Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

White patriot party

This para has been tagged since Dec 2010, and I'm trying to source it (and if needed rewrite it.) Google books has Memior of a Race Traitor online; see here and it has a good bit about the WPP and Miller (pg 146, etc.) but I don't have time atm to read thru it. I'm placing it here so if anyone else has the time, they can read thru and see what might be useful to this article. If not, then I'll take a look at another time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

FBI Resource

I have read several editors imply that the FBI considers the SPLC as a resource for law enforcement purposes. After reading the lead here, I'm not surprised why they would get that impression. However the linked ref only shows that the SPLC is listed on the FBI website under resources. No where is mentioned that the FBI uses SPLC data, or the nature of the partnership. Unless there are other sources, we will need to reexamine the lead and make appropriate changes.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this?[1] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. ツ Teammm ^TM 05:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We should find sources that better explain the relationship. As I understand it, the FBI only investigates hate groups that explicitly promote violence and rely on the SPLC and other groups to provide intelligence on extremist groups that incite people to violence and serve as a gateway to groups that engage in violence. TFD (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The article mentioned only mentions the partnership which is very limited scope, solving cold cases: Hate crime prior to 1969. Based on the article you cited the lead does is not correct it mentions nothing of this very limited partnership. Viewmont Viking (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the FBI provides the SPLC as a resource is sufficient to say that the FBI considers them to be a resource. There are other mentions of the SPLC on their website.[2] TFD (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, none Iof the links provided is justification to say "The SPLC is named as a resource by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Bureau's fight against hate crimes". I'm removing the last portion from the lead.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit removes "in the Bureau's fight against hate crimes" and makes the sentence read better. TFD (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't question arise among some readers as for what the SPLC is listed by the FBI as a resource for if we remove the explanation? --Scientiom (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

However we don't tell the readers something what the sources don't state. The mention of the SPLC at http://www.fbi.gov is indeed under a section called "Resources". But I daresay a reasonable person should be able to conclude from looking at the page that those are reader resources and not a bookmarked link that Special Agent John Q. Law runs to everytime he cracks open a cold case file. Using this source on it's own to call the SPLC a "resource of the FBI" is disgenuine. However the 2nd reference delves a bit deeper into the relationship betweenn the two organizations. The source states that the FBI uses "referals" for the purposes of solving cold-case hate crimes. I suggest we change the lead to reflect this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable suggestions such as yours are helpful - my main concern is that we should avoid any sentence which could leave a reader asking questions. What specific phrasing would you propose? --Scientiom (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I was about to suggest something along the lines of the partnership to provide referals for the puropses of closing civil rights era unsolved crimes, though the language is bothering me. However I now start to question why this is in the lead in the first place. The lead should be reserved for a concise summary of the salient issues. Other than this press release, have these "referals" receieved any attention?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This language is at Hate Crime—Overview:

Public Outreach: The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. These groups include such organizations as the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, and the National Disability Rights Network.

The boldface language clearly indicates that the FBI receives information from the SPLC -- making the SPLC a resource. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The FBI's partnership with the SPLC is quite notable - it most certainly should be in the lead. --Scientiom (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

But this is a primary source. Generally we rely on secondary sources to establish the significance and substance for the lead. And if it is quite notable as you say it is, then there should be sources that establish notability.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec x 5) None of the sources yet given support that the statement that the SPLC is used by the FBI as a resource is true and not misleading. That the FBI receives information from them is a nullity; they receive information from anyone. The (unstated) fact FBI solicits information from them is also a nullity. I've submitted unsolicited information to the FBI (and not only in regard government clearences I may have had), and they've requested information from me (in regard a crime committed against me, but that applies to a few of the documents retrieved by the seach string, above.) A "partnership" does not indicate they are being used as a "resource". The only detailed information presented is that the SPLC has been helpful in solving "cold case" hate crimes. That, and the unspecified "partnership", is all that we have. I have doubts that the "partnership" belongs in the lead, but "resource"? Any non-trivial meaning is unsourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Arthur, if the SPLC provides information for solving cold cases, that indeed makes them a resource. However the way I read the current text of he lead and body the word "resource" seems to imply more utility to the FBI than is actually attributed. My suggestion (below) is to clean up the body and state what the sources actually say. No more, no less. Afterwards we can look at the lead.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Request For God's sake, please don't anyone touch this until we talk it out? One edit and reversion is plenty. Now for a pow-wow. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed!

As I said below, there are two ways the FBI uses the SPLC, and we can't mention just one in the lead. Instead, we should be general and leave the details for the body. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A good source. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• "...the ADL has made considerable efforts to cultivate a close working relationship with the FBI. The SPLC has moved into this area as well and, as Morris Dees has said, the organization 'has long shared intelligence with law enforcement agencies.' In 2010 the Department of Homeland Security announced the creation of a 'countering Violent Extremism Working Group' whose members included Richard Cohen, the president and CEO of the SPLC." Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance, by George Michael. Vanderbilt University Press, 2012. ISBN 0826518559

That's a good source, but not for "resource". If it's reliable, it would be a source for "SPLC has sought to" ... (I can't figure which word, at the moment) "a close working relationship with the FBI", and for "Homeland Security has created a" ... (I can't figure out exactly what to put there, either) "Working Group including the president of SPLC.". Probably suitable for the body, but I don't see what it supports in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Body vs lead

Regardless of what we do with the lead, we should make some additions to the body with respect to the "resources" quetsion. What comes first to mind is the mentioning of the referals for the purposes of solving civil-rights era crimes. Perhaps we should table the lead changes for now and work on the body. A naturual solution might present itself for the lead.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two separate ways that the SPLC works with the FBI. One is the specific partnership over cold cases. Another is that the FBI uses (and recommends) the SPLC as a resource on hate groups. We should include both, with citations, in the body. In the lead, we don't need to go into great detail over the FBI connection, since it'll be in the body. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The latter is not sourced. It recommends SPLC (among other groups) as a resource, but there's nothing there to say that the FBI uses SPLC as a resource. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, only the partnerships for pre 1969 hate crimes seems to be sourced, and so far only primary sources. There dont to appear to be any sources whatsoever that the FBI uses the SPLC as a resource for anything outside of this area.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not the case. There are sources suggesting that the FBI and SPLC work closely together on modern cases.[3] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the extreme right wing is convinced that the SPLC is an arm of the FBI! [4]www.infowars.com/texbook-doublethink-splcs-latest-effort-attacks-constitutionalists/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Exposed for the first time, the FBI acknowledged the SPLC was engaged in an undercover role where they monitored subjects for the FBI believed to be linked to executed bomber Timothy McVeigh, the white supremacist compound at Elohim City and the mysterious German national Andreas Carl Strassmeir.

[5] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

After a brief perusal of the sources provided by Still, I doubt that any of them will pass muster for being considered a RS. I suspect that if they were deemed reliable, these sources could (and most likely would) be used to paint the SPLC as a radical left wing organization, which is contary to what the current sources report.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

After a brief persual of the sources provided by Still, I doubt that any of them support his statement, even if they were reliable. Nothing there implies that SPLC was not undercover "on their own", and reporting to the FBI. (Per the 4th Amendment, that would be even more of an advantage to law enforcement than if they were "working with" the FBI.) If the SPLC were "on their own", calling them a "resource" would be a lie. (On the part of the FBI, not necessarily of the editors here.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done a bit of searching and I havent found any RS that has shown a "resource" relationship between the SPLC and the FBI exists. To me, the primary sources references are not enough for inclusion. It sounds more like a PR issue as part of a "tough on crime" campaign. We need secondary sources that show the FBI has relied on the SPLC in some manner to fight hate crimes. I will continue the search, but if you have something it would be helpful to share your sources so the body can be adjusted, and the lead updated if necessary,  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of Still, there appears to be no objections to removing the statement from the lead. I'll wait a bit longer to see if anyone else comes back with some logic to keep this discussion going. However I suspect even after the removal a consensus challenge revert will be made. At that point we might be looking into some form of DRN.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the SPLC is listed as a resource on the FBI website, however it provides no additional information than that. This one fact is being twisted out of context to meet the desires of anyone who needs to grant the SPLC total credibility without the actual verifiable facts. If one actually goes to the FBI website and types "Southern Poverty Law Center" into the FBI search box, then only 10 results are returned. 7 out of 10 are based on the SPLC assisting the FBI in the "Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative" from 2007 to 2010 (and continuing since Cold Cases never die) where the SPLC provided information for crimes committed before 1967, more the 45 years ago. Most of these reports are just yearly announcements or advertisements for the bureau. ,,,,,,

One article describes how the FBI stopped a planned assassination attempt against the SPLC leader as part of an attack on a Federal building (Page 7) by the Aryan Nation in 1999.

For training relations, the FBI website mentions the use of KLANWATCH, a tool created by the SPLC to track white supremacists which was sourced by the FBI in a 1996 training manual titled "Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection- Uniform Crime Reporting 1996."

The last 2 "official" mentions of the SPLC were dated early 2009 as an FBI announcement of new partnerships with "Radio One and several faith based and community organizations to ensure open channels of communications....in the event of a serious national incident."

Of the 10 mentions, the SPLC is not listed as having any modern or ongoing direct relationship with the FBI. If anything, the SPLC is a resource at least 45 years old. I understand that this might be considered original research which is why I list it here in a Talk Page. However it is important to list it here because many are taking the phrase "SPLC listed as a resource by the FBI" to mean many, many things it simply does not mean just by being listed on the FBI website. The SPLC has done many important things and can be documented and verified, but let us no more use the FBI website "resource" reference to mean anything more than it actually does, which is historical. Yendor (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The puffery "resource" phrase has been removed from the article already, but the attributable sentiment that the SPLC has had a relationship with the FBI that included providing information is in the article as (IMO) it should be. If you felt that the article was intentionally misleading in previous versions, I would agree. In fact I saw so many editors stating this "resource" line that I came to the article and discovered it was in the lead, and can only assume they trusted what they read. A worthy trout slap to Roscelese who slipped this in [6].   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Listings section out of date

While I'm not sure if we have a more up-to-date list of statistics, the classification is certainly out of date; SPLC no longer categorizes anti-gay groups, Holocaust denial groups, anti-immigrant groups, radical traditional Catholic groups, and racist music under "general hate", they have their own sections. Additionally, SPLC now lists anti-Muslim hate groups. The "general hate" section consists of groups that can't easily be subcategorized under another heading. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, checking the sources, I see that they're from 2009. Not only have the numbers and groups changed since then, SPLC's classification system has changed in several ways. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to update it, Roscelese? It would make sense to update the hate group categories before we add material regarding the fairly recent controversies over these listings and the FRC shooting. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope to but I'm not sure if there's a more recent breakdown of the numbers available, short of actually counting them by hand. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Church of the Creator edits

I removed this:

"According to a former member of the Alliance, when SPLC sued Pierce, the Alliance worried it would end the hate group."

because it was tagged as needing a better source. The (reliable) source actually says

Interviewer: "What was the reaction when the Southern Poverty Law Center sued Pierce?"

Employee:"He was terrified of Morris Dees. Kevin just hated him. He said, "Once Morris Dees has set his sights on you, that's it, it's over." They were really upset."

I could not reconcile these two statement, but if others can, fine. I could not find other sources that analyzed this interview further, so if we do keep that sentence, can we at least discard the better source tag?

– MrX 18:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You were correct to remove the sentance. I would hesitate to speculate the intent of the subjects. After all, they thought about building a nuclear weapon.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The main reason to knockout the sentence is perhaps less its source and the hearsay nature of it (a former white supremicist talking about someone else's thoughts ), though that is dubious enough, than the fact that it amounts to gratuitous puffery of Dees and the SPLC. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think Dougweller misunderstood why I removed it. The interpretation of the interview is original research, not by the SPLC, but by the WikiEditor who wrote that section. I'm not going to remove it again though as I don't want to appear to be edit warring.

– MrX 21:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to rush. Haste makes waste -- especially in Wikipedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I made the change.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, if anyone had contacted me and explained this I would have agreed. I was just going by the edit summary (an explanation of the reversion in your edit summary would have been useful though). Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I need to work on my edit summaries, I agree.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Explaining the NPOV tag

I'm re-tagging the article because there is no serious question that it has a POV problem. Editors who have demonstrated long-term ownership issues have tendentiously thwarted all efforts to add information not sympathetic to SPLC talking points. There are numerous reliable sources expressing a great deal of valid criticism, and it needs to be presented. Failing that, the article should be tagged simply to warn the casual reader that it is incomplete. Belchfire-TALK 18:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully Belchfire, there is serious question that it has a POV problem, which is why the tag was removed. Wouldn't it be more productive to actually edit the article so that any perceived POV issues are addressed, rather than tagging it for eternity? The tag actually adds a bitter note of POV in and of itself. – MrX 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the keeping the tag for the moment. There appears to be reliable sourcing demonstrating some critiscm of the SPLC of which is not mentioned in the article. I would welcome a discussion, but previous attempts seem to be dominated and obfuscated by a select few. A faciltated DR might be of some use.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A DRN might not be a bad idea, but I think we should let interested editors weigh-in here first. Belchfire-TALK 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MrX in that it would be much more constructive to edit the article and propose ideas rather than tag the article in the lead. Teammm ^TM 19:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• If you add an NPOV tag to a page, that indicates there is an ongoing discussion on the talkpage and it is incumbent on the person placing the tag to clearly state his or her views regarding why the article is not NPOV. Belchfire, you cannot simply say "it is POV" and be done. You must either begin a serious, clear discussion of proposed changes, or your tag is simply drive-by tagging. See Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#Adding_a_tag_to_a_page for a clear explanation of this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

From the POV Template usage notes:

Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view.

• The editor placing this template in an article should promptly provide a reason on the article's talk page. In the absence of a reason and it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, this tag may be removed by any editor.
• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Also, Little Green Rosetta..in the time you took to write your comment on perceived obfuscation, you could've at least submitted the issues of which you speak. There's nothing to weigh-in on as you've written not a thing. Teammm ^TM 19:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been ample discussion related my reasons for tagging the article - none of it has lead to a resolution. Perhaps we should work towards fixing the problems instead of edit-warring over tags. Belchfire-TALK 19:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't know who you're referring to but I haven't edit warred over a tag. Where is the ample discussion? And what's not neutral? Be specific please because I don't see it. Teammm ^TM 19:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems as though all discussions didn't result in your favor. I'll remove the tag soon if there's nothing further. Teammm ^TM 19:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Teammm that resolution was reached but the consensus did not favor Belchfire's preference. The tag was clearly placed by Belchfire as a "badge of shame" which is not its purpose. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. The NPOV issues have been discussed and largely addressed, although perhaps not to Belchfire's preferred POV. As it stands now, the tag casts doubt on the validity of every word in the article, which is a disservice to readers, and in my opinion, an unfair representation of the good editing work that occurred here over the past 6-8 weeks. – MrX 20:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I must have joined the party late. I'll comapre the article from June 1st to catch up.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem a whole lot different from when the tag was first added on 16th August. StAnselm (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all the tag should definitely stay until the neutrality issues have been resolved. In fact, there seems to be a general consensus on this talk page that the article is lacking a mention of how the SPLC's hate group listings have been criticised. That is definitely an NPOV issue. It's all very well saying that an editor should just insert something - when I did that, my edit was reverted. StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a specific concern. Belchfire offered no specific concerns, which is a gross misuse of the template. However, you really need to make a specific suggestion here. You say the article is lacking criticism; what specific criticism do you think should be included? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How about, "The addition of the Family Research Council to the list of hate groups was criticized in the light wake of the 2012 shooting of a security guard at the FRC's headquarters," etc. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be OK with that, in principle, provided that it's reliably sourced and attributed to who did the criticizing. I also think that 'in light of' should be replaced with 'after'. – MrX 22:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why I said "light". I meant "wake". StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please describe what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution. In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time. (from WP:NPOV)

I will accept absence of specific, articulated NPOV concerns as tacit agreement that the article is sufficiently neutral to remove the tag. – MrX 22:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to pretend that no concerns have been articulated is nakedly tendentious. There are discussions up and down the full length of this Talk page wherein the concerns of numerous editors have been articulated. There is also an open RfC. Trying to claim that no NPOV concerns have been stated is positively risible. Belchfire-TALK 23:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't articulated any specific issues in this section. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: since the POV tag was added on 16th August, the size of article has been increased by 48 bytes. The talk page has increased by 254,730 bytes. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been explained and, again, it is tendentious to claim otherwise. Belchfire-TALK 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, you added the tag so surely there is a sentence in the article that you believe is problematic or, alternatively, a sentence that you believe must be added to fairly portray the subject. Please, just give us one to work with. – MrX 00:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're being fair MrX, and to be honest, I doubt you have read through everything on this talk page. Belchfire is clearly referring to your latter option - a sentence (or paragraph) that "must be added to fairly portray the subject." But there have been lots of suggestions, and there is more than enough material for you to work with. StAnselm (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Pure tendentious nonsense. I did not add the tag; I restored it after it was removed without consensus. The tag was actually placed on August 15 [7], and there was, in fact, a reason given [8], which remains unresolved. The tag was removed today with the edit summary "rmv unexplained tag", which is completely bogus. Belchfire-TALK 00:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see: User:Viriditas/Maintenance tag terrorism. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're accusing other editors of terrorism??? But we have the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude? Good grief. Fine, see this essay, which contains some relevant rebuttal. Belchfire-TALK 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you see yourself reflected in the WP:HOSTAGE essay as the POV pusher who holds an article hostage to their POV by misusing maintenance tags? Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, actually I'm saying that I think you are engaging in projection. (Just one man's opinion, mind you.) Are you here to discuss content? Belchfire-TALK 01:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if it appears that I am ignoring the mountain of text that looms above out heads. The problem is that the few attempts at addressing specific content issues, either get derailed by overly eager editors, or develop toward a compromise, only to die on the vine for lack of interest. I'm not ignoring any of this; I simply don't see it being at all focused nor moving toward a resolution. I apologize if I personally have been uncooperative, non-collaborative or uncivil. Now if we could get back to discussing content, that would be be fabulous. – MrX 00:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for rejoining productive discussion.

As I see it, previous efforts haven't died from lack of interest; they've died because the persistence of the stonewallers exceeds the patience of those seeking changes to the article.

I think it would be pretty difficult for a reasonable person to deny that most people seeking to introduce non-hagiographic material have been more than willing to compromise and/or address legitimate concerns about sourcing and verbiage, but unfortunately those efforts have been met with a brick wall of resistance thrown up by those who are intent on keeping any unflattering content out. And I don't see it as unreasonable or improper to keep a maintenance tag in place while such a situation is being resolved, even if it takes an extended period of time. Belchfire-TALK 00:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Except, that's not how maintenance tags are used by Wikipedia. They are, however, used that way by WP:HOSTAGE takers. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This is off topic, I know, but I do feel it is rather bad form to appeal to your own essay like that. It does rather seem to lend a weight to your opinion that it doesn't necessarily deserve. In any case, I would suggest that the consensus on this talk page is that some relevant material does need to be added. StAnselm (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

On the last point, please read my upcoming essay, User:StAnselm/Don't cite your own essay. StAnselm (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's "bad form" to appeal to an essay written more than a year ago that perfectly describes the misuse of maintenance tags going on here? You must be using a different definition of "bad form" than I am. The shoe fits. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, we've been trying to get you to offer specific complaints. If you have any, now is the time to share them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read this talk page. StAnselm (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not an acceptable answer, and when someone answers like that, the tag should be removed immediately. You either explain exactly what needs to happen for the tag to be removed, or you stop adding it. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll just point out that your own essay is simply your own opinion, and should be weighted appropriately by those who read it. Now, since we've established that the tag was placed appropriately and was removed inappropriately, can we please move on to discussing content? Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 01:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you believe it is OK to hold an article hostage to a POV and to misuse maintenance tags to this end. Is there any other way to read your reply? Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that the scorched-earth approach of hysteria and antagonism is the default approach with a select few of the editors here, one in particular. I'm surprised to see any cooperation and respect at all but look forward to that day. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the original reason for the POV tag

According to Belchfire, the tag originally placed by St.Anselm on August 15 was because

“ I have added a neutrality tag. It seems very strange that there is no criticism section. We have a few statements of criticism under finances, but nothing for other activities. Over at Talk:Family Research Council there has been a discussion over SPLC's action in adding groups to its list of hate groups - that particular incident may not belong on this page, but for the article to be neutral, it needs to cover criticism and/or perceptions of the SPLC. ”

So, to address that, let's create a criticism section addressing the major points of criticism. We can start by moving the criticisms that are already mentioned in the article. – MrX 01:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against criticism, but I strongly oppose a criticism section. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections were deprecated many years ago in favor of integrated content found throughout the article. StAnselm's TARDIS appears to be stuck in 2005. Based on that single objection, the tag should never have been added. Your suggestion that we "move" the criticisms from the body into a specific section goes against current best practice. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Guess there's an advantage to being a noob: no bad habits to unlearn. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's called beginner's mind, and is paradoxically, the goal of every expert. Viriditas (talk)

Interesting article. Thanks for reminding me that Wikipedia can be educational as opposed to confrontational. :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have backed away from the idea of a criticism section myself, in the wake of significant objections to the idea. For myself (I can't speak for other editors), I would be happy for the tag to be removed upon the inclusion and acceptance of a suitable paragraph outlining the criticisms of the SPLC regarding their hate group listings. StAnselm (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're forgetting that my edit was reverted. StAnselm (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added it back. – MrX 02:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think you've missed the fact that there is an open RfC on its inclusion. StAnselm (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot about that RfC, which I would think would be closed already, since the last comment was made 12 days ago. Oh well, I tried. – MrX 02:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See how hard it is? StAnselm (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And the important thing about the Rfc is that it has pretty much rejected the type of unbalanced addition that StAnselm is pushing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a particular objection to my latest suggestion, Tom, or is it just that it doesn't have consensus yet? StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have all the objections that I've expressed before. The main one is that you mention the FRC without explaining why the SPLC classified it as a hate group and you don't include a rebuttal of the charges made against it. The shooting incident itself and the limited reaction to it has died down after a few days and does not warrant mention in this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Right you are. Here is the relevant essay WP:NOCRIT.

St.Anselm and Belchfire, what other criticisms do you think need to be added, and where do think it should be added? (Acknowledging that St. Anselm has a draft of one, above.) – MrX 01:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've set my AGF knob to 11, but I still can't account for how the tags have been restored while no attempt has been made to explain what specific criticism they'd like inserted. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please try setting it to 12, because I believe me may be on the verge of a breakthrough? I think we can stand the tag for a few more minutes. – MrX 01:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think StillStanding is being ridiculous, considering he participated in the discussion at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#Some concrete proposals above. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on content and avoid commenting on contributors. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

...says the editor who just above says "StAnselm's TARDIS appears to be stuck in 2005". StAnselm (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion is ridiculous. Unless you have a new concern to raise—in which case that should have been done when the POV tag was added—this is just re-arguing material that was already hashed out. That is an abuse of process. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "verge of a breakthrough". Ever since StAnselm came on the scene there has been overwhelming rejection of his proposal -- do a count on his Rfc. Don't try to sneak some phony consensus through after a few hours of discussion on a Friday night. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much support for the proposition there has been "overwhelming objection". But I do see a lot of categorical rejection of sound reasoning based on flimsy arguments, unwillingness to compromise, and hard-core ownership issues. Belchfire-TALK 03:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom, there is nothing, despite your protests, that precludes legitimate criticism of the SPLC being added to this article, morning, noon or night. If you have something constructive to add to the content discussion, I'm sure we would like to hear it. – MrX 03:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, with an existing Rfc and an ongoing discussion about adding criticism, adding material "morning, noon or night" at this point that lacks a consensus pretty much sounds like edit warring to me. As far as adding "something constructive", I have made two specific proposals (have you bothered to comment on them?) and raised many problems with the unbalanced approach you are advocating. Perhaps you can explain why you only want to include one part of the CSM article and leave out the SPLC response which is also included in the article. And I don't believe it is "constructive" on your part to resurrect in a different section of the discussion page an argument that is subject to an Rfc that is trending heavily against your position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is for specific wording, not for all criticism. Continuing to edit the article is not edit warring. I have read everything on this page, multiple times. As far as I can tell, your specific proposals negate any criticism by attributing it to hate groups or spokespeople for those hate groups. The reality is that there are politicians and pundits who have offered criticism. Interestingly, when the arguments cast light on those sourced criticisms, the WP:UNDUE card is promptly pulled out. What we actually need here is more reason, discussion and compromise and less P, G & E quoting.

To be clear on what my position actually is and what this discussion is intended to address: I am not advocating the specific wording in the RFC. I am advocating acknowledging that there is sufficient media coverage of criticism of the SPLC for its hate group designations and that this criticism must have some level of inclusion in the article. To ignore this criticism altogether, or to wrap the criticism in ad hominems, conveys an unacceptable level of bias, and cast doubt on the credibility of the entire article.

Perhaps the most recent edit addresses these concerns (I have not fully read it). My guess is that it goes a little overboard in extent. – MrX 13:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You said, "The reality is that there are politicians and pundits who have offered criticism." The politicians you refer to go back to the sourcing for the Rfc language -- in fact, as has been stated many times, the politicians did not sign off on any criticism of the SPLC but instead offered general support for the FRC. As far as the "pundits", it is totally appropriate to play the "WP:UNDUE card". In fact, almost all of them are writing from a political perspective that supports the political agenda of the FRC and ignore the more extreme FRC positions that earned them the hate listing. Mentioning the pundits, who misstate the SPLC's ACTUAL position requires that this ACTUAL position be explained.

If you are sincere about including criticism w/o ad hominem attacks, the language I proposed hits the mark. To repeat it (with a small change):

Some critics, even those that oppose the policies of listed groups, believe that the SPLC should not list non-violent groups along with organizations such as the KKK on its hate list. The SPLC and its supporters argue that extreme language can and has led to violence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've actually read through this crap, and I don't understand that conclusion. The criticism that was proposed to be added in the RfC (but not when the POV tag was added, in contradiction to long-standing policy), and which does not appear to have reached consensus, was from a group that the SPLC had included in their list of hate groups. There is has been no evidence of any non-partisan source claiming issues with SPLC. There is strong WP:UNDUE here. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the Christian Science Monitor article. The first two paragraphs look like criticism to me. The fact that the criticism came from conservatives/right/republicans is notable, but not a reason for exclusion from the article. Any attempt to analyze what the article states ventures into original research territory. – MrX 03:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it walks toward original research and makes a quick detour through WP:IRS. “Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.” We shouldn't change the meaning of what they say if we quote them, but it's entirely appropriate to interpret the sketchy context and weigh it relative to WP:UNDUE. And it fails, miserably. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, it needs to be decided by consensus. – MrX 04:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and you'll note there was an RfC with a clear consensus to oppose the inclusion. Continuing the argument past that point is an abuse of process, plain and simple. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! Particularly in the wake of the FRC shooting there have been quite a few notable criticisms of the SPLC's hate group list, though there were several prior to it: [9] [10] [11] [12] [[13] [14] [15]. Just to show some. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's all beside the point. We already did a RfC on this exact issue, and the result is clear. Yes, WP:CCC, but these are pretty much all the same actors, so that argument is moot. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some notable criticisms, and I think we can find better ones than these. The only one that I would think merits inclusion so far is the CSM one mentioned above. a13ean (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the reaction to the Milbank column. That recieved notable coverage.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I see St.Anselm has backed away from a criticism section. If we want to say that conservative/rightwing/whatever groups/media have criticised the hate group list, I guess that's ok but pretty trivial, what else would you expect? But adding such criticisms without noting the nature of their sources isn't acceptable and is pov.

This article is always going to be POV from certain perspectives (which doesn't mean it violates WP:NPOV, just that some perspectives won't accept that it meets NPOV no matter what anyone says). Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it trivial? It has certainly provoked some intense discussion here. I guess the salient points are (1) the FRC's response was well documented, (2) it seems that the FRC's objections were supported by conservative politicians, (3) a few non-conservatives joined the criticism of the hate group listing after the shooting incident. StAnselm (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The hurdle for including criticism is that it must be noteworthy. You need to show that this criticism has attracted attention in news articles and academic papers etc. If the world ignores it, there is no reason for us to include it. TFD (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But it has attracted attention. CSM and the reaction to Milbanks column shows this, so clearly the world doesn't ignore it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(out) As has been pointed out, the CSM article was incorrect - John Boehner et al. did not sign a petition against the SPLC, but rather a petition in favor of the FRC. And yes there are editorials by people who oppose the FRC but do not appreciate how the SPLC categorizes them. You need to show that these views have attracted attention which you could do by finding an article about reaction to the label. BTW I have made the same point in discussions about criticism in articles about US conservative topics as well, including Paul Ryan and the Tea Party movement. While it is very easy to find editorials criticizing them, we need reliable sources that report those criticisms. TFD (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And there are several RS covering the Milbank editorial. I think I added something to the body about this, not sure if its still there.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  07:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find anything. TFD (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

e.g. Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writer, Slams LGBT Activists, SPLC For FRC's 'Hate Group' Label. StAnselm (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressing TFD's comment, Where is the Wikipedia policy saying that criticism of a Wikipedia subject appearing in a reliable sources must itself be appraised in reliable sources?? Badmintonhist (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The onus is on you to establish the significance of these opinions. How much signicance can we assign to an opinion that has been ignored by reliable sources? Op-eds are reliable sources only for the opinions of their authors. (WP:NEWSORG.) WP:WEIGHT says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." See also WP:PRIMARY, "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". TFD (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NO. This creates an extra tier of notability which is unsupported by Wikipedia policies or guidlines. Opinions found in reliable secondary sources such as Milbank's in the unquestionably reliable Washington Post or Ken Silverstein's in Harper's are reliable as to the opinion of the authors, and would of course, be presented as opinion in our article (proportionate to opposing opinions from reliable sources). What we do not need, however, is a gratuitous extra tier of notability suggested, perhaps, because a possible difficulty in finding opinions counter to, say Milbank's, other than in blogs or other sources of somewhat questionable notability. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it your position that all editorials published in newspapers and magazines are ipso facto significant? How do you determine the relative significance on SPLC's reasons for calling the FRC a hate group and opposition to calling it that if there are no reliable sources reporting the dispute? It would seem that if any of these editorials were significant that the news media would report them. Why are we supposed to report opinions that the news media ignores? TFD (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But, as you should know, reliable sources have reported on the dispute: [16] [17] [18]; and I'm still waiting to hear about the Wikipedia policy that says there must be notable secondary sources on what are already notable secondary sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@ TFD, see [19], and in particular checkout the refs in the last graph.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

More of the same. All of these sources have been discussed and all have been found wanting. There is little point in arguing for adding the same type of language with the same type of sources. The vast majority of the sources can be lumped into the category "supporters of the FRC" and the major complaint, other than ad hominem attacks against the SPLC, is that the group is not as bad as the KKK. The anti-SPLC folks gave it their best shot and were unpersuasive. For the same four or five editors to make the same arguments over and over again does not mean that "vigorous discussion is ongoing." Without anything new being added, all we have is Tendentious editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And opinion sources that support the FRC should be kept out of the article because of what particular Wikipedia policy?? Moreover, of course, several critics of the SPLC's hate list are not at all sympathetic with the FRC: Alexander Cockburn, Ken Silverstein, Laird Wilcox, Kenneth Jost, Dana Milbank. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You make my point -- all of these have been discussed and you haven't persuaded a majority, let alone a consensus of editors. To bring it up in yet another section without any new information or arguments is Tendentious editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there campaign against the SPLC here and across wikipedia will be short lived when the article falls under General sanctions. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK there has been no discussion of these sources here, much less them having been dismissed. What is "new" is the recent questioning of the SPLC hate tag brought on by the recent FRC shooting.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not true. This long line of discussions began the day after the shooting when StAnselm added the POV tag. There has not been a consensus to use any of the proposed sources -- you should know this since you started your own section to discuss sources and nobody participated since they had already made their feelings known. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya got any policy here except me and my friends don't like it? Badmintonhist (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom, in that section I created I added the sources previously discussed as a courtesy. I also added new sources which were not addressed. Nor were they addressed in the RfC. Part of the problem is at least of these sources was created after the RfC started.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not true -- you listed five sources and at least three had been discussed before -- one was the source used in the RFC. The bottom line, however, is the sources were listed, discussed to the extent editors wished to discuss them, and no consensus to include was reached. By bringing up the same issues in yet another discussion section without adding any new arguments is Tendentious editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So by your own statement then possibly two sources weren't discussed. Let's look at them then. I'm not the only one asking about them. Is it everyone but you that is being tendentious? If you cool down and stop accusing others of bad faith then perhaps this could be put to bed sooner rather than later.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that if editors were interested in these sources, they would have continued to discuss them. They didn't -- the last response in the section was on August 30. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

FRC hate group tag

Since it appears that not all of the sources have been addressed with respect to some critiscm of the SPLC, I'm creating this new section with only these new sources.

Here are three references with respect to some critiscm to SPLC's labeling of the FRC as a hate group.

First we have the 8/16/2012 Milbank opinion piece (yes, we usually don't use op-ed pieces, but please this opinion itself received coverage) Washington Post which states

it's absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church.

which generated considerable reaction, including this from The Advocate (note, this is NOT an opinion piece but by staff writers)

Human Rights Campaign isn’t responsible for the shooting," wrote Dana Milbank. "Neither should the organization that deemed the FRC a 'hate group,' the Southern Poverty Law Center, be blamed for a madman’s act. But both are reckless in labeling as a 'hate group' a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions, on issues from stem cells to euthanasia.¶ Milbank continues, "it's absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church."

And from CNN which is acceptable per [WP:NEWSBLOG]

Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry said the council is a mainstream, if very conservative, public policy shop - one of a multitude in Washington.

"I'm not comfortable calling them a hate group," he said. "There's probably some things that have been said by one or two individuals that qualify as hate speech. But overall, it's not seen as a hate group," said Berry, who has written extensively about the influence of ideological and public policy groups in Washington.

Question Do these sources pass as RS? Do these sources merit a small section on the FRC within this article with respect to the labeling? What about sources that defend the SPLC's hate group tag of the FRC? What about the reasons the SPLC gave the FRC the tag in the first place?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a big issue of WP:UNDUE here, especially since you're cherry-picking these lukewarm quotes. "I'm not comfortable calling them" falls rather far short of "It would be wrong to call them". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't undue here. We have multiple RS covering this issue. Reread the policy again. One of the articles quotes a LGBT blogger defending the moniker for balance I suppose. I'm not sure if this outweighs the thoughts of a credentialed scholar however.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

OF COURSE some information about the controversy should be included in our article. What else has the SPLC done in the past few decades that has drawn more coverage from major national news sources? That being said, I don't think the controversy should be overemphasized in our article. I still think that my "Proposed template for 'Hate group listing' addition" was about right in terms of weight. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Diff please. I'd like to review this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading the above, I don't see the case for objecting to the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) article [20] as a source of criticism. It's written by a staff writer of a mainstream newspaper. Obviously criticism of the SPLC is by conservatives but this criticism has been found noteworthy by a mainstream journal. I'm not arguing that said criticisms are valid--that would be a POV. But that they exist and have been written about makes the noteworthy of mention. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

FBI at the end of the First Paragraph of entire Article causing Undue Weight

I have read, as best I can, the entire discussion from beginning to the end of Tail Wagging Dog (conversation continued after September 1st when User:Badmintonhist made initial changes), and do not see a reason nor consensus for inclusion of the sentence "Along with certain other civil rights organizations it provides information about hate groups to the Federal Bureau of Investigation" to be in the lead. It takes up a very small part of the article itself and compared to the totality of the article, should not be in the lead. The SPLC has done a tremendous amount of work in dismantling hate groups all by itself in addition to all of its other claims to fame. The FBI work, by this group of attorneys focused on civil lawsuits, is tiny indeed. From the FBI side, they do not even have jurisdiction over hate crimes except where the matter is a Civil (not criminal) Rights matter. Furthermore, the FBI does not even use the term Hate Group, they are focused on Hate Crimes, not Groups. The SPLC will focus on groups or individuals as the case warrants. Speaking solely of the lead, the sentence just hangs at the end of the paragraph and is not contextually even part of the first paragraph which by itself is a grammar violation. Yendor (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly why the FBI work matters. The FBI isn't allowed to track groups, which hinders their ability to find perpetrators when crimes are committed. Nor is it “tiny”; it's SPLC's mission to stop hate crimes, and allying with the FBI helps that mission. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the FBI work matters. That work is mentioned in the first paragraph of Section 5.1. But that's 1 paragraph out of 47 paragraphs. So yes, the FBI work matters, but just not in the lead lest a reader come away with the impression that the SPLC's main focus is working with the FBI. Compared to everything that the SPLC has done there is a lot more work that deserves to go in the Lead than the FBI work. And grammatically speaking if it were to be added back it would have to be in it's own paragraph and not just strung along at the end of the first one where the topic is different. A stand-alone sentence, or 1 sentence paragraph, though undesirable, would be better, if it positively had to go back Yendor (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kerfuffler for the reasons stated. The FBI's use of the SPLC to monitor extremist hate groups, especially those prone toward violence, is significant. There is also the cold case file 'partnership'. I think the inclusion in the lede is not about the amount of text in the article, but about the significance of the largest law enforcement agency in the US, part of the DOJ, working with one of the largest civil rights organizations in the US to (theoretically) solve hate crimes and to monitor extremist groups/potential domestic terrorists.The relationship is controversial, and was largely establish during the Clinton administration, under Janet Reno. – MrX 13:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Alas - no reliable source says anything of the sort. And claims which are not supported directly by reliable sources are not used in Wikipedia. What was proffered was that two people assiciated with SPLC were listed in a PowerPoint presentation. And nothing in that presentation stated that the SPLC was used to "monitor" anyone at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect, what is it that you are refuting? I've made the following claims

1. "The FBI's use of the SPLC to monitor extremist hate groups" ( source#84-Boston Globe; also supported by "States news service article: Reid: Extreme GOP Spending Plan Undermines FBI and other articles)
2. "There is also the cold case file 'partnership'" (source#85-FBI press release; + numerous other articles)

I'm curious how you could could conclude that there are no reliable source says anything of the sort.– MrX 14:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is so important, then why are there only two sentences in the body about it? Importance and weight are established by the Article, and in this case the FBI garnered a mere 2 sentences after more than a month of discussion above. The FBI work does not define what the SPLC's main purpose is. It clearly does not belong in the lead. And it does not just get tagged onto an unrelated paragraph which again makes it grammatically incorrect for Encyclopedic work. The SPLC started in 1971 and did not begin a partnership on hate crimes until 2007. There is a lot more important work that should go in the lead than a mere 2 sentences from the body. And the FBI has absolutely no problem tracking domestic terrorists since the Patriot Act. Therefore I will remove the sentence that was added on September 1st halfway through the Tail Wagging the Dog, Again, the FBI work is important, but in the lead in the first paragraph it makes it seem that the work is SPLC's crowning achievement which can be no further from verifiable fact. And the SPLC is nowhere close to one of the largest civil rights organizations Yendor (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably because both the FBI and the SPLC are being tight-lipped about it. I doubt that they would want to publicize details about how they investigate crimes. Also, this relationships seems to have been somewhat controversial pre-9/11, with respect to first amendment rights, etc. I agree that the FBI has absolutely no problem tracking domestic terrorists since the Patriot Act, but that may actually boost the SPLC's role as a resource. – MrX 14:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

To give my two cents: I've frequented this page many times as someone who has an interest in law enforcement, criminal law, etc. Let me say that I've often heard about the SPLC in connection to law enforcement, and of course, in connection to the FBI (most importantly related to the SPLC helping the FBI solve long unsolved hate crimes cases). As such, I find the mention of the FBI-SPLC partnership very fitting at the top of the article. Also @Yendor - as I understand, when Wikipedia:BRD is invoked, one should not undo that. The information should stay unless a large amount of those participating in the discussion here want to remove it. Thanks. -An interested reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.215.39 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree that the FBI work is important. The FBI began the Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative in 2006 and in 2007 invited three organizations to provide assistance, one of them being the SPLC. By 2010 when the initiative was winding down, it had identified 108 cold cases related to Civil Rights. Out of the 108 the FBI forwarded 3 cold cases to state prosecutors to follow up on.. To be fair of the 108 30 cases had already been prosecuted, and 20 turned out not to be Civil Rights/Hate Crime based.

From the SPLC website I have read their entire advertised history and there is not one mention of the FBI? In their 2011 Annual Report there is not one mention of the FBI? If anything I find that in 2009, "The Pentagon tightens its policy banning extremist activity in the military following a series of investigative reports by the SPLC since 2006 that uncovered extremist activity among active-duty personnel" is of more importance than cold case files. The SPLC helped save the Pentagon from it's own military! That should be in the lead, except that it is not supported in the body, and it leads to Undue Weight being tagged onto the first paragraph, and again it is grammatically incorrect. Yendor (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A few thoughts Since I'm waking late to this party.

1. The ip editor is "corrrect" with respect to this information should stay in place while this issue is dicussed, as the inclusion was the result of a previous consensus.
2. There is sourcing describing the SPLC/FBI relationship as Mr. X. points out. Though the consistency of this gruel is very thin.
3. The placement in the lead may be undue because the porridge is so thin.
4. Though the SPLC/FBI may wish to keep their relationship "hush hush", this should not be a factor in this article. We shouldn't make an exception for the insistence of sourcing because of such speculation.
5. Other sourcing may exist. I have made a good faith attempt to find some, but others with more robust research tools might find sources where I have failed.

  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If Yendor33 had looked higher up the page, the following reference would have been seen:

• George Michael, Associate Professor of Nuclear Counterproliferation and Deterrence at the USAF Air War College, writes that SPLC's and ADL's programs of sharing information with the FBI are "by far the most effective mechanism for countering the extreme right". He is saying that the sharing of data with the FBI by SPLC and to a greater extent ADL is more important than the "feared" but controversial lawsuits that SPLC has taken against right-wing groups to punish them for the actions of their (usually) young male members. Michael writes that the "cumulative effort of these NGOs" (ADL, SPLC, mostly) "have done much to neutralize the extreme Right in the United States." This puts SPLC's connection to the FBI at or near the top of all of its other efforts. Michael writes: "...the ADL has made considerable efforts to cultivate a close working relationship with the FBI. The SPLC has moved into this area as well and, as Morris Dees has said, the organization 'has long shared intelligence with law enforcement agencies.' In 2010 the Department of Homeland Security announced the creation of a 'countering Violent Extremism Working Group' whose members included Richard Cohen, the president and CEO of the SPLC."
• Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance, by George Michael. Vanderbilt University Press, 2012. ISBN 0826518559

I think that the FBI should be mentioned in the lead section even though the description of FBI/SPLC cooperation is minimal in the article body. The minimal description is representative of how private the interaction is, not how unimportant. It is, in fact, a very important interaction. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That does kind of nail it. I'm going to look for even more sources so we can put this to bed once and for all. There are 866 sources on Highbeam and 4,174 on NewsBank that match "southern poverty law center"& fbi. – MrX 16:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Please share what you find here, or even a section on your TP if you don't want to clutter this discussion up.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The interaction may be important, but AFAIK here at wikipedia-en we require adequate sourcing to include information. Especially information that comes mostly from primary sources or information that paints a subject in a positive/negative light. Making even the logical assumption these NGO's and the FBI want to keep their relationship on the DL doesn't releive us of the burden to require the use of RS.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I read the entire discussion, up to the point where conversation swerved to NPOV tags and the like. My first sentence clearly states that I read, to the best of my ability, from the beginning until the end of Tail Wagging Dog. Wikipedia should give no credence to a "private ... interaction". I believe it was discussed that just because Richard Cohen was on the board did not necessarily mean the SPLC was involved thus negating the George Michael quote. Otherwise why isn't the matter in the body of the Article. The SPLC has been in existence for 40 years yet people are stating that their private, secret, not publicized relation with the FBI is their most prominent role? For that is what being in the Lead means to the casual reader who we are writing these articles for. Again, the SPLC has accomplished far more important things than assisting the FBI and prominence is closely related to weight and putting the FBI in the Lead is granting it Undue Weight considering the 2 sentences (oops, forgot the secret alliance work which we're not supposed to mention) in the body. And yet still we are also consistently ignoring the grammatical aspect: that FBI sentence just does not belong in that paragraph, if it is put back it either must be relevant to the paragraph or stand alone as its own paragraph. Yendor (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps on another matter we should consider Reciprocity? That is, if the SPLC and FBI relationship is so large that it cannot even be quantified in this article, then shouldn't the Article on the Federal Bureau of Investigation list that in the lead? Obviously not since I'm being facetious. But it definitely should be listed in the FBI Article, right? Well nope. At the very end, under the See Also, is one line regarding the "List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups." Now before we make use of that line we should look at who put it there. It was added on April 20th, 2011 by JNAST1 [21] with no discussion, no reference, and no reason. I would ask JNAST1 why he put it there but he was banned as a sock-puppet and his master was banned for bad behavior. So even the FBI Article does not significantly reference the SPLC or it's far reaching importance. Yendor (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been raised before, and I do agree the FBI article needs to be addressed.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet thinks that the SPLC's connection to the FBI is at the top of all of its other efforts (his words) which would wipe away 40 years of Civil Rights movements and lawsuits all for this group to accomplish, nay its primary goal for its entire life, to be a data provider to the FBI. Yet again, no mention of the FBI in the SPLC's own History of itself but that is irrelevant. And the true fallacy is that Binksternet bases all of this on a quote from a single person - George Michael Yendor (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The pattern I'm seeing here is that strong evidence (such as Binksternet's) is presented but the response is to disregard it by shifting the goalposts. It's been made quite clear that working with LEO's is a major part of SPLC's success. This belongs in the lead. Stop dragging your feet and raising the bar; just accept it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

While I think the OP has some valid concerns, this seems to be the type thing that will be repeatedly challenged, no matter how solid the sourcing. I wonder if we should create a FAQ for this talk page to address some of these recurring topics. – MrX 19:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea. Frankly, my patience with this sort of nonsense is at a low point. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The dispute I bring up is that the Body of the Article does not support the mention of the FBI in the Lead. Patience aside, I have learned in this discussion that there is enough material in the Talk Pages to support the FBI in the LEAD. After examination (when I'm not focused on just removing) the solution is apparent, using the sources of Binksternet and Mr. X, expand Section 5.1 from a mere 2 sentences to a couple of paragraphs such that mention of the FBI in the Lead is supported by the Body. I would do it with the exception that I don't necessarily accept some of these sources, at least not to the point where I could defend them. I know, a likely excuse. But if Binksternet (and having read as much of the book he referenced as I could I apologize and withdraw my earlier comments) can list here, then please list in Section 5.1 of the article. The author does state clearly that the sharing of the information with the FBI was more effective at eliminating Right Groups than mere civil lawsuits alone. And Mr. X has developed two sources below so please have him expand Section 5.1 as well. And Still, as others call you I have noticed, perhaps you can provide oversight and final editing to ensure the other two editors make cohesive and expansive remarks. I came here focused on the problem and not the solution with a chip already on my shoulder. Well it is gone now and if you truly want to end any further arguments about the FBI in the Lead, then please ensure the body supports it. Also I'd like to recognize that Binksternet solved the grammatical problem. Yendor (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we'll let Binkersnet expand the section in the body and use that to support the inclusion in the lead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't think the sources support it (and the DHS source doesn't support anything), but Yendor is wrong as to policy. The lead is supposed to summarize what should be in the article. Something can be added to the lead before the material it would summarize is added to the body. (In that case, though, it would have to be well sourced in the lead.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yendor33, please don't misquote me.
Just in case you were wondering about the relative ranking of reliable sources, Wikipedia gives the highest credence to scholarly sources. Dr. George Michael got his Ph.D. from George Mason University's School of Public Policy. At the US Air War College, Michael is considered an expert in "terrorism & counterterrorism" along with counterproliferation, nuclear policy, and homeland defense. When he was teaching political science at University of Virginia's College at Wise, he received an Outstanding Research Faculty Award. He's been on C-SPAN's Book TV program three times and he's written numerous articles for scholarly journals. You wrote that "the true fallacy is that Binksternet bases all of this on a quote from a single person", but here at Wikipedia we greatly respect the opinion of even one scholar, especially if there are no scholars in disagreement. I see no statements to the contrary, so I take Michael at his word. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a FAQ is a good option, I see the same circular arguments from many of the same editors. The only conclusion I get from this is that they like to argue. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A report in infowars.com makes it slightly less likely to be accurate than one not mentioned in infowars.com. Please do not attempt to use infowars.com as a source for anything but Alex's statements, and possibly the content of interviews conducted by Alex. However, if it points to an identifiable McCurtain Daily Gazette article, that could be used without the URL. (I still think these support the fact that SPLC conducts investgations and turns over results to the FBI, but not that they're doing it at the FBI's request, or that it's significant, or a significant part of what SPLC does.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Additional SPLC-FBI sources

*Please comment above ^

"The FBI does work in tandem with non-profit agencies such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. ``Law enforcement agencies come to us every day with questions about particular groups, said Mark Potok, a spokesman for the center. ``I think the current division of labor is a good one, in which the government has police powers but is precluded from investigating groups merely because they have unpleasant views.

"McCurtain Daily Gazette in October of 2005. In some detail the FBI acknowledged the SPLC was engaged in an undercover role where it monitored subjects for the FBI believed to be linked to executed bomber Timothy McVeigh, the white supremacist compound at Elohim City and the mysterious German national Andreas Carl Strassmeir."

FBI surrenders documents that judge ordered

– MrX 17:27, 17:51, 21:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Public-interest law firm.

Belchfire just tried to cut this out, but let's look at the sources. Here's http://cnsnews.com/news/article/meese-southern-poverty-law-center-despicable-naming-conservative-organizations-hate, an article from a conservative source. I chose it just to make sure nobody could claim it has a liberal bias. And yet it says:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which was founded in 1971 by civil rights attorney Morris Dees, is a well-funded left-wing public interest law firm in Birmingham, Ala., which was formed to oppose racism and white supremacist groups.

This really isn't controversial; even the right wing agrees on this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The removal was not constructive. – MrX 04:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that Belchfire's edit is a follow-up to YvelinesFrance's, after which I suggested a discussion. In other words, Belchfire walked into a BRD situation that was up to the BR stage and added another R without even trying for a D. This is bad behavior. Oh, and his previous edit was much the same; reverting to a deletion that was rejected. Belchfire is on a roll. Too bad he's rolling in the downhill into the muck. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Law firm: "A law firm is a business entity formed by one or more lawyers to engage in the practice of law." Please explain how SPLC matches this description. If you can't, then I propose that simple honest requires you to self-revert. Belchfire-TALK 04:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given you a citation. If you can't refute it, I see no reason to entertain your subjective reasoning. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Southern Poverty Law Center#Litigation. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  05:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are a law firm, established by a lawyer, engaged in the practice of suing extremists in order to stifle them. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'd use wikipedia as a source, but Public_interest#Public_interest_law is worth a look which, of course has sources. And a simple search on the phrase indicates it is used quite often. I support inclusion, without even bothering to use an inline citation.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• The SPLC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Like many such organizations in the United States, it employs lawyers and pursues legal avenues in aid of its mission. That does not make it a law firm. A parallel case would be Lambda Legal—also not a law firm but best known for litigation and so on. See this, which explains the difference very clearly (and reliably). Then see this and this if you're still in doubt. Rivertorch (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm, WP:SYNTH versus WP:RS… which one do I choose? Oh, wait. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  10:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No synth involved—just a reasonably careful reading of what's there. The Yale pdf explains the precise difference between a public interest law firm and a 501(c)(3) charity, and why the latter cannot be the former. If you want a bit of WP:OR thrown in for good measure, I'll add that it is illegal for any law firm to pose as a 501(c)(3) charity; they would quickly find themselves under investigation by the IRS, lose their tax-exempt status, and be subject to fines. Are you quite willing to suggest that that's what the SPLC is up to, based on a single article at an ideologically-driven "news" site? Rivertorch (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are completely out of your depth here. In fact, the IRS specifically talks about 501(c)3 and PILF (er, that sounds wrong) on their web site; the two are totally compatible. And here's just one example of another 501(c)3 PILF. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  11:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hell, a couple more just for fun: [22] [23]. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  11:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I need to say one more thing about this before I go sleep. You need to understand that what you just did is a clear case of WP:SYNTH, and a perfect illustration of why you shouldn't do it. Based on your incorrect analysis of poorly chosen source material, you synthesized a conclusion that is unequivocally wrong, and then purported it as fact. Please take this as an important lesson; next time you'll get a trout. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  11:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(e.c.) Glad you're having fun, anyway. As for me, I'm not so much out of my depth as not paying close attention. Strangely enough, I actually did know better. I've dealt with a related issue in a former professional life, and after staring at the monitor and being seriously preoccupied for the past seven hours I somehow conflated two similar but separate points of regulation in my mind. I've stricken my self-identified original research above, and I thank you for the gentle correction (ahem) ;) Fwiw, I still do not believe that a garbage source like the one listed at the top of the thread is sufficient to label the SPLC a "law firm" for the purposes of this article. We usually allow primary-sourced self-identification for basic things like this, and what they call themselves is a "nonprofit civil rights organization" or "nonprofit organization" or "charitable organization" (depending on which splcenter.org page you refer to). That they started as a law firm isn't in question—quite a few nonprofits, charitable and otherwise, began that way—but I'd say that that's only a part of what they do now. Rivertorch (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict P.S.) Sorry, I can't agree that it was "a clear case of WP:SYNTH", but I'll tell you what: I love trout—it's delicious—and you can slap me with some if it's wild-caught and certified free of mercury-free, PCBs, and officiousness. Rivertorch (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed template for "Hate group listing" addition

I suggested a wording something like this to be added to the introductory paragraph in the Hate group listing subsection:

The hate group listing has been a source of some controversy, particularly after an August 2012 shooting at the Family Research Council [source(s)], an organization named as a hate group by the SPLC in November 2010 [source(s)]. Critics including [two or three names]] have accused the SPLC of an incautious approach to assigning the label [source(s)]. Many, including [two or three names] have defended the SPLC's policy [source(s)], and the SPLC has stated that [quotation of a SPLC statement which should not be too difficult to find]] [source].

Ah, the "template" word was throwing me off, as I was thinking about wiki-templates. No, that looks pretty darned reasonable to me, and the sources I listed above as well as the previous sources can be used. I suggest being bold and insert it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole approach taken here has been wrong. Beginning with a desire to provide criticism of the SPLC, then find sources, has lead to lengthy discussion that cannot be easily followed. Also if we do choose to include a reliable source, we must report all of what it says, not just the FRC's complaint. TFD (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

While some may be desirous of casting aspersion on the SPLC, the same could be true for SPLC puffery. Your criituqe of the process is flawed and completely irrelevant. I certainly didn't search for the Milbank piece. I found it reading a good old fashioned foldable newspaper over my morning coffee. And as for including what a source says, we include what is relevant and due.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an urgent need to add criticism against SPLC in the article. As it stands now, it gives the impression that SPLC is an objective and uncontroversial organization, when in fact it's partisan and uses dubious methods. This is POV manipulation. Arguments based on circular reasoning and non-existent policies can be dismissed. The shooting incident is significant, as SPLC was criticized according to the same standards as they use for criticizing others. --Jonund (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, how is it urgent? Do the sources state this?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I submit that the “urgent need” is just political hackery in response to an incident where POV-pushing people have incorrectly tried to tar SPLC for what some nutball did. Welcome to politics. Please leave it at home. —Kerfuffler 20:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Images of "urgent need" draws a parallel image of one too many helpings from Taco Cabana.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article gives an untrue picture of the SPLC. It's indeed an urgent need to make it NPOV by adding the criticism that belongs in the article. We have to start treating SPLC like other organizations and stop whitewashing it. --Jonund (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:UNDUE? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What do any reliable sources say?Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read WP:UNDUE. It says, among other things, that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." In other words, by omitting criticism, the article becomes POV.

Some sources have been given above.[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] A few more are found here. --Jonund (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is with the quality of the criticism. The Jost blog, for example, complains that FRC lacked a history of "violence or criminal activity", which amounts to a straw man because the SPLC didn't make any such claim. Essentially, all he's saying is that he'd only call an organization a hate group if it met these criteria, but makes no attempt to argue why the SPLC should do as he does.

I picked that one because it was better than most -- academic, non-political -- but it's terribly weak. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if these criticisms are, in your opinion, weak. The standard for including criticisms is NOT they they are cogent enough to convince all the editors of a particular article that they are correct, it is that they have been made by a substantial number of folks whose work appears in reliable sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It does matter quite a bit that the sources cited above are mostly web-only editorials, and at least three of them are in highly partisan (therefore not reliable) sources. What you're saying here is completely inconsistent with the policy being used on other politically sensitive articles. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  22:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The list you are referring to is only a sample. Two columns that appeared in the Washington Post criticizing the SPLC's list aren't even mentioned, several news articles on the controversy aren't mentioned. The point is that there are more than enough opinion pieces and hard news items from reliable sources about the controversy, for the controversy to be mentioned in our article. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll call your bluff. Pick a hard news item from a reliable source and we'll see how we can integrate it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Advocating a certain position doesn't make a source unreliable. The sources above are all written by professionals. And when it comes to documenting criticism, their validity should least of all be doubted. If any one has objections to the sources, other than the will to keep out uncomfortable information, he has to explain the problem. And let me politely ask I'm still standing (24/7) to reread Jost's article. He does argue why the SPLC should use the term hate group more responsibly. --Jonund (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And I most sertenly agree. 110.32.145.14 (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"RFC on conservative criticism" closed

RFC on conservative criticism has been closed as oppose to inserting the requested content. Regards, — Moe ε 03:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Conservatives call it biased

I'd really appreciate it if this revert was explained. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced and POV, but I suspect you knew the last part already. Just when it looks like you are turning a corner you start with the POV again.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

1) I couldn't possibly know your reason before you chose to share it.

2) Your reason is false. The source is the citation itself, which comes from a well-known conservative. As for POV, precisely how?

You've recently shown a bad habit of crying POV at inappropriate moments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith about this edit by bringing it up here and giving Fat&Happy a chance to explain it. The only source for the claim that it has been "accused of being partisan and biased" is the example provided in the citation. The citation is to an opinion piece in TheBlaze.com, which we recognize as a conservative source. This means that it is accurate to state that it is accused by conservatives rather than in general. Removing this adjective leaves a false impression that violates NPOV.

If my reasoning is mistaken, I would appreciate an explanation here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The explanation in the edit summary was adequate: the characterization is not supported by a reliable source. The opinion of an editor here that a particular source (not even the origin of the criticism, as I also straightened out in the same edit) is conservative is not RS for using the descriptive in that context. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that the source is conservative, it's a simple fact. To quote:

TheBlaze is a conservative news and opinion website and television network owned by American media personality and former CNN Headline News and Fox News host Glenn Beck's Mercury Radio Arts.

Are you ready to concede that the source is indeed conservative or do you continue to dispute this despite the evidence shown? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You overlooked the fact that Wikipedia is not an RS, but that isn't particularly relevant anyway, since you also overlooked the fact that The Blaze was merely an echo chamber for the actual source, National Review. And guess what; National Review actually describes itself as conservative. Of course, that fact and a $2.50 will buy you a ride on the NYC subway. Otherwise, it's worthless, since incorporating it here without some actual RS drawing a connection is pure synthesis. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• More to the point, an RFC closed less than a week ago with a consensus not to put in criticism. Why are we picking over the details? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Some people like to fight and drink. It looks like we ran out of beer.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I was wondering that too when I saw the addition of the pickup artist comments and title change to "Criticism", but I figured I must have missed something. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Time to delete the whole section. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  05:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that is not what the RfC was about, so Roscelese is off base saying that their was consensus not to include critiscm. Though Indonesia agree with the name change myself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I know. One attempt to put in WP:FRINGE criticism failed, so let's put in another one! Never mind that propagating WP:FRINGE rhetoric is highly WP:UNDUE. Ergo, I've removed it, and I suggest you discuss it here before readding. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  06:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I not only second that suggestion, I insist upon it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

And I'll third it. I was about to delete the section myself, but Kerfuffler beat me to it. Grossly violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that, when I tried to tone it down a bit, I was accused of POV! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In order to say, "The Southern Poverty Law Center has also been accused [by conservatives] of being partisan and biased", one needs a source that says that. It is easy to find a fringe source to say anything but per WP:WEIGHT we do not add every fringe view to every article. I disagree btw with Stills' description of the source as "conservative". "Extremist" is more accurate. TFD (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I won't dispute that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --Scientiom (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the National Review is a fringe source. If there is criticism, if it is to be included, it should be summarized, worded neutrally, clearly attributed, and well referenced. If American Civil Liberties Union can include a Support and opposition section, that is neutrally worded, well referenced, and given limited weight, there is no reason that successful integration of a similar section cannot be achieved here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed the following language several times before:

Some critics, even those that oppose the policies of listed groups, believe that the SPLC should not list non-violent groups along with organizations such as the KKK on its hate list. The SPLC and its supporters argue that extreme language can and has led to violence.

It seems to meet your criteria. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I can find unbiased sources which reference the National Review interview. Unless there is evidence the interview was fabricated, we should be able to use those in lieu of the interview itself. Additionally, the criticism of SPLC by a biased organization after a shooting occurred at their headquarters was reported on by reasonably impartial news organizations. If news organizations find criticism substantial enough to report on, it should be mentioned. --ArmyLine (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it worth mentioning that the page has a "1" rating for objectiveness from 87 votes.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I saw (very briefly) of the Criticism section that has been deleted it looked a bit slipshod. Nevertheless, there has been a determined effort on the part of some editors to keep out reliably sourced material critical of the SPLC, usually with the pretense that all of it is fringe." Sources such as James B. Jacobs, Ken Silverstein (Harper's Magazine), Jerry Kammer, and Laird Wilcox are not fringe. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

ArmyLine -- there are more objections to your material than that it is in a separate criticism section. You re-introduced the portion on misogyny that appears to be giving the subject undue weight, especially since there is nothing in the article as to what the SPLC has actually said about misogyny. You need to slow down and make your case on the discussion page before adding any of your material back. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the edit history, I think it would be best to discuss proposed additions in advance. Otherwise, we'll have an edit war and the entire article will be locked down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You re-introduced the portion on misogyny that appears to be giving the subject undue weight, especially since there is nothing in the article as to what the SPLC has actually said about misogyny.

I cited three separate news publications, while many of the other events have only one or two cited. Criticism has also arisen from their hate group watch list on other occasions, including the shooting incident I included earlier. While I understand the concern over blowing a single event out of proportion, I think that so much criticism from so many mainstream sources cannot be simply disregarded as fringe? Criticism of the SPLC is fairly common these days by partisan and nonpartisan groups. The shooting incident and the subsequent comments receive considerable coverage on the FRC page, btw, so it seems notable enough for Wikipedia.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In the three cited sources, are the words "alarmism" or "shoddy reporting" used? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Alarmism is a summary of what the three articles have said - it does not have to be verbatim to be an accurate summary of the claims the articles put forth. Business Insider writes that that "Well, now the Southern Poverty Law Center isn't just going after organized (and disorganized) racism, they are expanding their mission to fight creepy guys who pick up women." In one of the articles, the phrase "shoddy work" is used rather than "shoddy reporting", that was shoddy work on my part.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Of your three sources, all are strictly political opinion pieces. Rather than providing any great analysis that questions the general "criteria for 'hate groups'" as you allege, they all restrict themselves to a discussion of misogyny. None of the actual sites discussed in the SPLC article are actually classified as hate groups -- in fact, the SPLC doesn't even use the word hate except in direct quotes from the groups you are defending. So, with all the actual hate groups and with all the other SPLC activities, the criticism by a single blog and the reaction to that by two other opinion writers (one that is largely critical of the first blog) hardly warrants mention in the article -- especially since you don't even bother to mention the SPLC specific reasons for identifying the sites in the first place. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Editorial pieces have been used at Wikipedia before. The Creationism article cites the "National Center for Science Education", and rightly so in my opinion. Providing different and conflicting views on subjects helps readers to draw their own conclusions.

2. I'm not sure where you equate the desire to include some of the criticism of the SPLC has to "defending" certain groups. I included criticism by the FRC as well - does that mean I support them too? I'd really appreciate it if you could provide some evidence that I was defending those groups and had disingenuous motives, or I would like you to retract your baseless claim.--ArmyLine (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

1. It's really irrelevant what may have been judged as reliable in another article. What is relevant are wikipedia guidelines and policy -- for example Identifying reliable sources or Verifiability. You need to establish why Mike Riggs (your source at [31]) or Michael Brendan Dougherty (your source at [32]) are reliable for the analysis they present. In other words, why is their opinion on the SPLC any more relevant than yours or mine?

You claim that "criticism of the SPLC is fairly common these days by partisan and nonpartisan groups." So these two partisan characters are the best you can come up with?

2. Your edit is BLATANTLY a violation of POV. It states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Yet you TOTALLY FAILED to provide any description of what the SPLC position was, didn't you? When such a BLATANT violation occurs, and when you fail to address it the FIRST TIME I mentioned your omission, I think it is a very reasonable conclusion to reach that you support the POV of your edit. This is especially reasonable considering that in the discussion above you equate the SPLC position as "expanding their mission to fight creepy guys who pick up women."

What the SPLC actually says as an introduction before getting into specifics is:

The so-called “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general. Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their arguments with facts, they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express. What follows are brief descriptions of a dozen of these sites. Another resource is the Man Boobz website (manboobz.com), a humorous pro-feminist blog (its tagline is “Misogyny: I Mock It”) that keeps a close eye on these and many other woman-hating sites.

What they say about Roosh V includes:

Vörek likes to talk about his many “notches” (seductions) and such things as “American cunts who I want to hate fuck.” He adds: “I’ll be the first to admit that many of my bangs in the United States were hate fucks. The masculine attitude and lack of care these women put into their style or hair irritated me, so I made it a point to fuck them and never call again.”

Can you perhaps provide some BENIGN reason why you totally failed to make even a TOKEN EFFORT to present what the SPLC actually said about these misogynst websites? The concept of "hate fucks" suggests to me more than simply "creepy guys who pick up women." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, probably stupid guys who DON'T pick up very many woman. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously. Seeing every social interaction a power struggle is a pretty silly way to live. It probably doesn't attract anyone, male or female, and it's a shame so many people have that mindset.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you perhaps provide some BENIGN reason why you totally failed to make even a TOKEN EFFORT to present what the SPLC actually said about these misogynst websites?

Like I said, I was reporting on the criticism it received, not the material criticized. The "benign" reason was to present some criticism the SPLC had received and provide a more balanced view of their current efforts. That being said, I added a about four or five sentences to the article, so my edit was a token effort. I probably should have integrated them into the existing sections in retrospect. That's about all I'm going to say about your assumed ill intentions from what I didn't do.

It's really irrelevant what may have been judged as reliable in another article.

I think that if such content made it into one article, it should be appropriate for another. It means the editors of those articles felt they were following the guidelines.

Kind regards--ArmyLine (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You claim that "criticism of the SPLC is fairly common these days by partisan and nonpartisan groups." So these two partisan characters are the best you can come up with?

A critical Harper's Magazine piece is already cited on the SPLC page, though it only takes mention of the fundraising tactics. There seems to be some criticism on other aspects of the SPLC on the Morris Dees page, by the way, which should apply to the article. I'll concede to you on the "biased sources" dispute - it's obvious now that we have better sources - and propose we reference the Dees article for material instead.--ArmyLine (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a proposed edit, which I have written mindful of the concerns raised, in my sandbox. To avoid any further conflict, I will not commit this edit unless I have a reasonable consensus. The source is Harper's Magazine and a prior piece has already been cited in the article.--ArmyLine (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, your sandbox effort probably isn't going to fly because it will be found to give too much weight to Ken Silverstein's opinion in Harper's (though his opinion reflects the feelings of a number of prominent LIBERAL critics of the SPLC). Not to be stubborn just because it was my idea but I still feel that my "proposed template" found earlier on this page is the best starting point for adding criticism of the SPLC's hate group listing to the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into integrating your work into the page, or scrapping the current page and starting from your template. Anyone else is welcome to copy or commit (at their own risk) the work I've done so far, extenuating factors might make future updates sporadic.--ArmyLine (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Silverstein quote has been brought up numerous times in the past and met the type of opposition described by BadM -- there is no reason to think it will fare better this time. As far as the "template" proposal, this has been around since the closed RFC was opened (you really should review the archives) and it has received little support (or even interest). It starts out with "The hate group listing has been a source of some controversy, particularly after an August 2012 shooting at the Family Research Council [source(s)]" -- an immediate problem since there are no sources that argue that the FRC incident has had any influence, other than a few days of interest because of the attempt by the FRC to politicize it, on the alleged ongoing controversy. Further, the mention of this incident at all presents a serious problem of weight -- the SPLC had absolutely nothing at all to do with the shooting despite Perkins' claim to the contrary -- a claim that no reliable source supported. As far as the rest of the "template", the devil is in the details -- particularly the sources. Absent new sources that haven't been discussed, it is nothing but tendentious editing to go over the same old ground so recently after an RFC was closed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Army, I agree with Badmintonhist about his "template" version is the best place to start. Tom is convienantly ignoring other sources raised after the RfC was started and his bloviating about lack of support or interest is unfounded as well as his claims of tendentious editing. Implemeting this template has been on my "to do" list for a while. Badmintonhist and I discussed this on his TP[33] and if you want a list of possible sources we can both assist.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the North Shoreman's arguments, the indisputable facts that there were a flurry of opinion pieces appearing in reliable sources criticizing the SPLC in the wake of the FRC shooting incident, and that the SPLC and its admirers made vigorous rebuttals to these criticisms, need to be included in our article. Based their coverage in major news sources, the SPLC's naming of the FRC as a hate group and the later FRC shooting incident are apparently the most nationally newsworthy events involving the SPLC in decades. Strange that in our short "Criticism of political rhetoric" subsection we include Mark Potok holding people such as Lou Dobbs and Steve King morally responsible for hate crimes, yet the North Shoreman doesn't want to include the much more publicized, if equally stretched, moral linking of the SPLC to the FRC shooting. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"Flurry" is right. We all remember great snow storms we've lived through but flurries come and go. "The most nationally newsworthy events involving the SPLC in decades" -- I'd like to see your sourcing on that, especially considering that the SPLC's annual listing of hate groups is "must reporting" for pretty much every news organization in the country. Indeed the story about the photo shopped picture of the gay couple and the suit filed by the SPLC on their behalf is mentioned in the LA Times, ABC, San Jose Mercury, Daily Beast, Montreal Gazette, Chicago Tribune, NY Times, NY Daily News, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, Philadelphia Inquirer, US News and World Report, etc. -- 57 listings in all from my most recent Google News Alert on the SPLC.

It's a matter of WEIGHT and RELIABLE SOURCES. Despite Little's claim, I still don't see a consensus on usable reliable sources -- or even an ongoing discussion. Your proposed language "incautious approach" is innocuous enough, but I believe the FRC mention will kill any chance of consensus -- especially since none of the potentially acceptable sources support the FRC claim of SPLC complicity in the shooting. But I suspect that making this dubious connection is the major part of your agenda. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Who is clamoring here to blame the SPLC for the FRC shooting? The FRC shooting is germane inasmuch the sources discuss the hate group label, but none of the sources that pass muster make the correlation the SPLC is implicit in the shooting. Not in the slightest.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the sources can be used without mentioning the shooting. We should either not mention it at all or describe the SPLC position in detail. It is disingenuous to suggest that the shooting itself was the trigger for the "flurry" of criticism -- in fact if it weren't for Perkins' inflammatory charges it is doubtful that ANY mention of the SPLC would have been made in connection to the shooting. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You are probably wrong here, North Shoreman, but it doesn't really matter. In fact, columns such as Dana Milbank's and others criticized the SPLC. Saying that they wouldn't have been written except for that darned Perkins means nothing. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I must say that your proclivity for "wanting it both ways" when it comes to the SPLC is ABSOLUTELY STUNNING, North Shoreman. You say that the the SPLC's annual listing of Hate groups is must reporting for for "pretty much every news organization in the country" yet you want to omit mention of the two biggest specific news stories related to that listing. Your "none of the (potential) sources support the FRC claim of SPLC complicity" argument is an utter red herring. Nobody is claiming any kind of legal complicity, just as the SPLC isn't claiming that commentators such as Lou Dobbs are legally complicit for attacks on suspected illegal aliens. What some critics ARE claiming is that the SPLC's expansion of its hate group list to include organizations such as the FRC (which use disagreeable but not violent rhetoric) tends to inflame passions and make political violence more, rather than less, likely. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: As for flurries versus snow storms, as far as I can see SPLC is rarely an integral part of a major national news snowstorm. For the SPLC, getting a flurry of national publicity is pretty darned good. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As suspected, your proposal is really about finding some way to include the FRC in this article without allowing a full exploration of the charges made by the SPLC against it and the various other anti-gay hate groups -- charges that largely remain unrebutted by the hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is about making the article on the SPLC a half-way decent one. It most certainly wasn't when I became interested in editing it almost two years ago. Until the last section, it read like a an SPLC written promotion (which, come to find out, it largely was). Go ahead and put together your "full exploration of the charges made by the SPLC." Keep in mind, though, that this will necessitate more material being brought in on the other side, sort of like what existed when the far less publicized back-and=forth between the SPLC and David Horowitz's organization was part of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Neo-Confederate movement

Under the the "Tracking of hate groups" section should we maintain the subsection on the Neo-Confederate movement? None of the other hate group categories have subsections devoted to them. Moreover, the subsection in question doesn't so much explain what the SPLC is doing to track hate groups within in the Neo-Confederate movement as give the SPLC's perspective on the movement (using the SPLC as its exclusive source). What does an SPLC reviewer's opinion of the movie Gods and Generals really have to do with tracking hate groups? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems out of place in that section. Perhaps it should be merged with the List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups article, or at least condensed to a sentence or two if it is to remain in this article. – MrX 23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the section should be removed from this article and relevant parts of its content (not already in these articles) should be merged with Neo-Confederate and List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Original research

I removed this text [34]. The source makes no such acknowledgement. What it states is, if there was it would not have an effect on the listing itself. That isn't the same as saying there is the possibility that it is biased. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2012

Could you state more precisely what McVeigh actually says concerning the possibility of the SPLC exaggerating the hate group menace? Perhaps it is a caveat that should

be worded differently from the version that you removed. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Criticism

Please see Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate:

The Southern Poverty Law Center began with an admirable purpose but long ago transformed into a machine for raising money and launching left-wing political attacks. Lately it’s become more of a threat to free speech and civil debate than a defender of the weak or a foe of violent extremism. It has also taken in millions from the Picower Foundation, whose own funds came largely from founder Jeffry Picower’s “investing” in his old friend Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

Should be summarized and included in the article as criticism per WP:reliable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If this source is to be used, I think it would be best to read and summarize the entire article. Also, if we are going to start using sources such as Capital Research Center for this article, then I guess we are also free to use sources such as ThinkProgress so that we maintain a neutral POV?

Without commenting on the reliability of capitalresearch.org we can't and shouldn't include sources whose reliability may be suspect solely to "balance" an article. Every reference must stand on its own merits independently.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

CRC is a pretty sketchy source. That quote (really, tying SPLC to Madoff through 3 jumps?) and even a cursory scan of their front page makes that clear. I think including them is undue. Criticism from a serious conservative source (Heritage Foundation) would be different. Glaucus (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No. That organization is not a reliable source that should be used in this article. In 15 years when Gay marriage is mainstream and anti-immigration groups are left in a pile with the WCC, many of these organizations will be claiming the SPLC and it's mission are 'conservative'. Much like the claims made about MLK. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The vast majority of editors seem to agree that no descriptor is needed when the organization is referenced in other articles.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?

Proposed descriptors:

1. activist organization Southern Poverty Law Center
2. civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center
3. controversial civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center

– MrX 13:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

---

When answering the question, consider whether an additional descriptor would be helpful the reader and still maintain a neutral point of view. The descriptor may also be used in the lead.

Examples of articles where this descriptor may be used are Parents Action League, Roy Moore, Ku Klux Klan and Morris Dees.

This RfC does not apply to this article, Southern Poverty Law Center. – MrX 13:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC) co-signer  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional Clarification

• There is no requirement to use any of these descriptors, thus the words can and may
• A descriptor would only be used once in an article, to describe what the SPLC does.
• The idea is to choose one of the choices above (proposed descriptors) or simply no descriptor (or nominate a new one).
• The RfC allows a descriptor to be used; it does not force it to be used – MrX 02:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

---

• Default to how the organization self-identifies I expect that the organization typically does not use a descriptor when describing itself, so typically I would just expect a wikilink when this name is used in other articles. When context is necessary, use the descriptor the organization itself uses - "activist organization" or "civil rights organization" would probably be fine. If there is a need to use a descriptor which someone else has assigned to the organization then there should be an context to give background of why qualification by external parties is used in the text. Generally, people and organizations should be incorporated into other articles as they self-identify. Qualifiers like "controversial" add no useful data to the article and can only provoke widely varying emotional responses in the reader without conveying information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights - "controversial" gives grossly undue weight to what we haven't even been able to reach consensus to put in the main article, and "activist" is true only in the most technical sense possible, a sense in which we don't use it here. (Does anyone seriously think that we'd be trying to attach the label "activist" if they'd stuck to calling out white nationalist hate groups and avoided calling out anti-gay and anti-Muslim hate groups?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Advocacy group seems to be a more accurate and less charged term (IMO) than "activist group". siafu (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor -- in the style of how most mainstream news organizations reference it in articles. If anything, it's a "nonprofit organization" or a "civil rights organization", but these are less preferred. a13ean (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question. If this RfC doesn't apply to this article, why is it being held? Any 'decision' arrived at here will have no weight whatsoever elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Because this article is at the hub of many other articles that mention the SPLC and because we are trying to establish some overall consensus. Why wouldn't it have weight elsewhere? These articles don't exist in isolation from each other. – MrX 18:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The articles don't exist in isolation, no. But that wasn't my point. You can't reach an 'overall consensus' here for what we do in other articles - that isn't what article talk-page RfCs are for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • This RfC is useful to decide how to describe the SPLC in the first sentence of its own article. It can also give guidance to people in disputes about how to describe it in other articles, so that they don't have to repeat general arguments about the characterization of SPLC (if we treat this as a discussion rather than a vote). Shrigley (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights or public interest law firm. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description. Just "according to the Southern Poverty Law Center". Be very careful never to disparage a source when attributing it; it gives a very unencyclopedic result. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ItsmeJudith has a good point, if we disparage a source, the reader is left thinking why was the source used to begin with. The NYT says "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups", which could work in articles where the SPLC is mentioned. BBC calls it simply a "civil rights group", which would be OK as well. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization. Obviously those who are opposed to their groups being known as hate groups would oppose this but it's what the group is and does. Insomesia (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights advocacy organization though its "hate groups" list seems to run a bit afield from the core civil rights part. Collect (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization. Its concise and accurate.Pass a Method talk 20:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description. The group's name is Wikilinked to help readers who want to know more about the organization. In my experience, SPLC is often paired with the Anti-Defamation League, and the perceived need to describe either group makes any sentence unwieldy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description. The Souther Poverty Law Center is an organization devoted to the study and fighting of hate groups. They are one of the only authroitive organizations one what is and isn't a hate group. The fact that people don't like their group being labeled as such is 100% irrelevent. We don't change it so that creationism is taught in school merely because some people want it. Because that the sciences are authoritive on the subject.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor needed. If a reader hasn't heard of the SPLC, they just click on the link. And a descriptor would be WP:UNDUE where the SPLC is simply being mentioned in another article. -- 202.124.74.178 (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization. Yes, it's wonderful that we're able to link to articles with no description, but it can be bad writing not to include a brief description of an unfamiliar organization. Readers of our articles should not be forced to follow dozens of links to understand the prose. Shrigley (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Public-service law firm, civil rights organization, civil rights advocacy organization and even which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups are all better than remaining silent. However, "controversial" is way out of line. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, I note that the SPLC is in Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States, which suggests that "civil liberties advocacy group" would be more appropriate as a neutral designation. StAnselm (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor. As has already been noted, it is both unnecessary and unencyclopaedic to apply labels to organisations in this way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• None: It's unnecessary, does not enhance the readability of other articles, and furthermore attempts to push a policy decision from one article to many others, which may be inappropriate in any given context. Where does this end? E.g., do we next need to argue about whether we should write “the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council”? —Kerfuffler  howl
  prowl  03:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: As a UK reader, I wasn't aware of the Southern Poverty Law Center until I came across it in Wikipedia - not as well-known as the Anti-Defamation League; I'm all for a brief descriptor in articles, so long as it's neutral in wording. Alfietucker (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure agree-upon neutral wording is achievable. One editor will want "defender of civil liberties," another will want "wealthy and controversial." In any case, as Kerfuffler points out, this is not the place to discuss wording in other articles. -- 202.124.75.148 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

IP 202.124.75.148 - since on one hand, as has been pointed out, these articles are not in isolation but part of a wider reference work; and on the other, a good encyclopedia minimises the number of times a reader has to weave back and forth between articles to make sense of the one they are reading in the first place - then it makes sense to discuss the wording of a brief descriptor which *can*, if necessary, be used and which, if used, ideally should have some consistency between articles. I have already seen potentially more neutral descriptors being suggested earlier in the thread than the ones you've suggested, including "Civil rights organization" or even, at a pinch, "civil liberties advocacy group". Alfietucker (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your pessimism seems entirely unwarranted; no one has advocated either of those designators in this discussion. siafu (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• None. In general introductory phrases are most useful when we don't have an article about the topic. But in this case we do. (Are we going to have a similar RfC for Amnesty International next? I hope not.) Tijfo098 (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization is perfect brief descriptor of the SPLC, to be used where needed. --Scientiom (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment on location. This is an appropriate "central" location for the RfC, if all the articles point to this RfC. I think the proposer was working on it, although I don't know if he completed his task. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• None. Context may be necessary, but none of the proposed wordings both supply relevant context and are not disputed by mainstream sources. "civil rights organization" does not supply helpful context; "nonprofit" (placed on some articles, but not proposed here) supplies absolutely no context; "controversial" does supply context, is not, itself, controversial, but doesn't explain why the organization is mentioned in the lead of other articles; "activist" does explain why the organization would make such statements, but doesn't explain why the organization is mentioned in the lead of other articles. "Public-interest law firm" is actually marginally appropriate; it both expalins why the organization might make such comments, and explain the significance (to SPLC) of such comments, but it doesn't explain why it's in the lead. I don't think it helps significantly, but it does provide some context, and is not controversial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't consider "public-interest law firm" controversial, but it appears that others do. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• No descriptor -- in much the same way mainstream news organizations reference it in their articles. It is controversial only to the whack jobs on which it keeps an eye. Heiro 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

comment and POV rears its head in re: "whack jobs".— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talk • contribs) [35]

• No description in general, although, as Andy points out above, there may be context in which adding a description such as "civil rights organization" (source, meant only as an example [36]) makes sense on other articles.VolunteerMarek 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor - that's why we have wikilinks! This seems to be a pointy way of getting permission to undermine the SPLC's descriptions of hate groups as, well... hate groups! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor if wikilinked from that article to this one; if not then "civil rights organization". Tabercil (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor necessary; a wikilink is sufficient, for anyone who doesn't know what the SPLC is. It would be preferable to refer readers to this article, rather than to try to sum up the organisation with a short and snappy tag. RolandR (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor, just a wikilink. I question the need for this RfC, which makes me wonder if it is an underhanded way to breach WP:NPOV. Cresix (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• no descriptor in most cases if necessary Civil rights organization.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'll go with No descriptor. In my opinion words such as "controversial" must definitely be avoided, because, what, these days, is not controversial. We'll have to start calling ourselves the "controversial free encyclopedia" if we start that. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• no descriptor, calling them a civil rights organization is just as POV as controversial. One person's civil rights organization is another person's agenda based activist group. SPLC is by no means an unknown organization and when people see SPLC they already have their own conclusion as to what SPLC is (and does). To add a descriptor makes any article containing that descriptor no longer capable of being NPOV.PeterWesco (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question Why is this RFC being posted across multiple talk pages? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

how many, I have seen ti on three, looksa like a (very odd) SPA (and I am suspecting a sock)Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

since the RFC aims to tell any article linking to this one what to say, it only seems appropriate to warn those watching said article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong about the SPA and Sock accusation, it's just that after 500 seperate entires I did not go any further with edits Mr X made.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• No description, and I I wish were the case elsewhere, any descriptor carries connotations and political inferences.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor needed in most cases, for when it is deemed necessary no rule is needed per WP:CREEP. I am unclear as to what prompted this but I'm guessing there is a behavioral problem lying at the bottom of it. Deal with that and don't try to dictate how every single article that mentions this organization is written. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• civil rights organization or "The Southern Policy Law Center, an organization that monitors extremist groups, ..." The name Southern Policy Law Center doesn't immediately convey the organizations purpose and mission, so a few words explaining this is helpful (and is used by news organizations). The word "controversial" should not be used per WP:LABEL. GabrielF (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Recommend no descriptor in most cases, but per Beeblebrox it's a matter for editorial judgement on each page. There should not be a rule to be enforced everywhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor: Let the group stand on its own. Toddst1 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Depends on context - If the sources choose to contextualise the views of the SPLC, in an area in which they hold a partial interest, by describing the nature of the organisation, so should we and employ a neutral terminology. Otherwise, no description. Ankh.Morpork 20:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why not refer to what their actual main externally-visible activity is, and the reason why they're most often invoked on other articles -- namely "extremism monitoring group"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description, alternatively civil rights organization. Any other description is vulnerable to bias in some sort. The Banner _talk 19:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor. Just wikilink it instead. If deemed absolutely necessary, prefer civil rights organization, as it is (1) free of bias, (2) how the organization self-identifies and (3) how the majority of external sources refer to the SPLC. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nonprofit organization or, if preferred, NGO. (The latter jargon makes me shudder, but I know it's common now) Wnt (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor The SPLC does not use one; therefore, the Wikipedia has no business adding one. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil Rights or No descriptor: The use of "controversial" would be extremely POV and FRINGE. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, no descriptor per the go-argue-about-that-shit-somewhere-else principle. Consensus as to the best layman’s description is subject to change over time. These potentially drastic changes (and any content disputes and consistency issues stemming therefrom) are best kept confined—bottlenecked, even—to a well-defined playing field, namely the text of one primary article and a short list of intimately related subjects. Neutral and undisputed descriptions may be appropriate in certain other contexts, such as—I don’t know—discussion of tax status perhaps. ―cobaltcigs 22:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor needed. Talk about over-reaching. No article can pretend to dictate how other articles refer to an organization. This was a bizarre and wasteful exercise. Veriss (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor needed - Obviously. The SPLC is a very reliable source and needs no descriptor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor, though I'd not be opposed to civil rights organization. The term "activist organization" is confusing in the least, and doesn't accurately describe the operations of the SPLC. As for "controversial civil rights organization", I imagine the qualifier "controversial" could be used to describe every single civil rights organization in the U.S., and it's totally unnecessary: anyone who clicks the link will be taken to the SPLC page, wherein they can find criticisms of the organization (if someone, for example those who want the "controversial" qualifier added to the descriptor, takes the time to write such a criticisms section on the SPLC article). BostonFenian (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor needed, follow the wikilink. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization or No descriptor needed (emphasis on the latter). All others are fringe biases and don't accurately portray SPLC's work. Teammm ^TM 01:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question - I often see in front of groups like Amnesty International the words "human rights organization." What is the reasoning here not to include "civil rights organization" for SPLC? --Activism1234 01:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is not trying to do often. This is trying to make it so we always have to put a qualifier which I don't think is necessary.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Using "civil rights organization" is not mandatory but there shouldn't be an objection to using it if desired in some instances. Teammm ^TM 01:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Rainbowofpeace, would you oppose this for Amnesty International as well? I'm trying to understand whether there's a reason specific to SPLC. --Activism1234 01:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Teammm is correct. A descriptor is not mandatory. The reason for the RfC is to determine if any of the above choices can (optionally) be used at the discretion of editors. – MrX 02:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this has been made clear, and certainly many contributors are interpreting this as a general designation used in all articles. StAnselm (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• • • • I don't think that anyone on here is arguing that it can't be used occasionally to describe exactly what SPLC is but I definately think this has not been made clear in the RFC. I do not believe it should be forced to be in other articles and if other editors see it as unnecessary should also be allowed to be removed. As for the question on Amnesty International I really don't have an opinion. It would depend upon the context in which Amnesty International is used. However in general for SPLC, Amnesty International, ADL, ACLU etc. a qualifier is not neccessary if there is a hyperlink bringing the people to the article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• NOT activist organization or controversial civil rights organization - I've skimmed the article; if pushed I would go with civil rights organization, since it seems accurate an neutral. ColaXtra (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description The SPLC is in a category of its own. Also, this is not the place to discuss this issue, because it does not relate to this article specifically. TFD (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• civil rights organization (if it must be described). I would think that any opinion in this RfC that it should have no description is not binding on editors of a particular article who feel there is some need in context to identify the organization. But if a description must be added, it civil rights organization is descriptive and identifying, whereas activist and controversial are matters of opinion and judgment. Further, they are implied anyway, as any civil rights organization will be controversial, and most of them by nature are activist. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No "default" descriptor, users can follow Wikilink if interested; certain context-specific cases may require some sort of descriptor and that will need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, but those cases should be a small minority. Zad68 02:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description - not necessary. Most people will know what it is already; those who don't can click the wikilink. It's also the simplest solution, as the third option seems to indicate there is some controversy regarding their work, so I guess in contentious topics it would just be one less thing to worry about. --Activism1234 03:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description is necessary by default. The name is linked to a full description of the organisation. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description No reason has been given for the need to have an inline descriptor, so there's no point in considering one. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description If a reader wants to know what this group is, then they can click on the Wikilink in whatever article they're reading. And besides, at least two out of the three proposals are loaded descriptions; the third, possibly. MsFionnuala _T^L_C 11:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• No description or civil rights organization 1.,3. are POV. The description isn't necessary, but CRO is accurate and NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk)
• No descriptor is best - that's why we have links. If a descriptor is really necessary in a given context, civil rights organization is the best of the three alternatives offered. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description or civil rights organization. I agree with IRWolfie- that 1. and 3. are POV. PerDaniel (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• No default description. In many cases I don't think there should be one at all, but it's not a good idea to set an iron rule here regardless of what relevant sources might say on other articles; best to deal with exceptions on a case-by-case basis. bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• This is silly. Any descriptor needs to be correctly situated in the article's context. Besides, this sounds like an RfC for a new policy or guideline (in that it appears to attempt to bind multiple articles), which would need to be discussed elsewhere. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In other words, I support allowing the editors of other articles to determine the particular phraseology employed in those articles by consensus-seeking discussion on those articles' talk pages. It follows that I oppose any effort to develop a private consensus here for the purpose of later influencing them there.24.177.121.137 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually it's the opposite, the RfC is to confirm that a descriptor can be added, such as civil rights organization, in context, when it seems to fit the article. There has been edit-warring, as has been a pattern for the past few months, with anything involving the mention of the SPLC. Especially in context of their list of anti-gay hate group who apparently don't like the designation. Insomesia (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it's really not. This talk page is for discussing issues related to this article. This RfC proposes changes/restrictions to any article that mentions the SPLC, except this one. It should really be discussed by editors at those articles. You don't just get to walk into some other article and say "Consensus at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center is that this descriptor is required/prohibited." 24.177.121.137 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It's to centralize discussion and come to a consensus to stop the edit warring so we don't have to have the same RfC on a dozen or more articles. There are 27 anti-gay hate groups, most have articles here. We have been going in circles on every aspect of the hate group designation, this is just the latest attempt to end the edit-warring. This would not establish new policy but would, in theory, end the edit warring when a descriptor is added on those articles in context. As the descriptor is about the subject of this article it does make sense to have the discussion here to get wider input. I think this discussion would be better if it was understood we are not looking to add a descriptor everywhere, but only when editors feel the need to add one ... what should that be? I agree that what is decided here is not binding but it will hopefully add weight to future editing decisions, at least until the edit-warring starts over again. "The RfC allows a descriptor to be used; it does not force it to be used." Insomesia (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
        • This RfC doesn't serve a purpose except to attempt to bind other articles to its results. Look at the wording, which is very explicit in that regard. This RfC is emphatically not related to the article that this talk page is supposed to discuss; ergo, it does not belong on this talk page. This is an abuse of process. 24.177.121.137 (talk)
        • Put differently, the "same" RfC cannot possibly occur on a dozen different articles, since each would be a request for comment about a different article. You outright admit that the purpose of this RfC is to bolster an argument you intend to have in the future, elsewhere. You further admit that the edit warring will not be stopped by this RfC. I think someone should close this RfC right now for inappropriate scope. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Perhaps I'm not expressing my points very clearly or otherwise misrepresenting what i see this RfC is about. I think it's to end edit-warring that has already occurred over this same issue on many articles. It's to establish if any descriptor can be used, which is the most NPOV? Presently there is a misunderstanding that a precedent is being set to add this descriptor everywhere, that clearly is not the case. If you feel this has to be shut down that is your right but I don't think you'll find agreement with shutting down a discussion that thus far has attracted attention and collegial input. Insomesia (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
            • I've clarified my !vote, above. Your third sentence isn't properly constructed, but it's answered by policy: a descriptor may be used in an article, and the most NPOV descriptor depends on the context. Both are decisions that should be made by a consensus of involved editors aware of the context. You're trying to create a consensus here and now so as to impose it on other articles in the future, but that's not how consensus works. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, I was informed of the RfC through a posting at the Talk:Sikhism in the United States page. What that article has to do with this RfC, I do not know, and have asked. That being said, if any descriptor is used it should be attributed to who has described the organization in the manor that they did; additionally all descriptions (with reliable source verification) should be included, with non being given undue weight or stated in a POV manor. State facts of what the organization is described as, do not interject opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Just saw it on a bunch of articles I watch. This does seem best solution, in general. Especially when SPLC does a "hit piece" for fundraising or propaganda purposes. CarolMooreDC 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not "civil rights organization", because that seems needlessly biased for an organization that has had to have an RfC about it (which is a glib way of describing the broader advocacy position the organization has assumed). The other descriptors need to be supported by WP:RS in the specific instance. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Liberal organization. If it had a conservative agenda it would doubtless be described as a conservative organization. --Jonund (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description It will be linked and people can learn more about it there. Having had an RfC about it is really irrelevant as it only reflects the opinion of a few people. And certainly not 'liberal' (a word whose meaning varies by country) or any other political term. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. If so, we may have to review a lot of articles and change their descriptions of various organizations. Especially conservative ones are often described by political label. --Jonund (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• No description (strong first choice), Public-interest law firm (second choice), Civil rights law firm or organization (third choice.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• The. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is clearly the winner. ocrasaroon (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Civil rights organization or Civil rights advocacy organization - The SPLC describes itself as a civil rights organization and the media frequently refers to them this way as well. While nothing should mandate the use of these descriptors, nothing should prevent them from being used, in any article, with appropriate editorial discretion. – MrX 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• "No description" or possibly "Non-profit Organization" - If you look through other articles, such as the [American Family Association| AFA], the lead includes non-profit as a descriptor, even though the "type" is a "Christian Rights organization". If I was unaware of what the SPLC was, I would read its full Wikipedia page to gain a better understanding of what they do. I feel these are the most neutral options. Acronin3 (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Except the AFA "has been listed as a hate group by the nonprofit civil rights organization[18][19][20] Southern Poverty Law Center as of November 2010 for the "propagation of known falsehoods" and the use of "demonizing propaganda" against LGBT people.[21][22]" So to be fair, the SPLC should have a reminder that it is not the ultimate entity or certain truth on what constitutes hate or racism, and is merely an opinionated interest group. 65.214.33.188 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Civil rights organization when a descriptor is used. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• controversial civil rights organization. Considering that it mainly (in most cases ONLY) reports on right-wing ideology, movements, agendas, persons, etc and is clearly an ideologically-opposed entity (much like its cousin the ADL), it should be listed as controversial. The staff at the SPLC and ADL are self-proclaimed "experts" on terrorism, extremism, etc and are akin to a political interest group or action committee. They are, in essence, to be taken as a grain of salt at best and a subversive interest group at worst. 65.214.33.188 (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Advocacy group or activist group, or civil rights advocacy group, in that order, as per the previous commentators who have supported those choices. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 04:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• The first and third seem the most specific while being accurate. The second seems to omit the controversy surrounding it. As mentioned above, though, this won't bind other articles. --Nouniquenames 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• No descriptor, for reasons of neutrality. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism or controversy template

I don't see the need for the criticism or controversy template to remain. If it does remain the reasons for it should be explained. I will say, however, that the "Criticism" subsection in the article comes under the more general heading of "Tracking of hate groups" so any additions to this subsection should specifically relate to the SPLC's listing or tracking of hate groups. It should not be a home for any and all criticisms of the SPLC. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we seem to have reached a consensus position of what to include and how to include it - it looks like these seemingly interminable discussions were not in vain. Thanks for your help. I have removed the tag. StAnselm (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The section still represents POV editing. it should be renamed or integrated into another section. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here on the talk page. I really think the consensus is for the tag not to remain. In what way do you think the section is POV? It has already been extensively discussed, of course. StAnselm (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added a comment into the article, to guard against people adding extra controversies in. The text of the comment is This subsection is the result of extensive discussion, and applies ONLY to the SPLC's hate group listing. Please do not add other controversies to this subsection. StAnselm (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just as the template spells out, the very words controversy and criticism spell out how POV the viewpoints are, if they are that notable then those opinions should be spelled out clearly with who said them and presented as part of the regular prose of the article. Stop edit warring and get to presenting a good article!!!! Cluetrainwoohoo!

"This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material."

Here's the template so everyone can see why it's being used. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note With apologies, I've removed the cleanup template above, which is causing this article to mistakenly show up on cleanup pages. I have replaced it with the article's text. The full template image can be found at Template:Criticism. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The template says it may compromise the NPOV. In fact, the section is carefully places and carefully worded so that it ensures the article's neutrality. StAnselm (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Cluetrainwwhoo, it's quite clear that you want to place this template on the subsection in question, but it still isn't clear WHY you want it placed on this subsection. What specific problem(s) do you have with the present wording? Badmintonhist (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to post a new section and saw this was already here. It looks like there is strong opinion that "Controversy" must be emblazoned on this article but I feel in the overall history this is pretty much a blip in the SPLC history. I think In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group while others defended the categorization.[94][95] The SPLC has defended its listing of anti-gay hate groups, stating that groups were selected not because of their stances on political issues such as gay marriage, but rather on their "propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people . . . that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." [96] should be moved into the history section. Not sure if the generic controversy sentences should also move there. Insomesia (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could include just about ALL the information about the organization in the article's history section, but why? The history section as it now stands is pretty much a continuation of the lead, giving a BRIEF chronology of the SPLC's existence starting with its formation. The "Controversy" subsection in question, on the other hand, gives specific information concerning the section on the SPLC's hate group listings. It would make more sense, I think, to ADD something to the history section mentioning when the SPLC STARTED its practice of categorizing and listing hate groups rather than to eliminate the subsection in question by pasting sentences from it into the history section. I'm not too sympathetic with your sensitivity about "contoversy" as the title of a subsection appearing in the article, although "debate" or some other near synonym might do just as well. The fact of the matter is that several aspects of the SPLC's operation, including its hate group listings, HAVE been somewhat controversial. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV would suggest we keep these "controversies" in perspective. That groups who are named hate groups don't like the label hardly seems newsworthy but in the history section it makes sense to point out that in 2012 this was the subject of a news cycle. Beyond that I think it's disingenuous to present this hate group listings as particularly controversial. Insomesia (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think that our present wording and labeling does keep this controversy or "controversy," if you prefer, in perspective. None of our sources here -- Ken Silverstein, Laird Wilcox, or Dana Milbank (and we could add others) -- are members of, or represent, organizations that have been labeled hate groups by the SPLC. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy seems to be the purpose of this group. It seems to me that the section should include both praise and criticism. The criticism is adeqautely sourced and unbaised. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

While the group's aim may appear to be little more than provocative, especially to its opponents, I believe the SPLC's purpose is clear from the article's introduction, i.e. to challenge extremists and support victims. Controversy is a natural byproduct of these confrontations-- and it may be stoked in the process, as lawyers will do. El duderino ^(abides) 00:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See also?

I don't usually get involved in discussions about links to other websites and other Wiki articles, but I'm wondering why we have a "See also" section that lists only two articles, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and Soulforce, neither of which gives any information about the Southern Poverty Law Center. There are, of course, numerous civil rights organizations. Why are we giving a special mention to these two? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hence my removal. These particular organizations have no relevance to the SPLC per the sources. Looks like a self-esteem addition, and if it belongs anywhere it belongs in a cat.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think they should go. StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of political rhetoric "section"

This sentence can probably be merged into an actual paragraph somewhere if the conservative guardians are willing to allow the article to improve. Just Saying ... Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you make a more specific proposal? -- Glynth (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Massive double standard

This article, like Wikipedia in general, has a massive double standard caused by the systemic PC bias of Wikipedia, which leads to some absurdly POV terminology. We need to fix the terminology in this article to make it non-POV, rather than an advertisement for the SPLC like it is now.

Anti-white, pro-black organisations are labelled very differently from anti-black, pro-white organisations, even in cases where both parties blame the other for all their problems.

The vast majority of violence between black people and white people consists of gangs of black people attacking innocent white people. From looking at the list of incidents mentioned in this article, it's clear that the SPLC focuses almost exclusively on the minority of cases where it is the other way around, when gangs of white people have attacked black people. There's nothing inherently bad about that, since no innocent people should be attacked, but we need a non-POV way of pointing out that the SPLC only focuses on protecting black people and criticising white people. Calling it a "civil rights group" is misleading if they are only calling for civil rights for one group.

We also need to use the exact same non-POV way of labelling the groups that focus only on protecting white people and criticising black people. Calling groups "hate" groups based purely on which group they attack and which they defend, without regard to the level of hatred or anger involved, is absurd. Carl Kenner (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is the proof for your assumption about the "vast majority of violence between black people and white people" being from black gangs? I think this is incorrect. Otherwise, your arguments are unsupportable, in my opinion, if we rely on reliable sources discussing SPLC. These sources do not talk about the opposing case, so that is why the article does not. If you try to bring in the opposing case it would be more appropriate to a general article about racism than an article about the SPLC. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

@Binksternet You can read FBI statistics yourself. Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery. FBI murder statistics by race for 2009 (for all other crimes race of victim and race of offender no longer correlated since 2005 data showed some very disturbing figures regarding white on black vs. black on white rape.) http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if we stipulate that is true, we need a RS to draw the inference that the SPLC is anti-white.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw in referenced statistics as was passing through. If you need to draw an inference look at it like this. What inference can be drawn from the following two sentences: "If Group A states that X is true yet FBI data RS states that X is false."

I personally think FBI made a mistake, and that's why (pov) I don't edit these types of articles. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, please tell us what your proposed edits are. Feel free to take another three months if you need to. - MrX 19:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you been waiting for me to propose edits for three months? If you have, then you may feel free to wait a lot longer. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the vast majority of violence committed by or against black people is caused by black gangs. That seems indisputable, although I don't have a source with me; and, it being politically incorrect, I'm unlikely to find it in a newspaper. But Binksternet is correct; we don't and are not likely to have a reliable source that the SPLC is an anti-white group, even assuming it to be accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You are not correct and are repeating popular talking points. FBI statistics show that 45% of overall black crime is against whites, 43% against other blacks, and 10% against Hispanics.

Double standard there may be (or not). In any case our job is made simple that we report what the sources say.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC documents groups that engage in politically motivated violence and hate, i.e., that violate or challenge "civil rights". As it happens, most of these groups are white, but some are not and the SPLC labels "[a]nti-white, pro-black organisations" the same as "anti-black, pro-white organisations, even in cases where both parties blame the other for all their problems." TFD (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}. Can you name an anti-white organization on the hate list? (This is not a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I think you're going off the topic of writing a good article based on sources, and into the "let's argue about the subject of the article" territory. Let's not do that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

They call black separatist groups, such as the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panthers and others "anti-white", and they are counted as hate groups.[37][38] TFD (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to add the NoI and NBP to the article in some form.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Hate group listings" already lists "113 black separatist groups with 40 websites". Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A friendly reminder, perhaps stating the obvious: any editorial treatment approaching (the ideal of) NPOV with regard to such a contentious subject will undoubtedly seem to be "an advertisement for the SPLC" by those who oppose them, or too harsh by those who support them. And yes, those anti-white groups are listed at the daughter article List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups#Black_separatist and I believe there has been extensive discussion (archived) about a threshold for specific groups to be included on the main article page. El duderino ^(abides) 23:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)