Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Proposed article reorg

As far as placement of this, I actually feel that much of the article could use a reorganization. I suggest that the bulk of the article be subdivided as the SPLC does in their "three-pronged strategy" at http://splcenter.org/what-we-do. How about something along the lines of:

1. History
2. Tracking of hate groups
2.1 Hate group listings and hate map
2.2 Intelligence Report and Hatewatch
2.3 Intelligence Files
3. Litigation and advocacy
3.1 Notable cases
3.2 Advocacy for legal reforms
3.2.1 Victims of bigotry and discrimination
3.2.2 Immigrants
3.2.3 Juvenile justice system
3.3 Criticism of right-wing rhetoric [not sure if it belongs here]
4. Education
4.1 Educational material for children
4.2 Publications
4.3 Documentaries
4.4 Tolerance.org
4.5 Civil Rights Memorial
5. Operations
Drrll (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether people are interested in the type of major reorganization you are talking about. My first choice is still maintaining the status quo (except for some accuracy issues), but if other people check in then maybe something can be accomplished. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't you agree that the article is currently a mess as far as section organization is concerned, and could use some sort of improvement? Drrll (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The History and Notable cases section are good in the current article but other sections are redundant or read more like a brochure than an encyclopedia entry. So some editing would be good. The main headings of the outline are solid and could be used to eliminate redundancies in the article. The subheadings are great for identifying important topics under each heading but it could be difficult to reformat the article to discuss them. Maybe the 5th heading should cover all organizational information, not just finances? Mrdthree (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, moving the content around to fit a new outline could be difficult. I like your idea about not limiting the last section to just financial operations. Drrll (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The article should mention the current priorities of the SPLC too. http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do. Mrdthree (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC
The header 'Operations' is a good way to encapsulate those issues. Mrdthree (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I like it. I think the outline is good to go. I think someone should use the outline to organize existing material in a sandbox and then post it. Additional header info can be added into it. Mrdthree (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus so the outline is very much not "good to go". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Tom, I agree that there isn't sufficient consensus yet to implement such a major change. Do you have any ideas on at least tweaking the current organization? There are currently 8 sections before the "See also" and points 2. , 4. , & 7. seem to stick out like sore thumbs. Drrll (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: Mrdthree has done a good job reorganizing the content at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mrdthree/sandbox . Please take a look at it. Drrll (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Should we make a request for comment to get more discussion? As an aside, when I cut and paste the outline, I found there is one change that needs to made to the article-- wikipedia no longer recognizes "the examiner" as a valid source. So I hsf to drop some of the content in the "Imperial Klans of American" section. Mrdthree (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd definitely like to get more support for such a major change before proceeding with it, so I would support you starting an RfC on this. BTW, did the RSN make a determination on "The Examiner", or did you find that out at some other place on WP (I was unaware of any list of invalid sources)? Drrll (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I just got an error notice when I copied that section to my sandbox and tried to save it. Mrdthree (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Seeking comment on merging existing material in the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center into a structured outline format. Interested in comments on outline and article quality, and any additions that should be made. A merged version using outline is sandboxed for comparison Mrdthree (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the justification for the reordering of the sections. From a chronological standpoint, section 2 on hate groups developed later than sections 3 and 4 on litigation and education. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The order they give on their website is track, advocate, educate [1] but advocate, educate, track sounds fine to me.Mrdthree (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I am here from the RfC notice. I believe that your proposed reorganization is much better than the current state. It is in line with the format of other organizations on Wikipedia. I think that it semantically categorizes things in a much more logical fashion, which will help with later expansions -- your proposed change leaves little question about where new content should go, unlike the current mess. Concerns voiced by other users about people "not willing do the work to reorganize the page" seem irrelevant to me, since you have already done all the work yourself, and are just asking permission to apply the changes. I don't see any good reason not to go through with the change. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Update SPLC Article

There is alot of information missing about how the SPLC defines its mission. This is another reason the article needs to be revamped. This discussion can probably help with establishing an outline. Based on their website, the "Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society." They state they have 4 current priorities (paraphrase): (1) Hate and Extremism (tracking hate groups); (2)Immigrant Justice (legal advocacy and lobbying to stop workplace exploitation); (3) Children at Risk (reducing juvenile crime and increasing educational opportunities); (4)Teaching Tolerance (educational resources)[2]. Mrdthree (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the proposed outline above covers most of the priorities.
(1)--Point 2.
(2)--Point 3.2
(3)--Points 3.2 & 4.1, although it probably goes beyond these
(4)--Point 4.
Do you have suggestions for changes to the current outline? Drrll (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking at their website, I see why you have the three major sections of the outline. That is how they describe their tactics on their What-we-do page (tracking, advocacy, education). I think you are probably right to emphasize those in the outline as they are probably more permanent features of the SPLC. Maybe it could be 3.2.1 Immigration Law 3.2.2 Children and Criminal Justice etc. Mrdthree (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
juvenile justice system is probably the preferred phrase. one of their major educational advocacy initiatives concerns Reforming School Discipline to positive reinforcement techniques (PBIS) [3]. Mrdthree (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Add SPLC mission statement to lead

The SPLC states, "The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society." http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are As the organization has defined its own mission, it should be included in fairness to the subject. I suggest: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American legal advocacy organization, internationally known for its tolerance education programs,[1] its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations. The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society.[4] The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations which it has determined “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics..."[3] Mrdthree (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I like that, but I would put the mission statement in the last sentence and I would put the mission statement in quotes (if it's not too long). Drrll (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought it might better fit as a first or second sentence because a statement about the mission of the organization strikes me as more of a topic sentence for a paragraph than a supporting sentence. It seemed to better fit the first paragraph as on my reading the second paragraph seems to summarize biographical information while the first paragraph defines the group and its reason for notability. However I can see it as a topic sentence of the second paragraph with something like: The SPLC describes its mission as "fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society." or maybe you can show a draft of the variant you had in mind? Mrdthree (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Using the website statement as the lead sentence makes the most sense; the claim that the SPLC is a legal advocacy group is actually uncited (cited article only states group is a nonprofit). With the SPLC mission statement, the first paragraph could have three sentences: defining the group, stating the notability, and defining hate groups (as before): The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American "nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society."<<rf name='SPLCwho'> Southern Poverty Law Center website: Who we are, http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are, accessed August 1, 2010 </rf>>. The SPLC is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations.<<rf name="wjfa"> With Justice For All November 5, 2006; The Times Picayune</rf>> The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations which it has determined “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics..."<<rf> [http://www.tolerance.org/maps/hate/index.html SPLCenter.org: Hate Groups Map</rf>> Mrdthree (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I like that change a lot. It doesn't split up the last two sentences, which really need to be together and it summarizes the organization as the SPLC does. We should try to get someone else on board before changing the beginning sentence of the article, though. It's possible that some may object to the wording sounding too much like a press release from the SPLC. Drrll (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
So any other thoughts out there? Mrdthree (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No criticism section?

Why is it that some editors feel the need to POV push away any of the sources that show criticism of the SPLC, of which there is a lot of. 174.54.36.247 (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading the archives I think I'm going to have to add the POV template. There seems to be an ongoing debate as to whether or not to add a criticism section. Some editors have completely deleted the criticism section that was here before with little discussion. 174.54.36.247 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism sections have been strongly discouraged by Wikipedia. The prescribed mechanism is to incorporate sourced, valid, noteworthy, and neutrally presented criticism into the body text of appropriate sections. Just because an article doesn't have a "criticism section" doesn't mean it ascribes to a particular point of view -- in fact, the opposite is generally true. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. A criticism section would create an unnecessary content fork. A public perception section doesn't seem to far fetched though. Gobonobo T C 07:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There is no reason to have a criticism section. Any relevant criticism should be neutrally integrated into the article, in the appropriate place, making sure we don't give it undue weight. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is a large criticism section on conservative Debbie Schlussel. There should also be one on the liberal SPLC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.211.159 (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS THE ARTICLE ON Michael Savage (commentator). HE'S CONSERVATIVE, SO SURPRISE, SURPRISE THERE IS A LARGE CRITICISM SECTION. HERE IT IS:

Criticisms

In July 2005, conservative writer Bernard Goldberg ranked Savage number 61 in his book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Goldberg wrote that "Savage's brand of over-the-top bile...puts him right in there with the angriest haters on the Left."[51]

Liberal advocacy groups, media watchdogs and commentators such as GLAAD, FAIR, and Dave Gilson of Salon.com accuse Savage of fascist leanings,[52] racism,[30] homophobia,[53] bigotry[30] and Islamophobia[54] because of his controversial statements about homosexuality, Islam, feminism, sex education, and immigration.[55] On his September 21, 1999 broadcast, Savage said that the motivation for female students who come from a Marin County private school to feed and provide services to the homeless is so they "can go in and get raped by them, because they seem to like the excitement of it..."[56]

On April 17, 2006, he said of Muslims "They say, "Oh, there's a billion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die—would you rather us die than them?"[57][58] After Savage was banned from the UK, this was also reported in the UK media.[59]

CAN ANYONE WITH A STRAIGHT FACE SAY THERE ISN'T A DOUBLE STANDARD HERE?????98.204.211.159 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop ranting and using all caps. Read what Blaxthos has said above. If you would like to improve articles by incorporating criticism into the greater article then do it, everyone is invited to edit constructively. Wikipedia has millions of articles, the vast majority are not perfect by any stretch. If you would like to invite others to comment here, open a WP:RfC. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

broken fragment in wikilink: David Horowitz Freedom Center controversy

Hi everyone,

In the section, #Neo-Confederate movement, there is a link to a section, #David Horowitz Freedom Center, that was deleted from the article sometime in 2008 by this edit.

Related talk page comment: Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 1#Horowitz

Any suggestions how we can clean up this broken link?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Claims of discrimination against blacks by the SPLC

An editor added the charge that the SPLC has discriminated against black employees. Another editor removed it, with an edit summary talking about a link (link to the referenced article?). While the addition's reference format may have been incorrect, the reference is legitimate (the newspaper local to the SPLC) and a link to the article is not a requirement for use in Wikipedia (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). Does anyone see problems in adding this material back? Drrll (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not even a question that it should not be added. A 16 year-old criticism without any link to back up the claims? Even with a link it would be undue weight, among others. Dave Dial (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
How about arguing on the basis of WP policy instead of arguments not based in WP policy--that the criticism is "absurd", "not even a question", too old, and that it's not linked. WP:UNDUE hardly applies, as the charge originates from one of the only examples of in-depth reporting on the SPLC in a reliable source. And the charge is backed by Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree, hardly a crank and hardly a right-winger. Drrll (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The article on Clarence Thomas contains a large section on allegations made 19 years ago by Anita Hill.Strde (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Listing a single claim of discrimination in a single source from decades ago gives it undue weight. If there is a systemic issue or a pattern of behavior covered by multiple independent reliable sources, you can argue that it deserves mention in the article; however, in this case the material was properly removed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that it is WP:UNDUE if we had numerous sources that include in-depth reporting on the SPLC. Do you know of any other examples of in-depth reporting? An entire article in the local newspaper was devoted to this question. Drrll (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The policy is neutrality: "This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It is fairly simple to go to far right websites and find disparaging articles about the SPLC. In order to be neutral however we must determine how widely reported these stories were and if they have received ongoing attention to present "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The way editors can avoid tendentious editing is to begin with the best sources on SPLC and see what they consider important rather than deciding what they consider to be important and searching for sources that support their point of view. TFD (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the Montgomery Advertiser series of articles on the SPLC is one of the best (it was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize) and certainly one of the most extensive as far as reporting on the SPLC. The editor that put the material in referenced one of the series' articles--not some right-wing website. Do you know of any other sources as good as the Montgomery Advertiser series? Do you have suggestions for wording the addition in a way you see as more neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 October 2010
  • If it was such an in depth, unbiased article, then why was there no follow up by any other news outlet? Why are there no available links to any of the articles on the web? Why are there no published quotes from Ogletree making the same claims in any published article? Why are the only hits on Google(a total of 8) from the CIS or in the comments sections of articles about the SPLC? And why was a users first edit to add this to the SPLC article, and your posting on the talk page making the same claims just a short time later? Seems like an attempt by those at the CIS(and people who sympathize with them) to orchestrate anti-SPLC propaganda. That is the epitimy of undue wieght and POV. Dave Dial (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a good question about why such an in-depth series of articles which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize got little to no follow-up by other news organization. I think that it's because most news organization uncritically accept whatever the SPLC puts out. No links exist because as far as I can tell, it is inaccessible by any means electronically (e.g. the Montgomery Advertiser site itself doesn't offer access to articles before 1999 and the same thing goes for Lexis-Nexis). None of that in any ways takes away from the fact that the charges appear in one of the best reliable sources about the SPLC. You better have evidence if you're going to suggest that I'm in some way associated with the editor who put the material in originally, or that either one of us is somehow associated with the CIS. Drrll (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter why the media ignore stories - stories they ignore are just not notable. TFD (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't ignored--it was reported by the Montgomery Advertiser--a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Laird Wilcox referred to an article in the report ("Marketing the Militias" by Dan Morse, June, 1995) in pp. 255-256 of his 1996 book American extremists.[5] I would not oppose using that book as a source for the article, since it meets high sourcing standards. If no one has access to these pages, i could copy them. TFD (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
What does the book address as to the reference in the Montgomery Advertiser? Does it address the charge of discrimination against black employees by the SPLC? Drrll (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilcox, who was a student radical in the 1960s and now calls himself “a classical free-speech liberal,” has observed the SPLC for years. “They want to marginalize certain points of view in our society, and they do it by acting like a kind of certifying agency that decides who is extremist and who isn’t,” he said.

Wilcox calls the SPLC a prime example of the “anti-racist industry afoot in the United States that has attracted bullying, moralizing fanatics.”

Wilcox says compliant, unquestioning reporters have been key to the SPLC’s efforts. “The media has just rolled over for them,” he said. “It would be considered almost racist for a reporter to be skeptical of the SPLC. It would be like questioning Mother Teresa about whether she had a bank account.” http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nyh_fWA3tkoJ:www.cis.org/immigration-splc+journalist+Alexander+Cockburn+splc&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Strde (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We would need a high quality source where he expressed his opinions or where his opinions were quoted. We cannot tell from the link whether the comments were taken in context, two of the footnotes refer to e-mails, and The Watchdogs is self-published.[6] But his reporting of the Montgomery article in his book meets RS. TFD (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
So there are a total of two reliable sources? I'm unconvinced that one article and one book constitutes due weight for inclusion, especially since books don't carry the same weight of review that journalistic sources do. //Blaxthos ( t / c )

If their were 100 sources you would still be unconvinced98.204.211.159 (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a stunning and unjustified lack of good faith. Regardless of the fact that you spin immediately into an ad hominem argument, the fact of the matter is that there aren't 100 sources... there aren't even 5 sources. With only two sources (of which one is a book) adding the material violates WP:UNDUE. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

self-published: "SPLC lawsuits have bankrupted or crippled 12 major hate groups whose members killed, injured or threatened innocent people"

Hi,

Do we have any third-party source that collaborates the following info from the spring 2008 Intelligence Report, published by SPLC?

SPLC lawsuits have bankrupted or crippled 12 major hate groups whose members killed, injured or threatened innocent people.

A quick search on the web only shows mirrors of Wikipedia material.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No criticism

No criticism? A guy on his first edit removed Social Contract Journal: The Southern Poverty Law Center - A Special Report. I reverted but it was removed again by someone else. That caused me to notice this article has absolutely no counterbalancing at all. No criticism. Nothing. It is written like a pamphlet for the SPLC. Has anyone else noticed this? And what little criticism there was, namely the removed link, was simply removed without bringing it to the Talk page due to its removal representing the total removal of any counterbalancing information whatsoever. So I'm doing that. I know nothing of the source except what someone said in a history comment. But it sure is peculiar this article has no criticism at all. Let's add some. I prefer not to be the person who does that as I am not an expert in the SPLC. But the above link may have useful reliable sources linked therein good enough for at least a head start. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

Based Dystopos's call for "locating a reputable NPOV survey of critical reception, or making some attempt to hash one out from less authoritative sources", I thought it best to create a new section for that purpose as the bias section was getting long. That is this section. I'm about to add a possible reliable source. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added a few. I am sure there are more, but it's a good start. They are in subsections on the guess that it will be easier to discuss them that way. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Editorials in newspapers are poor sources for criticism because we are unable to assess the notability of the opinions expressed. Ron Smith? Washington Times? David Horowitz? Their fringe world views belong in their own articles. TFD (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Of these, the Harper's article is by far the best source, but it is already cited in our WP article in the section on the SPLC's fund raising operations. As TFD says, the use of opinion pieces is somewhat one-dimensional. For notable opinions, we could mention them here, but shouldn't use them as sources for a description of SPLC activities unless independent published sources corroborate. The same goes double for the use of sites with a clear agenda of discrediting the SPLC. Their existence may be worth mentioning, but the content of their arguments needs to be carefully verified. --Dystopos (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Baltimore Sun

Commentary by Ron Smith. Fringe source, and the specific criticism has already been attributed to Laird Wilcox. TFD (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Nation

Tangential reference to SPLC not giving money to transit, building a new office and suing the Klan. TFD (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FrontPage Magazine

Another fringe writer, calls Dearborn "Dearbornistan". TFD (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe she is a fringe writer. Unless, that is, a fringe writer is as widely accepted as a source as she is. That said, I am not presenting this link as anything more than a starting point for the issue involving SPLC criticism we are discussing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Widely accepted as a source? She most certainly is not. She is definitely a fringe conspiracy persona that makes her living at trying to provoke hate and division. Dave Dial (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Charity Navigator

The3y were awarded only 2 out of 4 stars because their investment portfolio declined in value by $13 million dollars during the bear market. (It is now worth only $200 million,) Otherwise, they would have received 4 out of 4. TFD (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure? It appears from what I have seen that the reason was that the money they take in far exceeds the money used for charitable purposes. Besides, all investment portfolios declined in value during the bear market but they don't all have two stars. So, if you recall, would you please provide a reference for your statement? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't you provide a reference for your statement also? Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. We are all here to raise and discuss issues. No one here is expected to have the refs for everything. That's why we work together as a community. That's why we have the luxury of having a Talk page to iron out the wrinkles. I asked him to provide a ref, but I did not expect him to comply because I'm in no position to give him such orders, and because we likely will not be able to find one. Why? Everyone would have had 2 stars had what he claimed been true. I doubt that happened. It is clearly an excuse. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Not so clearly, and you really don't need to be lecturing regular editors and especially not admins. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

VDARE

It's absolutely disgusting that you would try to cite VDARE as a source. Why not just go to the Aryan Nation website, or quote Pierce? Dave Dial (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not suggesting this is a reliable source. I am merely providing evidence of the existence of criticism using links I just happened to have found and that happen to contain information that may be useful if a reliable source can be found. Actually, I know absolutely nothing about VDARE, but for the purposes used here, my personal knowledge is irrelevant. I have, however, suggested we all stick to the issues and avoid ad hominem argument. What you said about me is ad hominem argument. Let's not move in that direction, please. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Harper's Magazine

Wow! "'Morris and I...shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money,' recalls Dees's business partner, a lawyer named Millard Fuller (not to be confused with Millard Farmer). 'We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich.'" --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That quotation refers to a business partnership predating the formation of the SPLC. It could be cited in the Morris Dees article, but doesn't really pertain here. --Dystopos (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that: SPLC is pretty much a creature of Morris Dees. Fred Talk 20:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Times

Again, it is not acceptable under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to link to or use poorly sourced negative information about a living person. Fred Talk 19:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

David Horowitz Freedom Center

This isn't a reliable source, and it doesn't cite the case its talking about. We'd need to find a better source for this claim, and hopefully a neutral source that could put it into a broader perspective on Dees' trial tactics, rather than as part of a campaign to undermine his credibility. --Dystopos (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, agree totally. But it is useful for giving us information that a reliable source might support. I'm not saying the cites above are the be all and end all. But there was claims that no criticism exists. I just cited evidence that is not true, and for that purpose, especially on a Talk page, reliability is not of utmost importance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons mandates immediate removal of any poorly sourced negative information. Whether it is in an article or on a talk page doesn't matter. A case could be made for suppressing or deleting the information, not just removing it. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and be more careful. The incident may have happened, but don't publish it here until you have a good source, and in the case of potentially libelous material, which this is, think ahead to how you could prove, with admissible evidence, the assertion you are making. Fred Talk 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated bias tag removal

Folks, the bias tag is repeatedly removed and I keep restoring it. It is there to attract people to this discussion. It specifically says not to remove it until the issue is resolved. We are working cooperatively to resolve the issue, even people having differing viewpoints. On my Talk page, I am being accused of 3RR violations for restoring the BIAS tag. Now we have all been working cooperatively on this. Will you guys mind giving me some support on this narrow issue? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The POV tag does not in fact attract people to the discussion because it is only seen by people reading the article. As explained above we do not require criticism for an article to be neutral, and the onus is on you to show that there is mainstream criticism which should be included. However the sources presented do not appear to be sufficiently notable to be included. Most of the writers are actually connected with groups that the SPLC monitors. TFD (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
<Devil's Advocacy>Or, seen another way, the SPLC tends to monitor its critics.</Devil's Advocacy>. --Dystopos (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A newbie just joined Wikipedia named BalancedAndFair. His first edit ever on Wikipedia was to remove the BIAS tag from this SPLC page. I restored it. His history comment says, "No real 'bias' dispute for this page, despite the protests of single editor with a clear agenda." Give the above, I believe his name BalancedAndFair is meant as a slap at my own name, LAEC, and that he will cause trouble on this page, at least during his newbie stages. Of course, imitation is the best form of flattery. But the point is we all just went through a WP:LAME time waster for all involved on the issue of the BIAS tag removal, so I am hoping others will help me do the right thing in the face of this new editor. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that ought to work swell. ;-) --BalancedAndFair (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

  • The peer-reviewed "Encyclopedia of Alabama online" has an article on the SPLC authored by Katie Day of the Lutheran Theological Seminary of Philadelphia. In her concluding paragraph she addresses criticism of the group:

    "The dramatic, and often heroic, work of the SPLC has not gone without its critics. Questions have been raised in local and national media about changes in SPLC's fundraising tactics as it has grown to become "one of the most profitable charities in the country," as noted in Harper's magazine. Critics contend that efforts at marketing the organization for potential donors have taken the focus off the important work of the organization, such as its early efforts to fight the death penalty. The recent inclusion of the Nation of Islam as a hate group has also stirred controversy. At the center of this storm is the strong leadership of its co-founder Morris Dees, who is still listed as "Founder and Chief Trial Counsel." Despite these critiques, since 1971 the SPLC has continued to effectively expose and attack organized hate groups and promote the lessons of tolerance to younger generations." (link)

She cites Silverstein's piece in Harper's among the article's "additional resources". Would this be a reasonable summary that we could use as a model for the way our Wikipedia article addresses criticism of the SPLC? So far I haven't seen much more in the way of substantive criticism, though there is a lot of reactionism from people sympathizing with groups and individuals monitored by the SPLC. --Dystopos (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as the finance issues, the article already discusses them. With respect to the Nation of Islam, the encyclopedia, a tertiary source, provides no details. When this whole issue of criticism has been brought up in the past, I have suggested that any criticism that comes from sources sympathetic to a hate group exposed by the SPLC REQUIRES that the SPLC position as to why the group is classified as a hate group should also be fully explained.
The article already contains the following:
Some organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object to this characterization. The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) argue that the SPLC's claim that the CofCC is tied to white supremacists is inaccurate.
I'm not sure what else needs to be said, although in fairness, as I stated above, the article is unbalanced if it presents simply the denial w/o explaining how the SPLC reached its decision regarding the CofCC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Those are reasonable points. Realize that I wasn't proposing we use the EofA as a cited source, but rather as a model for a balanced way to acknowledge criticism, re: the above discussion. --Dystopos (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
These criticisms appear in Laird Wilcox's book, Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe, which is a much better source than an encyclopedia, a magazine article, or newspaper columnists. TFD (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Wilcox's later (self-published?) book, The Watchdogs (pdf) also discusses the SLPC and its critics at length. He cites the 1994 Montgomery Advertiser series by Dan Morse, who is also cited in our WP article. Wilcox says that the series was "widely praised" as a "model for courageous, objective reporting", but does not cite that particular claim (which would have been helpful in our efforts to contextualize these criticts). He also cites what sounds like another critical review by John Edgerton (“Poverty Palace: How the Southern Poverty Law Center got rich fighting the Klan,” The Progressive. July, 1988) which might add to our research. --Dystopos (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the fact it is self-published is a problem - no fact-checking or peer-review, other scholars are unlikely to examine the claims, and of course lack of notability. TFD (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

From reading these sources, it seems safe to say that there are two main avenues of criticism, which may cross paths. On the one hand is the claim that the center misleads donors into believing it to be a bare-bones operation and directs large amounts of revenue into its reserve funds and executive salaries. This criticism, by itself, seems to have enough foundation in reportage to merit discussion here. On the other hand, there is the criticism that the SPLC is too aggressive in labeling political speech from anti-immigration groups and various others as "hate speech" and, in particular, has overstepped by warning that "lawful" militia groups are potential sources of domestic terrorism. This view has been harder for critics to substantiate without independent criteria for "hate speech" and "potential terrorists". Currently the SPLC's views seem to be accepted as mainstream by the media and law enforcement. Where the two avenues cross is in the allegation that the SPLC's motives in publishing warnings about the proliferation of hate speech and potential terrorists are, at least at the highest levels of the organization, pecuniary rather than ideological. This has been an oft-repeated speculation and may merit mention as such, but it is clearly not a mainstream view and is not supported by established facts. --Dystopos (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with that, and don't have a problem without your cite above that started the above section. I even agree with the passage. The problem is, isn't it already in the article and to extend the section further with such little notable critism may be a weight problem. Dave Dial (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

More potential sources for critcism

Here are more potential sources for criticism of the SPLC, or links thereto:

  • John Egerton, "Shades of Gray: Dispatches From the Modern South," Dec 1991, Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 978-0807117057, page 222
  • Steven M. Chermak, "Searching For a Demon: the Media Construction of the Militia Movement," 30 Nov 2002, University Press of New England, ISBN 978-1555535414, page 94
  • Gregg Lee Carter, "Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia," 31 Dec 2002, ABC-CLIO Ltd, ISBN 978-1576072684, page 338
  • John B. Parrott, "Being Like God: How American Elites Abuse Politics and Power," 28 Aug 2003, University Press of America, ISBN 978-0761826156, page 99

And here is a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, where the SPLC is used as a source. So, FWIW, see http://www.cis.org/articles/2010/immigration-splc.pdf For example, it says "the Southern Poverty Law Center has become a peddler of its own brand of self-righteous hate. It is a center of intolerance, marked by a poverty of ideas, a dependence on dishonesty, and a lack of fundamental decency."

Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything in these sources that is not already mentioned in the article? Note that the Center for Immigration Studies is not a reliable source for this article. Also, if we were to mention criticism of SPLC's reporting of FAIR, we would have to report what that reporting is and how widely it is accepted. TFD (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That's the real issue, is determining the reach of these critical voices, and whether they impact a neutral POV description of the organization. Wilcox claims that the Advertisers series was well received as a model of objective reporting, but doesn't back up that opinion with citations. --Dystopos (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind that. Wilcox is providing an informed opinion in an academic forum. If he is wrong then this can be checked by looking for later writings that say he got it wrong. However, I think we should limit our use of the story to Wilcox's description of it, so that we do not give it undue weight. TFD (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed to restore BIAS tag

Help is needed to restore the BIAS tag. I can only do it one more time today based on the recent WP:LAME incident.

The person who is now edit warring on the BIAS tag is brand spanking new to Wikipedia and has made the removal of the tag his first edit saying, "No real 'bias' dispute for this page, despite the protests of single editor with a clear agenda." His next edit after creating his user page was to remove the BIAS tag a second time, this time with the comment, "The 'active' discussion is a consensus that you're an obsessed lunatic with a persecution complex. And please, no personal attacks. ;-)".

He has already been warned about his behavior and about the BIAS tag removal on his Talk page by Falcon8765. It is because of this warning that I will restore the tag a second time, but if it happens a third time, I'll need help restoring the BIAS tag.

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why, based on your edit history, should anyone believe you won't violate 3RR again? --BalancedAndFair (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, I warned the above editor for his uncivil comment in the edit summary, not his removal of the tag. I agree with the tag removal as you seem to be the only person disputing the neutrality of the article here. EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure asking others to revert to get around 3rr is not acceptable as per WP:GANG.Falcon8765 (TALK) 17:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
He has removed it a third time, despite your warnings, saying, "Yes, please do see my Talk page. And please see LAEC's block history for shenanigans on this article. How many are we up to? 7? 8?" I now ask someone to restore the tag.
Falcon, his attempt to prejudice you has worked since you said I "seem to be the only person disputing the neutrality of the article here...." No, that is not true. There are people actively engaged in legitimate debate, and the fact that this page looks like an SPLC advertising brochure and the page may therefore be biased is legitimate in and of itself. For example, one person engaged in debate is Fred Bauder who got involved when reversing Will Beback's double outing of me. He's engaged. It's not just me. Oh, I'm not saying Fred thinks the page is biased, I'm just saying he's contributing here.
As to asking others to help on the tag, the tag's removal here by the newbie violates 3RR and may be vandalism given his history comments to which even you objected. In such a circumstance, asking others to help overcome vandalism is not WP:GANG behavior. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
My opinion on this issue has nothing to do with anything BalancedAndFair has said. A overview of the discussion above appears to indeed show discussion, but most of it seems to be disagreeing with your assertions. The removal of the tag is not vandalism, it could be classified as disruptive but doesn't fit the definition of vandalism. A lot more would be accomplished by continuing the discussion rather than debating over a template, as these debates often boil down to. Falcon8765 (TALK) 17:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Falcon, I agree with you completely. But, the purpose of the tag is to invite other editors to get involved. Even you told him that on his Talk page. Let's assume you are correct that I'm the only one saying the SPLC page looks like an advertising brochure. Removing the tag will essentially lock in my being the only one saying what I'm saying. That is exactly why the tag is continually removed, and that is exactly why the tag says not to remove it until the discussion has concluded. I am asking you to restore the tag precisely for this reason, to invite others to participate. It's the right thing to do, namely inviting people to participate, so I fail to see the reluctance to add the tag by those advancing the interests of Wikipedia, as you did quite well on the user's Talk page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but when LAEC wants a bias tag, the "discussion" is never concluded. It's the circular reasoning of the third-grade playground, and it's not fooling anyone. We also would not place a "bias" tag on this page if one editor kept insisting there was no mention of the Earth being flat, then backed it up with articles from this group. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I only recently added the tag. People are debating. Everything is being guided by Wiki rules. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
1. Specious. 2. Untrue. 3. Hardly. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
LAEC is the only editor who insists on having the tag. TFD (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but as Falcon8765 said to BalancedAndFair, "The template itself doesn't need consensus to be included as long as the person who added it starts a discussion, it's used to invite editors to join such discussion, see {{NPOV}}." Exactly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
But if there is consensus to remove a template, it should not be re-added simply because a single editor desires it so. Westbender (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, for some tags. In the case of the BIAS tag, however, the tag text specifically says the tag must remain visible until the dispute has closed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You can't efficiently "invite editors to join such discussion" if the tag is removed before the dispute is resolved. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but there never was a dispute. You made it up to place the tag. As you've done on other pages. And now you're trying "the-dispute-isn't-over-until-I-say-so-AND-I'M-NEVER-SAYING-SO-NANANANANANANA!!!!"
Tomorrow, I'm giving thanks that your desperate bullying tactics will soon be halted on Wikipedia. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... I am waiting for discussion to settle down a bit before I get involved.
I suggest the following criticisms are lost in the text and might be better moved to their own section:
  • Also in 1998, a news article in The Washington Post described the SPLC as "a controversial, liberal organization". <ref name="WaPo">Edsall, Thomas (1998-12-19). "Conservative Group Accused Of Ties to White Supremacists". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-04-07.</ref>
  • Some organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object to this characterization. The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) argue that the SPLC's claim that the CofCC is tied to white supremacists is inaccurate. Gordon Lee Baum, chief executive of the CofCC, said that many of the specific allegations were wrong, including allegations that he used the word "nigger" and that he attempted to recruit a leader of the fascist Aryan Nations<ref name="WaPo" />
  • Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), wrote about SPLC and several other “watchdog” groups: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on SPLC and ADL reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies. For instance, events were sometimes portrayed in Klanwatch Intelligence Reports as more militant and dangerous with higher turnouts than we observed.”<ref>Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 1-3.</ref>
  • Chip Berlet, writing for the SPLC in 2003, identified David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (now called David Horowitz Freedom Center) as one of 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." Berlet accused Horowitz of blaming slavery on "'black Africans ... abetted by dark-skinned Arabs'" and of "attack[ing] minority 'demands for special treatment' as 'only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others,' rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism."<ref>Berlet, Chip (2003). "Into the Mainstream". Intelligence Report. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2006-04-23.</ref> Responding with an open letter to Morris Dees, president of the SPLC, Horowitz stated that his reminder that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers was a response to demands that only whites pay blacks reparations, not to hold Africans and Arabs solely responsible for slavery, and that the statement that he had denied lingering racism was "a calculated and carefully constructed lie." The letter said that Berlet's work was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself."<ref>Horowitz, David (2003). "An Open Letter To Morris Dees". FrontPageMagazine.com. FrontPageMagazine.com. Retrieved 2006-04-23.</ref> Berlet responded: "The Center for the Study of Popular Culture has produced a vast amount of text marked by nasty polemic and exceptional insensitivity around issues of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual identity. Writers for the CSPC tend to use language that exacerbates societal tensions rather than seeking some form of constructive critical discourse. They are mainstreaming bigotry—and this is precisely the topic of my article in Intelligence Report."<ref name="BerletFPM">Berlet, Chip. "Response to David Horowitz's Complaint." FrontPageMag. 14 September 2003. [7]</ref> Subsequent critical pieces on Berlet and the SPLC have been featured on FPM.<ref>[8]</ref><ref>Arabia, Chris (2003). "Chip Berlet: Leftist Lie Factory". FrontPageMagazine.com. FrontPageMagazine.com. Retrieved 2006-04-23.</ref>
As well, the criticisms in the "Fundraising" section could be more strongly written.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I totally disagree. A 12 year old opinion by a Washington Post writer, unsupported by any current reliable sources, is located where it belongs, if it belongs at all, in the history section. The CofCC sentences are not properly balanced -- if we're going to include Baum's denials then we need to incude details explaining exactly what the SPLC relied on in making its detrmination. The Dobratz quote also belongs exactly where it is since it describes one aspect of the SPLC's activities and, besides, provides both positive and negative information. Bertlet is also writing about one aspect of SPLC activity and only a small subset (criticism of neo-confederate organizations). The fundraising section is largely piggybacking off of a 16 year old series of newspaper articles that are not readily available to most editors -- upping the criticism is totally unwarranted.
There are interesting points to be considered at WP:CRITS, especially the following [my emhasis added]:
In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.|Jimbo Wales}}
This article is already a troll magnet. Twice the editor currently lobbying for the bias tag has gotten himself blocked and the article frozen. We should not do anything that has the possibility of encouraging future actions of that type. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that's unfair. It was a WP:LAME incident and one of the people harassing me just got indefinitely banned. I am not a troll as you are clearly implying. I added the tag because the page looks like an advertising brochure for the SPLC, not for the reasons you are suspecting. I am allowed to make that observation and act on it without being labeled as a troll. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
If one believes that the organizations monitored by SPLC are merely patriots, protecting American against evil, then the article would appear POV. But other mainstream sources generally agree with the SPLC's assessment of these groups and reject their self-assessment. TFD (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I'm not concerned about that. I am simply concerned that the page looks like an advertisement. Simply that. That's why I added the bias tag. That's why the page is indeed biased. As an advertisement, it is obviously biased in favor of the product being advertised. Wikipedia does not approve of advertisements. I have been responsible for Wikifying advertisements in the past and I know the tight grip the advertisers hold on to to keep the advertisement in place. For example, just above, I was accused of being a troll for adding the bias tag to this page. Was that a substantive concern? Of course not. It was ad hominem in nature. This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of advertisements. That's what is going on here. That's why I added the tag. To the extent that people go into extraneous issues to ensure the page remains an advertisement, that is their problem and it is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines and policies. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You need to make specific suggestions, otherwise there is no way we could make changes based on your view of the page. Neutrality however obligates us to present mainstream views. If you want this article and others to represent anything else you will run into conflict. TFD (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with TFD and Tom; this is beyond done. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
TFD, my view of the page is simply that it contains little criticism. As it turns out, people appear have been working on the problem since I made this observation and added the tag, and I, e.g., just added a ref Hate Group' Designation Angers Same-Sex Marriage Opponents, so that along with the work of others is helping a little to take away the advertising appearance of this page. If people keep at it, I am certain the page will become Wiki compliant and no longer be an advertising piece. And mainstream is the way to go. Like the Washington Post article I just added. You see? This is not that difficult. The only real problem are those who resist applying Wiki policy with statements like "this is beyond done". No, it's not, but improvements have been made, and the page might soon no longer look like an advertisement. At that point, the bias will no longer be present, and we can all move on to improving the next article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The reason there is little criticism of the SPLC in the article is that there is little criticism in mainstream sources, and we are merely following WP:WEIGHT. You provided a link to criticism from VDARE, which was founded by Peter Brimelow. I used to read Brimelow's columns when he wrote for mainstream media, and even then he put in his columns that Northern Europeans were racially superior to Southern and Eastern Europeans and non-whites. We can probably find lots of criticism of SPLC from that type of source, but that would alter the balance of the article to give weight to fringe views. TFD (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Right, but I included the VDARE link not as a RS in and of itself, but for the possibility it contained RSs. There is a difference. I explained that above, in response to Dave Dial's claim that I was "absolutely disgusting", so I am disappointed the issue is being raised again. It seems to me to be an attempt, a second attempt now, to impugn me simply because I "provided a link to criticism from VDARE" whose leader wrote that "that Northern Europeans were racially superior to Southern and Eastern Europeans and non-whites". I also included about a dozen other sources. Let's not delve into the ad hominem hint that I supposedly support such a person. Let's stick to the issues. Also, let's not make assumptions that "there is little criticism in mainstream sources" while scoffing at the ones I do present. Rather, let's find the right sources for accomplishing the right goal. I added one such article, and others are working towards that goal as well. Will you help us? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
'Ad hominem' is attacking a source to undermine their argument. In Wikipedia however the fact that a source has no credibility is reason to ignore it. You should avoid reading these sites, because they provided a view of reality that is not mainstream and therefore unhelpful for our understanding of subjects. TFD (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Except to the extent they may contain RSs. MMfA articles, for example, are often political rants, but they may contain useful RSs. I would not tell people to avoid reading MMfA publications. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

False equivalency bs. Comparing MMF to VDARE is absolutely absurd. Your excuses for adding that site as a reference are absurd. And yes, there is quite enough opposition to any tag for it to be gone now. I've stayed away long enough, and seen nothing new that should be included. It's fine as is and I think we are done. Dave Dial (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I count now six editors who disagree with your points, LEAC. WP:CONSENSUS does not demand that we continue discussing this ad infinitum for an editor who refuses to hear consensus, and I submit that continued tendentiousness behavior defiant of clear community opinion is being intentionally disruptive. I recommend not feeding him and move towards WP:RBI. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't have any "points" other then that this page looks like an ad. And people have been working on it to improve it. "Ad infinitum"? Come on. I just raised this recently and you have been seeking to cut off debate ASAP and keep the page as an advertisement. Your comments are persistently ad homimem in nature. Blaxthos just called me a troll. Dave Dial who persistently make personal attacks against me has just called me defiant and disruptive. I highly doubt the people who are actually talking and/or making substantive changes in response to my BIAS tag placement feel the way you do. So I'll just ignore your attacks and continue editing with the others. Enjoy the evening. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I just looked up RBI. It means you are calling me a vandal. Just an observation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The article for such a controversial group as the SPLC that regularly tries to tar virtually everyone not in its far-left ideological corner could use a little more reliably-sourced criticism. Blaxthos, is there any editor on Wikipedia that you have not called a troll? Drrll (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Controversial? Far left? Police use their research to help them understand extremist groups. The only substantial criticism of them comes from the groups they target. TFD (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
A Washington Post (hardly conservative) news story referred to them as "controversial liberal." A group that regularly targets many mainstream conservative organizations and individuals, not just true hate groups, reveals itself to be far-left (unlike the ADL, who regularly criticize both those on the left and the right). Police use the SPLC's research to understand groups like the Family Research Council? There has been substantial criticism of the SPLC from the SPLC's local newspaper, as well as from liberals like Ken Silverstein and Alexander Cockburn. Drrll (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
First, they cannot be "liberal" and "far left" at the same time. A passing reference in a newspaper is insufficient - you need an article about them explaining why they are controversial. Could you please name some of these "mainstream conservative organizations and individuals" that SPLC targets. Are George W. Bush and the Republican Party on their list? TFD (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
"Liberal" is the Washington Post's characterization of them in a news story; "far-left" was my characterization. "Liberal" works fine--maybe I was channeling some of the hyperbolic rhetoric that the SPLC often uses. An example of the SPLC targeting mainstream conservative organizations as a "hate group" is their recent characterization of the Family Research Council. Other examples from their Hatewatch blog include Mark Krikorian, Fox News, the Washington TImes, and Rush Limbaugh. No, George W. Bush hasn't been targeted by them as far as I know, nor has the Republican Party, but plenty of conservative individuals and organizations have been. Drrll (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe the SPLC fights conservative extremism in whatever guise it takes. I know the concept of 'mainstream' is so generalized (and subjective to conservative activists) but are you really saying that Fox News has no extremists? And for that matter, much of what Rush Limbaugh says is mainstream? Just because they both have alot of fans doesn't make them mainstream. Many conservatives, if not most, are not fans. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


Leaving aside Drrll's proposed political characterization of the SPLC as "far left": Various criticisms of the SPLC appear to me to have been [erm] "liberally" included throughout the article for quite some time now, since long prior to the recent insertion of the "bias" tag and the attending debate about it. The SPLC has indeed also taken heat from Silverstein and others including some dedicated civil-rights advocates for, might we say, playing to the comfortable cushy suburban liberal crowd whose donations allow for a financially thriving SPLC, for avoiding death penalty cases (which tend to be the longest, toughest, most financially expensive and politically expensive battles), for spending twice as much on "fundraising" as on legal work (at least as summarized by Silverstein, though a review of their financial statements doesn't appear to fully support Silverstein's assertions). Etc.
..... FWIW, as to the reference to the SPLC in a Washington Post article as "controversial, liberal", here's the actual context in which the Post said it (in "Conservative Group Accused Of Ties to White Supremacists" by Washington Post Staff Writer Thomas B. Edsall, Saturday, December 19, 1998; Page A08):

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a controversial, liberal organization that tracks conservative militia and "patriotic" organizations, wrote in its report that the chairman of the Washington, D.C., chapter of the CCC, a man who calls himself Mark Cerr, is, in fact, Mark Cotterill.

"Cotterill is well-known in Britain, which he left three years ago," the report said. "There, he was associated with the neo-fascist National Front and its successor the British National Party, as well as editor of a far-right periodical, Right Now. He also has been linked to the Ulster Defense Association."

Cerr-Cotterill said this description is generally accurate, except that he did not edit Right Now. "They certainly do their homework," he said. Cerr-Cotterill said he uses a "pseudonym for political reasons": His boss and wife do not want his political activities publicly linked with his private and work lives.

By contrast, here's what the WP article says (in the History section):

Also in 1998, a news article in The Washington Post described the SPLC as "a controversial, liberal organization"

Seems to me this is virtually a non sequitur. Yes of course they're "liberal" in the generally understood socio-political sense of the word, and of course they're controversial because the matters in which they're involved are inherently controversial. At some point it begins to look like some WP contributors might be looking to insert statements just for criticism's sake--which is not at all what's meant by a neutral point of view.
..... Looking at yesterday's edits (e.g., here in the section on "Hate group listings") which draw on the same 1998 Washington Post article and also on another WashPost article from 24 November 2010. I'm a bit curious why, for example, the WP article includes denials twelve years ago by the CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens (paraphrasing Baum: "I did not use the N-word nor did I attempt to recruit a leader of Aryan Nations"). And also inserted into the article yesterday was the statement by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council that the the SPLC's accusations are a political attack by a "liberal organization" and "the left's smear campaign of conservatives." When none of these organizations were specifically included in the article's brief summary of the SPLC's "hate group" investigations and published lists. Not mentioned (from the same 1998 Washington Post article that the "controversial, liberal" characterization and Baum's denial was picked from) were statements that might on face value lend credence to the SPLC's work, such as the statements by Cerr-Cotterill, who was among those included on the SPLC's hate list, that the SPLC was "generally accurate" and/or that "[T]hey certainly do their homework".
..... My main point being, essentially: No, the article isn't "biased", as has been asserted by LAEC; it wasn't before, and it isn't now. The criticisms, where notable and attributable to reliable sources, have been in the article all along, and now we've got a few more responses and counterattacks from those labeled by the SPLC. Overall, it seems reasonable to me. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi K,
Specifically about the point about Family Research Council not being on the list:
The secondary source, WaPo hate, says, "Included on the list released by the civil rights organization is the Family Research Council, a prominent and politically influential group of social conservatives." (: Bold emphasis added. :)
This is further verified by looking at the primary source, from SPLC itself, which has an asterisk beside Family Research Council. As it says in the intro, "Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those are each marked with an asterisk."
Hope that this clarifies things!
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I was referring to in the WP article. If you read the article text, it gives only broad sketches, then says "Some organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object to this characterization", and gives specific denials from the CofCC and a specific rattack (or "counterattack" if you prefer) by the Family Research Council. Heck, it seems one might well end up with a whole List of organizations disputing the Southern Poverty Law Center's characterization of their organization as a "hate group" (though maybe there are some that would say they're proud to be on such a list ;-). Part of my intended point was that, if the article is going to pick specific responses after listing only general criteria by the SPLC, why not also include responses such as that of Cerr-Coterill quoted in my comment above where he says they were "generally accurate" and/or "they [the SPLC] really do their homework". My main point was that this WP article is nowhere near "biased" as a whole--not even close. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

SPLC hopes to marginalize FAIR

The SPLC admits politically motivated attacks made for the political reasons of marginalizing organizations it opposes, if I understand what Potok said, and if what he said was reported accurately. Will someone please look into this for possible inclusion in the article? It will help it look less like an advertisement for the SPLC, although there have been improvements since I first added the BIAS tag for that reason. Here's the quote that brought me to raise this issue: "[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232421 SPLC hate group monitor Mark Potok reportedly acknowledged, 'what we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR].'"

You know what? I am 100% certain Wikipedia is not to be used to further SPLC's stated goal to marginalize groups the SPLC opposes, assuming what Potok said was accurately reported. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Another ref, this from Scripps News: "What we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR," said Mark Potok, director of the center's intelligence project. "We don't think they should be a part of the mainstream media." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be from FAIR: "Southern Poverty Law Center Adds FAIR to ‘Hate Group’ List". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Now you are providing an article from World Net Daily, a conspiracy theorist website. Could you please stop providing these unreliable sources. Also, I find it disturbing to have to look at all these fringe sources you keep presenting. If you continue to post them I will complain at ANI. TFD (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
That was an ad hominem comment designed to distract from the issues, including a bonus threat to go to ANI. Everyone else, let's stick to the issues. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You must stop providing fringe sources. They cannot be used for sources for articles and it is just soapboxing. TFD (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that was any sort of "ad hominem", it's an attempt to get you to stop using fringe sources. And yes, you need to stop. It's one of the reasons your attempted edits have run into so much resistance. Then again, if you believe these "sources" are reliable, there is no hope for any of your attempts to make it into this article. Dave Dial (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Mark Potok is not a fringe source. He, as an SPLC leader, said, "What we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR. We don't think they should be a part of the mainstream media." I provided the WND ref as the means to begin conversation in Talk on that very issue, and I never said the WND ref is appropriate for the article. Besides, per WP:RS, such a decision cannot be made until the ref is viewed in context, and no such context yet exists. Claims that WND is never a reliable source are wholly untrue precisely because WP:RS compliance requires viewing refs in context.
Along comes TFD and DD2K. They are hoping to marginalize me with ANI threats and claims my edits "run into so much resistance". From them. They don't think I should be a part of Wikipedia Talk, according to what they said. What they do is repeatedly argue things are fringe and people have no right to discuss them, else an ANI will result, then a huge conversation goes back and forth that serves the purpose of obscuring the substantive issues, even if attempts to marginalize people fail.
Therefore, I ask everyone reading here in the spirit of being follow Wikipedians wishing to improve WP per its rules to set aside the ad hominem distractions raised by TFD, DD2K, and more to come, and stick to the issues.

The issues are these: The SPLC admits politically motivated attacks made for the political reasons of marginalizing organizations it opposes, if I understand what Potok said, and if what he said was reported accurately. Will someone please look into this for possible inclusion in the article? It will help it look less like an advertisement for the SPLC, although there have been improvements since I first added the BIAS tag for that reason. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote comes from Flores' editorial on the scrippsnews website - editorials are not reliable sources for facts - and has only been picked up by fringe websites. The meaning in the original editorial is however clear. Potok does not think FAIR should be a part of the mainstream media. TFD (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
That was substantive. I am not suggesting using the editorial as a RS. I am suggesting using it as a starting point for finding a RS that we can use. It is relevant if the RS we may eventually find indicates that SPLC chooses what to label as a hate group so as to get people to ignore them. They not really be hate groups then. Advising readers of that circumstance is what we on Wikipedia do, so long as we do it in a compliant fashion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Whoww, so what you want to say is that if an civil rights organization tries to minimize the KKK it is a politically motivated action? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Stop it. I did not say that. Stick to the issues, please. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sticking to the issue. You are making bold claims. You called 'what we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR a political attack. What I try to get to is what is exactly political in marginalizing hate groups? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I've made no claims. I just asked questions, on the Talk page, which is here for asking questions and improving articles, with people working together on substantive issues. Drop the ad hominem stuff like TFD did above, drop the changing of my words to say what I didn't, and move on to the substantive issues, please. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
LAEC, the SPLC website says, "The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society." You may not agree with their objectives, but most people would not see it as criticism. TFD (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
While this is irrelevant, I agree with their goals. I myself have the same goals when I oppose, for example, the American Library Association on the rare times that it acts with hatred or bigotry, or when it does not seek justice for vulnerable librarians. Don't ask. So I don't see it as criticism. Actually, it's the right thing to do. Of course, I'm a little confused by your comment, so I may not have answered what you really asked. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the SPLC's self-description is in the first sentence of the lead, there is no reason to add it as "criticism". TFD (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not happy with a section heading making a claim that is sourced to a fringe source - and by that LAEC knows very well the original commentator who called it a fringe source meant WND, not Potok. I'm changing the section heading to reflect the situation - it's a claim, not a 'fact'. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
TFD, I'm not suggesting that, am I?
Dougweller, section headings are for us to discuss things. They need not be "facts". Perhaps we should add RSs to section headings? This is a Talk page. I've had people claiming I was saying things I wasn't, now I got some guy actually changing the literal text of what I had written. Remarkable what people will do. I'll respectfully ask you to restore the heading as it was. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
LAEC; Dougweller's edit is consistent with "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."[9] Please see Wikipedia:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages. Your heading was not consistent with this guidance. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a close call. I said, "SPLC admits politically motivated attacks". Compare that to "SPLC hate group monitor Mark Potok reportedly acknowledged, 'what we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR'". Sounds like a politically motivated attack to me. But, to be sure, here's what I'll do. I'll change the heading to "SPLC hopes to marginalize FAIR" since the SPLC guy said "we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR". Fair? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It isn't a close call. When you wrote the heading, "SPLC admits politically motivated attacks", you had one source that did not satisfy WP:RS and did not support the wording of the heading. You said, "if I understand what Potok said, and if what he said was reported accurately", which indicates that you were aware of both problems. Now your heading contains an unnecessary, albeit short, direct quotation without quotation marks or attribution. This violates our policy on copyrights. What I observe are indications of problem editing. Insistence on your version of a talk page section heading is one manifestation of this behavior. You have used the phrase "advertisement for the SPLC" or variants thereof several times on this talk page to describe the work of your fellow editors. That discounts their effort and your words, "I know the tight grip the advertisers hold on to to keep the advertisement in place", imply bad faith to describe "that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion." Please desist. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi LegitimateAndEvenCompelling,
You had written, "The SPLC admits politically motivated attacks made for the political reasons of marginalizing organizations it opposes[.]... Here's the quote that brought me to raise this issue: "SPLC hate group monitor Mark Potok reportedly acknowledged, 'what we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR.'" "
When reading the sources you provided, "political motivation" is not acknowledged by Mark Potok's quote.
I believe it is possible for an organization to marginalize its opponents without having political motivation or political reasons, according to my personal definition of what is "politics".
Because of this, I believe is it synthesis/original research to state that Mark Potok acknowledged political motivation, and that we would need to wait until a reliable source to state it before we include it in the article.
We could include a reified statement instead. "[person_x] says that Mark Potok acknowledged political motivations with this statement" if we had a reliable source on person_x's position. However, statements such as these are often too tenuous to survive editing in Wikipedia articles.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. Nothing I say here, or anyone says here, or anywhere in any Talk, is ready for prime time. So you are absolutely correct, and I never intended anything otherwise. We are just talking in Talk. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The expression "politically motivated" should be avoided. because it is ambiguous and does not appear in sources. TFD (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. It was also very easy, a matter of seconds, to discover two 2007 sources for this Potok quote: [10] from the Times-Union of Warsaw, Indiana (nice town by the way), and [11] from Scripps. The first newspaper actually has more context about where this was said. He followed that sentence with ". "We don't think they should be a part of the mainstream media." And of course this was all to do with the SPLC calling FAIR a hate group, and if we are going to discuss that, then we need to add something about "d.Promptly endorsing SPLC's action was the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Its campaign manager, Clarissa Martinez, followed up: "It is unacceptable for members of Congress and the media to legitimize a hate group bent on manipulating Americans' concerns over our broken immigration system to advance its own goals and derail real solutions to this issue."..."Cristina Lopez, deputy executive director of the Center for Community Change. "There's no difference between putting a member of FAIR on TV to talk about immigration and putting a member of the Ku Klux Klan to talk about race relations." Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The Times-Union link is to a copy of the Scripps editorial. TFD (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
hmmm... How do we know that the piece by Flores is an editorial? If I am reading the byline correctly, it was originally published by Hispanic Link News Service. It does not have the classic earmarks of an editorial (like the author talking in first person). Does Scripps Howard News Service only publish editorials? It cannot be a direct copy from the Scripps Howard webpage if it has more information.
nevermind... I see it was part of the Times-Union "Opinion" page. That is enough to classify it as an editorial.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BIAS tag misuse

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

The bias tag is currently misused on this article for POV pushing reasons. For the tag to remain, credible main stream sources need to be provided showing where this article is biased. If only fringe resources can be provided, the bias tag needs to go as soon as possible. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely being misused, again. The editor is ignoring the talk page and the many editors that have opposed it. Dave Dial (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". A page that looks like an advertisement cannot possibly be "representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". That is precisely why Wikipedia has policies opposing advertisements.
Clearly, I support the BIAS tag, someone else has just added it back, and others are working to remove the bias, with good progress being made. The speedy rush to remove the tag, even its repeated removal in the face of legitimate concern for Wiki compliance, is contradictory to Wikipedia rules. Let me see how someone else put it to one of the people decrying "fringe" sources and repeatedly removing the BIAS tag: "That (one editor who wants the BIAS tag to remain) is a red herring. There is no reason you should have been removing a tag placed on the article in good faith. Edit warring to do so is even worse. If you can't see the problem with that, then the problem is with you. There is plenty of agreement in the discussion over this that you were wrong to edit war over this."
I suggest we stop wasting time with repeated claims regarding "fringe" sources, "the bias tag needs to go as soon as possible", and "It's definitely being misused, again". Let's stick to the issues. Come on, folks, I know you can do this. The Talk page will be shorter if you do this. Just stick to the issues and stop rushing to remove the BIAS tag. I was right to add the tag in the first place. I thank the person who just readded it. I'll thank everyone to stick to the issues without ad hominem statements like, "The editor is ignoring the talk page", or section headings that may violate policy with messages like, "BIAS tag misuse".--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is simple. What are the reliable sources about aspects that are missing and make this page worthy of the BIAS tag? If you cannot give them,, the usage of the BIAS tag is misuse. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Kim, it appears we are both editing in good faith here. I completely see your point. Mine, however, is slightly different, broader. You see, the issue is not as narrow as one that can be remedied with RSs, the inclusion of which are required to prove the BIAS tag is not being misused, according to you. You see, "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias" -- that is broader than you are looking at it. You are just seeing the bias part. I'm seeing the fairness and proportionality part. That's exactly why the page looks like a brochure for the SPLC. I would not be surprised if the SPLC hands out copies of this Wikipedia page instead of spending the time and money writing its own brochures. And not providing RSs when adding the BIAS tag is not evidence of the tag's misuse that can only be remedied by removing the tag, which is apparently your view.
Why don't you show your good faith by readding the tag that was just edit warred off by the sock? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not do edit warring, that is why I raise it here at the talk page. Edit warring does not work, reason does. Well, lets go with your wider point. Yes, the article needs to be NPOV, covering all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. So, could you be specific about these issues. Basically, what is disproportional? What is biased? Generally, disproportional would mean that there is an imbalance in source use. This can be solved by getting more reliable sources for the underrepresented part of the article. Bias same story. To be clear, I am not here to discuss policies, generally, policy based discussions arise when people do not have valid arguments. Everybody can make claims, but after that, it is put up or shut up. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, Kim, you got me. I admit my original complaint was and remains that the page looks like an advertisement. If I recall, I think I even said I see no specific bias, but bias, again, is only part of the concern with the BIAS tag. After that, it is up to the community to discuss. If we were to strip out the sock puppets and the meatpuppets and the comments that never addressed the issue and merely concluded the BIAS tag must be removed, what would be left is a few people actually improving the article as a result of my having added the BIAS tag. That is the whole purpose of the thing. It is not for me alone to provide the necessary roadmap. I am happy to be directly involved in the improvement of this page occasioned by my adding the BIAS tag. Everyone benefits if the page is improved. That is why I simply do not understand the vociferous effort to remove the tag, with now two editors being indef blocked, if I recall. All this silliness just to comply with Wiki policy and improve the article. I know you are helping. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, seeing a general lias is really insufficient to add a bias tag to an article. So, now that we have established that, and as lng as that there are no real issues to be discussed, I think we have to remove the BIAS tag and keep improving the article when we find good sources.
It doesn't appear you "completely see" Kim's point. It appears you are condescending to her in order to push an argument you've been making for a long time, without evidence or success. Kim has a long editing history here. No need to quote policy to her. It's insulting. --Accretionist (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Kim, I promise I was being fully respectful, as you were. Accretionist, edit war all you want, but it will not be to your benefit in the long run. I politely advise you to restore the BIAS tag. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Accretionist, I can handle this myself. We get to a clear end soon on this. :-) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Accretionist has been blocked indef as a sock, FYI. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think DD2K and Kim make excellent arguments for why the "bias" tag is being misused. Looks like a few rogue editors are intent on ignoring the many, many editors who have made a clear case here that no reliable sources have shown that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a spurious organization. I've removed the tag. --Accretionist (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And the new guy who removed the BIAS tag on his first edit ever is now edit warring on it and has removed it again. Quoting again, "There is no reason you should have been removing a tag placed on the article in good faith. Edit warring to do so is even worse. If you can't see the problem with that, then the problem is with you." And now, the problem is with Accretionist. Is there anyone here who does not think he is a sock? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
According to the overwhelming consensus on this page, the tag was never placed "in good faith," as you say. But to push an agenda. Also, whom are you quoting? You'd do well to take his or her advice, and also Matthew 7:5. I find your response quite rude. --Accretionist (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
To LAEC: You've raised three points: NPOV, WEIGHT and BIAS. You seem to have already conceded that there are no reliable sources claiming serious criticism of the SPLC. As far as WEIGHT is concerned (proportionality of opinion), your failure to come up with reliable sources of criticism does seem to indicate that the absence of serious criticism in the article is merely a just reflection of the absence of serious criticism from reliable sources in the real world. And finally, NPOV means that neutrality is achieved when all opinions are represented fairly, which also means in accordance to their real-world importance. It does not mean, as you seem to assume, that all opinions need to be represented equally; just proportionately to their importance. Bring a RS with a serious criticism of the SPLC and then we can revisit the possibility of a BIAS tag. However, so far, nothing in the article justifies it, whether it be by commission or omission.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Recall I originally added the tag because the page looks like a brochure for the SPLC. It then becomes up to the community to see what's what. Separating me out as the one person who must both bring the BIAS tag action and resolve it at the same time is clever, but not how things work.
Let me turn the tables. Why are people edit warring to removed the BIAS tag? Why are people removing the BIAS tag? What's the rush? The dispute is still ongoing, and the tag text says the tag should stay while the dispute is ongoing, yet person after person keeps removing it. Why is that? Why don't you restore the tag right now to be in compliance with Wiki policy? You won't of course, but why not since Wiki policy says it stays up until the dispute is resolved? Why is my compliance with Wiki guidelines by properly placing the tag called into question when the noncompliance of others is not simple because they are all in agreement to prevent the BIAS tag from appearing on the page? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Nobody should edit war. Keep in mind the following sequence, and you get somewhere without edit warring: Edit, revert, discuss. Someone makes an edit, if it gets reverted, discuss at the talk page. I think 1RR for each edit should be the norm, not 3RR per day, which is basically a compromise to allow some edit warring. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"Accretionist", by the way, has been banned as a sock or meatpuppet. He also edit warred to remove the BIAS tag and attacked the guys who added it, there's two now. Three if you include the admit who revert Accretionist, maybe more. And that lasted for 3 minutes until TechBear reverted the admin. People say it is promoting something to add a BIAS tag. What? What is the bias to add a BIAS tag in compliance with policy? Why is everyone continually removing the tag in violation of policy and the tag's own text? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the BIAS tag is being misused. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are intended to help editors work together, not as weapons. What I observe is problem editing by LAEC persisting after being reminded of this guidance, above.[12] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how adding a BIAS tag on the claim that the page looks like an advertisement can be considered a weapon? I support the tag being on the Family Research Council page and no one there is claiming that the person who added it is using it as a weapon. By the way, I support it on the FRC page for the following reason. Are you sitting down? For the same reason I added it here -- both the FRC and the SPLC pages look like advertisements. Oh, and the Mark Levin had a BIAS tag for 364 days straight. It was no problem there either. It's no problem here either, or at least it shouldn't be. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
We are talking about this article, not other articles where it maybe is misused. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Then answer this. Assuming you see a page that looks like an advertisement. Is adding a BIAS tag and associated Talk comments considered misuse? If so, why? What exactly is being misused? Is there a better tag to add for advertisements/brochures? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is. The key is verifiability. We all can feel like a page looks like an advertisment, incorrect, biased, unbalanced, liberal, evangelical, etc. If I could add a few tags baed on my underbelly feeling only, we would have a mess from here till the end-times (2012?). So, that is and remains insufficient reason to tag a page. If you cannot substantiate your assertion with reliable sources etc, and you keep insisting on keeping the tag, that is misuse of the tag. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's new to me, and to the users using it for the same purpose.
As to "keep on insisting", that tag was torn down by TFD in a day. He moved on to edit war over it, get me banned, and get himself warned. There's people who "keep on insisting" here alright.
What is the guidance page I can read that says use of the BIAS tag for advertisements is misuse? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Glad that I could help you make things understand a bit better. I am not here to discuss who did what, because that is not related to content but related to editors, and I am not here to to discuss who did what when for what reason. But more troublesome is that you just do not seem to get what I was writing above in the other thread we had going on. Adding the tag for the first time is okay. You have done that. But after that, you have to be able to substantiate it. You cannot, and the tag should be removed becauise there is no concrete problem with the article other than your gut feeling. After that, adding a tag again just to satisfy your own gut feeling is misuse. As you indicated that you do not have reliable sources to substantiate your gut feeling, so I suggest that we end this discussion here until you come forward with some good and reliable sources for your claim. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, but it doesn't explain the various people working to improve the page as a result of the tag. Let's say I was at the end of my rope but people were still reacting to the tag and improving the page. I am pretty sure I should not remove the tag simply because I personally have nothing else to add to the debate.
And I just found this: WP:NOTADVERTISING. So that is the policy I had in mind when I added the BIAS tag. It was not misuse after all. I properly raised the issue, I just failed to add the NOTADVERTISING link. Live and learn, huh? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
In no way does this article fit into any of the soapbox categories. That too, would be a misuse of tagging.Dave Dial (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, just starting a discussion at the talk page will do that. As for the link, yes, it was you right to add the tag the first time, nobody is disputing that, but it is the re-adding it after things were discussed and you could not convince people that things were wrong, it became misuse. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it that way. I see people repeatedly removing the link in a manner that violated the spirit of Wikipedia, including verbals attacks, outings, defamation, WP:LAME incidents, etc. I see some of those people never, not once, addressing issues. And some of them were the very same people who objected previously and in the same fashion when the BIAS tag was added a while back.
Had the people using ad hominem argument reacted instead like you are, this could have been resolved long ago. I'm not the misuser for standing in the face of the ad hominem wind.
Be that as it may, significant changes are being made to obviate the need for the advertising concern, so all's well that ends well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bias Tag removal consensus

Since the addition/removal of {{npov}} has been a recurring problem the last few days, and it appears that the consensus is that it shouldn't be included for various reasons. Could those involved please post in this thread to confirm that is indeed the consensus so we can move on to other issues instead of discussing the bias tag ad nauseum? A perusal through the other threads seems to indicate that there is. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is consensus, and I suggest if the main other party agrees with that, that we should achieve this page and start fresh. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy, but there are others editing here as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree to archiving the page so quickly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No need for the tag, per my comments several sections above. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Frankly I'm surprised it's gone on for so long, the tag should never be used as a bartering chip. I suggest folding this section into the above as a subsection and/or renaming it "Removing the bias tag" or somesuch. (As you can see, the talkpage already has a section far above with the generic title "Bias tag"). -PrBeacon (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
There are at least 8 or 9 editors in the last 30 days who have opposed the bias tag, all of which have been supported by policy. The fact that LEAC refuses to hear consensus on the matter is clearly in evidence, and repeating "it reads like an advertisement" ad infinitum only shows that he's not here in good faith. As I said earlier, we should revert him if he places it again, ignore his goading on this page, and report him for disruption if he continues. He's already been blocked multiple times for edit warring, pushing an agenda, and generally being disruptive on other articles where he feels it is necessary to advocate an agenda, and I have a pretty good feeling he's working himself into a topic ban or indefinite block at this point. I'm traveling this week and don't have time to properly see this through to conclusion, but the fact that he's still pushing a point of view after weeks of discussion is shameful. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with now removing the bias tag. I disagree with topic banning or blocking LEAC because of three reasons:
  1. It was good that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling added the tag: In his stated opinion, the article sounded like advertising; he had policy on his side (WP:NOTADVERTISING); another editor, Drll, supported him.
  2. It was bad that The Four Deuces removed the tag within 48 hours of the tag being placed. There was no consensus declared on the talk page at that time. As an essay (not a policy) says: (bold added by me)
    Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F
    Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.
  3. It was bad that sockpuppets removed the tag:
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kevinkor2. To a newcomer, your points might seem valid. However, I think if you dig a little deeper in the archives you will find that LAEC has been pushing this issue for quite a while (probably longer than a year), and consensus surrounding this issue has been reached multiple times... he just comes back every few months and tries the same thing again. There is no question in my mind that he's not here in good faith, which should be obvious from the exchanges still visible on this page -- digging in the archives should seal the deal, if you're still wondering. With regards to sockpuppetry and other tomfoolery, I can't speak to any of that, however it's not really germane to my point (namely that LAEC has moved into a clear pattern of disruption and tendentious editing long after consensus is clear. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Kevinkor2,that's a bit of re-writing history. LAEC reverted an editor who removed a link to a website that has white supremacist ties. After LAEC was reverted by another, established editor, he added the "BIAS" tag, claiming it was explained in talk. The explanations cited a criticism section and the removal of the racist link. It gave no specifics, and when asked for specifics, LAEC refused and claimed it wasn't up to him to give specific, reliably sourced criticism, and instead listed a hodgepodge of links to radical, fringe websites. There was NEVER any mention of soapboxing until late yesterday, and that guideline does not fit this article at all. Not in the least. Now, if I have to scroll through the archives of this talk page and bring in every tedious edit LAEV has made over the past year or so, I guess I will. But it will have to be when I get back from vacation(after the 14th of December). I was not going to respond to the effort, but I don't think I can sit here while the events of what has transpired gets glossed over and rewritten. Dave Dial (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Do the personal attacks need to go on even after I have agreed with the BIAS tag removal? They only go to illustrate Kevinkor2's point. Dave Dial's entering into possible WP:DIGWUREN violations just now is just the latest evidence. Those supporting me or editing to improve the article as a result of my placing the tag contrast sharply from those using personal attack to prevent any changes. The thing speaks for itself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This is another example of your tedious editing and battleground behavior. Accusing other editors of "personal attacks", "ad hominems" and anything else you can think of in bad faith. There are no "personal attacks" when other editors are complaining about your behavior, it's part of the process. Just because I have not responded to your MANY accusations against me doesn't mean I have not noticed them. I chose not to respond in the hopes of not creating a more tense atmosphere and that you would stop. I can see now that is not going to happen. And once again, if I have to go through the list of your continued accusations against me, and other editors, when they point out your behavior, I will. This is just getting ridiculous. Dave Dial (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You (and Kenosis who edit warred the BIAS tag) have essentially labeled me as a white supremacist. Others have been indef banned for saying even worse things. Who is tedious and battleground? Please, take your concerns to ANI. I asked above, "Do the personal attacks need to go on even after I have agreed with the BIAS tag removal?" Your answer is clearly, yes. To everyone else reading this, thank your lucky stars these guys aren't coming after you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I should also report the personal attacks on me are so vociferous that if anyone supports me, and they do, the attackers sometimes begin attacking those people as well. Like Kevinkor2 being told he's rewriting history. There are worse examples, like one of the banned editors battling with the admin who banned him. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Responding to your attempt to use white supremacist websites/outlets as reliable sources is NOT a "personal attack". In fact, you are lucky at the tame responses you received to your mass inclusion of racist websites as "sources". If you do not like the responses you receive for trying to list fringe sources, then one would suggest you STOP trying to use them. Now, either list the "personal attacks", the WP:DIGWUREN violations, or retract and drop the accusations. Dave Dial (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"If you do not like the responses you receive for trying to list fringe sources, then one would suggest you STOP trying to use them." That, ladies and gentlemen, is a microcosm of what is going on here. "One would suggest you STOP trying to use them." One editor telling another editor what not say.
Now we know why the BIAS tag kept being removed. People including material some might not like had to be, quoting now, shouting in original, "STOPPED". Listing fringe materials in Talk is part of the reason why there are Talk pages in the first place. They are called Talk pages, not Shout pages. I will not self-censor myself because of personal attack, no matter how loudly they shout "STOP". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)LAEC, while Dave Dial's comments may have been hyperbolic or even just flatly wrong (or may not have... I don't know, I haven't reviewed the soruces), he didn't call you a racist. He called your sources racist, which was an attack on the sources, not you. If you believe the sources aren't "white supremicist", it's in your best interest to show why, rather than simply claim it was a personal attack not worthy of response. Otherwise we run the risk of never moving being point a to point b because any editor who disagrees with your inclusion can never state why without claims of personal attack, and thus a shutdown of the debate on that point.
Granted, some editors are not the politest in the world, but if you're going to cook a cake, you best be able to take the heat in the kitchen. I suggest a reasoned thought out response to each of Dave Dial's points, disproving where (if at all) he's wrong. You might start with "why do you think these sources are racist?" and move on from there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Here's an example of where he is wrong. He said, "Responding to your attempt to use white supremacist websites/outlets as reliable sources...." Not once did I say that was a reliable source. Never. Actually, I said the opposite. Yet here he is saying I said it was a RS. When he files his ANI against me, he should please try to be truthful so as not to waste people's time.
As to the VDARE site's inclusion, I explained above in that subsection why I included it. And it has absolutely nothing to do with what Dave Dial has claimed about me. If the circumstances are right in the future, I will include the VDARE site again. Improving Wikipedia takes precedence over shouts that I should stop myself from adding them in the first place.
But there's a bigger point. I agreed to remove the BIAS tag after speaking above with Kim. Why is Dave Dial pursuing his personal attacks? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
And I see your point on the source being racist rather than the person. But I did include Kenosis in what I said above, and K said, "obvious advocate of the inclusion of white supremacist/white separatist material". That goes to the person, not to the source. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Blaxthos, you regularly accuse your opponents of trolling. I imagine this is not the first time that you advocated blocking or even banning opponents. Drrll (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Only when they're trolling, and deserving of a topic ban or blocks for disruption. I've made my case quite clear here, and rest assured that if editors continue to ignore a rather strong consensus (10 to 1 or 2) and insist on continuing tendentious bullshit I will make that case in a venue that has the ability to stop the disruption in whatever manner they deem appropriate. I have never been blocked or sanctioned, though those crying foul in this forum certainly have, so please stick to my points about this issue instead of trying to discredit them because I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade. There is exactly one (or two, if you're throwing your hat in the ring) who believes a bias tag is warranted, and nearly a dozen editors who say it is not (and have quoted policy extensively). Pushing this any further doesn't validate the point, and only shows that you/he care(s) more about pushing your viewpoint than honoring consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Once and for all, Blaxthos, explain to me what viewpoint I am pushing by seeing a page looking like an advertisement and adding a BIAS tag. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe it's been explained above. Edit warring about apparent bias in the article for months without offering non-fringe sources to verify criticism. I agree that the SPLC isn't a perfect organization - all organizations of any notoriety receive criticism - however, criticism that is not backed b reliable sources isn't going to be included on a contentious article. I'm going to have to agree that these repeating arguments are getting a little tendentious. Falcon8765 (TALK) 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The question was, "what viewpoint I am pushing". Please answer that. No one has been able to so far. "Edit warring about apparent bias in the article for months without offering non-fringe sources to verify criticism" is not an answer to that, especially since the edit warring began with the people improperly removing the tag and even getting indef banned for it, in part. I understand my defense of the constant personal attacks is tedious, but I cannot help that, since, for example, this subsection seeking consensus has been turned into yet another attack LAEC section. Perhaps the tediousness is the constant attacks? So please, Falcon8765, while I wait for Blaxthos to answer, I know you to be cool. Please calmly answer, what viewpoint am I pushing by adding a BIAS tag to a page that looks like an advertisement? Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not going to continue feeding you. This is done; move along. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like consensus to me. Anyone against not to have the {{Bias}} tag on the page? (If no response, could some admin like Will Beback or Magog the Orge declare this discussion closed?) --Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Will do. That appears to be the consensus above. If you have concerns about my closing this discussion, please drop me a note on my Talk page. Thanks. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bias tag

I will add the BIAS template, for the reasons stated above in several sections on a lack of criticism. Without criticism, the article is simply biased. Other than a lack of criticism, I have no complaints about the existing text at this time. The lack of criticism has been discussed here for a while, but the discussions go nowhere while the bias remains, so it is only fair to advise WP readers that bias exists in this article until such time as the bias is remedied. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  • The article does refer to criticisms leveled against the SPLC's fund-raising tactics and executive compensation, and quotes critic Alexander Cockburn at length. What other sources of criticism do you propose should be included? --Dystopos (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems balanced to me. TFD (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There is some criticism in the article, as mentioned by Dystopos, but to me it is insufficient for such a controversial organization that almost exclusively targets the Right, including mainstream conservatives (especially conservative media). The SPLC does not have the credibility of an organization like the ADL, which targets both the Right and the Left. I support the BIAS template. If someone has access to the Montgomery Advertiser articles on the SPLC, that would be a good start for balancing out this article. Drrll (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The SPLC is a well respected organization that is sourced throughout mainstream media. There is a small number of critisms from a few outlets, which is already represented enough in this article, because the vast majority of sourcing is positive. Dave Dial (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
No wonder I missed reading Cockburn. It is literally buried in the 4th to the last sentence in this huge article. If that is the only criticism, then I have proven my point about the article being biased. As a result, comments that say the article is balanced evidence those commenters feel a near total absence of criticism is "balanced."
And we all know and admit that the "SPLC is a well respected organization that is sourced throughout mainstream media." But that does not dismiss our duty to write encyclopedic articles, not corporate pamphlets.
Dydstopos asked a reasonable question: "What other sources of criticism do you propose should be included?" Let me say that I am not an expert in this area so I really do not know what's out there. But my own inability to produce a meaty response to Dystopos's question should not be considered evidence that no such criticism exists. I have a concern for the number of SPLC supporters writing here over a long period of time that if I do not personally find Wiki-worthy criticism, then the community consensus will be that such criticism does not exist. Indeed, that's a foregone conclusion to DD2K who said, "There is a small number of critisms from a few outlets, which is already represented enough in this article, because the vast majority of sourcing is positive."
That said, let me provide one source that is clearly Wiki-worthy, namely Tom Tancredo. See The Hidden Agenda of the SPLC, by Tom Tancredo, Spring 2010, where Tom Tancredo talks about, among other things, how the SPLC smeared him personally, so he should know.
See also "Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press, and Duped its Donors", by Jerry Kammer, March 2010.
Let me be clear I am NOT promoting any anti SPLC agenda. I am merely following Wiki rules about the presence of criticism in Wiki articles so they do not look like puff pieces, which is what the SPLC article looks like right now, and a single criticism buried in the fourth to the last sentence of this huge puff piece is evidence of a lack of appropriate criticism. Further, my linking those articles is a result of responding to a question from the community. I have to say this because I want to head off at the pass the claim that I am promoting certain views of certain people or groups because I linked to them or for any other reasons. No, I am merely working with the community on the Talk page as I should be doing. Let's all try our best to avoid ad hominem argument. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPOV which is our guide. We do not but in criticism for its own sake. The article on Shoes for example does not have criticism. TFD (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
NPOV reads, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." That is lacking in this article. Hence the BIAS tag. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Notice it says "significant views". The view you are presenting are fringe. TFD (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Tom Tancredo is not "fringe". I'll bet there are numerous other sources that are not fringe.
TFD is doing exactly what I predicted, namely, implying that if I can't find appropriate criticism, it doesn't exist. I'll hazard a guess that there is plenty of non-fringe criticism out there if people would just look for it. I am asking for people to look for it. This article looks like an SPLC pamphlet. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Some reference here may be useful: http://www.centerforimmigrationtruth.org/splc-references --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you are doing just as the anti-SPLC editors do all the time. Citing fringe outlets to try and include more criticism. Every single "source" you are quoting has been described by the SPLC(among others) as either promoting, being one or being supported hate groups. Find a mainstream source that has not already been discussed, and then suggest an edit. Otherwise I think we are done here. Dave Dial (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best not to cite Tancredo's first person complaint (in which he acknowledges that the press and the White House consider the SPLC's views to align with the mainstream). However, in it he does make reference to a broader critical article written by Jerry Kammer, which appears to be a better source for footnoted criticism of the SPLCs work. --Dystopos (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Dystopos, thanks. DD2K, please stop the rush to judgment that no criticism exists. And do not align me with "anti-SPLC" editors. That people/groups oppose the SPLC is not a fringe opinion. This page needs compliance with NPOV. Your rush to say any criticism is fringe is becoming more and more apparent with each of your edits. We are not done here. Everyone would prefer that you contribute instead of discourage. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Jerry Kammer works for the Center for Immigration Studies which provides information about immigration. TFD (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Dystopos, Jerry Kammer works for the same organization that the SPLC states has ties to "white nationalists and Holocaust deniers". I don't believe that would qualify as a non-POV source at all. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, you have yet to produce anything but innuendos, while claiming the article doesn't conform to NPOV standards because there isn't enough criticism in the article, while producing zero mainstream sourcing for anything. If you can't see what's wrong with that, I don't know what to tell you. There is nothing to really discuss here right now, perhaps I'll chime back in if anything turns up, but if not, the tag will have to go. Dave Dial (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
DD2K, the tag stays until the issue is resolved. You consistently seek to rush to judgment. You consistently seek to imply that if I personally do not produce results, the case should be closed forthwith. Now, as I predicted, you seek to make me personally the issue, instead of the appearance of this page looking like an SPLC pamphlet. The page looks like an SPLC pamphlet. That is soon going to change. But it will be up to the community to change it, not me personally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Tags should not be placed unless an editor can explain how the article may be improved. Saying there should be criticism, yet not providing any reasonable suggestions is an abuse. I will remove the tags. Before replacing them could you please explain what specific criticism should be included and provide a reliable source. TFD (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I have restored TFD's removal of the BIAS tag. Such tag may not be removed until consensus is achieved. The page looks like an SPLC pamphlet. I have provided a number of links that may contain clues as to reliable sources that may be used to resolve the issue. I do not need to resolve the issue after placing the tag, else why would there be a need for a tag in the first place. The community needs to discuss this. So far 2 people have seen the bias and two others claim no such criticism exists, one even going so far as to remove the BIAS tag despite the rule that the tag stays until consensus is reached. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You must be more specific. You have not explained what criticism is missing nor provided any reliable sources. Could you please do that before restoring the tags again. I can see only two editors who have complained about lack of criticism and you are the only one who sees that as requiring tags. TFD (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been specific. Now I will restore the tag. Your third removal will be seen by me as bad faith. Just allow time for people to work together to resolve this issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The Kammer article may not be an NPOV source, but it seems to be a verifiable source, useful at least for a cogent critical point of view. If a more neutral source has been able to digest some of these criticisms, that's great, but I see no harm in letting Wikipedia's editors take a stab at summarizing Kammer's claims within the context of a neutral article. As for the tag. I personally detest that kind of clutter in the article space, but there's no call for an edit war. Can we agree that some additional coverage of criticism against the SPLC is warranted even if we haven't identified the best sources yet? --Dystopos (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
One problem with Kammer's criticism is notability. Since SPLC has dozens of organizations it criticizes, it is not surprising that they complain about this. It's a bit like movie directors' criticism of film critics. The criticism in the article is from Laird Wilcox, who is an expert on the same groups that SPLC investigates and has written about them in an academic book. He may not be neutral either, but he puts his reputation on the line when he writes about the SPLC. TFD (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, even if the criticisms can be classified as "fringe" or "reactionary", there is undeniably a long-running editorial push to acknowledge the existence of critical opinions, if not their content. Let's look for a way to do that; either by locating a reputable NPOV survey of critical reception, or making some attempt to hash one out from less authoritative sources available to us. --Dystopos (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
NPOV - I think that the above-discussed "bias" tag should be restored, until more balance is achieved, in this article. As I've said before, in prior "Discussion" posts, for this article: The issue of domestic surveillance and domestic spying, done by, or in collaboration with, federal and state governmental agencies, has become very-relevant in recent years, and continues to be. There was the recent MIAC "fusion center" scandal, and the Guenter Lewy lawsuit, as well as the charges from civil rights supporters such as Laird Wilcox and Professor Carol Swain, and from a Khaleej Times journalist - This is included in the SourceWatch entry, on the SPLC: Illegal government surveillance.
There are a number of other issues with this article. We have been going over this, for at least a couple of years now. People keep removing the criticism from here. Until this matter is fully resolved, I think that the "bias" or NPOV-dispute tags should remain. Pacificus (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing substantive or credible has been put forward as further criticism. This tag strikes me as unnecessary and only seems to be put forward by those who disagree with the organization's actions, atleast judging by the absurd sources for said criticism. Should not remain. All that has been asserted are criticisms from fringe political advocacy groups and fringe 'news' organizations with very obvious and open political biases themselves. Seriously, just look above - someone advocated a website that says the National Council of La Raza has opened our borders for unlimited and free immigration, which would be akin to ref'ing Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. The very obvious failure to provide any criticism is very telling, with sources like this. There has been absolutely no credible criticism asserted. I'm astonished that the bias tag remains. "Without criticism, the article is simply biased". Where there doesn't appear to be legitimate, notable criticism, the article is not, in fact, biased. 68.227.163.169 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
User 68.227.163.169 makes a compelling case. I've removed the bias tag, which was inappropriately placed. --Accretionist (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, "bias" tags cannot be removed, until a certain procedure has been undertaken. None of those issues I raised above was ever addressed. A number of major media sources reported on the MIAC "fusion center" scandal, and Missouri government officials have formally recognized this problem. Furthermore, it is inappropriate that the Guenter Lewy lawsuit is not even mentioned, especially since the SPLC very-recently admitted they were wrong, in this case. And, FYI: The Khaleej Times is a very-major, and nationally-followed newspaper service (Henry Kissinger is among their foreign affairs columnists). And journalist Jerry Kammer was a recent recipient of the Pulitzer Prize. And professor Carol Swain of Vanderbilt University is nationally-recognized for her eminence in the field of African-American studies; the same is true for Laird Wilcox, in the area of anti-racism activism and civil rights. Furthermore, the issue of domestic surveillance and collaboration is a serious one, with privacy and civil liberties implications.
A section should probably be added to this article about the SPLC's involvement in foreign affairs, particularly insofar as the Republic of Turkey, and also with respect to the Kosovo war (and criticism they have received, from antiwar advocates.
And also: I know that civil rights leader Stephen Bright was quoted, in a previous version of this article; Has that material been removed?
Also: In looking at the Wikipedia articles for other organizations, I've noticed that the SPLC's perspective has been quoted/cited disproportionately (and at times, almost exclusively), even if those were from older years. On the other hand, the reference to the SPLC from the Washington Post (definitely a "reliable source") which has been cited in this article before (labeling the SPLC as a "controversial, liberal organization"), keeps getting deleted (while the SPLC's labeling/sourcing of other organizations remains featured, in those org's articles).
Aside from the third-party sources I have alluded to... It is also unfair to say (as per the dialogue, above on this Talk page) that a source's affiliation with an organization criticized by the SPLC means that said source is unusable - while at the same time, the SPLC is frequently-cited, in the Wikipedia articles for many of the organizations that it criticizes (such as FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA), and the recent social conservative organizations that have been added to its list (some of which, like the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and American Vision, it has labeled as hate groups).
This type of citation policy/practice is a double standard.
There are a number of other issues with this article - Many of which have been raised in prior years, and then, action has been taken to rectify this imbalance... But then, those changes keep getting reverted back. But aside from this, until further study is given, to these topics, and that material is added, it isn't appropriate to removed an NPOV bias dispute-tag.
The tag should therefore be restored, until all of the issues raised, by posters on this Talk page (and on the other Talk pages, for this article) are addressed, and resolved. Thank you, Pacificus (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, could you please take one item at the time and provide reliable sources to show this page is biased? Please? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead revisited

The lead to this article has very obvious violations of NPOV. For example, it tells the reader that the SPLC "is an American 'nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society.' " Merely putting part of the organization's mission statement in quotes does not establish NPOV here because the structure of the sentence invites the reader to accept the SPLC's statement as fact. What we know for a fact from the source is that the organization asserts that it is dedicated to doing certain things, not that it actually does them. The lead also states that the SPLC provides "free legal service to the victims of discrimination and hate crimes." The statement is misleading because it invites the reader to believe that all the SPLC's clients have been thus victimized. What the organization actually does is to provide free legal services to people that it believes are "the victims of discrimination and hate crimes." The purpose of the cases it brings is to determine whether or not its clients actually have been victimized by discrimination and/or hate crimes. The wording as it now stands amounts to Begging the question. I have a couple of other less serious issues with the lead but will save them for now. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information...."[16] You would need to show what this self-description is questionable by showing a reliable secondary source that describes the SPLC differently. TFD (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No, you're missing my point, TFD. I have nothing against the SPLC's mission statement being used as a source provided that it is used properly. I'll give you an example here. Let us say that the mission statement of Fox News states that it is "dedicated to providing its viewers with a fair and balanced presentation of world and national news." A neutral way of using this mission statement as a source would be for Wikipedia to say something like this: "According to it's mission statement Fox News is 'dedicated to providing its viewers with a fair and balanced presentation of world and national news.' " A far less acceptable way for Wikipedia to handle it would be for Wikipedia to say: "Fox News 'is dedicated to providing its viewers with a fair and balanced presentation of world and national news.' " You might take a look at the edits of the lead that I made about twelve hours ago (since deleted) and opine as to whether they are preferable to what is there now. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The very first sentence at [[NPOV] is, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Over and over again in the current discussions on POV people have been asked to produce reliable sources that present a different view from the ones reflected in the article. No such evidence has been forthcoming. Here, Badmintonhist seems to want to create doubt in the readers mind about the SPLC without providing any reliable sources that suggests readers should have such doubts.
One POV supported by reliable sources is presented in the current language. Until some other POV supported by reliable sources is introduced into this discussion, then, by definition, the article is neutral. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Nope, Don't need to. What I'm requesting, is something that is both consistent with Wikipedia policy and with common sense. The SPLC is not a neutral third party source and particularly not neutral when describing itself. Using the subject of the article as a source for the article is fine when it comes to verifiable statements of fact ex. The stated mission of the SPLC is to fight for all that is good and against all that is bad. It is not fine when the source is used to imply that something inherently opinionated is actually a fact: ex. The SPLC fights for all that is good and against all that is bad. By the way, none of the edits that I made required changes in sourcing just significantly improved the wording. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue IS NOT whether the SPLC is neutral about itself but whether it is A RELIABLE SOURCE about itself -- which it clearly is as TFD pointed out.
You are the one that brought up NPOV. NPOV is about balancing RELIABLE SOURCES. To make your case, you need to show what RELIABLE SOURCES are not included. If nobody RELIABLE disputes the SPLC's self-description, then NPOV has been achieved. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
PS You used Fox News as an example. What the lead in that article says is, "Some critics have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions.[4] Fox News Channel says that its political commentary and denies any bias in its news reporting.[5]" In this case, there are apparently reliable sources to counter FOX's claims -- four are mentioned in the footnotes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Whether or not reliable sources argue against Fox's self-description a far better way to present this self-description in the lead is According to its mission statement Fox News "is dedicated to providing its viewers with a fair and balanced presentation of the news." not Fox News "is dedicated to providing its viewers with a fair and balanced presentation of the news." Badmintonhist (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The long standing motto of the New York Times is "all the news that is fit to print." not The New York Times provides "all the news that's fit to print." Badmintonhist (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
It is your introduction of Fox News into this discussion in the first place that was irrelevant -- sorry if I encouraged you. Undisputed self descriptions (the SPLC case) are different from disputed self descriptions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The statements made in the introduction of this article have been repeatedly demonstrated as accepted (and even stated) by countless reliable sources. Editors challenging those views must demonstrate that opposing views have gained currency in other reliable source demonstrating enough weight to mention them here. No sources, no weight, no mention. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OH, REALLY!!?? Then why does the basic description of the SPLC found in the opening sentence of the lead rely on only one source, THE SPLC ITSELF? As I stated before none of my edits made about 14 hours ago require new sources. They just improve the way the existing sources are used. Actually, perhaps one new source is required. I notice that the statement in the lead about the SPLC providing free legal representation to the "victims of discrimination and hate crimes" (as opposed to the less conclusionary "free legal representation to those it believes are the victims of discrimination and hate crimes") seems to be unsourced. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
One source is fine when the claim is non-controversial. As far as your point about "victims of discrimination and hate crimes", this is more than supported by reliable sources in the very long subsection "Notable cases." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, I have to agree. By analogy, it may well be the case that not everyone who calls the police to report a crime turns out to be a victim of crime, but it's still quite accurate to say that the job of the police is to provide recourse to victims of crimes. Dylan Flaherty 20:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting. Is this the way we normally talk about law suits and the task of lawyers? By this standard a firm that defended those accused of discrimination would be described in Wikpedia as "providing legal assistance to the victims of false accusation of discrimination and hate crime." By the way, since when does a Wikipedia article become a WP:RS for the self-same Wikipedia article? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
PS: It's a good advertisement but it isn't neutrally written, encyclopedic copy. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
When you say
"By the way, since when does a Wikipedia article become a WP:RS for the self-same Wikipedia article?"
you appear to be deliberately distorting what I said. Being as the lead is a summary of the entire article, it is quite common for the documentation of the lead to be contained in the footnotes in the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The proper way to summarize that would be to say something like "it has won numerous cases which have provided relief to victims of discrimination and hate crimes." The existing "summation" imputes a kind of infallibility on the organization. I don't see a dimes worth of difference between the lead here and an advertising flyer for the SPLC. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You are assuming parity between the SPLC and the organizations it describes. TFD (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No, what I am assuming is that an encyclopedia article should employ neutral language. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
That is very assumption I have made. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
It is neutral language, unless you are assuming parity between the SPLC and the organizations it describes. TFD (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What's with this "parity" bit? Of course we assume a formal parity in writing the articles in that we apply (or should apply) the same written standards to both. That doesn't mean we feel the same way about both . Getting back to one of my original points, perhaps someone can explain to me why they think that a lead which says "the SPLC is a civil rights organization 'dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society" (arguably true, but unarguably propagandistic in its wording) is somehow a more ENCYCLOPEDIC than a lead which says "the SPLC is a civil rights organization whose stated mission is a dedication 'to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society'" (unarguably true and not propagandistic in its wording). Badmintonhist (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting passage from WP:PRIMARY:
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward descriptive statements THAT ANY EDUCATED PERSON WITH ACCESS TO THE SOURCE BUT WITHOUT A SPECIALIST'S KNOWLEDGE, WILL BE ABLE TO VERIFY ARE SUPPORTED BY THE SOURCE.
The primary source in the case in dispute (opening sentence of lead) informs the "educated person" that the SPLC does indeed DESCRIBE ITSELF as being "dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society." However, it does not verify the reliability of that claim. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Notice that WP:PRIMARY says nothing about editors being able to use the primary source beyond this limited purpose provided that reliable sources justify this use (which sources, by the way, are not even used in out lead anyway). It simply says that we can only use the primary for what we can clearly verify from the primary source itself. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Badmintonhist is correct, of course. His complaint is likely part of why I added the BIAS tag. Badmintonhist, don't give up. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This is actually very simple: it all comes down to whether there are any reliable sources contradicting the SPLC's self-description. If not, then it would be original research on our part to editorialize about what it "really" does. Dylan Flaherty 02:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't you mean, "This is actually very simple: it all comes down to whether there are any reliable sources supporting the SPLC's self-description"? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Let's leave it at "it depends on what reliable sources say about this self-description". Dylan Flaherty 02:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, you've touched on the point that I was going to make after taking a brief break from the fray. If reliable third party sources exist that have described SPLC's mission in much the same way that SPLC has described it, then why aren't they being used instead? Why use an obviously unneutral source using obviously unneutral language about itself? Using the primary source in the way that I have suggested is, pardon the puns, legitimate and even compelling. Using it the way it is currently used is illegitimate and even repulsive. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There is also the question of plagiarism. If a direct quote is being used, or something substantially similar, it best be in quotation marks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Legit, putting the SPLC's description of its mission in quotation marks is one good thing about the lead as it now stands (I'm talking about the first sentence of the lead here, not the second sentence based on the Times-Picayune article). However, as I said in my opening statement quotation marks are not enough here because the structure of the sentence invites the reader to accept that description as verifiable fact. Basically, the sentence, in using the SPLC itself as a the source, should say this is how the SPLC describes its mission rather than this is what the SPLC does. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Badmintonhist, unless you can show us some reliable sources that make that sort of distinction with regards to the organization, making such a distinction here is improper. By seemingly all accounts, reliable sources do not challenge this description (and actually use it themselves), so I suggest this is just another tendentious attempt to give undue weight to a point of view that is soundly rejected both in reliable sources and by the Wikipedia community. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
No, what I'm advocating here is that we actually follow the Wikipedia rules as clearly stated about using primary sources (see my comments in bold type above or go to WP:PRIMARY itself). Badmintonhist (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You must have missed Dylan's response: it all comes down to whether there are any reliable sources contradicting the SPLC's self-description. If not, then it would be original research on our part to editorialize about what it "really" does. Hence, I'm asking you to either produce sources or find a different grindstone. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Now why would I necessarily respond to Dylan making up his own rules? He doesn't cite anything from Wikipedia's MOS. I have. You might notice the P.S. that I recently added to my original citation of WP:PRIMARY. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If the majority (if not all) of the available reliable sources accept their published intent as fact without contradiction, then Wikipedia has no business injecting what amounts to the opinion of two or three Wikipedia editors. Your entire argument amounts to little more than lawyering to begin with; without sources it's completely meaningless. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
BLAX, BLAX, BLAX. You're precious. You haven't produced a single reliable source accepting the SPLC's "published intent" as fact. And if you did you would still be obligated to change the lead sentence in some way because WP:PRIMARY (To which, I notice you haven't responded) is quite clear on the subject. Primary sources are to be used for information clearly verifiable from the primary source itself. The subtle change that I made in the lead sentence accomplishes this objective. The lead sentence as it stands now does not. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Common sense prevails in this matter: If we have no reliable sources questioning the SPLC's published intent, then there is nothing further to discuss. I recommend that we move on to a more productive topic. Dylan Flaherty 20:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
In addition, it should be noted that the only real reason why there needs to be a footnote is because the sentence is a direct quote. The key elements of the sentence are "fighting hate and bigotry", and "seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. Both of these phrases represent accurate summaries of the body of the article whch is adequately footnoted.
The sections "Education" and "Tracking of hate groups" are all about "fighting hate and bigotry." The section on "Litigation and Advocacy" clearly shows that the SPLC's clients are targets of organized violence, children, racial minorities, women, and illegal immigrants -- certainly "the most vulnerable members of society" is an accurate summary. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that statements about the SPLC need to be attributed in a general way, so the reader knows that they are being given the SPLC's mission statement rather than having Wikipedia designate "hate groups" et seq. Thus my edit here. Doing so does not detract from the reader's understanding that they are in fact hate groups, nor does it indicate to the reader that the SPLC is less of a good force than it is. Attribution is a basic part of what we need to do as editors. We don't need sources which assert counter-claims to the SPLC in order to require attribution. Rather we would need multiple highly reliable sources in order to allow us to merely state something as fact without attribution. Statements of an organization about itself always need to be attributed unless backed up by highly reliable secondary sources. BE——Critical__Talk 23:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Common sense prevails in this matter: If we have no reliable sources questioning the SPLC's published intent, then there is nothing further to discuss. I recommend that we move on to a more productive topic. Dylan Flaherty 23:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Common sense says that we don't use a primary source for fact claims about itself. We could move this to the NPOV noticeboard if you wish. It's stated above that "The statements made in the introduction of this article have been repeatedly demonstrated as accepted (and even stated) by countless reliable sources." If so, then we need to gather said sources, and use them. I should note here that I have no sympathy with the hate groups etc. which the SPLC fights. I'm sure its self-description is accurate. That still doesn't convince me that we allow a primary source to speak for itself in a factual voice. BE——Critical__Talk 23:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The extent to which info. in an article lead is subject to consensus. WP:LEADCITE states:
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.
The majority of people who have responded here believe that no further documentation is required -- as I have shown the language of the sentence is adequately supported by the properly sourced body of the article. In reality, this whole discussion is simply a continuation of various discussions of charges of bias that has been going on for weeks -- discussions in which the claims of bias are a clear minority (more often than not a minority of one).
I couldn't help but notice that with this edit [17] you have apparently decided that "hate group" should be surrounded by "scare quotes". You also eliminated "is internationally known." How do you justify these changes?
In any event, the last version of the lead BEFORE the current first sentence was added is here [18]. I would be interested in seeing a specific proposal ON THIS DISCUSSION PAGE that starts with this old version and adds the current language in dispute (i.e. the mission statement) somewhere other than in the first paragraph. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Becritical, but don't be too confident that reason and the proper application of Wikipedia rules will prevail among this crowd. I notice that your eminently well reasoned and well explained edit has already been axed. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Watch your civility here. I won't warn you again. Dylan Flaherty 00:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't seem like Badmintonhist made that edit with any intent to reach consensus "among ths crowd". Of course, when your very first edit on this article (see [19]) contains the following edit summary, "My Goodness, who wrote this lead that I'm editing? The SPLC's press agent?, what should we expect? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I call it as I see it. I think that our colleague Legit had already mentioned that most of the article read like a flyer for SPLC. But, in point of fact, the actual changes I made in the lead were quite subtle. Enough of this. I want to congratulate you, the North Shoreman, for bringing to our attention the earlier version of the lead which is an improvement on the current version. It is an improvement because, unlike the current version, it doesn't use the subject of the article to verify the accuracy of statements that it makes about itself (and thus violate Wikipedia policy). Badmintonhist (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The scare quotes weren't meant as such, but rather just as saying that was a quote. See below. BE——Critical__Talk 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't see this so much as a POV issue as just a technical problem with attribution and good writing. Of course it's controversial, but there are ways to do it without problems. BE——Critical__Talk 02:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

re POV pushing

But the underlying issue is POV, and Tom is right to note that in Badmin's first edit to this page he is attempting to impose his consersative activism on an article which he does not like because of its subject. This is another example of his double standards compared to articles on subjects he does like. And I suspect the timing of his appearance here is no conincidence, since he and Drrll have a history of canvassing on wiki (and most likely now are conducting it off-wiki) to encourage each other's battleground tactics. It may be time again to report this kind of POV-pushing to an administrative noticeboard. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus lead

So it looks like what's needed is a lead which can acquire consensus. I should state that I do not think either side of this debate is unreasonable. Were we to boil it down, we have a concern with Wikipedia policy on the one hand, and a concern with having strong statements of fact on the other. Neither of these necessities should be ignored. I would suggest that we make a new lead here and then put it in by consensus, and let go of prior dislikes between the editors.

In writing a new lead I would suggest:

  1. The SPLC's mission and goals should be fully portrayed
  2. We should not use quotes
  3. We should use some of the multiple sources mentioned above which describe the SPLC and its mission
  4. We should also use the SPLC as a source, but not the only source.
  5. We need to make a new lead working from the article, rather than from the SPLC's statements.

I do think that if people just continue to quarrel, we should seek further outside input. But we're not there yet and should try to resolve it without either personal attacks or appeals to the obvious, which encyclopedia writing often isn't especially when you have NPOV and NOR to look out for. BE——Critical__Talk 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully encourage you to come up with a viable alternative to the current lead and gain a full consensus behind it prior to making any changes to the article. Dylan Flaherty 03:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And I'm sure I can expect your participation in this collaboration. BE——Critical__Talk 04:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm ready to agree with the basic presumptions of this thread. I'm not completely convinced we need to rip up the current intro and start over from scratch, nor am I convinced the current intro is made up of whole cloth from the SPLC (as in, it doesn't serve as a summary of the article). While it's well and good to make sure that we're working towards consensus, I am having trouble tossing the baby out with the bathwater because of a lawyerly assertion of policy by two or three editors well known to be friendly to right wing causes (specifically, Badmintonhist and LegitimateAndEvenCompelling). In the past month I've seen more than a dozen editors reject attempts to inject inordinate/unweighty bias into this article, and after all of those attempts failed we're suddenly going to gut the intro on the complaints of those two or three editors? I'm unconvinced there is a consensus that the current intro is unsatisfactory. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Blax, let's keep an open mind. Whatever bias they might or might not have, we should judge their suggested lead on its own merits. Dylan Flaherty 13:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And my colleague Blaxthos is well known for being friendly to left-leaning ( though I wouldn't say left wing) causes. As for whether or not the present lead is an adequate summary of the entire article this is probably not the best question to ask at this time. I noticed that at least two of the sections dealing with SPLC cases are sourced entirely by SPLC publications and basically use the SPLC's own words in describing those cases. It's that kind of thing, I suspect, that prompted Legit to note the article read like a an SPLC flyer. One section that definitely does not read like an SPLC flyer, however, is the section at the end on Fund Raising. It's really more of a criticism section and at present stands out rather incongruously (for a reader who get to the end of the article) from the rest of the article which has such a boosterish tone. I think we should do something about that. Also, I think that there should be something in the lead (not a lot) which makes some reference to those criticisms.
One other thing about the opening sentence of the lead, phrases such as "dedicated ... to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society are really a form of peacockery as well as POV. All sorts of organizations doing very different things for different categories of people can claim to be "seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society." It is fine to inform the reader that this is what the organization asserts that it is doing. It is not fine to treat the claim as objective truth. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't really care what they're known for or what you're known for, and I shouldn't. It comes down to whether your alternative lead is any good. So far, there's nothing to judge, so I reserve judgement. Dylan Flaherty 17:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not sympathetic to right wing causes. And I'm not attempting to rewrite the lead in a POV manner. However, there are other ways to write a lead which make it in compliance with WP rules and sound better and be less subject to criticism from various editors. C'mon, you don't make a lead mostly from quotes. We can just do better than this. However, I should warn those who might be sympathetic to right wing causes that such causes have little support in reliable sources, and thus this article is not likely to represent their viewpoint to the extent they would wish (though you could do a criticism section). That's not what I'm talking about here. I just want to make a better lead. I do agree with Badmintonhist that some of it sounds like peacockery at the moment; the tone isn't dry and encyclopedic. BE——Critical__Talk 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am sympathetic to right wing causes, but I'm more sympathetic towards integrity. Dylan Flaherty 20:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, cool. BE——Critical__Talk 20:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
hehe, just kidding BE——Critical__Talk 20:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Is the notion of integrity so strange? Dylan Flaherty 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I meant you're a contortionist if you're both sympathetic to right wing causes and integrity. Just kidding. BE——Critical__Talk 21:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In the spirit of assuming good faith, I'm going to interpret that as an attempt at humor, not insult, and move on. Dylan Flaherty 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure it was offered in jest, Dylan. I think my larger point got missed, namely that there is an implicit assumption in this thread that the introduction is noncompliant with policies and guidelines, and I am not at all yet convinced that this assumption is grounded in consensus. Before we go throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I'd like some firmer discussion around the assumption upon which the rest of the discussion is based. I do not think we should move forward with the "rewrite the intro entirely" discussion based on the opinion of a couple of editors (in any case). However, for the record, I do think it's germane to, on some level, consider the source -- if an editor has been blocked for edit warring and tendentious editing patterns based on a particular POV in the past (especially on this article), I think it is absolutely fair to ask for a stronger consensus that something is wrong with the statu quo before making drastic changes. To be quite clear, I'm not saying "everything is just fine the way it is", I'm simply saying that we should probably wait more than a few hours for editors to comment before assuming that it must be scrapped. I hope this better clarified my position. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Clever. Blaxthos, your ad hominem comments about me never end. Yes, I was blocked, but the people who got me blocked were warned that they were this close to getting blocked as well for repeatedly removing a BIAS tag placed in good faith. I am just as much a part of this talk as you are. Do not belittle my contributions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It was just a joke. It's not so much that the lead is POV, but that it could be better written, and written in a way which is less easy to challenge. Just for example:

  • The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations that it has determined "have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." ====>
  • The SPLC classifies as hate groups organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan which denigrate or assault entire groups of people for attributes which are beyond their control.

No need for quotes. BE——Critical__Talk 00:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Specific to your suggestion, picking a specific example is largely discouraged, as it elevates any particular group with undue weight. Giving a specific definite statement is always better than trying to convey something with a subjective example. What's to say we don't pick a different group... how about the "Council of Conservative Citizens" or the "Westboro Baptist Church" or the "Jewish Defense League"? I think Badmintonhist (I think) had it right somewhere above when he suggested the best way to go about this is to improve specific deficiencies within the article body, and then come back later and make sure that the introduction accurately reflects the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I like your idea. The particular sentence you are suggesting needs tweaking but I like your idea. Here' my suggestion, as tweaked from yours:
  • The SPLC classifies as hate groups organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan that denigrate entire groups of people for attributes that are often beyond their control.
--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that about specific examples. I thought saying "such as" was encouraged (and I doubt mentioning the KKK would be UNDUE); but let's tweak. Anyway, I made up a suggested first paragraph of the lead below for your comments. BE——Critical__Talk 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you review the discussion at Archive 3 in which this specific language was accepted, after heated debate, by consensus. I don't see any need to revisit that debate. The problem with referring to the KKK or any specific group in this context is that it suggests there is a typical hate group. The KKK should, however, probably be mentioned in the lede in a different, historical context since opposition to the KKK was very significant in the early days of the SPLC.
Blaxthos makes the point that there is no consensus that the lede needs to be changed. I agree with him, although, as I said, I am interested in seeing proposals that might improve the lede. It remains to be seen whether the article will remain stable enough to make tinkering with the lead worthwhile. If editors fail to first obtain consensus and start making changes to the body of the article based on the type of POV arguments that dominate the recent discussions, then it is unlikely that anything productive will be accomplished. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really look to me like the current lead still has consensus. As to preventing POV editing, we'll deal with that if it happens. I think the examples of hate groups should be taken out, since there have been a couple of objection. BE——Critical__Talk 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your claim about consensus changing so easily. Archived discussion should be duly considered, as your linked policy also says, it "can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus." -PrBeacon (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree, however, things have changed since the last consensus. For example, there was no discussion the last time about how the Times Picuyune story may not be a reliable source after all for what's stated in the lead. So, with new things to discuss, being guided by the past is useful, but it should not be an anchor or excuse to hold us back in time. The goal here is a Wikiworthy article, not a reflection of past inadequacies. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the source for "internationally known" (: I hate to say it... but coming up with sources like that is making a good case for not using quotes in the lead. They aren't necessary with such good sourcing. Certainly, archived discussions should be considered. But to me, it looks like that was the best that could be achieved at the time. I'll take a wild guess that the article was coming off a session of extreme POV pushing, and that was the best people could agree on. Well, that's fine. It worked for 5 months. But that doesn't mean the article is what we should aim for as a finished Wikipedia product. I don't see POV pushing in any extremem form right now; and if there is, I really feel we can deal with such. I'm not one to have infinite patience with nitpicking or wikilawyering which doesn't have some basis. But I do think there are legit concerns here and they'll keep coming up till solved. I think people need a bit of flexibility and to participate in the process. BE——Critical__Talk 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Nope, things haven't changed that much. The tired argument of "past inadequacies" is neither legitimate nor compelling -- it is your opinion, so repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more right, and several others including admins have warned you about this tendentiousness. BeCritical you seemed to be more reasonable before but now as dismissive as LAEC about the past consensus. You can't simply discard it because it's archived, five months is not that long ago. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Version one

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization founded in 1971 by Morris Dees and Joseph J. Levin Jr. as a civil rights law firm based in Montgomery, Alabama.[1][2] SPLC is internationally known for its free legal defense of hate group victims, monitoring of hate groups and their activities, and educational programs promoting tolerance. The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations which denigrate or assault entire groups of people for attributes which are beyond their control. The SPLC has successfully litigated against many such groups. SPLC publishes a quarterly Intelligence Report that investigates extremism and hate crimes in the United States.[3][4][5]

BE——Critical__Talk 00:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, I agree that quotes should be avoided in article leads whenever possible. However more important than style is substance. You have eliminated the quotes but have also eliminated important information and replaced it with less accurate language. For example:
  1. The SPLC is a "nonprofit civil rights organization" as the current version says. Saying that it is "a civil rights law firm" is not the same thing since it has programs related to civil rights beyond its legal representation.
  2. The second sentence in the current version is, "The SPLC "is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, legal victories against white supremacists, and its tracking of hate groups," militias, and extremist organizations. This tells the reader that the SPLC is not some local phenomena but is an organization that reaches a vast audience. Your version withholds valuable information from the reader. It also flies in the face of the consensus that was reached to add the language in the first place.
  3. Your first sentence is misleading. It is dedicated to much more than "the free legal defense of hate group victims." Its dedication is to a whole range of programs that includes litigation, monitoring of hate groups, and education. The first sentence should as much as possible be a summary of what the organization does -- you have focused on one function that, today, is probably its least visible. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Law firms can act outside the expected fee generating activities and still be considered law firms. Sometimes advocacy efforts end up affecting the bottom line, such as by creating controversy that the firm puts right. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not local: "SPLC publishes a quarterly Intelligence Report that investigates extremism and hate crimes in the United States". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Let's see how the article shapes up, then summarize the key points here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The SPLC is more than a law firm -- it is a civil rights organization and the article should say so.
There is no basis for eliminating "internationally known" and describing exactly what it is known for.
I doubt there are any important aspects of SPLC activities that are not included in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Tweaked it some. "Internationally known..." is that from one of the sources you can point out to me? BE——Critical__Talk 03:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The source is footnote 3 in the current article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
PS The founding information seems out of place in the second sentence -- the sentences on either side logically go together since they are both discussing operations. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Footnote 3 is a single article with a glowing review of speaker Morris Dees. Can you find a better source? People say all sorts of hyperbole when introducing speakers. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Worse, if he is the speaker, he was likely asked for his accomplishments to be read out, so he likely made that statement and the Times Picuyune just republished it, essentially. Definitely a better ref is needed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Come to think of it, any claim supported by that ref may actually be directly from Dees and republished. I now have doubt that ref is valuable at all, except to take Dees's statement and set it in MSM stone. Not reliable. Get a better source or remove that sentence from the lead and anywhere else. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked. As you say, the basic facts of the organization should come first. What it does, founded by etc. BE——Critical__Talk 03:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bond was president from 1971 to 1979, but the sentence doesn't really make sense anymore. Dylan Flaherty 03:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best to just take it out... it doesn't add anything really. BE——Critical__Talk 03:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
And really, isn't there a better source like he says for the scope of its influence? BE——Critical__Talk 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 3#Compromise solution. The language was approved by an overwhelming majority just five months ago -- with LAEC dissenting. I'm not prepared to reverse that decision. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not certain that is a good yard stick. The same group of people who protect this page now (such as be seeking to insert direct quotations without quotation marks since the stated material is the absolute truth) were doing so then. Others like Ink Falls, Drrll, and myself take notice from time to time, but eventually individuals like us get worn down by the buzzsaw or the pack effort to protect the page over the long term with statements like, "He's not here in good faith, Tom, and I wouldn't waste much time trying to find a compromise solution with him". Sounds like a buzzsaw to me. It's happening again ("consider the source -- if an editor has been blocked for edit warring and tendentious editing patterns based on a particular POV in the past (especially on this article)"), although I have to say recently we are all having substantive conversation for a change. Besides, clearly the editors here are different and may come to a better solution than in the past. A consensus is not a consensus forever. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I also support this language. Dylan Flaherty 04:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What language? BE——Critical__Talk 04:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Click the text with the underline. It's called a hyperlink. If you click the link, you'll see that the discussion is about the previous lead. Dylan Flaherty 04:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize at first that you were referring to the previous lead which we're already discussing here. I'm glad people came to a consensus back then, but I'm under the impression that the current lead no longer has consensus, and also that we are on our way to a lead which is much better done. Using quotations from the SPLC itself and what seems to be a puff piece isn't a good way to write a lead, even though the information is correct. This is an encyclopedia, and should be written as such. However, I'll wait to hear from others. I'm responding here to complaints and what I consider obvious deficiencies in the current lead. But I don't want to waste my time if there is no desire by editors here to improve it. I understand the desire to stand by a past consensus, but I don't understand an unwillingness to improve the lead when there is no POV pushing involved, and all that is happening is that we're trying to make it more encyclopedic. Really, I think perhaps the rewrite didn't go far enough... a new lead should be drawn directly from the sections of the article. In other words... Either the current lead is better than I understand, or else it's that people are afraid to change because they think it is the thin end of the wedge. But that's not going to happen; Wikipedia is stronger than it seems. BE——Critical__Talk 04:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't have anything to do with the "strength of Wikipedia", and everything to do with building consensus. Certainly consensus can change, however if a particular section (especially the introduction) has already been through the wringer in which a previous consensus was hammered out then the burden of proving consensus has changed is much higher. Since LAEC has admitted that three editors lurk and "take notice from time to time" and that he's been soundly rejected in the past, and given his recent behavior on this page, and given the large number of editors that have challenged his attempts in the last 30 days, I'm absolutely unwilling to scrap that hard-won consensus because of two or three editors who never agree with consensus in the first place. You're going to have to show a broader base of community support before tossing out an introduction backed by the previous compromise solution. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
"[G]iven his recent behavior on this page, and given the large number of editors that have challenged his attempts in the last 30 days". So says Blaxthos who never misses a chance to go on the attack. He attempts to discount my opinion repeatedly to elevate his own, as he has just done, again. Perhaps it is time to turn the tables on the guy who persistently attacks other editors here. Perhaps Blaxthos's contributions should be discounted where he attacks again, again, again, again, and again, without end. People should not be intimidated by such a person who clearly continues to flog me to send the message not to follow in my footsteps of being one of the few persistent editors who opposes his soapbox merely by seeking the application of Wiki rules.
Blaxthos, will you stop attacking me? Fellow editors, can something be done to stop Blaxthos from attacking me gratuitously? We want to talk about issues here and not waste time as Blaxthos continues attacking again and again and again, ad nauseum. Aren't people tired of this yet? He just based his refusal to budge on claims about my behavior in the past. How convenient, no? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way:
Thank you, Dylan, for undoing my edit. I made my edit before realizing there was a discussion on the talk page, and then I was too stubborn[right word?] to revert myself.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not meaning to insult anyone who has previously worked on it, the article has serious problems which should not be ignored. They start with the opening sentence of the lead which quotes a portion of the SPLC's mission statement, quoting it as fact rather than noting it as fact in contravention of WP:PRIMARY. This "fact" includes a textbook example of peacockery, to wit: that the organization is dedicated to . . . seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society, exactly NOT the kind of thing an encyclopedia is supposed to say per WP:NPOV. "The most vulnerable members of society," unlike, say, "the victims of Klan violence" is an inherently nebulous concept. That's one reason why you don't quote an organization's boilerplate as fact (ex. Operation Rescue stands up for the most helpless among us.) I also happen to believe that Legit is probably correct about the Times Picayune article, whose words are quoted in the next sentence. It reads pretty much like a puff piece largely gleaned from the organization's own copy. In any case we should avoid stringing quotes together to compose the lead (and other parts of the article as well). I would suggest that we first fix the lead, which badly needs fixing and then go to the body of the article which also needs work (some sections are entirely sourced by the SPLC itself). Then we can go back to the lead if the changes in the body require it. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, no, no one can keep people from attacking you inless they unsult in a very extreme way. That's just the way Wikipedia works, but you can comfort yourself by noticing that it makes other editors mistrust and dislike the person who's insulting you. Of course, both sides of this debate have been insulting each other. The personal attacks at this level need to be completely ignored. Don't respond to them any more, period, unless they can be reported to AN/I. Either that, or if you can establish goodwill with the editor, then discuss it in private. And please listen to what people are saying rather than what POV they have. I cannot help agreeing that this lead -and article- needs work, and what is there now really is, indisputably, presenting primary sources as fact. We can write a lead presenting the same information in a way which is much easier to maintain, as I tried to do above. And were editors to step back just second, they would notice how unencyclopedic the lead really is. I was trying to re-write it, but people just want to go with a previous consensus. Now, I really don't want to be involved in controversy to this extent. However, I'm willing to keep going here if I'm in some way wanted. We could go to mediation, also. But with just a little flexibility, we still might resolve this here, don't you think? BE——Critical__Talk 20:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. And thanks for the advice. I will endeavor to follow it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Point of order -- stating that I do not believe someone is here in good faith is not a personal attack, as defined in the relevant policy. Please stop equating the two. If you need some examples of each or further education on the difference I'll be glad to go into more detail on user talk pages (just ask), but please stop playing the bullshit victim card. There have been no "personal attacks", just observations by many admins/editors (not just me) in the last 30 days that you're tendentious here and elsewhere -- see here, here, here, et cetera. So that being said, several of the now-objecting editors participated in the original consensus discussion. They refused to join with the rest of the editors in forming consensus (10 or 12, if I recall correctly), and so that they now continue to object is absolutely not justification for ignoring the work product from that discussion. To be quite clear, a cadre of 2 or 3 doesn't all of the sudden trump the consensus of 10 or 12, especially when those 2 or 3 participated in the original discussion. Wikipedia shouldn't be a waiting game or "wear down the other editors by bringing the same issue up over and over". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Regading "internationally known The same term is used in a very detailed article from the "Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties" at [20]. Although the author of the article is not available on the Google Books version, I was able to determine from Amazon that it was written by Salmon A. Shomade (see [21] for his qualifications as a reliable academic source.) Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a great source, thanks (: You're making it unnecessary to use quotes, you know :P What I want to do is to make this article/lead more like that one, in other words more like a professional encyclopedia. That's all I'm trying to do. BE——Critical__Talk 23:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Version 1.1

Using Version one as the starting place, I have taken the following into consideration:

  1. Eliminated any quotations.
  1. Retained references to "internationally known" due to the second source that I identified.
  1. Removed the general reference to "fighting hate and bigotry" and "most vulnerable members". I have replaced them with more specific information on how the SPLC fights hate and bigotry and described who its clients actually are.

I would also suggest a third paragraph that would focus on a summary of the history and current state of the SPLC's education programs and a fourth paragraph (see [22]) for guidelines on the size of a lead section) that summarizes the section on "Tracking of hate groups".

The following is my proposal, recognizing of course that the current consensus is to retain the current version and that at least two of the proponents against the consensus are simply POV pushing. My proposal, I believe, maintains the current neutral POV.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization internationally known for its free legal defense of hate group victims, monitoring of hate groups and their activities, and educational programs promoting tolerance. The SPLC classifies as hate groups those organizations which denigrate or assault entire groups of people for attributes which are beyond their control. SPLC publishes a quarterly Intelligence Report that investigates extremism and hate crimes in the United States.

The SPLC was founded in 1971 by Morris Dees and Joseph J. Levin Jr. as a civil rights law firm based in Montgomery, Alabama. They were quickly joined by civil rights leader Julian Bond who served as president of the board from 1971 to 1979. Its litigating strategy involved filing civil suits for damages on behalf of victims of discrimination with the goal of financially damaging the groups and individuals who directed the discrimination. While they originally focused on the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists, throughout the years they have become involved in cases concerning illegal segregation by groups such as the YMCA and Alabama State Police, welfare rights, work place rights for women, the constitutionality of the death penalty and its disparate application to African Americans, and the rights of adequate representation for poor African Americans in criminal trials. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A much better sounding lead than the present one, however what's in the article on welfare rights, the rights of women, the death penalty, and the rights of criminal defendants? Minus that stuff in the last sentence, I could work with it.Badmintonhist (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It's great, much like what I was talking about when I said that I didn't go far enough in the first proposal. We should write the lead from the article. I think though that there are major sections on neoconfederate movement, fundraising, maybe other stuff. What if we worked out an extension of this tomorrow? BE——Critical__Talk 08:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Um, having time to read more carefully your proposal, I think I agree with you all the way round, and only would add something about fundraising. BE——Critical__Talk 09:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Refs

  1. ^ "Attorney Morris Dees pioneer in using 'damage litigation' to fight hate groups". CNN. September 8, 2000. Archived from the original on June 18, 2006. Retrieved 2007-08-17.
  2. ^ The Dees, Morris, and Steve Fiffer. 1991. A Season For Justice. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 132-133.
  3. ^ SPLCenter.org: Hate Groups Map
  4. ^ Southern Poverty Law Center website: Who we are, http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are, accessed August 1, 2010
  5. ^ With Justice For All November 5, 2006; The Times Picayune
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_5&oldid=1147993896"