| Revision as of 21:29, 18 August 2012 editRivertorch (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,528 edits →Moving forward: reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:04, 8 January 2025 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,918 editsm Signing comment by 97.106.148.231 - "→Phrase "Lawsuits and criticism against the SPLC": " |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap|style=brief}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alabama}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Civil Rights Movement |importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|counter = 19 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|algo = old(92d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{blpo}} |
|
|
{{talk header|noarchive=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=no|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alabama|class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid|class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|class=B}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot|age=45|units=days|index=/Archive index}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutrality disputed. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I attempted to add a criticism section with critical content from former US House Representative from Colorado, Tom Tancredo, but it was promptly deleted, the editors note claiming that World Net Daily was a fringe source. I dont think he can be honestly said to represent a fringe view, given that he is an elected representative. He is controversial figure, but nevertheless, a notable person. Although one citation was from World Net Daily, Tancredo actually wrote the article, and I backed up his claims with other citations from the Seattle Times and Tolerance.org. WND is an admittedly right wing site but I am merely citing what Tancredo wrote, I'm not relying on them for any facts other than the undisputed fact that he wrote the article. Furthermore, SPLC is clearly a left-wing group, which many view as a fringe group, but it is nonetheless cited extensively as a reliable source of information, with no mention of it's leftward slant. So unless there must be something I don't understand, I think that this article should at least bear a neutrality disputed tag. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, World Net Daily was granted press credentials to cover the US Congress by the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. So, I don't think it can be dismissed a fringe source. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_6_34/ai_93090045/ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:WND is not considered a ] for much of anything here. Please don't add a POV tag without extensive and active discussion either. I don't really disagree with the addition of the material as long as you get better sources. ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yup, check out RSN, WND is not considered a reliable source and ''especially'' not for claims about living people (Potok). –] (] ⋅ ]) 01:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== SPLC Not Credible. "Hate Group" Label a Tool of Hyper-Partisan Ideologues == |
|
|
|
|
|
It is completely ''absurd'' that no substantial criticism is allowed to exist in this article. SPLC is ''not'' viewed as some well-respected, objective think tank or anti-hate-group organization. The left ''wants'' them to be viewed that way, but deep down even they (at least those of them who ever leave the echo chamber even for a short while) know it's just a partisan attack group. |
|
|
|
|
|
SPLC is a hyper-partisan and incredibly biased political group that misuses the term "hate group", not an intellectually honest "civil rights organization". The "hate group" label is what they use to raise funds and smear and intimidate political opponents. They give leftist groups a free pass. Their only aim is to denigrate conservative groups, with the exception of Muslim groups that may be deemed conservative since, being an intellectually bankrupt leftist organization, SPLC is ridiculously politically correct and thus can't be seen "attacking Muslims" (though I'm sure they'd make an exception for one that they can label as being less Muslim and more "conservative" in the American political sense). It treats the Family Research Council the same way as the KKK, yet it ignores the Islamic Circle of North America. |
|
|
|
|
|
A reporter recently got them to admit much of this. When questioned about why they wouldn't track leftist groups, such as certain ''actually'' hateful and violent group linked to Occupy Wall Street that planned to blow up a bridge and bomb the Republican convention, they dodged the question again and again, but finally admitted this: "We're not really set up to cover the extreme Left." He went on to say they "only ever cover left-wing groups when they have a right-wing component". |
|
|
|
|
|
"To call the Family Research Council a hate group is unacceptable. It’s inaccurate. It’s using the phrase in an ideological way." - Stephen Schwartz, executive director for the Center for Islamic Pluralism |
|
|
|
|
|
NO ONE should take SPLC's lists seriously. Any actual hate group on there can and will be listed by other, '''actually reputable''' organizations. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a joke. It's just too bad that we've got so many jokers dutifully suppressing the truth here on Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
SPLC is "not set up to cover the extreme Left"; they're set up to cover ''for'' the extreme Left. -- ] (]) 22:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Your concern is noted. ] | ] | ] 23:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== civil rights and miranda rights violation == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is this the page that I would state my case on or do you have another area that I must go to so I may explain my case and what happened to us? Please send me a text message to let me know so I don;t type all of this in the wrong area. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank You, |
|
|
|
|
|
(] (]) 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)) |
|
|
:I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but I think I can state with reasonable confidence that this page, and probably Misplaced Pages in general, is not the venue for it. –] (] ⋅ ]) 20:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Indeed. Just to clarify: this page is for discussing changes to the article, ]—nothing more, nothing less. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia; its content is based on information that's ] through reliable secondary sources, not personal testimony or anecdote. Please see ]. ] (]) 22:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutrality == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have added a neutrality tag. It seems very strange that there is no criticism section. We have a few statements of criticism under finances, but nothing for other activities. Over at ] there has been a discussion over SPLC's action in adding groups to its list of hate groups - that particular incident may not belong on this page, but for the article to be neutral, it needs to cover criticism and/or perceptions of the SPLC. ]] (]) 00:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:E.g. "the civil rights organization is receiving flak from critics on the right who say an overbroad definition of “hate” vilifies innocent people and stifles vigorous debate about issues critical to America's future" . ]] (]) 00:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::See ]; and please name specific criticism you feel should be in the article which is not. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The above quote, I suppose, could go in the "Hate group listings" section. ]] (]) 01:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Have you any other concerns? Any criticism you feel is notable which is not included in the article? ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Criticism sections are usually a bad idea - criticism should be put into the relevant sections, for example criticism of the use of the term "hate group" is included in the section about hate groups. Since there is little or no criticism of the SPLC in mainstream sources, we would not expect to have much criticism in the article. ] (]) 16:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that we don't necessarily need a separate criticism section but where'd you get the idea that there is "little or no criticism of the SPLC in mainstream sources." You should know better from past discussions; and a fair amount of that criticism has come from moderate and left-leaning sources: The Montgomery Advertiser, the Better Business Bureau, Harper's Magazine, the Nation, Harvard Professor and anti-poverty activist ]. ] (]) 16:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just read that the Southern Poverty Law Center was critized by ] with which it seems to be in a kind of feud. This may be a starting point for the criticism section, see |
|
|
:::* and |
|
|
:::*. ] (]) 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Badmintonhist, you need to provide sources. Gun Powder Ma has shown that a white nationalist hate group, lead by ], has criticized the SPLC and that is typical of the types of sources of criticism I have seen. ] (]) 17:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That is not appropriate content for ''this'' article. Every hate group protests their designation, and that belongs in ''their'' articles not ''here''. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I agree entirely. Not many readers will think that the groups the SPLC call hate groups welcome the designation, there's no reason have a statement from them in this article, it belongs in their articles. ] (]) 18:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::<small>(edit conflict) </small>True. It's pretty much a given that organizations with racist, homophobic, and other unsavory components will have critical things to say about the SPLC. One-off instances of criticism in mainstream publications don't rate a mention, either, in and of themselves. If there is a ''pattern'' of specific criticism that is documented in multiple reliable non-primary sources, then that's something else again—but that would need to be well documented and then preferably integrated into the current structure of the article rather than given its own stand-alone section. ] (]) 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Agree... just throwing a grenade over the wall ("''there should be more criticism''") is not actionable and isn't really aimed at improving the article. I find that that approach is more grounded in a personal ideology rather than an helpful improvement (and yes, I note the irony in the "neutrality" label for exactly the opposite circumstance). //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 18:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Criticism of the SPLC from mainstream and left-leaning sources is already suggested in the '''Finances''' section. As I remember, certain editors succeeded in removing its poor charity ratings and lack of cooperation with the Better Business Bureau from that section, but at least a reader of the article gets the idea that its financial policies have been rather controversial. My main point was that FD's commment that there has been ''"little or no criticism of SPLC from mainstream sources"'' is simply wrong. That being said, a brief sampling of negative comments about the SPLC made by well known critics such as The ''Montgomery Advertiser'', ], ], (the late) ], and others is probably in order. ] (]) 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
You find more criticism in the '''''': {{quote|The Center, and particularly its co-founder and legal strategist Morris Dees, are not without criticism. The major points of controversy are summarized including critique of their fundraising strategies and selection of issues}} |
|
|
|
|
|
and also with ]: '''''', p.253f.: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quote|Underscoring their surveillance and monitoring activities, the SPLC vigorously promotes a society with unenforceable border controls, in essence, a nation with an undefined nationality and unlimited diversity; a nation which no longer distinguishes alien from citizen. The SPLC’s website features their quarterly Intelligence Report on “hate groups” — what it characterizes as the “racialist, patriotic, and anti-Semitic” fringe of the far right — and tracks various “hate crimes” from coast to coast. A “hate crime” by SPLC standards could be any ethnic slur that was uttered during a bar fight, or a college prank that some intoxicated undergraduates committed during a frat party, or the latest “noose”-displaying incident. In seeking to criminalize “hate speech” and shore up valuable connections with local, state, and federal agencies, the SPLC regularly conducts seminars and workshops on the “terrorist threat” of domestic “hate groups.” It briefs law enforcement agencies on a regular basis.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
These are strong criticism from, as it seems non-partisan sources, concerning the centers' political alignment and financing, and it took me only ten seconds to find them. I therefore support the neutrality template, the article needs balancing. ] (]) 20:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:JRTI perhaps; a piece published in the ''Social Contract Press'', an SPLC-listed hate group, certainly not. Again, most of these groups are going to complain about their designation, but we need reliable secondary sources in order to include it in another article. –] (] ⋅ ]) 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Adding those sources gives them ] -- how often is the ''Social Contract Press'' routinely cited by mainstream media, in government proceedings, or in academic press? SPLC publications are routinely cited as expert by the media, in court cases, and academic papers. Any criticism must be sufficiently weighty to merit inclusion; a fringe hate group publication crying foul for being called out as a hate group by the hate group experts is as light as a feather. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 20:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Correct. ] (]) 21:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
I've just come back online (I live in Australia) and see that my hand grenade has gone off. Yes, I believe "there should be more criticism" is a bit vague, and possibly POVish in its own way. But there had been a couple more neutrality sections on this page without the issue really being addressed, and another editor raised the point in the long discussion at ]. I guess I wanted this to be discussed here properly - if the consensus is for no criticism section (and it is only an essay that's been linked to on this point), then that's fine. Anyway, I found another source - '']'' argues that the SPLC has moved from being "an icon for Jewish values of racial tolerance and equality" to being anti-Jewish, and quotes ] saying "The SPLC is the most prominent and active leftwing smear site in America." ]] (]) 21:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::You mean the David Horowitz whose article says ''"Chip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), identified Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." '' " More sour grapes from those called out by the SPLC, sorry, not a neutral source. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What about newspaper article? ]] (]) 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What about what newspaper article? ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If every criticism is excluded on the basis of coming from a "hate group" which is portrayed as merely retaliating, I am beginning to wonder on what Misplaced Pages guideline these exclusions are based. Where do they say that Misplaced Pages needs to adopt the designations of Southern Poverty Law Center as its own? Where do they say that organisations or people which return criticisms are no subjects worthy of coverage? Perhaps we should raise the lack of criticism at the neutrality board to bring on board more uninvolved users. ] (]) 23:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yes, I agree - I think criticism from SPLC targets can legitimately be included in the article, and if "neutrality" rules out conservative opinion, then we have succumbed to a hopeless systemic bias. ]] (]) 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: newspaper article that I linked to above. ]] (]) 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{unindent}}St. Anselm -- I'm not sure your idea of dropping a "hand grenade" on this particular article was a good idea. To start, I have removed your addition to the article pending the resolution of this discussion. If you had checked the discussion page archives, you would have realized that the material you added had been the topic of a long and heated discussion -- the result being that there was NO CONSENSUS for adding the criticism generated by the FRC advertisement that the Christian Science Monitor article references. The particular issue was a hot item for a few weeks, but quickly disappeared. Among the reasons for not including the material was that it gave undue weight to the opinion of one group among over a thousand targeted groups. |
|
|
|
|
|
Gun Powder Ma -- You ask "on what Misplaced Pages guideline" are the opinions of the designated hate groups excluded. The main answer can be found at ]. By no stretch of the imagination can a group such as the FRC or the League of the South be considered a reliable source on the operations of a Watch Group such as the SPLC. Simply because the SPLC is recognized by both academics and news organizations as a reliable source about hate groups, does not mean that the hate groups therefore are reliable sources about the SPLC. ] (]) 00:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is no credible rationale here for excluding notable criticism - that is to say, widely reported in mainstream media - from any notable person or group, ''regardless of status as a listed hate group.'' The standard is notability, period, and there is no exception for ''ad hominem'' disqualification. ]-] 01:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Your opinion. However this is the issue that is under discussion and it appears at this point yours is the minority opinion. Before you start adding material that I just deleted back, you should respect ] and make your arguments here. ] (]) 01:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The "hand grenade" phrase was not my own, and it was certainly not intended to be this. Obviously, though, the neutrality issue is not going away, and the tag needs to remain. I see now there was a ]. Be that as it may, I wonder if we can get consensus now, at least on the CSM reference. I would argue that the FRC listing has received far an away the most coverage of all the listed groups, and the discussion at ] has indicated that the conservative criticism of SPLC for this action is ''ongoing''. Finally, I strongly disagree that criticism that originates with these groups in appropriate for inclusion - if it is reported in independent reliable sources, then it should be included - it is not undue weight to say that dozens of prominent politicians think that the SPLC got it wrong. ]] (]) 01:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::By all means, see if you can obtain consensus. A far as the FRC and the politicians, the Monitor article is a little weak on details. For instance it claims that Boehner et al paid for the advertisement and, if you review the archive links, you will find that this is not true. You will also find that what the politicians signed off on in a reprinted petition does not go as far as the FRC does in its attacks on the SPLC. And as a matter of weight, you have the SPLC being criticized on ONE listing from over a 1000 on the hate list. The FRC is not even mentioned in the article. If you include the FRC criticism, then you need to include the details of why the SPLC decided they were a hate group in the first place. Why make this article about a single organization when the FRC article is a more appropriate place. ] (]) 01:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Are we reading the ? "Tension erupted recently between the SPLC and a slew of Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota (who tops the SPLC's “militia enablers list”), who protested the SPLC’s listing of the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group." And it's not just one in a thousand here, the point of the article was that the number of listed hate groups has topped 1000, which raises questions about the broadness of the definition. ]] (]) 01:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Yes, it's the same article. Please tell me which other hate groups are referenced in the article other than the FRC and the League of the South (2 out of 1000 -- my error). While the supporters of these organizations might make overly broad generalizations, neither these critics or the article's author provide any factual basis to this. Absent actual facts, this article is an opinion piece about the opinions of the FRC and the League of the South. Correct me if I'm wrong -- what other examples of overly broad classifications are cited? The article does say: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::''While the SPLC's investigations and studies are used by some law enforcement agencies concerned about domestic terrorism, its overall work, its critics on the right say, has taken on an overtly political dimension by giving ideological cover for attacks primarily on white conservatives and by turning the word “patriot” into a euphemism.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The problem is that nowhere in the article is there any factual support for such a broad claim or even an indication that the article editor agrees with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You noted earlier, "''I would argue that the FRC listing has received far an away the most coverage of all the listed groups, and the discussion at ] has indicated that the conservative criticism of SPLC for this action is ''ongoing''"''. In fact, what you will actually find is a flurry of activity generated by a paid advertisement (when the CSM article was written) and a flurry now because of the shooting. The FRC created an artificial situation with its advertisement and is now taking advantage of a shooting for publicity -- wikipedia shouldn't be enlisted in its mission. ] (]) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'm quite astounded by this approach. On the one hand, you call the article an opinion piece, on the other hand you note that the article's writer refuses to say whether he agrees with the critics. You said "nowhere in the article is there any factual support for such a broad claim" - does it need factual support? The claim is, of course, that this is what the critics say. Are you doubting that this is what the critics say? It sounds like you just don't like what is said in the article, but that's not the point. It is, after all, a reliable source. ]] (]) 06:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::OK, so the argument here is that once a group is put on the hate list, its criticism of SPLC is excluded, even when the criticism is widely published in national media? That argument fails our core policies, not to mention basic common sense. ]-] 01:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No. The argument is that groups with no credentials that suggest they qualify as a reliable source (as defined by wikipedia) are not a proper source for any article other than an article about themselves. ] (]) 02:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Nonsense. ]-[[User_talk:Belchfire|<span style="color:black"> |
|
|
<small>'''TALK'''</small></span>]] 02:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Not "nonsesne"; ]. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::There's nothing wrong with my sources, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Why don't you tell us the ''real'' reason for reverting 4 other editors? ]-] 05:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The shooting controversy will not doubt die down soon, but the FRC's recent criticism has been published in all the mainstream news sources. ]] (]) 01:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::A few days of notability do not justify the material being added to this article. Just as the earlier publicity had a short life span, so will this. ] (]) 02:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::If the standard of notability here is "a few days", I could easily reduce this article to a stub. What's your ''next'' argument? ]-] 02:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===The Edit War is On=== |
|
|
|
|
|
It appears that some folks aren't content with discussing and reaching consensus. Despite the ongoing discussion, users LuckyWikipedian and Carolmooredc have decided to bypass the discussions and simply add contested material. Not much point in further discussion until someone restores the status quo to the point where the NPOV tag was added. I did so once, but don't intend to keep it up. It looks like the side with the best use of reverts w/o violating 3RR "wins". ] (]) 02:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:When you come up with a better reason not to add notable, relevant, reliably sourced material, you will probably discover that editors are more willing to listen. So far, I've seen no such reasons in this discussion. Indeed, what I've have seen so far seems to amount to "we don't like it". Your last argument, that "groups with no credentials that suggest they qualify as a reliable source" is a reason to exclude notable content, fails on its face. Likewise the argument that groups labeled as a hate group by their political opponents are auto-magically disqualified from having a voice. Indeed, political organizations that have been labeled hate groups are ''uniquely qualified'' to talk about what's wrong with the SPLC's methods, and since their criticisms have found a voice in national media in connection with a notable event, those criticisms deserve a voice here, in the interest of NPOV. ]-] 03:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::If you're sincere about reaching an actual consensus, then restore the previous version of the article. Otherwise, discussion really isn't worth much. ] (]) 03:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't see a clear consensus either way. I see roughly an even split - between editors on one side, who say they are against a criticism section on general principles (even though I know full well they have an entirely different view when it comes to other articles), and editors who think that criticism generated from a notable event is worth including. Moreover, our BRD policy pretty much negates any notion that pre-clearance from other editors is needed before adding content. (Take note: "discuss" is the ''final'' stage in that cycle, not the first.) ]-] 03:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Note that the policy is "BRD", not "BRBD". It does not require consensus to ''add'' content; it ''does'' require discussion and consensus before ''re-adding'' content which has been challenged. ] (]) 03:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, but unfortunately it's <s>a policy, not an essay</s> an essay, not a policy. (An essay that has wide acceptance, but an essay nonetheless.) While we're at it, maybe we can find some quotes from aggrieved KKK members and swastika-brandishing neo-Nazis whining about being targeted by the SPLC. But no . . . that would be beyond the pale. We'll let the "respectable" hate groups hide behind their surface civility and give them free bandwidth to bitch and moan about those who call them on their dirty deeds. Okay, whatever. Rant over. Those who choose to bypass consensus are, in fact, violating ]. I'm not going to fire a single shot in this edit war, but I will cheerfully ask for full protection if the back and forth edits continue. ] (]) 05:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this is the best place to comment but here goes. The "criticism" section is pretty sloppy. That it is so bias makes me not believe any of it yet there must be some notable criticism of the group besides that they are master fundraisers. I don't know what should stay or go but I suggest anyone trying to make the point that there is criticism would do well to only include those critics who are reputable and published in good sources. Of course the groups labelled hate groups mostly despise the SPLC, this is not surprising. But show me some well thought out criticism and maybe don't segregate it in one pointedly biased section. OK, off my soapbox of sanity! Cluetrain WooWOO! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::] ''is'' a policy. Can you point me towards a policy that says I need ''permission'' to add content? I get that some editors aren't going to dig it, but if I'm adding well-sourced, relevant, notable, encyclopedic content, I'm not doing a single thing wrong. OTOH, falsely accusing other editors of tendentiously adding poorly sourced content as a rationale for reverting , ''does'' violate policy. A number of them, in fact. And I've yet to approach the apparent ] that I'm seeing on this Talk page. ]-] 06:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
In any case, I'm not sure we can revert to the previous consensus position when the record shows that there was, in fact, '''no''' consensus regarding a criticism section. ]] (]) 06:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Belchfire, you seem to be swinging around a large chip on your shoulder in opposition to anyone who doesn't agree with you. I'm no fan of SPLC but your tactics are making all the critics look nonsensical. The content you're adding is poorly presented making it pretty worthless. Maybe if you played nice with others you'd see notable criticism actually presented in a way that didn't discredit your efforts. I might not agree with the political stances of everyone else here but you seem to be the bull(y) in the china shop daring anyone to question you. Just maybe they have a point that better writing would make your case more meaningful. Cluetrain Woowoo! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:StAnselm, I think it's pretty safe to say that there is now, in fact, a consensus in favor of having a Criticism section. There isn't any serious question about that. ]-] 06:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Unless those of us who have indicated there shouldn't a criticism section somehow aren't to be taken seriousy, there is indeed serious question about that. In fact, I see no indication of consensus for such a section. ] (]) 06:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'll address your earlier comment a little more fully, Rivertorch. The opposition to having criticism based merely on a listed organization's complaints is probably valid. I've been careful to avoid anything along those lines. ]'s criticism deserves to be taken seriously, on account of her creds. FRC's criticism deserves to be taken seriously, because of its notability. Attempting to revert those things because they were supposedly "poorly sourced" is simply spurious. Any consensus that was categorically against a Criticism section prior to yesterday is no longer built on solid ground, because the weather has changed. I'm not against consensus-building at all, and I am quite willing to listen to reason, but those in opposition need to come up with actual valid objections if they expect to be taken seriously. ]-] 06:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The problem with a criticism section in -any- article is that it begs for poor quality writing. Instead -notable- criticism should be woven into the prose like when the groups' finances are discussed, so are the notable criticisms that their reserves are excessive to some, and others find their fundraising operations over-the-top. In this way you don't beat the point that a bunch of negative things have been said, you show how the organization operates and how some of the aspects of what they are have been criticized. It's a matter of good writing and reporting. That article also shouldn't be addled with a section of positive proclamation statements either. See ]. ] (]) 09:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::A point well-made, Cluetrain. ] is also relevant. ] (]) 10:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Cluetrain's argument is simply invalid. Purportedly poor writing is simply not a rationale to exclude content, ever. Furthermore, not only is WP:CRITICISM just an ''essay'', but it doesn't argue against a Criticism section in any meaningful way - it mostly talks about how to build one. Conversely, see ] and ], which are ''policies''. WP:STRUCTURE is policy, but IMO doesn't really work in this instance and IMO isn't the way to include the content currently being warred against by those trying to keep relevant encyclopedic content out of this article. The real issue we have here is ]. ]-] 16:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}This doesn't seem very persuasive, since the issue here is whether we need to give criticism its own section. Basically, no, we don't, and it would be a bad idea to do so. ] (]) 16:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:@Belchfire: I'm not sure whether you understood the point Cluetrain was making, but it seems you didn't check what ] has to say about creating a Criticism subsection, significantly titled ]. Hence why I suggested also referring to the policy ], the main paragraph of which outlines the potential pitfalls of making such a separate Criticism section, and finishes with the recommendation "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." ] (]) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Drive-by comment == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are many absurd arguments used by those opposed to criticism of the organisation appearing in the article, including: |
|
|
*If the critic is on the "hate list", |
|
|
*#The criticism is to be expected, and hence not notable. |
|
|
*#The criticism is not notable ''because'' it's from a hate group. |
|
|
*:#1 has some small merit, although it would need to be determined whether the criticsm came before or after the critic was on the hate list. (Yes, I ''am'' implying that SPLC would call a group a "hate group" ''because'' the group criticised SPLC.) It's ''still'' notable if reported in the press. |
|
|
*:#2 premuses the SPLC is "expert", and that we are permitted (in Misplaced Pages's voice) to say that an organization '''is''' a "hate group" because SPLC says it is. Even if SPLC is expert, we still could not use their opinion in a BLP context, which would apply in many of the cases. |
|
|
*Only a few organizations protest their listing; or only a few organizations have their protests reported in the press. |
|
|
*:Both false. For each ''type'' of protests, only a few organizations make that type of protest, but it would be at least "several" organizations whose protests have been noted in the press, in sufficient directness and detail that the protests, themselves, would meet ]. (This does ''not'' require the protesting organisation to be "reliable", as long as the protest is reported in ].) The related claim that only "several" of the 1000+ organisations which have been declared "hate groups" by SPLC have protested also should have little weight. |
|
|
|
|
|
The argument that there should not be a criticism '''section''' may hold up, but many more of the individual criticisms should be in the article. — ] ] 13:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't know of any hate groups that cheerfully admit to being hate groups, so I'm sure we could find any number of them insisting that they're merely pro-family, pro-American or pro-white. I don't see how this is notable, though. Consider how ] prominently mentions its hate group status but offers no rebuttal, criticism or controversy. And, yes, SPLC is considered an expert by the FBI. In short, I don't find your drive-by analysis to be valid. ] (]) 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::So now, you're stalking me., and have not given any counter-arguments. — ] ] 15:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I had this page watchlisted before you made your comments; it relates to the whole CfA/FRC thing that you know I'm active on. Given this, your accusation is a bit weird and definitely a violation of ]. |
|
|
:::I'm not sure what you think a counter-argument should look like. I would like to imagine that my statements constituted such a thing. ] (]) 15:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You need to establish that an opinion is notable before it should be included, per ]. Law enforcement, government, the media and academics do not invite members of hate groups to explain the SPLC. ] (]) 15:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::(to Still-24-45-42-125)You have a vivid imagination. I've had the page watchlisted for some time, also, and the talk page (at least) is presently showing all of the arguments I've commented on. In context, they look more absurd than I've portrayed them. |
|
|
::::(to TFD) True, to some extent. That an opinion is ''noted'' by reliable sources, though, is what makes it "notable". The media does not invite members of "hate groups" to explain the SPLC (although ''someone'' should be invited to explain them); it reports on comments made by "hate groups" about the SPLC. — ] ] 15:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You repeatedly talk about "notability" and even provided this ]. The problem is that notability is not a factor to be considered in the CONTENT of the article. If you had read the very next section under the one you linked (]), you would have read the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::''The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. '''The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content''' (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of ] and other ]'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The issue is the WEIGHT that should be given to the opinions of a group, the FRC, that has no established reputation as a reliable source on the subject of Watch Dog groups. By your logic, since many reliable sources mention the beliefs of Holocaust Deniers, their opinions should be given prominent play in any wikipedia articles relating to the Holocaust. Certainly Holocaust Deniers "deserve" their own article (and have received one) because of their notability, but this does not mean that their opinion is worth citing elsewhere. The FRC also has its own article and that is the place for its opinions. ] (]) 16:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::North Shoreman makes a valid point and helpfully points us to a policy that argues forcefully for inclusion of the FRC criticism: ''"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, <u>in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint</u>."'' This seems to state pretty clearly that a single paragraph of information about what FRC said following a major news event is certainly not out of order. ]-] 16:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::I'll bite. I'm repeating the section you quoted with added emphasis that I'll discuss: ''"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."'' The question is whether the FRC's opinion is "significant". The material you added directly related the SPLC and violence. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::The obvious first question is whether any source, reliable or otherwise, prior to a few days ago ever made that connection. Based on everything that I have seen, the answer is no. The next question is does any reliable source hold that opinion today? Again, the answer is no -- reporting something is not the same as agreeing to something. A third question is a factual one -- is there any actual evidence that the shooter was actually motivated by the SPLC? I haven't seen it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== WP:LEDE == |
|
:::::::::This leads us to the issue of ] -- not a policy or guideline but certainly an article that must be considered in determining the SIGNIFICANCE of the FRC claims. In the history of the discussion of hate groups (15 or 20 years), do the news articles that covered the sensational events give the FRC's opinion lasting significance? In analyzing the news reports and understanding how the press covers such acts of violence, they are going to report ANYTHING that comes out of the mouth of affected parties, including Tony Perkins. This doesn't mean that after a few news cycles the issue will disappear from reliable sources and retreat to right wing blogs and FRC publicity statements. ] (]) 18:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I removed part of the lead section: |
|
::::::::::*Your first observation is simply wrong: FRC's listing was highly controversial, and the controversy received significant press coverage at the time, back in 2010. Given the 2 year time frame, claims of recentism are defeated outright. What's your ''next'' argument? ]-] 18:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::The interest in the FRC was generated by a paid advertisement -- the coverage was largely of the advertisement. The interest of reliable sources (as opposed to right wing blogs and FRC publicity) very quickly died. The material you added recently was entirely about a link between the SPLC and violence -- a totally new charge lacking SIGNIFICANCE -- a topic you totally failed to address. ] (]) 18:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<nowiki>In 2019, founder Morris Dees was fired following accusations of ],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Moon |first=Josh |date=2019-03-15 |title=SPLC fires founder Morris Dees; internal emails highlight issues with harassment, discrimination |url=https://www.alreporter.com/2019/03/15/splc-fires-founder-morris-dees-internal-emails-highlight-issues-with-harassment-discrimination/ |access-date=2023-05-08 |website=Alabama Political Reporter |language=en-US}}</ref> which was followed by President ] resignation. An outside consultant, ], was brought in to review workplace practices, particularly relating to accusations of racial and sexual harassment.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/us/morris-dees-leaves-splc.html|title=Roiled by Staff Uproar, Civil Rights Group Looks at Intolerance Within|last1=Burch|first1=Audra D. S.|date=March 25, 2019|work=The New York Times|access-date=March 28, 2019|last2=Blinder|first2=Alan|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|last3=Eligon|first3=John}}</ref> Margaret Huang, who was formerly the Chief Executive at ], was named as president and CEO of the SPLC in early February 2020.<ref name="montgomeryadvertiser_Lyman_2200203" /></nowiki> |
|
:::::::::::::Now you're simply grasping at straws. There are paid advertisements, placed by various interest groups, in major newspapers by every single day, and most don't get any press coverage at all. This one did, and that makes it significant and notable. The link between SPLC and violence was similarly established by the RSs that covered the story. No coverage, no significance. What's your ''next'' argument? ]-] 18:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The information is already in the article in the ] section and the first sentence of the section below that. I do think the information should be included in the article (and it is reliably sourced), but I don't think it should be repeated in the lead section of an organisation that was started over 50 years ago. Thoughts? ] (]) 04:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::Hey, don't give the North Shoreman too much credit here. His analogy invites us to think of the FRC as Holocaust Deniers and the SPLC as the Keepers of Truth. Our article is not about a concrete historical reality and whether folks who deny that it happened should get a say in it. It's about an organization that makes its living by getting people worry about "hate groups," and the question here is whether adequately sourced news and controversy about its "hate group" designations should get some play in our article. ] (]) 17:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It was probably more important when it happened, considering that Dees was the founder and had led the SPLC for its first 50 years. But as time passes, it becomes less important. ] (]) 07:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::"Concrete historical reality"? Please. The FRC's claim that the shooter was motivated by the SPLC is not supported by anything factual. There is no evidence that I've seen that indicates why he did what he did -- we can reasonably assume that he had something against gay bashers in general and Chick-Fil-A in particular, but we have no evidence at all that he was driven by SPLC writngs. There are quite a few LGBT blogs out there, as well as documented cases of violence against gay people (not to mention the mainstream coverage of Chick-Fil-A) -- there is nothing "real" about blaming the SPLC. ] (]) 18:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Uhhr . . . I assume that you can read (??). Then reread what I said. The ''"historical reality"'' I referred to is clearly '''the Holocaust.''' My point was that keeping Holocaust deniers out of the article on the Holocaust is NOT analogous to keeping adequately sourced criticisms of the SPLC's "hate group" designations out of the article on the SPLC. Savvy? ] (]) 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "groups that it classifies as" == |
|
::::::::::Is this argument an attempt at humor? Why does the SPLC have a hate group list in the first place? You can pretend to ignore the obvious boomerang, but that won't make it go away. Nobody, not even FRC is saying SPLC is directly responsible (indeed, Tony Perkins was careful to point out that the shooter is responsible for his own actions). What's being said is that SPLC created the ''climate'' that encouraged the man's resorting to violence. You know, the way a hate group does. If don't find the significance of this self-evident, I am clearly wasting my time trying to reason with you. ]-] 18:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}Yes, and it's Perkins' claim that is so obviously nonsensical. We should report it -- let him hang himself with his own idiocy -- but there's not a lick of evidence that the SPLC is responsible for a hate group being hated. ] (]) 19:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:On the contrary, it's nonsensical to assert that SPLC calling groups "hate groups" is not likely to incite violence against them, whether or not it's SPLC's intent. (I don't think anyone said that SPLC is ''necessarily'' reponsible for (what they call) "hate groups" being hated, although that '''is''' their intent.) — ] ] 20:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's like saying that, if not for the SPLC calling the KKK a hate group, nobody would hate them for being bigots. ] (]) 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I didn't say that, exactly. However, as for my second comment on SPLC's intent in publishing the "hate group" list; if it's not their intent that the groups on the list be hated, then what could the intent possibly be? — ] ] 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The likely alternative intent is that SPLC is making a public listing of organizations which spread hatred against certain sections of a community, whether for being black or LGBT. FRC, for instance, was listed by SPLC for this (among other published statements): “omosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews.” If it was not FRC's intent that this description of homosexuals should result in LGBT members of the community being hated, then what could the intent possibly be? ] (]) 21:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I can't disagree with Alfie. The way I would have put it is that, by designating them as a hate group, the general public would be alerted as to their nature and would react appropriately by shunning those who support it. Consider the CfA/FRC fiasco for evidence. ] (]) 21:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Furthermore, in a note about the difference between notability and weight; '''if''' a dispute between two organizations would meet ], it should be mentioned in articles (or subarticles of) both organizations. '''That''' goes without saying, even if the mention were merely a "See also". — ] ] 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::If it goes without saying... ] (]) 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It wouldn't need to be said if it weren't being denied. — ] ] 21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Actually, I think their motives are more geared toward creating brisk company business than toward inciting violence. Had the SPLC not created new villains after the Klan and similar groups had become moribund (and they were already pretty moribund by the time that Dees began suing them) the SPLC coffers would not currently register at between $200,000,000 and 300,000,000.] (]) 21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Wow. Just wow. It has ''nothing'' to do with the existence of hate groups. It's all an evil liberal conspiracy, right? There is nothing civil I can say further about this. ] (]) 21:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I didn't say word one about a liberal conspiracy. On the contrary, the SPLC is really just one "liberal"'s special creation: Morris Dees. There are a number of genuine liberals and lefties who have attacked it over the years, some '''very bitterly,''' as a project for Dees's greater glorification and wealth. Read ], ], and ] on Mr. Dees. And I am not merely blowing "forum smoke" here. The basic criticism of the SPLC's finances is not just boring green eyeshade stuff, it has to do with the very soul of the organization. ] (]) 22:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Why do you consider the opinions of these "lefties" to deserve weight in the article? If their opinions are that important do you plan to add them to articles on conservative subjects? Why not? It seems to me you are just looking for sources of criticism and these are the best you could find, rather than looking at mainstream sources about the SPLC and reflecting what they say. ] (]) 04:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Hooky6}} {{ping|Sideswipe9th}} There was some disagreement about in editsummaries; let's use the talkpage instead. ] (]) 11:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::Apparently, consensus exists that these "liberals and lefties" deserve (at least some) weight in the article because ''they are already in the article'' and have been for quite some time. I suggested including a specific quotation from ] (whom I incorrectly called "Silverman" above) or ] or the late ] to better demonstrate the nature of their critique of Dees's outfit. Such quotes were in the article at one time but were removed. As for including their opinions on "conservative subjects," from what I've observed in Misplaced Pages, articles on ''prominent and controversial'' conservative subjects already contain a generous amount of criticism from the left. One of the things that makes their criticism of the SPLC interesting is that they are probably just the kinds of people that the SPLC would like to have had on its side. As for your suggestion that the sources I've mentioned are not mainstream, Silverstein writes regularly for ''Harper's'', Bright has taught at Harvard and Yale and a host of other universities while heading his own civil rights organization, and Cockburn wrote regularly for the''The Nation.'' We also know, of course, that the SPLC has been criticized by its major area newspaper the ''Montgomery Advertiser'', and has received low ratings at times from various business and non-profit monitoring agencies. Let readers to decide whether or not such critics are collectively "mainstrem." ] (]) 16:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:If you google "SPLC lawsuit KKK" you see a bunch of results. I think the statement in the article is referring to those lawsuits for example. ] (]) 11:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::] requires that we present significant views proportionately, not that we balance views of left and right wing writers. Even if we did, we would need to use opinions representative of the left and right, rather than cherry pick opinions by people who happen to be left or right. The way to determine the weight of various views is to look at sources that explain the weight. AFAIK the criticisms listed have not been reported anywhere and are therefore not significant. I hold the same standard to conservative articles as well. BTW you and a few other editors seem to confuse the terms liberal and left-wing. Cockburn comes out of the Stalinist tradition, which is anti-liberal. From a Stalinist point of view, groups such as the SPLC are system supportive, and therefore no different from the establishment. Cockburn of course criticizes them for working with the FBI, the enforcement agency of the capitalist state. A good Communist of course would never collaborate with the ruling class. But why would we include criticism of the SPLC that faults them for not being left-wing? ] (]) 17:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Agree. Saying that the SPLC considers the KKK to be white supremacist violates ], because it implies that reasonable people may consider the KKK not to be white supremacist. ] (]) 11:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::::We're rather getting into "forum" territory here but at least its interesting. I don't see any evidence that Cockburn considered himself a Stalinist, or that he believed that he came out of the "Stalinist tradition". His Wiki bio certainly doesn't say this (admittedly ''The Nation'' was once pro-Stalin but that was many, many years ago). More importantly and pertinently, the basic complaints of Cockburn, Silverstein, and Bright against the SPLC are pretty much identical. They all believe that it exaggerates extremist (usually right-wing) dangers to the republic in order raise vast amounts of funds with which it provides handsome salaries for a few, HOARDS MUCH, and pursues largely showy but shallow political ends with the rest.] (]) 18:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC) PS: The middle parts of that critique are quite like what non-ideological critics of the SPLC such as the ''Montgomery Advertiser'' and the charity raters have also said.] (]) 18:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Oh! And BTW I didn't confuse the terms liberal and left-wing. That's why I didn't just say "liberals," I said "liberals'' and lefties."'' |
|
|
|
:::Agrreed. ] (]) 11:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ditto for the other incontrovertibly white supremacist organizations that SPLC has clashed with. Good revert. ] (] / ]) 14:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
I don't know much about reasonable people but here is a reliable source that calls the KKK a "white supremacist movement". https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/jul/14/ku-klux-klan-white-supremacy-tv-review ] (]) 14:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024 == |
|
(out) Cockburn says that the KKK is a "depleted troupe.... here isn’t a public school in any county in the USA that doesn’t represent a menace to blacks a thousand times more potent than that offered by the KKK...." The real hate groups in America are "big banks", ICE, the criminal justice system and anti-union employers. If we report Cockburn's views, then we should present them in their entirety. And you still have to explain why we include Cockburn's opinions in an article about SPLC, but not in articles about his usual targets. BTW I can find only opinion pieces about Cockburn and his political odyssey. But the letter from ] and Cockburn seems to show that he showed some sympathy to Brezhnev. Mind you all that matters is whether his opinions on the SPLC are significant. ] (]) 21:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Southern Poverty Law Center|answered=yes}} |
|
== NPOV needed == |
|
|
|
I am requesting an edit to change all instances of the name "Joseph J. Levin Jr." to a link for his upcoming Misplaced Pages page, which currently redirects here (]). On ], it is suggested that before starting a new page, we first create a red link so that "right from the start, the page will be linked from at least one other place on the wiki." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that his most well-known achievement is the creation of the SPLC, and that both other founders have their own pages, it seems that placing the link on this page would be the best place to start. Thank you! ] (]) 03:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
How is SPLC described as a civil rights group when its a radical left wing group? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Per ], wikilinks that redirect back to the current page should not be added. The link can be added after the page has been written. ] (]) 11:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Do you know what the SPLC does on a daily basis? – ] <sup>(] · ])</sup> 02:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::There seems to be some difference of opinion about that, Teammm. But there is a plausible compromise position available: SPLC is a radical left-wing civil rights group. ]-] 02:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::By what criteria and source do you label it a "radical left-wing" group? – ] <sup>(] · ])</sup> 03:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] for your assertions, Belchfire. If you can. ] | ] | ] 03:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Citation needed. ] (]) 03:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Poverty Palace" == |
|
::::No, no citation is needed. I have no intention of adding anything remotely similar to the article, and this isn't a discussion forum anyway. Besides, even if I brought you a direct quote from the mouth of Jesus himself none of you would accept it. Sufficeth to say for now that the way this article is jealously guarded tells us all we need to know about SPLC's political orientation. Cheers. ]-] 03:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't think Jesus would pass ]... //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 14:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is "The organization has also been accused of an overindulgent use of funds, leading some employees to call its headquarters "Poverty Palace".<ref name="NYker_Moser_Reckoning_20190325">{{cite news |last=Moser |first=Bob |date=March 21, 2019 |title=The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center |magazine=] |access-date=June 22, 2020 |quote=In 1995, the ''Montgomery Advertiser'' had been a Pulitzer finalist for a series that documented, among other things, staffers' allegations of racial discrimination within the organization.}}</ref>" ] for inclusion in the lead? Or should the bit about "leading some employees to call its headquarters "Poverty Palace"" be removed from the lead? ] (]) 19:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
No, don't hide this. Let it remain as an example of just how reasonable and impartial Belchfire is. ] (]) 04:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
==Moving forward== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Phrase "Lawsuits and criticism against the SPLC" == |
|
Now that the article is protected and the edit warring has stopped, may I suggest that anyone who is significantly dissatisfied with the current version make a very specific proposal for changing it? It's just possible that if we avoid tangential discussions we can make a stab at determining where consensus lies. If we can't do that with the current cast of characters, I wonder if someone would like to open an RfC and throw open the theater doors. Either way, we need to get it sorted. The article has been pretty stable for a long time, and just because the SPLC is in the news doesn't mean it should become a free-for-all. ] (]) 10:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I strongly agree with your statement, especially the last, which I believe was the cause of this "politicized uproar". – ] <sup>(] · ])</sup> 13:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::The "politicized uproar" is ample cause to change the article and there is no such thing as a "stable article". See ]. ]-] 19:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Belchfire, the term "stable article" has been widely used on Misplaced Pages for many years (see ] and ]); it has to do with edit warring. And no, a recent, highly politicized news event whose relation to the subject is peripheral is ''never'' "ample cause" for hastily, repeatedly making significant changes to a stable article when there is not clear consensus to do so. It's fine to be bold once, but if the change proves contentious, then the only acceptable path forward is focused discussion. Speaking of which, would you care to outline your proposed change(s) here? I find it's sometimes helpful to place the disputed text on the talk page, since it's easier to scroll up and down than to switch back and forth between tabbed diffs. ] (]) 20:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You're right, the term "stable article" is often used (abused, actually) by people trying to fend off edits they don't like. It's considered ]. ]-] 20:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Needless to say, you are free to suggest deprecating the term "stable" (the FA and GA talk pages seem like appropriate places to propose that, or the Village Pump is ]), but right now I'd really like to stay focused on proposed changes for this article. ] (]) 20:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Ditto. Long-term stability is a sign of a silent consensus, so it cannot be ignored, according to policy. ] (]) 20:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not idiomatic. One usually says "criticism OF something". ] (]) 20:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::]. What's your ''next'' argument? ]-] 20:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawsuits against, criticisms of. Parallelism issue. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
{{outdent}} Snipe snipe snipe. Come on. Can we ''please'' concentrate on improving ''this'' article? ] (]) 20:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Pointing out fallacious arguments isn't sniping, is it? Make better arguments. ]-] 21:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::The onus is on you—the editor who wants to add the content—to make a good argument for inclusion. I, for one, am all ears (or I will be again in a few hours). ] (]) 21:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
In 2019, founder Morris Dees was fired following accusations of ],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Moon |first=Josh |date=2019-03-15 |title=SPLC fires founder Morris Dees; internal emails highlight issues with harassment, discrimination |url=https://www.alreporter.com/2019/03/15/splc-fires-founder-morris-dees-internal-emails-highlight-issues-with-harassment-discrimination/ |access-date=2023-05-08 |website=Alabama Political Reporter |language=en-US}}</ref> which was followed by President ] resignation. An outside consultant, ], was brought in to review workplace practices, particularly relating to accusations of racial and sexual harassment.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/us/morris-dees-leaves-splc.html|title=Roiled by Staff Uproar, Civil Rights Group Looks at Intolerance Within|last1=Burch|first1=Audra D. S.|date=March 25, 2019|work=The New York Times|access-date=March 28, 2019|last2=Blinder|first2=Alan|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|last3=Eligon|first3=John}}</ref> Margaret Huang, who was formerly the Chief Executive at ], was named as president and CEO of the SPLC in early February 2020.<ref name="montgomeryadvertiser_Lyman_2200203" />
I am requesting an edit to change all instances of the name "Joseph J. Levin Jr." to a link for his upcoming Misplaced Pages page, which currently redirects here (Joseph J. Levin Jr.). On Help:Starting a new page, it is suggested that before starting a new page, we first create a red link so that "right from the start, the page will be linked from at least one other place on the wiki."
Given that his most well-known achievement is the creation of the SPLC, and that both other founders have their own pages, it seems that placing the link on this page would be the best place to start. Thank you! Neugeou (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Is "The organization has also been accused of an overindulgent use of funds, leading some employees to call its headquarters "Poverty Palace"." due for inclusion in the lead? Or should the bit about "leading some employees to call its headquarters "Poverty Palace"" be removed from the lead? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done: Per MOS:CIRCULAR, wikilinks that redirect back to the current page should not be added. The link can be added after the page has been written. Liu1126 (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)