than any evidence. L0b0t 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A confused post on David Horowitz Freedom Center brought me to [[3]], and thence here. The absurd AfD on DHFC {[[4]], also see [[5]]) is Hipocrite's work, as is some similar vandalism he's performing on Political Research Associates with the same lame excuses and ex-cathedra pronouncements. I know we're supposed to WP:AGF, but how long are we supposed to overlook his failure to respond to your 6 Feb request that he defend his characterisation of DTN as "self-published" (repeated at PRA on 9 Feb)? [You make the same point about quoting SPLC as I did about MediaMatters in my response to him -- if DTN isn't quotable (properly attributed) half of the political content of Wikipedia needs to be deleted, and the affected articles will be pretty useless as a result.] Andyvphil 11:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

balance

The article as it stands is unbalanced, and reads as a advertisement for the center. the negative criticism is emphasized in long sections, and the response relatively hidden. I gave it some proper emphasis as = to the negative criticism, but there is much correction of POV needed--many critical statements are presented as undoubted facts. this was notice back in 2004, and its time it was fixed--I have just begun. DGG 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hate groups

Why is hte list of hate groups being removed? Characterizing and tracking hate groups is one of the subject's principle activities. I don't see how reporting on that violates WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. -Will Beback · † · 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I would respectfully suggest that this article is about the SPLC itself, not its opinion of other groups. Admitedly the connection to BLP is tenuous, based upon listees not self-identifying as "hate groups" (there is even a statement in the para above the list stating that fact.) I would ask in return is there any purpose whatsoever in an unencyclopedic laundry list of selectees from the complete list that is already available through the SPLC website? Let's look at the selectees, who chose them and why just those groups? If this list was created as a seperate article, it would be deleted as an attack page or a violation of WP:NPOV in a hot second. It adds no information whatsoever about the subject of the article, just listcruft and bloat. Cheers. L0b0t 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I should add that you are correct that naming and tracking these groups is one of the subject's principle activities. The article would do well with more information about that work and the process that is involved, but a partial selective list of groups is not needed to accomplish that. Cheers. L0b0t 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We also link to the complete list twice in that section already, so a selective excerpt is redundant. Cheers. L0b0t 01:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of your points, but I do agree with the first one. This article should focus on their their work and how they do things rather than presenting their workproduct itself. -Will Beback · † · 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

and think of the linkspam. -- especially if done for every such organization.DGG 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that I think there is an encyclopedic interest in listing hate groups as they are defined by the SPLC. Such a sampling of notable groups better enables readers to draw their own (now more informed) conclusions about the SPLC's credibility or non-credibility based on their own subjective valuations of those organizations (perhaps derived from further inquiry through the encyclopedia). I think it would be an incomplete treatment to say the SPLC decried "certain groups" and then fail to offer a notable, repesentative sampling of such groups. DickClarkMises 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Empowering readers to draw their own (now more informed) conclusions about the SPLC's credibility or non-credibility is a worthy goal, but it should be done by explaining how the SPLC reaches its conclusions, not be listing groups it considers hate groups. History has shown that on Wikipedia the SPLC's list of hate groups has been used predominantly as an attack of the groups listed rather than as a way to better understand the inner workings of the SPLC. What is needed -desperately- in this article is a discussion of how the SPLC determines that a group's beliefs or practices attack or malign an entire class of people.-Psychohistorian 13:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The SPLC lists several hundred groups, though most of them are just local chapters of KKK and other notorious gangs. If we're going to include a sampling of entries those should be the examples. The "Others" list is more interesting, but there are too few entries to be representative of the larger list. It'd be good, as suggested by L0b0t, to find and add information about how they compile this information. -Will Beback · † · 12:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think readers would be even more empowered and informed by reading the entire list which is already linked to TWICE in that very section, and available through the many links to the SPLC mainpage. Another issue is NPOV, who chooses the "notable, repesentative sampling of such groups" there are almost 200 on the OTHER list. Any selective listing will be pure POV on the part of the selector. Also, this article is about the SPLC, not a forum to display their opinion of others. Cheers. L0b0t 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

rewrite of educational section/Tolerance.org

The section focuses specifically on the "teach tolerance" (schools, parents) program of tolerance.org. from a cursory look, it appears that the section may be dated, because that site has an individual/community component as well. I started updating. would appreciate any help in further updates.--Boscobiscotti 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I think the section is rather lengthy and not so well written, and has a hodgepodge of details. I think it should be cleaned up, as in shortened, with more general sourced overview of the program. comments?--66.167.128.132 00:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New intro statement

The following was recently added to the intro:

It has clearly served a constructive purpose, but is sometimes criticized for zealous condemnation of recent groups that are more mainstream, and ostensibly less racist, than the manifestly hateful groups it worked against in its formative years, such as the Ku Klux Klan.

In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of claim for which we should identify a source. The adverbs "clearly", "sometimes", "more", "ostensibly", "less", and "manifestly" make the statement rather too vague. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:No original research for explanation of the relevant guidelines. --Dystopos 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

FrontPage Magazine

I removed the FrontPage Magazine criticism because its ridiculous to include criticism from an online rightwing internet site on the SPLC's review of a movie. FrontPage Magazine is not a WP:RS. Criticism from newspapers are reliable. A rightwing website, which is ideologically opposed to the SPLC is not. This is an article, not an attack page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMght (talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 July 2007

Thank you. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I see it was readded. Can someone explain how this online conservative website complies with WP:RS for criticism? Also another policy is WP:UNDUE. Are any of FrontPage's opinions backed by the mainstream to include this material which is 1/8 of the article?

FPM seems like a notable, verifiable source. It is clearly expressing views from a particular perspective, but these views are attributed to it in the article. I'm convinced that this a notable dispute. David Horowitz is a pretty influential guy, and so is Morris Dees. FPM (as an organ of Horowitz's organization) responded to alegations that the SPLC felt were notable enough to publish in their influential publication. To me that is prima facie evidence that according to SPLC, Horowitz and CSPC (and thus FPM) are all notable. I do think the references should be standardized using ref tags. I'll work on that myself. DickClarkMises 14:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever I think of FrontPage's opinions, it's a reliable source. ThAtSo 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a conservative website's opinions are notable. I can see how a major newspaper's criticism about fundraising and so on, but this is simply Horowitz/group's opinions. Horowitz's conspiracy theory about the SPLC "multiplying hate groups" is not for an encyclopedia article.

The SPLC responds to all sorts of Holocaust denier/hate groups, but that (I hope) does not mean inclusion of each fringe groups' complaints here.

DickClarkMises, how is it notable? This is one website's opinion. The only mention of this "controversy" is from FrontPage Magazine. One or three articles from a website is not convincing of it notablity.

It's notable because the SPLC responded. Now leave it alone. Oh, and sign your posts. ThAtSo 02:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's worth including but we don't need to include a long quotation from Horowitz. I've trimmed it down and copy-edited the redundant material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the SPLC forwarded an email response its notable? Please. If this isn't even mentioned at the SPLC website or from a mainstream news source how is it notable? Offer proof it is notable. The only source is the FrontPage website.

Montgomery Advertiser "investigation"

I accessed the "series" and found much of the material posted on conservative websites to be selectively quoting material. Also I think it is wrong to call it a "series" as the material was printed on two days February 13 and 14, 1994. Since Dan Morse (author of the Advertiser's articles referred to) is concerned with SPLC finances there is no need to have two separate sections. FFthird 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arson controversy

I removed the one line because one article from 11 years ago about one Klanwatch article from 17 years ago fails WP:NOTE. The other criticism is notable, but one line in an article from a decade ago about arson isn't. Specifically, it fails several criteria such as, "Significant coverage" and sources. Moreover, it doesn't even cite what issue of Klanwatch the controversy is from or any other data on the arsonist. C56C 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Horowitz

Berlet thinks he's right, Horowitz thinks he's right, and rehashing the argument from primary sources leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. If we really must coover this spat, we should cover it by reference to independent reliable secondary sources, which specifically excludes discover the networks, Horowitz Freedom Center and Front Page Mag since all are controlled by Horowitz. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Edit

Only the boldfaced portion of the following quote from the source was copied into the article:

After reading and analyzing white power publications from a variety of organizations on and off for several years, we decided to gain a greater sense of white separatism in the real world.As sociologists, we were aware of the limitations of understanding ways of life and divergent philosophies by relying solely on published propaganda that is far removed from social interaction and can provide only one aspect of the public face of a social movement.

By leaving the entire quote out and splicing it onto a summary of a previous paragraph that was talking about the SPLC, the editor has made it seem as if the phrase “published propoganda” refers to SPLC publications rather than “white power publications” which is clearly the topic of the paragraph. I have deleted the sentence since it is both misleading and unrelated to the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies!! Some how I read that as being critiques of /attacks on such organizations - typical problem of reading and editing to dang fast! Will correct elsewhere as well. Carol Moore 12:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Bias

if statistics from the SPLC have bias, they are not statistics but propaganda. WillC (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there evidence that statistics published by the SPLC are incorrect? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Year 2000 Wash Times article

I don't have the energy to deal with this right now but in cleaning out a couple of boxes of old clippings I found this Wash Times article which criticizes SLPC: "Rsearcher says hate 'fringe' isn't as crowded as claimed." It is linked from several different sites. It quotes Laird Wilcox, David Horowitz, etc. Just for another perspective, of course :-) Carol Moore 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Plus there is this Laird Wilcox article, originally published in Human Events. Southern Poverty Law Center Pushes Twisted Definition of 'Hate'. I am sure for those who have the energy both can be defended as doing as much fact checking as a number of other political advocacy groups, not that I'm defending everything these sources say. Just a matter of being unbiased in assessing WP:RS. Carol Moore 13:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hatewatch

Currently its not even a redirect. Should it redirect here, or should it be stubbed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kkk-donald-cartoon.jpg

The image Image:Kkk-donald-cartoon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Last time I viewed the entry, and I admit it was quite a while ago, there were critical articles at the bottom. Where did they go? I'm restoring them. The SPLC may do some good work, but it is a highly controversial organization on both the right and the left. The right characterizes it as fanatical and prone to hyperbole while the left says it is too focused on fundraising as opposed to actually doing good works. Syntacticus (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to add external links according to WP:EL-- wikipedia policy. You added the Neiman link which already cited in the article twice (foonote #2 and #76) while Chronicles (magazine) is an article from a source that is not a WP:RS. Anyway, the Chronicles link is not currently online right now (when it is clicked it has a 404 message) so there is no need to add a link that doesn't work.

Hmmm, this unsigned opinion hardly definitive. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

The article is not up to snuff. It reads like a press release from the SPLC. There is almost no negative info about the group. Syntacticus (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add any missing information, as long as it is sourced to reliable sources and respects a neutral point of view.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is criticism, including criticism from marginal groups that many violate WP:UNDUE (like VDARE). The lede has criticism, the fundraising section has criticism, the hategroups section has criticism, and so on.

Perhaps you can explain what you think is missing. Feel free to use this template:

Source	Says	<notes>
Example
The Guardian Saturday Nov 17, 2008 Klansman faces bankruptcy after victim wins $2.5m	SPLC bankrupts racists	Article
Ignored sources
Source	What it says
Source	What it says

Also Matthew Vadum's article at Capital Research Center is not a WP:RS (read its mission statement or google Vadum's name to see his quality of research) nor does the link fit WP:EL criteria. Perhaps, you can point to a specific claim in that article, which can be backed by a WP:RS that you want discussed in the article? That would help move this forward. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What about his quality of research? You can't just throw out rhetorical questions like that in order to smear someone. What did he write or say that was inaccurate? Syntacticus (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I do note you have previously been not to add Capital Research Center material. Indeed, as that editor wrote, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." BBiiis08 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the neutrality tag - there does not seem to be a well-formulated complaint, and complaining that things are too liberal around Wikipedia is not sufficient. I note the editor has been adding such tags elsewhere when proposed edits are rejected per WP:CONSENSUS. Wikidemon (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems I need to check these tags more regularly. The article is unbalanced. Adding the Capital Research Center report would make it more balanced. Syntacticus (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Vadum, whose name seems to always be edited in to articles by Syntacticus, is not a "scholar" in any way. The quality of his "research," if one can call it that, is poor; riddled with proven errors of fact and otherwise soapboxing to support his political points of view. The CRC is never going to be considered RS for anything; all one has to do is spend 5 minutes at its website.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake, Bali, Wikidemon, and BBiiis08 above. There appears to be a pretty strong consensus here. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice template! Will have to read the darned article again, won't i? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

SPLC finances

Prima facie, this section currently reads like a hit piece. It does need rebalancing, and very possibly removal of redundant assertions. However, SPLC literature is an "unduly self-serving" source to contradict these assertions, and should not be used.
I personally can't believe that there would be no RS'es out there that can be used to defend the SPLC. Spend time searching them out, not arguing to include SPLC lit as a source on why they're financially responsible. arimareiji (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't really belong in "Fundraising." If someone wants to use it in another section of the article, I'm saving a copy here:

It has also been described as a "a controversial [[liberal]] organization"<ref name = Edsall-Silverstein/> by columnist [[Thomas Edsall]] as it occasionally involves itself in broader issues such as the [[Separation of church and state in the United States|separation of church and state]].<ref name="cnn.com">{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/ | title=Ten Commandments judge removed from office | publisher=[[CNN]] |date= November 14, 2003 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2007-09-18}}</ref>

Reliable sources

It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by two users "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [6] [7]" and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source, so it seems the objections of the two editors in that regard has no substance. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the links to me today. I would note, however, that the question you asked was not wrt use of the SPLC magazine to defend the SPLC (i.e. unduly self-serving), it was wrt use of it to talk about hate crimes and racial issues.

That being said, looking at it with a fresh pair of eyes, I do think most of the first sentence in that grouping can be re-added after editing it to match the current state of the source; it's sufficiently removed from drawing conclusions for the reader the way Smith and Harper's do. But the other two sentences ($201.7 M and "to carry on the struggle") 1) have been obviated, and 2) are too soapboxy, respectively. arimareiji (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ron Smith's editorial

I don't think wikipedia needs to include editorials, or at least non-substantive name calling, in its articles. Or if it does, it must balance out this editorials with facts. Ron Smith's editorial, in which he called the SPLC a scam was based on poor sources and a self-admitted ideological purpose. It seems, according to the article, that his problem is hate crime laws and "liberal agenda", which his opinion as a talk radio host has little bearing or interest here. This type of editorial does not serve this article well.

The Mark Potok of the SPLC as well as Samuel I. Rosenberg, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates, responded to Smith the following week in the Baltimore Sun:

On Wednesday, The Baltimore Sun published an attack by Ron Smith on the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization known nationally for its lawsuits against and investigations of white supremacist hate groups in America ("The truth about 'hate crimes' and the racial justice racket," Commentary, Dec. 3).

Aside from a great deal of unsubstantiated name-calling, Mr. Smith mentions an essay written by Nicholas Stix, a man Mr. Smith sparely describes as a "columnist and blogger."

What Mr. Smith declines to say is that Mr. Stix is a well-known white nationalist who recently prepared a lengthy introduction to an article, published by the National Policy Institute, that paints "a statistical and narrative portrait of the war on white America."

...

With Mr. Stix, Mr. Smith claims that the October murder of an interracial couple in Winchester, Calif., allegedly by four black men, was motivated by race hate - despite the statements of police that the motive was robbery.

Mr. Smith goes on to describe hate crime legislation as a "questionable legal construct used almost exclusively against whites."

Actually, the concept has been ratified by the Supreme Court in a case in which the defendant was a black man who had attacked whites because of their race. Yet that doesn't stop Mr. Smith from claiming that "the truth is one thing and the liberal agenda is another."

Mark Potok, Montgomery, Ala.

The writer is director of the Intelligence Project for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

...

Perhaps Ron Smith is unaware that then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in the 1993 case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, held that hate crime laws are constitutional. How else could Mr. Smith erroneously contend that hate crimes "are a questionable legal construct"?

In the Wisconsin case, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: "According to the state ... bias motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The state's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty enhancement [in hate crimes cases] provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases."

Samuel I. "Sandy" Rosenberg, Baltimore

The writer is a member of the House of Delegates.

<source: Readers speak out on Ron Smith's take on race, justice December 5, 2008 Baltimore Sun>

Thus, if Smith's name-calling is kept, the SPLC's response and a politicians responses should be included. Dooteeyr (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. At a minimum, Smith should be correctly attributed as an OpEd rather than a news article; I've done so. It does need a counter, but I don't think a letter to the editor would make a good counter - even moreso because it's mostly ad hominem. I think a stronger counter would be a news article (or another OpEd, if one can't be found) that directly refutes the allegations and/or talks about the fact these allegations keep getting rehashed without much evidence. Preferably one that doesn't mention Smith at all, since he contributes little to reasoned debate. arimareiji (talk) (Both SineBot and I missed signing this one.)

I agree with both of the above. If nothing else can be found, at least the boldface parts of the Rosenberg piece should be added, because it is a direct response to Smith and he doesn't work for SPLC. Good work finding this Dooteeyr. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Potok's letter to the editor does at least partly address Smith's contention re: SPLC finances, but Rosenberg's letter is completely ad hominem. Completely aside from the question of "can we use a letter to the editor as a reliable source?", Rosenberg and Potok both come across as "kill the messenger" rather than disproving Smith's assertions. Attacking Smith rather than his assertions gives the impression that they're trying to silence an uncomfortable truth.

The best possibility would be to find a reliable source that asserts a clean bill of health for the SPLC's finances. But if there's not one, it would be better to limit the SPLC's side to Charity Navigator than to post ad hominem material against Smith. WP:UNDUE requires use of the best arguments each side has, and these are weak to the point of being straw men. I know that's not your intent, but that would be the result. arimareiji (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. Still, there is no better source than an autited financial statement. The auditor is an independent, impartial third party in this matter, and they stake both their reputation and their business on their audit reports. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree citing Ron Smith's opinion is WP:UNDUE. There is nothing in his biography that qualifies him as an expert on law, the SPLC, etc. He is a conservative talk radio host doing what radio hosts/idealogues do. When these people rant about every little thing they don't like it doesn't end up in wikipedia and neither should this. As WP:RS says: "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Indeed, calling the SPLC a scam is "a rumor/gossip" and brings down the quality of the article.

Criticism from experts and other sources is okay, but giving a conservative radio a chance to call the SPLC a "scam" is not encyclopedic. If these are actual criticisms, not name calling, in the article they should be added. Dooteeyr (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with you that Smith is full of hot air, Dooteeyr - but it sets a dangerous precedent to let any editor decide that an otherwise-includable RS on the other side is unreliable because they're full of hot air. The actual quote that pertains from WP:RS is "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text", which is why I changed the attribution earlier.

Sorry for the bad news. I looked, trying to find something to agree that there's precedent for excluding OpEds, because in my opinion OpEds are no more reliable than blogs. But there's no such precedent. I do agree with you about paragraph consolidation, though... Smith is not a strong enough source to stand alone. arimareiji (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:UNDUE in which wikipedia "will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Smith's op-ed that the "SPLC is a scam" (as well as his opinion that hate crime laws are not legitimate) does not appear to be significant views. That is why not all op-eds are included in articles. Dooteeyr (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that another editor has now deleted the Smith material. I fully concur in this decision to eliminate this "tiny-minority" fringe opinion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Tiny minority" and "fringe" could hardly apply any less to Smith - he's articulating essentially the same claims as the Advertiser and Harper's, and he's doing so in a major periodical. If Smith were the local Kleagle, or writing in Neo-Nazi News Monthly, you'd have a point. But he's not.
• Again, WP policy does not exclude opinion editorials, even if you (and I, for that matter) disagree with their conclusions. Your time would be much better spent looking for OpEds and/or articles on the SPLC's side; I can't believe that there isn't one (if not many). Trying to remove criticisms that you don't like instead of finding material to balance it is not a shortcut to NPOV.
• Last but certainly not least, WP:CANVASSing to create artificial consensus is not particularly well-regarded; nor is forum-shopping. Seeking the opinion of as many editors as possible is a good thing. But it is not a good thing to take a pass on those who tell you that others are acting in good faith, and seek to bring in only those who will support your assertions. arimareiji (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• ps: "periodically" is meant to help avoid giving the misimpression that these criticisms are contemporaneous. 1994, 2000, and 2008 are too far apart in time to support each other directly, and the article shouldn't lead the reader to think they do. arimareiji (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji I am restoring the version of the article that omits the questionable Smith material. It appears at this point you are the sole person supporting the inclusion of the material so it appears that the consensus flows against you. Unless you have some actual PROOF that there was canvasing going on (I neither canvassed nor received a solicitation to contribute), it seems safe to ignore that particular claim.

Your claim that Smith is “articulating essentially the same claims as the Advertiser and Harper's” is not true. In fact, neither of these sources, while questioning some aspects of the SPLC’s fundraising, goes so far as to dismiss the SPLC as “a clever scam”. Rather than focusing on fundraising (the actual title of the section where you want to include the material), Smith’s agenda is attacking the whole concept and existence of hate groups and hate crimes.

You claim that “1994, 2000, and 2008 are too far apart in time to support each other directly, and the article shouldn't lead the reader to think they do” is mere speculation on your part with respect to Smith. He cites no sources at all to back up his “scam” claim -- instead he urges readers to “spend some time on the Internet and assess it for yourself.”

The biggest problem with your position, however, is your total misreading of the intent of WP:RS. This intent is spelled out in the lede to the article:

Wikipedia article should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

While the Baltimore Sun may be as reliable as any newspaper, this doesn’t mean that the “authors” of all its opinion pieces are reliable “in relation to the subject at hand.” Nobody, not even you, has argued that Smith, by his own credentials, is a reliable source on the subject of Hate Watch Groups. You are also ignoring that in matters of opinion, WP:RS merely says, “Some sources MAY be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.”

One big example of when MAY does not apply is when WP:FRINGE does. It states, “Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.” What we have here, IMO, is a single source making the “scam” claim. The question is NOT whether OpEd pieces may sometimes (or even often) be an acceptable source -- rather the issue is whether this particular OpEd is a reliable, relevant source for this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"1994, 2000, and 2008" - Read the edit you're restoring, that of removing or including "periodically," and my earlier comment will make more sense. Its use in that specific sentence has nothing to do with Smith or his trustworthiness per se; you're mixing apples and oranges.

"Smith’s agenda is attacking the whole concept and existence of hate groups and hate crimes." - You're using unquoted material as a basis for excluding the material that was actually quoted?

In response to my "The actual quote that pertains from WP:RS is "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text", you assert that the "intent" of WP:RS was "some Opinion pieces," i.e. those we consider "trustworthy". "Some" is not what it said. You're contradicting the specific language of the section on the issue in favor of your chosen reading of nonspecific language.

"Trustworthy" as it was written in the lede was not meant to create a standard, but to offer a general characterization. "Trustworthy" in the sense that you've decided can be applied is such a vague standard that it amounts to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You're opening the gate for someone who opposes the SPLC to come in and decide they don't think anything in favor of the SPLC is "trustworthy" and remove it. After all, they can say with equal logic to yours, "I don't trust any of it."

You claim I'm "ignoring" it, but I'm the one who used the standard that requires attribution of opinion as a basis to attribute Smith's opinion as such (versus being an assertion of a fact). (My mistake for not correctly signing my work, but this is the diff for it.) In the full context of the section rather than selectively snipped, "may" is used to outline the conditions under which it can be used (which I applied to it) - not to assert that it's up to your personal opinion.

"Scam: A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle." That's functionally synonymous with the other material, which asserts "financial mismanagement, poor management practices and misleading fundraising practices," albeit in stronger and more plain language.

From your own link, WP:FRINGE: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Even if you claim the other material is not in the same vein, it already fails your test. If you read further, you'll see that "extensively, and in a serious manner" is not by contrast with OpEds, it's by contrast with News of the Weird and suchlike. arimareiji (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You ask, “You're using unquoted material as a basis for excluding the material that was actually quoted?” My answer is that I certainly am. The context of the selective use of quotes is certainly relevant. You are, inappropriately, attempting to take Smith’s overall political agenda and claim he is doing nothing more than criticizing the SPLC’s fund raising in the same manner as the Advertiser and Harpers did . Your selective use of the quote from Smith ends mid-sentence with “scam”, ignoring that immediately following this is the clarification of what the scam is -- “relentlessly cultivating for profit the fear that this nation is filled with Klansmen and rife with people eager to perpetrate genocide.”

As far as whether Smith is considered “trustworthy”, neither my opinion nor your opinion is particularly relevant. If you want to include Smith as a reliable source on the subject of the article, then you need to establish that objective, third party sources consider him reliable. In order to establish this, you could point to his other publications, other sources that quote him, his academic credentials, or any number of other possibilities. All I see is that he apparently has a once a week newspaper column on a variety of topical issues and serves as a talk radio host. What about those meager credentials suggest to you that he is a reliable source “in relation to the subject at hand”?

If someone were to question whether the SPLC was “trustworthy”, unlike the situation with Smith I would be able to show that the SPLC is widely quoted by other sources -- both newspapers as well as academics (did you read Southern Poverty Law Center#Intelligence Report)?

Your analysis of the “nutshell” interpretation of FRINGE misses an obvious point -- it speaks of the need that the theory “should be referenced extensively.” In fact, as far as financial irregularities, the Smith article is not referenced at all -- on other issues there are likewise no references. It makes a claim (i.e. the SPLC is a “scam”) but provides absolutely no references to back that up. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit break

• You don't address my point with respect to your mistaken rationale for removal of "periodically." Do you concede the point?
• Perhaps you could explain to me why “relentlessly cultivating for profit the fear that this nation is filled with Klansmen and rife with people eager to perpetrate genocide" is more than tangentially relevant to the topic subject, fundraising? That's why I trimmed it, and I find it incomprehensible that you're seriously arguing for the re-inclusion of that text.
• "Trustworthy" became relevant when you asserted it as a basis for excluding Smith, in spite of the fact that you've twice been quoted the policy that refutes you wrt OpEds. You assert that even though OpEds are specifically allowed when properly attributed, you have a basis in excluding it because the lede of WP:RS says sources must be "trustworthy."
• You might find reductio ad absurdum helpful for explaining why I say that by claiming you can exclude material because you don't consider it "trustworthy," you open the gate to equally-subjective claims against sources that support the SPLC. By creating a purely subjective standard that contradicts the specific wording of policy, you would allow later editors to do the same. Not a good idea.
• You might also find it helpful for explaining why "you need to establish that objective, third party sources consider him reliable by... point[ing] to his other publications, other sources that quote him, his academic credentials, or any number of other possibilities" is an extremely poor proposal for a new Wikipedia standard. If Wikipedia followed that line of thinking (that every source requires that much vetting or it can't be used), editing would become impossibly laborious. You can't only apply that measurement to sources you don't like, you have to apply it equally.
• Your analysis of my analysis misses an obvious point - I already refuted your objection. You're mischaracterizing the contrast it draws to explain what is meant by "extensively and seriously." If you don't believe me, read the section yourself: "Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". (See junk food news, silly season, komkommertijd.)" arimareiji (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

arimareiji says: You don't address my point with respect to your mistaken rationale for removal of "periodically." Do you concede the point?

My response: I do not concede your point re “periodically”. Your claim that “1994, 2000, and 2008 are too far apart in time to support each other directly” is directly refuted by the fact that the Harpers article specifically cites the Advertiser article. Smith refers strictly to the internet as his source -- for all we know his actual source may simply have been this very article we are discussing.

arimareiji says: Perhaps you could explain to me why “relentlessly cultivating for profit the fear that this nation is filled with Klansmen and rife with people eager to perpetrate genocide" is more than tangentially relevant to the topic subject, fundraising? That's why I trimmed it, and I find it incomprehensible that you're seriously arguing for the re-inclusion of that text.

My response: This is non-responsive to the actual issue I raised. I don’t believe that that the material you omitted is related to fundraising. In fact, as I said above, your cutting off the sentence in midstream creates the false impression that Smith was concerned with fundraising when in fact he was concerned with the political implications of the material you omitted. I don’t favor adding the omission back in -- instead, as I have demonstrated, I advocate removing all of the Smith material.

arimareiji says: "Trustworthy" became relevant when you asserted it as a basis for excluding Smith, in spite of the fact that you've twice been quoted the policy that refutes you wrt OpEds. You assert that even though OpEds are specifically allowed when properly attributed, you have a basis in excluding it because the lede of WP:RS says sources must be "trustworthy."

My response: Again, you are being non-responsive. “Trustworthy” is an issue because WP:RS says it is a requirement for authors cited as reliable sources. You continue to fail to demonstrate how Smith, as an author, meets the following requirement:

“Wikipedia article should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.”

Smith’s opinion is irrelevant until you establish his credentials on the subject matter. I reject your apparent conclusion that ANYTHING which appears in an OpEd is automatically awarded RELIABLE status.

arimareiji says: You might find reductio ad absurdum helpful for explaining why I say that by claiming you can exclude material because you don't consider it "trustworthy," you open the gate to equally-subjective claims against sources that support the SPLC. By creating a purely subjective standard that contradicts the specific wording of policy, you would allow later editors to do the same. Not a good idea.

My response: You accuse me of “creating a purely subjective standard that contradicts the specific wording of policy.” In fact, inquiring of an author’s qualifications on specific subject matter is very objective. Smith either does or does not have academic qualifications. He is either cited or not cited by other sources as a source. He either has or has not published material on the subject matter. Far from being MY CREATION, the standards I suggest are included under the subsection Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship.

arimareiji says: You might also find it helpful for explaining why "you need to establish that objective, third party sources consider him reliable by... point[ing] to his other publications, other sources that quote him, his academic credentials, or any number of other possibilities" is an extremely poor proposal for a new Wikipedia standard. If Wikipedia followed that line of thinking (that every source requires that much vetting or it can't be used), editing would become impossibly laborious. You can't only apply that measurement to sources you don't like, you have to apply it equally.

Your claim that applying these types of objective standard would make “editing ... become impossibly laborious” is simply wrong. In most cases, if the source itself doesn’t make it clear who the author is, it is a matter of a few quick Google sources to find out an author’s qualifications. Editors make this type of decision all the time. When I use sources, I have done the due diligence and I expect other editors to do the same -- wikipedia is based on the use of reliable sources so some effort at analyzing the sources used is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

arimareiji says: Your analysis of my analysis misses an obvious point - I already refuted your objection. You're mischaracterizing the contrast it draws to explain what is meant by "extensively and seriously." If you don't believe me, read the section yourself: "Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". (See junk food news, silly season, komkommertijd.)"

My response: You are again being non-responsive. You raised the issue of the language in WP:FRINGE when you quoted, “"Fringe theory in a nutshell: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." As I’ve shown, Smith’s article, far from being “referenced extensively” is not referenced at all. Your quote from a different part of the article, within its context, does not, as you apparently suggest, loosen the standards.

Bottom line -- it’s still just your interpretation versus at least four editors that specifically disagree with your position. I suggest you take some time off and wait to see if anyone agrees with you. I don’t think an RFC is needed but feel free to initiate one if you think it will help your case. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it out. Just because an op-ed gets written about an organization doesn't automatically make it in wikipedia. Smith is not an expert (he has no background in civil rights law, etc) nor he is cited as an expert. Thus, one concludes that he lacks the proper expertise. This is a WP:FRINGE view and out not to be included. If arimareiji can find a better source, say scholarly, then we can include that criticism. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman) says: My response: I do not concede your point re “periodically”. Your claim that “1994, 2000, and 2008 are too far apart in time to support each other directly” is directly refuted by the fact that the Harpers article specifically cites the Advertiser article. Smith refers strictly to the internet as his source -- for all we know his actual source may simply have been this very article we are discussing.

Tom (North Shoreman) previously said: You claim that “1994, 2000, and 2008 are too far apart in time to support each other directly, and the article shouldn't lead the reader to think they do” is mere speculation on your part with respect to Smith. He cites no sources at all to back up his “scam” claim -- instead he urges readers to “spend some time on the Internet and assess it for yourself.”

If you would actually read my point, and the edit you're defending, you would see that "periodically" doesn't support Smith in any way. Its addition was to correct the fact that it's misleading to present three sources spaced apart by 14 years as if they were contemporaneous to each other; it gives the false impression that they're stronger because they describe alleged misbehavior occurring at the same time. If Harper's uses a six-year-old article to support itself, that strengthens my point - that these allegations are being recycled across years, not in a timely fashion.

Tom (North Shoreman) says: My response: This is non-responsive to the actual issue I raised. I don’t believe that that the material you omitted is related to fundraising. In fact, as I said above, your cutting off the sentence in midstream creates the false impression that Smith was concerned with fundraising when in fact he was concerned with the political implications of the material you omitted. I don’t favor adding the omission back in -- instead, as I have demonstrated, I advocate removing all of the Smith material.

You're asserting that Smith had one single purpose, and that we cannot quote him on anything except the one single purpose you've decided he had. That's the same error in logic as thinking that everything I say (i.e. wrt "periodically") is directly related to and in support of Smith. Neither you nor I can set ourselves up as arbiter of "what the source really meant" - that's WP:SYNTHESIS. What we're supposed to do is quote him and let his words speak for themselves. You're treating this as though he were an expert in an academic field, limited to speaking with expertise about only his field of study, which he is not. He's a blowhard expressing his opinions. Expertise only comes into play when you're asserting facts. More about this below.

Tom (North Shoreman) says: Again, you are being non-responsive. “Trustworthy” is an issue because WP:RS says it is a requirement for authors cited as reliable sources.

I was reminding you that you had brought up the issue, and thus you could not turn around and dismiss my questioning your use of this as a standard as irrelevant. This was necessary because when I questioned your use of this standard, you backed away and asserted "As far as whether Smith is considered “trustworthy”, neither my opinion nor your opinion is particularly relevant." Please stick to one or the other.

Tom (North Shoreman) says: You accuse me of “creating a purely subjective standard that contradicts the specific wording of policy.” In fact, inquiring of an author’s qualifications on specific subject matter is very objective. Smith either does or does not have academic qualifications. He is either cited or not cited by other sources as a source. He either has or has not published material on the subject matter. Far from being MY CREATION, the standards I suggest are included under the subsection Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship.

Read your link more closely. By asserting that this supports you, you're arguing that he's an academic expert with a field of study, and that he can't be used because other experts in the same field of study haven't cited him in their papers. You're trying to apply a standard which addresses credibility of academic sources in asserting facts. He's not asserting facts, he's asserting opinion.

Tom (North Shoreman) says: Your claim that applying these types of objective standard would make “editing ... become impossibly laborious” is simply wrong. In most cases, if the source itself doesn’t make it clear who the author is, it is a matter of a few quick Google sources to find out an author’s qualifications. Editors make this type of decision all the time. When I use sources, I have done the due diligence and I expect other editors to do the same -- wikipedia is based on the use of reliable sources so some effort at analyzing the sources used is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

In that case, I eagerly await your citation of multiple supporting opinions for each source used in this article. Otherwise, if you're using the same standard equitably rather than prejudicially, you'll need to start removing them in the same way that you've removed Smith for not having multiple supporting opinions cited on the Talk page.

Tom (North Shoreman) says: My response: You are again being non-responsive. You raised the issue of the language in WP:FRINGE when you quoted, “"Fringe theory in a nutshell: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." As I’ve shown, Smith’s article, far from being “referenced extensively” is not referenced at all. Your quote from a different part of the article, within its context, does not, as you apparently suggest, loosen the standards.'

When I quote back to you the actual context of the same paragraph of the body where that sentence is found, which demonstrates the context of what they're talking about, you claim it's irrelevant because it's "a different part of the article" and that I'm being "non-responsive." That's disingenuous. If you can find context in that paragraph which supports your point, please quote it.

Finally, I would appreciate it if you would stop repeatedly using "You're being non-responsive" synonymously for "I disagree with you" or "I don't like what you're saying." It's an undue mischaracterization. arimareiji (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everything in your latest response has already been addressed. For all the wikilawyering (on both sides) that’s going on, there still is only one question -- Is Ron Smith a reliable source? I and others have judged that he is not. We recognize that he has no background or qualifications justifying including his opinions in the SPLC article. You have failed to rebut this and have even labeled Smith as a “blowhard”.

The most telling statement in everything you’ve written is, “He's a blowhard expressing his opinions. Expertise only comes into play when you're asserting facts.” There you have the essence of your argument -- when adding opinion to an article, anything goes. A purpose of Wikipedia, in your mind, is to provide the opinions of people on subjects on which they have no expertise whatsoever -- just as long as some newspaper will publish him. Actual facts and the opinions of recognized scholars in the field need to be balanced by the biased rants of a “blowhard” whose main claim to fame comes from spending years on talk radio (always a bastion of reason and thoughtful analysis).

It's nice to have all the guidelines and policy to fall back on when there is a close decision to be made. However, after reading the content and extreme language of Smith's article, common sense and a basic working knowledge of wikipedia should be sufficient for most people to realize wikipedia will suffer not a whit in refusing to publicize such material. This is not a close call. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see how this op-ed by Ron Smith can be considered RS on this issue. The article will not suffer by leaving him out of it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• When previously-covered assertions are quoted, they'll be in small typeface to set them apart. If you believe the characterizations are unfair, you can reread the original assertions - but if not, skimming or skipping them makes this less tldr. Likewise, if you consider them out-of-context, you can copy out search strings to find the originals.
• Tom / North Shoreman - when I refute you point by point and demonstrate that every policy you've claimed supports you in fact does not, you assert "everything in your latest response has already been addressed. For all the wikilawyering (on both sides) that’s going on, there still is only one question -- Is Ron Smith a reliable source? I and others have judged that he is not." and that "It's nice to have all the guidelines and policy to fall back on when there is a close decision to be made. However, after reading the content and extreme language of Smith's article, common sense and a basic working knowledge of wikipedia should be sufficient for most people to realize wikipedia will suffer not a whit in refusing to publicize such material." In context of the previous discussion, I believe this can be characterized more briefly as "Policy isn't important because I have more votes on my side."
• Please address my points directly, not by appealing to "I outvote you." That argument fails when you openly controvert policy by arguing that you understand the "intent" better, even though the plain language of said policy contradicts you. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Policy is not something to "fall back on" when voting is "a close decision," it's the other way around. And even then, only sometimes.

1. You argue that Smith's OpEd should be excluded for lack of multiple supporting citations. Your words: If you want to include Smith as a reliable source on the subject of the article, then you need to establish that objective, third party sources consider him reliable. In order to establish this, you could point to his other publications, other sources that quote him, his academic credentials, or any number of other possibilities. Unless you're arguing that your standard can be applied prejudicially (to only Smith), then by your argument we have to remove almost every source in the article.
2. Your standard is based on your assertion that Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship applies to all sources. The plain wording of it shows it's talking about academic journal articles, not newspaper articles. (Academic experts' reliability is considered proportional to the number of times other experts in the same field cite their work, so it actually makes sense in that context.)
3. Both the plain language and the context in WP:FRINGE ("A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.") contradict your assertion that it means "Back up every source with multiple citations of major publications or it's disallowed"; quite the opposite. Your words: Your analysis of the “nutshell” interpretation of FRINGE misses an obvious point -- it speaks of the need that the theory “should be referenced extensively.” In fact, as far as financial irregularities, the Smith article is not referenced at all -- on other issues there are likewise no references and As I’ve shown, Smith’s article, far from being “referenced extensively” is not referenced at all.
4. Above, you're mischaracterizing "referenced extensively." The full quote in-context is "referenced extensively... in at least one major publication," not "referenced extensively in major publications." Additionally, it's dubious to assert that further context from the same paragraph (your words: a different part of the article) is irrelevant. And asserting that Smith (2008) isn't an RS because Harper's (2000) and the Advertiser (1994) don't reference him is just downright perplexing.
5. Finally, and perhaps most telling - your reading of the "intent" of WP:RS is that if you think an opposing opinion (not a fact, an opinion) is not "trustworthy" ("worthy of trust or belief"), you can remove it. Shortened: "If I don't believe an opposing opinion, I can remove it." If that doesn't define non-NPOV, I don't know what does. Your words: The biggest problem with your position, however, is your total misreading of the intent of WP:RS. and “Trustworthy” is an issue because WP:RS says it is a requirement for authors cited as reliable sources.
6. I personally disagree with Smith as well, but I'm not going to remove him on that basis. As the old quote goes, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." arimareiji (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, all the hand-waving in the world will not make two simple facts disappear: one, that Ron Smith is by no means an expert on the SPLC or on charity funding practices and therefore of dubious reliability (violation of WP:RS) on the subject, and two that his opinion seems to be a tiny-minority opinion, therefore not worthy of inclusion (violation of WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE).WP:RS applies to all sources, not just academic sources, although it does mention academic sources. By trying to impose inclusion of Ron Smith's tiny-minority non-expert opinion, you are violating NPOV which states that NPOV should represent fairly all notable viewpoints on a subject. While Ron Smith's notability as a pulic figure is not in dout, the notability of his opinion on the SPLC's funding practices needs to be recognized as being that of a non-expert, and his opinion not being cited anywhere else needs to be taken as an indication that it is that of a tiny minority (possibly a minority of one). I would recommend that you just let it go. We could also possibly turn this into an RfC to get wider input on the matter, although I seriously doubt your position would form consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As per the edit summary you overwrote, this is a discussion - not a straw poll. Please provide specific support for your arguments; don't reiterate arguments that have not been supported by policy. arimareiji (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't express a vote, I expressed my opinion, which BTW is backed by policy (all of it). You may want to re-read WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE which are the basis for my position. I don't know where you get that my arguments aren't supported by policy. These points of policy have already been explained to you and most of them are non-negotiable. I'm starting to wonder i you might have comprehension issues.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_pointing_at_a_policy_or_guideline. It's good advice. arimareiji (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my original comment. It articulates which aspect of each policy applies in this case. Please stop being disingenuous. I've explained the points from policy on which to base the exclusion of Ron Smith's comments, pointing to the relevant policies, and you called it not supported by policy. When I expressly list the policies that this inclusion would violate, you object that I list policies but don't explain how they apply. Therefore, for your convenience, I've indicated in my original comment the specific policy supporting each of my arguments. Please be careful: your insistence makes it harder and harder to assume good faith.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for adding material to your original comment. However, I note that you still do not address a single one of my specific objections to your and Tom's characterizations, nor do you provide quotes to support them - you simply re-assert that you're correct. As Tom does, you assert that he's of "dubious reliability" and a "tiny minority" without providing a single example of policy wording that supports your interpretation. I've provided several to support my belief that you're flaunting the plain wording of policy in making those characterizations. For your benefit, I'll repaste them below so thst you'll know what I'm referring to. arimareiji (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent, recopy of unaddressed objections)

• When previously-covered assertions are quoted, they'll be in small typeface to set them apart. If you believe the characterizations are unfair, you can reread the original assertions - but if not, skimming or skipping them makes this less tldr. Likewise, if you consider them out-of-context, you can copy out search strings to find the originals.
• Please address my points directly, not by appealing to "I outvote you." That argument fails when you openly controvert policy by arguing that you understand the "intent" better, even though the plain language of said policy contradicts you. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Policy is not something to "fall back on" when voting is "a close decision," it's the other way around. And even then, only sometimes.

1. You argue that Smith's OpEd should be excluded for lack of multiple supporting citations. Your words: If you want to include Smith as a reliable source on the subject of the article, then you need to establish that objective, third party sources consider him reliable. In order to establish this, you could point to his other publications, other sources that quote him, his academic credentials, or any number of other possibilities. Unless you're arguing that your standard can be applied prejudicially (to only Smith), then by your argument we have to remove almost every source in the article.
2. Your standard is based on your assertion that Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship applies to all sources. The plain wording of it shows it's talking about academic journal articles, not newspaper articles. (Academic experts' reliability is considered proportional to the number of times other experts in the same field cite their work, so it actually makes sense in that context.)
3. Both the plain language and the context in WP:FRINGE ("A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.") contradict your assertion that it means "Back up every source with multiple citations of major publications or it's disallowed"; quite the opposite. Your words: Your analysis of the “nutshell” interpretation of FRINGE misses an obvious point -- it speaks of the need that the theory “should be referenced extensively.” In fact, as far as financial irregularities, the Smith article is not referenced at all -- on other issues there are likewise no references and As I’ve shown, Smith’s article, far from being “referenced extensively” is not referenced at all.
4. Above, you're mischaracterizing "referenced extensively." The full quote in-context is "referenced extensively... in at least one major publication," not "referenced extensively in major publications." Additionally, it's dubious to assert that further context from the same paragraph (your words: a different part of the article) is irrelevant. And asserting that Smith (2008) isn't an RS because Harper's (2000) and the Advertiser (1994) don't reference him is just downright perplexing.
5. Finally, and perhaps most telling - your reading of the "intent" of WP:RS is that if you think an opposing opinion (not a fact, an opinion) is not "trustworthy" ("worthy of trust or belief"), you can remove it. Shortened: "If I don't believe an opposing opinion, I can remove it." If that doesn't define non-NPOV, I don't know what does. Your words: The biggest problem with your position, however, is your total misreading of the intent of WP:RS. and “Trustworthy” is an issue because WP:RS says it is a requirement for authors cited as reliable sources.
6. I personally disagree with Smith as well, but I'm not going to remove him on that basis. As the old quote goes, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." arimareiji (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Since my last reference to wikilawyering didn’t register, let me provide a pertinent quote from it:

Wikilawyering (and the related legal term :::pettifogging) is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other Wikipedians' actions.

It may refer to certain quasi-legal practices, including:

1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles;
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;
4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

In my last response I identified the key issue and KEY PRINCIPLE (“Is Ron Smith a reliable source?”) and you still refuse to directly address this issue.

I have addressed every point that you have raised. The fact that you choose to recycle them over and over does not place requirement on me or anyone else to endlessly rebut each resurrected version of the same stuff. In fact, the removal of the Smith material was fully in line with wikipedia policy.

Without going over old ground, I will address briefly your numbered points to the extent that they fail to accurately reflect the context of the debate:

1. Your assertion of my intent is wrong. In fact I provided YOU with a way to go about proving Smith was a reliable source -- a proof you simply refuse to even attempt.

2. Your assertion of my intent is wrong. The reference to the section on scholarship was made to counter your claim that ANY exclusion of material was simply arbitrary and to counter your arguments that actually EXAMIING whether a source was reliable was too burdensome.

3. Your argument is illogical. You fail once again to address the failure for Smith to provide any references for his FRINGE opinions.

4. You distort what I’ve said by taking quotes out of context. You try to confuse the issue by arguing whether Smith’s fringe theory should be referenced extensively in one publication or multiple publications. In fact, you can’t show that his theory has been properly referenced in ANY publication. Your claim that I said that Smith should have been referenced in articles written prior to his article is simply untrue and I can’t find any way to simply pass it off as an honest mistake on your part.

5. Again, you are non-responsive to the actual issue. It is wikipedia policy that authors used be deemed “trustworthy”. Nobody, not even you, has made any effort to demonstrate, using objective factors, that Smith’s opinions are “trustworthy”.

6. Your argument for freedom of speech is both overly dramatic and totally out of place. The issue is whether Mr. Smith has anything of a substantive nature to add to this article. You have failed to demonstrate why his unreferenced advocacy has any value to wikipedia.

I reject your effort to control these debates on your terms. IMO, the only relevant thing you can add to the debate at this point is an itemized list that shows why Ron Smith is a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If I'm taking policy quotes out of context, why have you not taken me up on my repeated requests for you to provide the context? If these policies actually support you, it should be simple to demonstrate it with full-context quotes. I've cited both the plain language and the context of policy, and you simply reiterate your assertions that you know the "intent" of the policy better.

It takes a great deal of chutzpah to say that I'm "trying to control these debates on [my] own terms" when in the same response you repeatedly insist I obey ("I provided YOU with a way to go about proving Smith was a reliable source") your previously-asserted standard of "cite multiple sources to corroborate every source or the source is unreliable." It has no basis in policy except in the narrow field of academic journal articles, and you have given no evidence to the contrary. In addition, I do not see you applying this standard to any source but Smith.

I've provided quotes of your words that back up every characterization I've made, and I have no hesitation in standing behind them. If I'm quoting you out of context, provide the context that proves me wrong to a neutral admin and I'll unquestioningly accept any punishment they choose. Willfully mischaracterizing another editor is a serious offense to commit (or be accused of). But if you can't, then it ill-behooves you to keep insisting that you're being taken out of context - that's willful mischaracterization on your part, of me. arimareiji (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Stix really isn't the best source for anything, considering that he's little more than a lone journalist. -- Rock8591 08:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)