Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:17, 10 October 2012

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alabama This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Proposed template for "Hate group listing" addition

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

The hate group listing has been a source of some controversy, particularly after an August 2012 shooting at the Family Research Council , an organization named as a hate group by the SPLC in November 2010 . Critics including ] have accused the SPLC of an incautious approach to assigning the label . Many, including have defended the SPLC's policy , and the SPLC has stated that ] .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some sources have been given above. A few more are found here. --Jonund (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Society, sports, and culture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

Proposed descriptors:

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

– MrX 13:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Additional Clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Civil rights organization or Civil rights advocacy organization - The SPLC describes itself as a civil rights organization and the media frequently refers to them this way as well. While nothing should mandate the use of these descriptors, nothing should prevent them from being used, in any article, with appropriate editorial discretion. – MrX 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• "No description" or possibly "Non-profit Organization" - If you look through other articles, such as the , the lead includes non-profit as a descriptor, even though the "type" is a "Christian Rights organization". If I was unaware of what the SPLC was, I would read its full Misplaced Pages page to gain a better understanding of what they do. I feel these are the most neutral options. Acronin3 (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Civil rights organization when a descriptor is used. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"RFC on conservative criticism" closed

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

Conservatives call it biased

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have proposed the following language several times before:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What they say about Roosh V includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Alabama articles
• WikiProject Alabama articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment