Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:51, 22 September 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.

FBI Resource

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This language is at Hate Crime—Overview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed!

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

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

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

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

Body vs lead

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, the extreme right wing is convinced that the SPLC is an arm of the FBI! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/partnerships-established-with-naacp-the-national-urban-league-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center
2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview
3. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/february/
4. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes
5. http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/partnership-with-civil-rights-groups
6. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/march/coldcase_030210/civil-rights-era-murders-joint-initiative-yields-results
7. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror_99.pdf
8. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/trainguidedc99.pdf
9. <http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-announces-new-partnership-with-faith-based-organizations-and-radio-one
10. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/partnerships_and_outreach/community_outreach/outreach_contacts

"and offers training to the police", in the lead.

{{archivetop|Consensus reached not to include "offers training to the police" in the lead (closed by MrX 13:50, 29 August 20120 }}

This fits in with the FBI thing. Any comments? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't belong in the lead. In fact, the whole "SLPC is a resource" bit doesn't belong there either. It has no weight with respect to the article and doesn't meet WP:LEAD. There aren't any secondary sources that I am aware of that lends this weight   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the police training thing is from a secondary source, so by your own logic, it belongs in the lead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.. Now what is the importance to the topic? Marginial at best.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the police training to the education section. Now the mention in the lead is a proper summary of what's in the body. Any other objections? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You need better sourcing. And you need to avoid indefinite language like "regularly". Belchfire-TALK 01:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. We have the SPLC for the quotes and CNN for confirmation. The word "regularly" was used in the context of an attributed quote, so it's just fine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The CNN piece gives no specific information at all; it merely mentions the training in passing, which confirms almost nothing that you put into the article. Everything else, beyond the bare fact that the training exists, is a self-published claim. Good grief, most of what you inserted had quotes around it, because it was copy-pasted direct from SPLC's website. Find better sourcing to support your specific claims. Belchfire-TALK 02:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit comment read "This is just a self-published claim. Needs secondary source. And what does "regularly" mean?". As I pointed out, it has a secondary source. As for the specific claims, we quote them with attribution. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk)

Having looked quickly at all the listed sources I don't see anything that substantiates the amount of police training the SPLC actually does; and if the SPLC really doesn't provide a substantial amount of training to police; if it's really mainly PR, which Dees excels at, then such material should not go in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Taking a good look at this new addition to the lead it really should go. "Offers training to law enforcement at all levels" is pretty empty. My partner and I "offer our singing talents to entertainment venues at all levels" but we usually get hired by senior centers and assisted living facilities. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I, too, offer online training to police departments "on request". If they ask me to, I will send them an email with my opinions on how they should catch bank robbers. Can I get a Misplaced Pages article now? Belchfire-TALK 04:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just get some secondary sources to confirm it. The SPLC has six; how many do you have so far? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a tough choice: do we go with our sources or your original research?! Let me get back to you on that. :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The mere existence of a source doesn't order us to USE THIS IN THE LEAD. IT'S IMPORTANT! Editors use their discretion. There is any amount of material that we could use in the lead but we don't use all of it. We are supposed to be selective. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll note that nothing you said is an argument against mentioning this in the lead. It's not actually clear that you have one, now that it's so heavily sourced. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a desire to include as much information as possible in the lead, while sometimes forgetting the purely editorial aspects of clarity, conciseness and grammar. I have to agree with the points made by Little Green Rosetta, especially as it pertains to inclusion of police training in the lead. This simply is not a significant detail when weighed against all of the other information in the article. I would suggest that it just seems important in the context of recent events. — MrX 04:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that a good lead should include high-level details from the sections of the body, and the law-enforcement education line is the start of the entire education section. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD and WP:IDHT while you're at it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And I would suggest that you respond to what I said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, your suggestion is ridiculous. That is not how we write leads. Seriously? We start with the first section? Oh, and I noticed you just made then LE the first section. How convenient.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead should be an overview of the body, so picking from each section is a good way to ensure that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This detail is insignificant. Now drop the stick.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion, and yet it doesn't seem convincing. Got anything else? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing new, but i don't think I'm going out on a limb by stating consensus is clearly against your position.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's something rather interesting on an SPLC webpage . First sentence third paragraph reads "SPLC trainers have almost 50 years of combined experience." Yeah, almost 50 year of combined experience. In other words this organization worth hundreds of millions of dollars probably has about 3 or 4 folks doing this work. How much training do you suppose gets done?Badmintonhist (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, just the one, but he's very old. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we can make an RfC for this and see what a real consensus looks like. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think a good case has been made for including this in the lede. It seems like a fairly minor detail. Rivertorch (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am entirely open to a good faith discussion. I think that the organization's various forms of cooperation with law-enforcement agencies is key information about it. It's rather unusual, and distinguishes it from the groups that it reports on. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a good case has been made that it doesn't belong in the body or the lead. Anyone (other than StillStanding) disagree? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe consensus has been reached. Reasons supporting inclusion in the lead are not based on a firm understanding of WP:MOSLEAD. — MrX 13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

• Clarification need - little green rosetta removed the entire sentence including the mention of the FBI naming the SPLC as a resource. It would seem that the discussion here was only about the police training phrase and not the resource phrase? --Scientiom (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. I think little green rosetta inadvertently removed more than was mandated by this discussion. — MrX 13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to giving it a brief mention in the body, not big deal either way. Putting it in the lead, as if it were some major nationwide program, is silly. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And Scientiom restored the information where consensus is clearly against it here. There is a separate section covering "resource", which hasn't been closed, but I see insufficient arguments in favor of inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted a change which was not mandated in its entirely. As for the rest of it, there is no consensus to exclude it from the lead. And what you think does not matter. Maybe its time for an RFC on the matter. --Scientiom (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was premature to end this discussion. Guess we'll need an RfC. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Should Arthur have closed this discussion? I don't know. Admins generally shouldn't close an RfC in which they were involved. I don't know if this informal discussion rises to the same level as that of an RfC. On the other hand, the consensus here is pretty clear. We have well reasoned arguments and one editor (possibly two) with a case of WP:IDHT. I suppose dropping the closure tags in is something any editor is allowed to do, just as removing them is permissible. If that were to happen, I suspect we would be going to RfC. Now Still, I don't want to sound like I'm making a threat, but if this does go to RfC I will ask the closing admin to examine this (at the moment closed) discussion and determine if combined with the RfC this constitutes disruptive editing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't close the discussion. I moved up the bottom of the closed section to move the "clarification request" outside; it wasn't closed, even if the discussion above was closed properly (by someone else). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have several problems with this closing, not the least of which is that consensus is declared to have been reached in less than 24 hours. Hardly the usual Misplaced Pages practice. (For the curious, the closure occurred here) KillerChihuahua 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You can blame me; it was not an RfC and I thought it was a simple matter which had reached its conclusion. Mea Culpa.

I have unclosed the eight day old discussion. Please carry on. – MrX 22:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't an Rfc, there is no need to close it at all. If it is an Rfc, you should leave it open for about 30 days, or until there is clear consensus (usually not before at least 2 weeks have passed.) Thank you for reversing your closure. KillerChihuahua 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The primary problem here is that the claim is not strongly sourced, and a substantial majority of those opining appear opposed to inclusion. WP:CONSENSUS is fairly clear here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with your assessment, Collect, that was not my complaint. The problem was that the closing was inappropriate. KillerChihuahua 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion, not only in the lead, but in the article, until and unless adequately sourced. KillerChihuahua 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's more than adequately sourced, but there's a point of order here, which is that this isn't an RfC because it isn't advertised neutrally so that it can get input from the community. I propose that we make an RfC. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@Still you are welcome to create an RfC, but I think it would be an unwise move and ask that you not do so. Creating RfC's while a discussion is in progress or recently closed can be considered disruptive. And once again, I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that if you were involved in crafting such an RfC that many would consider it disruptive in light of your recent history. Please put your "RfC gun" back in its holster and save everybody a lot of time and try and work towards a consensus in this section. Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@KC Do you know any other editors made a determination as to the suitability of using that Boston Globe article? Having not seen it myself, I was under the impression from other editors the article did make the "police" assertion. Or is this a case of "need more sources"?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The article makes the assertion; IMO this placing this in the lead is UNDUE. So far as I am aware the Boston Globe is a RS, and I don't contest that at all. I consider it unlikely that I will be convinced it should be in the lead, simply because it is not core to understanding of the SPLC - it is not a significant enough part of their work/efforts/activities to place there. However, again, I'm open to convincing otherwise. KillerChihuahua 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support: It's far more than adequately sourced. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of FBI resource from lead

Starting a new section due to the jumble above. I see no reason to keep the "The SPLC is named as a resource by the FBI" sentence. This is problematic for several reasons:

1. The sources for this are primary sources
2. The FBI reference cited is a resource for website visitors. Calling it otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
3. Most importantly, the weight is not significant to what the SPLC is all about. This is indicated by the complete lack of RS mentioning this "resource" relationship. What sources that do exist, don't establish weight.

I propose to remove this statement.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to removing this sentence. The multiple sources that StillStanding (24/7) has cited (in the original discussion, above), there seems to be a significant, notable partnership between the FBI and SPLC, inasmuch as the SPLC acts in a partnership; as a resource; undercover; etc. Of the various roles that the SPLC holds, this seems to be a significant one.

If "The SPLC is named as a resource by the FBI" is problematic, then I propose "The SPLC works closely in partnership with the FBI" as an alternative. — MrX 01:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

To directly address LGR's list:

1. False. We have primary, secondary and perhaps tertiary sources (depending on how you rate that book). The FBI is a secondary source both for listing the SPLC as a resource and for the press release.
2. False. There are two FBI references, not one. There is also nothing on the web page that suggests its not for LEO's.
3. False. Relationship with LEO's is a key part of how the SPLC does its job.

In short, I am unconvinced by your arguments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You should read up on what constitutes sources before commenting. You have it all wrong. I'll leave it to everyone else to interpret point 2 and your counterpoint. As for your point 3, you've made a claim without any sourcing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

For ease, I've copied and linkified each of the sources provided by Still.

1. The Western Center for Journalism is a very questionable source. I'll leave it to other editors to read this article and decide for themselves if this is crackpot journalism. In any case the meat of the SPLC reference this article refers to is mentioned in the Intel Hub article
2. The Intel Hub a beacon of free speech that hosts many different ideas and topics that the corporate media is simply too scared to cover. This publication too is questionable; however this too relies on another source, the McCurtain Daily Gazette which references an undercover operation. This might be the "go to" source we need.
3. Daily Paul what appears to be an opinion blog of dubious reliability.
4. Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA
5. Infowars is a opinion piece. It does reference wnd which references an Oklahoma newspaper story I've been unable to locate. However the reporter in question also asserts that Iraq had a hand in the Oklahoma City bombing, so we would be wise to really question this source.

The Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA link provided fails to provide any detail of intelligence sharing by the SPLC to the FBI. In fact the book indicates the SPLC's quarterly magazine is simply "distributed" to law enforcement organizations.

After looking at the rest only the McCurtain Daily Gazette (whose article is contained in the Intel Hub article) seems reliable.

So what I see is one RS stating a single undercover infiltration the SPLC did in the mid 90’s and a magazine they distribute to LEO’s whose value is unknown. This is a far cry from calling them a resource of the FBI or even claiming that the SPLC is in a partnership with the FBI. One swallow does not a summer make.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What I see is a focus on sources that were brought up on the talk page but were never used in the article, so they can't be relevant to the attempt to remove mention of LEO interaction from the lead. In fact, some of these sources were brought up to show that even unreliable far-right views admit that the SPLC and LEO work together. Given their hatred for the SPLC, you'd think they'd join you in downplaying this link, as it obviously grants the SPLC credibility that the KKK or FRC lack.

If you're going to keep insisting that the lead should avoid summarizing the article, I see an RfC in our future. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, we need to include http://www.mccurtain.com/cgi-bin/okcscript.cgi?record=1346. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

1. We already have consensus about removing LEO interaction from the lead, and that content has been removed.
2. This section is about removing the "FBI as a resource". I've listed the sources you provided in this section for easy access(and thank you for the additional one). Only two of those seem to be reliable, and neither of them indicate that the FBI uses the SPLC as a resource other than one infiltration operation in the 90's.  little green rosetta(talk)
   central scrutinizer  02:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There are enough sources to confirm the fact the FBI uses the SPLC as a resource for hate groups. There is no reason to remove it. Dave Dial (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Provide them and this should be an easy issue. The ones that I've seen so far indicate no such relationship.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Without specifically assessing the quality of those five sources, I regard them as as corroborating a primary source, namely the FBI.

In this case, I think the FBI can be used as a reliable source. From

"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors."

— MrX 03:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And what are the FBI claims as a PS? The only one I found was a mention of accepting "referrals" for pre 1969 civil rights crimes. I'd have no problem using that if it were attributed to that specifically.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

from here. I believe this supports the re-wording that I proposed above. — MrX 03:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How about The FBI has partnered with the SPLC and other civil rights organizations "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems"? The problem with your alternate version is that the qualifer "closely" and the partnership is nebulous. I'm not a fan of the inline quote, but I wouldn't be opposed to an accurate summarization.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing 'closely'. I recall reading that in one of the sources, but a direct quote would be the most appropriate, if we use the primary source. Of course, we should factor in comments from other editors in this section as well. — MrX 03:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be ok with your version if we exapanded on what the partnership actually was comprised of, which is why I used the quote. You have a way with prose, would you mind trying again and expand on or elaborate what is the partnership?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually meant to suggest that we go with the version that you proposed in your previous post, because it is a direct quote. I'm signing off for the evening. With this progress, I'm sure you fine editors can come up with a compromise that suits most everyone. If it's still not resolved tomorrow morning, I will see if I can help with the wording then. Good night. — MrX 04:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It is sourced and should be kept. The FBI relies on their research because the FBI is not allowed to investigate extremist groups unless the engage in breaking the law. (In the US, hate speech, which is illegal in many countries, is protected under the Bill of Rights.) TFD (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is sourced, then let's see the sources and we can put this to bed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Already provided above. TFD (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of links on this page. Could you please just post it below?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the sources, or agree with them, doesn't preclude them. As was stated before, the FBI and SPLC have stated the connection between the two and the fact the FBI often uses the SPLC as a resource for certain cases. Here is another source. Boston Globe - August 13, 1999 "The FBI also works in tandem with such nonprofit agencies as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. "Law enforcement agencies come to us regularly" Dave Dial (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Where did I say I didn't agree with the above sources? I just questioned their reliabilty. The Boston Globe is indeed a RS. Could you provide a better link to that story? The link you provided does not even provide the quote you used.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The link provided by David Dial appears to be to a pay to see article and therefore not open to everyone to analyse and it's actual title is the "FBI is limited in battling hate groups" and the abstract states the reason is because the FBI cannot maintain files on hate groups. The article was written in 1999 and that premise, post 9-11 is simply not true anymore. Furthermore, like Little_green_rosetta, I cannot find the two significant quotations "FBI...works in tandem...with SPLC" nor "Law enforcement agencies come to us regularly: Yendor (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Quotations confirmed; I have database access. The FBI also works in tandem with such nonprofit agencies as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. "Law enforcement agencies come to us every day with questions about particular groups," said Mark Potok, a spokesman for the center, based in Montgomery, Ala. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your original research and opinions are noted. Neither have any effect on this issue or article, but are noted. It's one of several sources, and it is definitely reliable. Dave Dial (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to reply, but my Internet connection crashed. The second quote is entirely too self-serving to be usable; the first might be helpful, although it technically doesn't say that the FBI works with SPLC, only "such agencies as SPLC". There's just nothing with any significance in any reliable source. But, if someone has a proposed wording, with specific references which actually support them, we could go forward with that. The present wording is not supported by any of the three sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The second quote is from the same paragraph of the same article in a reliable secondary source. I don't find the second quote to be self serving at all; it seems pretty matter of fact and it was reported in a very reliable source (The Boston Globe). Besides that, verifiability not truth applies here. If there is some specific Misplaced Pages policy that you think is being contravened, please point it out. — MrX 13:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewording based on FBI and Boston Globe sources

I propose that we take the FBI quote and the quote from the Boston Globe and try to come up with one or two sentences for the lead. — MrX 13:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How about something along the lines with the folloiwng gist? Yes, we will need inline citations. But if that Globe article exists, then others must too.

• The FBI has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems". Due to legal limitations, the FBI relies on the SPLC and other civil rights organizations in collecting data on hate groups.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  13:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me, although I would slightly prefer to leave out "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems" and convey the same limited role with fewer words. For example,

• "The FBI has partnered in a cooperative role with the SPLC and other civil rights organizations to collect data on hate groups."

— MrX 13:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What about adding in the FBI legal limitation? That seems significant.

Yes, that's a good point. But then I struggle with writing it concisely, which suggests your version might be best. — MrX 14:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems". Due to legal limitations, the FBI relies on the SPLC and other civil rights organizations in collecting data on hate groups.

I hemmed and hawed on putting "alleged" in front of hate groups, but decided against it for now. The only part that nags at me ois the "collect data" piece, which should indicate what sort of data. What is it? Statistics, undercover operatives, etc.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot agree that the second quote is not self-serving. The Boston Globe is quoting SPLC saying "Law enforcement agencies come to us regularly." There are a number of psychics who make that same claim, but are unable to name the law enforcement agencies. Even if SPLC is reliable, that statement cannot be used support the truth of the statement, only that they claim it. Still, it's no longer being used to support the proposed wording.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. Any remaining ambiguities can be explained in the body of the article. I think it's safe to make the actual edit and get rid of the tag grenades. Worse case, making the edit will get others editors to help with the wording via WP:BRD. — MrX 18:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There remains a strong presence on any articles dealing with the SPLC that rely on delete first, discuss later. Having stated that it reads fine to me as well. Insomesia (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The only comment I have is that we lost track of the line about the SPLC providing education to LEO's. It's not just the FBI that the SPLC works with. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't lose track of it. It's not sourced to other than SPLC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

An organization saying that they are asked for help by law enforcement is not considered reliable, even if the organization were a peer-reviewed journal. It's self-reporting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like http://m.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120621/NEWS/206210348/1051/WAP06&template=wapart ? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to placing the SPLC's "offer" to LEO's in the body of the article, but placing it in the lead gives the impression that it is a much larger program, and a bigger part of the SPLC's activities than it actually is. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The claim was that we don't know whether the SPLC just offers it and nobody takes them up on the offer. I've refuted that claim, and now you have a new, vaguer one, which is that you think it makes the program sound larger than it is. Well, we never said how large the program is, so that can't be the case. Moreover, what matters here is how important working the LEO's is to the SPLC, where in-person training is just one component. So, on the whole, I don't find your objections consistent or convincing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, have you considered the possibility that no one here thinks the same about your arguments?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's more likely that sane editors don't want to take part in the endless bickering of a subset of disgruntled conservative leaning editors who seem to enjoy arguing enough to drive away sensible people who don't want to stew in a toxic environment.Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's now a weight problem, rather than an SPS problem. The statement does make the program sound larger than I believe it is, and it would be nice to have even SPLC's statement on how large the program is (in the body). Unfortunately, it is impossible for there to be primary, not-SPLC, reliable information, as to how large the program is, and unlikely to have secondary reliable information. It still doesn't belong in the lead, as noted in the section below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Properly, the weight should be acknowledged as important to SPLC. George Michael, Associate Professor of Nuclear Counterproliferation and Deterrence at the USAF Air War College, writes that SPLC's and ADL's programs of sharing information with the FBI are "by far the most effective mechanism for countering the extreme right". He is saying that the sharing of data with the FBI by SPLC and to a greater extent ADL is more important than the "feared" but controversial lawsuits that SPLC has taken against right-wing groups to punish them for the actions of their (usually) young male members. Michael writes that the "cumulative effort of these NGOs" (ADL, SPLC, mostly) "have done much to neutralize the extreme Right in the United States." This puts SPLC's connection to the FBI at or near the top of all of its other efforts. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Curiously, I see nothing in about the FBI in our article on the ADL which, according to Michael, makes a more important contribution than the SPLC to countering hate groups. 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Badmintonhist (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Badmintonhist. I believe this link will be helpful to you.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Geez, Blax, are you 95 percent retired now? Can't you edit in the material yourself?? Regards, nontheless. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Badmintonhist, sorry for the delayed reply. I wasn't the one identifying a problem in other articles. Since you identified the lack of information over at ADL, why do you believe the onus is on me to expand it? I will be happy to work with you on some appropriate language and sourcing; please reach out to me on my talk page. Best regards! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

References

1. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/43901842.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+13%2C+1999&author=Anne+E.+Kornblut%2C+Globe+Staff&pub=Boston+Globe&desc=FBI+limited+in+battling+hate+groups&pqatl=google

Tail wagging dog

The lead is supposed to provide a brief preview/summary of the rest of the article per WP:LEAD. However, our lead provides more detail about the SPLC's workings with FBI than what is found in the remainder of the article. The brief mention of the FBI naming the SPLC as a resource, found in the body of the article, is more or less what should have in the lead. The more detailed description, now found in the lead, is what ought to go in the body of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That means the rest of the article needs to expand the details of how the SPLC works with the FBI. This is one of the more interesting facets of the group and many sources do delve into how law enforcement including the FBI rely on this group's resources.Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, "that" doesn't mean that; "that" means that the info in the body and the info in the lead should basically be reversed. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the additional detail should be added to the body of the article. It would probably be best under the 'Tracking of hate groups section'. — MrX 12:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Additonal sourced detail should be added to the body of the article. Details based only on SPLC's statements should be properly attributed, and there should be no trace of them in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No need to attribute statements inline made by the SPLC since it is a reliable source. It would be like inline attribution of facts about GE because the source was its subsidiary NBC news. I think though what should be in the lead is that law enforcement agencies use the SPLC as a source for information on various groups. TFD (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding information on its relationship with the FBI, the SPLC is a primary source and we treat information from primary sources very carefully, in part because of its tendency to be self-serving. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

We treat primary sources carefully because they are usually not reliable. Some primary sources, for example court judgments, are highly reliable. A history of Oxford University or the biography of its chancellor published by the Oxford University Press would be highly reliable. The Institute of Chartered Accountants is a reliable source about the accounting profession. Mainstream newspapers are reliable sources for facts about their owners. TFD (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, but statements by . . . oh, let's just say the Southern Poverty Law Center about its importance to . . . oh, let's just say the Federal Bureau of Investigation, would require some corroboration. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we heard this complaint before and answered it with secondary sources. Remember? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I remember. The secondary sources said something completely different, and weaker, than either SPLC or the FBI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that the FBI is a secondary source here, right? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is considered a reliable source, however only with respect to their product. We have to treat this relationsip as a priamry source, as Badmintohist indicates.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC and FBI are both primary in this situation, by default. Possibly useful for statements of bare facts, but absolutely not usable for analytic or evaluative information. See: WP:PSTS. Belchfire-TALK 05:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, each is a secondary source for the other. In this article, the subject is the SPLC so it's a primary source for itself, while the FBI is a secondary source. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm . Show us where either the SPLC or FBI acts as a secondary source with respect to this relationship.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not important whether the sources are primary, secondary or tertiary, but whether they are reliable. Both the SPLC and FBI are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

TFD is right with regard to this context. If we were talking about weight, then we might question whether the sources we had were appropriate, but suggesting that neither the SPLC nor the FBI is a reliable source for the nature of the relationship between the two is nonsense. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For self serving statements, we don't generally use primary sources. Im not saying the statements ar self serving, but that claim has been raised.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you agree these aren't self-serving, let's move on. Logically, each organization is a reliable source for confirming the claims of the other with regard to its relationship. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no "generally" about it; we don't do it, period. It's not a question of whether they are reliable; it's a question of what kind of information we are talking about using. For primary sources, when it comes to plain facts (i.e., names, dates, etc.), yes we can usually use them. When it comes to any kind of analysis, evaluative claim, or statement of opinion, no we absolutely may not use them, and it doesn't matter how reliable anybody thinks the source is. See the policy - it's spelled out rather clearly, and it isn't negotiable or flexible. Belchfire-TALK 05:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing primary sources with self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. In the latter case, we can use information from organizations that are not reliable sources for non-controversial information such as their address and date of founding. However if an organization is a reliable source, for example the SPLC, a news organization, or a university publisher, then it is acceptable. The purpose of "self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" is to allow us to use sources that are not normally reliable, rather than to stop us from using reliable sources. A reliable source does not cease to be reliable because it mentions itself, while an unreliable source becomes reliable when it reports non-controversial information. TFD (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. You've got it half-right - we can use basic facts. But we can't use anything of an interpretive nature, and no amount of reliability changes that. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. " Belchfire-TALK 05:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, this means that we can't "interpret" primary source material because we're not qualified. We have to let a reliable secondary source do it. But there's no interpretation involved in a close paraphrase. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here actually suggesting a change in either the wording or the sourcing regarding the relationship between the SPLC and the FBI, or is this just a theoretical discussion? Badmintonhist (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose removing statements about any "relationship" between SPLC and law enforcement which are not reported by third-party sources (which means, other than SPLC and the the enforcement agencies in question). How much that leaves in the body is still open, to some extent, but the lede is OK at present (this revision). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose not doing what you propose, because that's not what WP:RS requires of us. You are arbitrarily raising the bar. I am holding you to community standards while rejecting your own. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with StillStanding. The request is absurd; we have two reliable sources saying they have a relationship—one which is very relevant to the mission of the SPLC. We also have plenty of secondary sources cited in earlier discussion to back it up. There is no question that this is relevant to the article and should remain. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of political rhetoric

The 'Criticism of political rhetoric' section seems to be almost entirely the opinion of David Horowitz, mostly sourced from his own web site, FrontPageMag.com. I don't understand why such a relatively large portion of this article is devoted to one person's opinion, especially given his apparent bias.

Surely there are more critics of the SPLC such that we could cover the subject of criticism more broadly. — MrX 17:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Undoubtedly a result of argumentum ad temperantiam. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

David Horowitz' opinions are not representative of mainstream thinking. TFD (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

He seems a bit out there. I think we'd need some neutral secondary sources in order to give him enough credibility for inclusion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Just going to note that neither the editor who inserted this questionable material nor the one who restored it against apparent consensus has chosen to discuss their decisions here. That seems rather contrary to WP:BRD. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's usually how it works.

I've removed the paragraph in question, because it is relies on primary, self-serving sources. It is also covered in excessive detail. Before going back in, it needs secondary sources and needs to be summarized, as if it were going into an encyclopedia. – MrX 01:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Support this removal; UNDUE, etc. KillerChihuahua 14:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Verification.

Here's the paragraph that Arthur Rubin recently added tags to:

The SPLC has collaborated with the US Department of Homeland Security to establish guidelines for combating extremism by such means as defining and inculcating terminology and partnership with community-based organizations such as churches, schools, and other civic organizations.<ref>Homeland Security Advisory Council (Spring 2010). , p. 9,15</ref>{{verification failed}} Richard Cohen, president and CEO of the SPLC, was part of the Countering Violent Extremism Working Group for the Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2010.<ref>Homeland Security Advisory Council (Spring 2010). , p. 27</ref>{{off-topic-inline|the SPLC president is a member of the Council, but SPLC is not a "member"}}

Arthur's tags turn out to be false, so I'll be removing them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

They are not false. Please read the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I did read the source, and it supports the passages it's cited by. Do you have a specific complaint? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to note for the record that you just violated WP:BRD by restoring the tags. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I note for the record that your edits are against Misplaced Pages guidelines (for the first part) and facts (for the second part). For the first part, even a reliable organization's editorial guidelines should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. For the second, the document says nothing about SPLC on pages 9, 15, or 27 (other than, on page 27, that the (then) current president of SPLC is on the task force.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Rubin, I'm noticing an interesting pattern in which you appear to be artificially raising the reliability bar for the SPLC. The document explicitly lists Cohen as CEO of the SPLC, which means he was there in that capacity. In fact, it lists each of the members with their current organizational affiliation. This is more than enough to show that the SPLC, through its CEO, participated. If you disagree, go file a complaint on WP:NPOVD or even WP:BLPN so that more patient people can explain to you just why you are mistaken. Being an admin does not mean that your interpretation of policy is correct. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And here's another nail for this coffin: the page of "Subject matter experts" lists "Laurie Wood", "Analyst, Southern Poverty Law Center/Instructor, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center". This shows that the SPLC was brought in as the SPLC and for its expertise. It also shows the DHS acknowledging her role in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which supports what the article says about training the feds. This is incontrovertible. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec x2)WP:BRD, to the extent it's a guideline, does not allow removal of tags under discussion. I admit that you removed the tags before I started the discussion, but only ten minutes after I added the first tag.

Your statement that each of the task force members is there because of their affiliation with the organization could possibly sourced, but it doesn't follow from this document alone. Even if your argument were correct, it doesn't support any mention of SPLC in pages 9 or 15, as claimed in the first reference in that section. I didn't read the entire document, but I read the pages quoted, but SPLC and/or "Southern Poery Law Center" are only mentioned on page 27.

As an example of a government task force in which at least some of the affiliations are for information only, Professor Nimmer was on a government copyright task force, but it's because of his individual reputation, not because of the listed academic affiliation.

The same applies to Laurie Wood, although that's a little more likely that her expertise should be attributed to SPLC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at Asli Bali, "Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law" (also p. 27). That cannot possibly be the reason he's on the task force, nor would it likely be appropriate to mention the task force in the article on the UCLA School of Law. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your misreading of this document is tendentious. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ALFALFA!!! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoa -- do you realize how silly your last post is? The fact is that SPLC was not cited as a source or member of the task force - though 2 people who are employed by SPLC appear to have been used as "experts." Arthur is spot on here ... your wording of the claim makes the clear inference that SPLC qua SPLC was used, when absolutely no text in the report bears out any such inference at all. And the "report" is almost laughable as an exercise in "committee reports" - did you actually read it? I suspect a group of high school students could have done the exact same report <g>. And using it for a strong claim about the SPLC being used as an organization? Nope. Sorry Still24 -- you are exceedingly far off-base on this one! Collect (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How is the involvement of an organization's CEO and President in a working group not relevant to an article on said organization? Maybe the first sentence in that section could be reworded to only note that leading members of the SPLC were involved in the working group, but such high-level involvement certainly merits a mention. It is not the same as a college professor being involved since they are not typically seen as being the public face of the university, while CEO's are seen as the public face of the organization.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how such groups operate and the vast numbers of company CEOs with laundry lists of taskforces they have served on? And being a member of a taskforce with a report like the one which was emitted -- is pretty meaningless, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So, if an oil company CEO is on a government energy task force that issues statements about how to pursue energy policy, would you insist we not mention this in the article on said oil company because it is "irrelevant"?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If I noticed it, yes. In that case, though, you could probably find a marginally reliable source to make the connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a pretty ridiculous argument then. Any objective person can see that it is relevant. Not sure what prevents you from seeing that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur on this - and find your apparent lack of good faith objectionable here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith does not mean assuming good arguments or sound reasoning nor does it mean assuming objectivity. Not sure why this material of obvious relevance is so objectionable, but I cannot think of any objective reason for claiming it is not relevant to the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how any rational person, using only the source presented for that section, would believe the first sentence accurate or the second sentence relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct: you don't see. The limitation here is yours. Just because you lack the ability to see something does not mean that the rest of us share your blindness.

You have this notion of a "rational person" that appears to be indistinguishable from a person who agrees with you. Those who disagree are, by implication, "irrational". This manichean dualism is why your attitude is routinely condescending, insulting, and uncivil.

Arthur, let me offer you some sympathetic advice: you're in over your head. Your expertise in one narrow field does not grant you general competence that translates to others. I believe you when you say you can't see it, which is why I ascribe your persistent failures to incompetence, not malice.

However, it doesn't matter which of the two it is. You need to stop acting as if you are the final arbiter and start acting like an editor who is aware of their limitations and willing to compromise to work around them. Humility is not merely a virtue, for you it is a necessity. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. There is nothing in that article to indicate that SPLC works with DHS, even assuming the article is reliable. (It's not published by DHS itself, but by the Working Group.) The President of SPLC is a member of the group, and one of the employees is a resource person for the group. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is actually not even a recommendation that DHS or the Working Group work with SPLC, although that could be rationally concluded from three pages of the document plus some (generally) accepted facts about SPLC. That seems like synthesis to me, though, as the facts are not self-evident. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that my advice went right over your head, because your response is preposterous. You deny that there's anything linking the SPLC with the DHS, but here we have a document published by the DHS which says the opposite. It's right there! If you remain unconvinced, this will have to be your personal burden, but it does not weigh on us. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It does not assert (or even direct recommend) that SPLC work with DHS. And it's not "published" (in the sense of editorial control) by DHS; it's published by the Working Group (which, in your mind, includes SPLC, but, in any case, includes the president of SPLC). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You said it's not published by DHS, yet the URL is in dhs.gov. Which is it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a PP presentation which is not published, not a RS. AR is correct to conclude a link like you are with this PP presentation is original research. Arzel (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect across the board. It is an Adobe PDF document, not a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. It is published on their web site; that's a form of publishing and has been for decades now. And there is no original research involved as it's spelled out clearly in that document. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You factually have no idea what you are talking about or at least have never attended a conference. Turning a PP presentation into a PDF is pretty common. We do not use presentations as RS's here in WP. The original research is you assuming that because the working group gave a presentation that it implies that the SPLC is working with the DHS in some formal manner. Arzel (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked the internal tags in the PDF file, but it looks as if it's a PP document which has been "printed" to PDF. It's "publisned" in a sense, but not in a sense that it is subject to DHS's editorial control. SPLC is not mentioned in the body of the document, so any indication of cooperation between SPLC and DHS is original research. And, finally, attributing the actions of the president of SPLC to SPLC requires a reliable source to that effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're not denying that it's a PDF, you're just bringing up the trivial point that you believe it to have PowerPoint origins because you imagine this undermines it somehow? I suggest you read WP:RS more carefully. This isn't a journalistic document, so the notion of editorial control doesn't correspond well. What we know is that the DHS published this PDF on its web site. If you want to infer that this means the contents are not being endorsed in any way by the DHS, you would have to justify this inference on some non-arbitrary basis. The document is itself evidence of cooperation between the SPLC and DHS. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you want to infer that the contents are being endorsed in any way by the DHS, you would have to justify that inference. And the document is evidence of cooperation between employees of SPLC and the task force. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That claim is absolutely preposterous. We have a document published by the DHS showing a relationship, period. That it just happens to involve the CEO of the SPLC and fit directly within the mission of the SPLC is either a remarkable coincidence or corroborating evidence. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

'That claim should be absurd to anyone who has actually worked for a contractor for a government agency. I have actually authored statements which were posted (I wouldn't have said "published", but it's as good as the document in question, here) on the FAA web site, but were not considered the official position of the FAA. Whether the task force my employer was a member of is a "reliable source" is a separate question as to whether the FAA is a "reliable source". I like to think we did adequate fact-checking, and we were tasked by the FAA to do adequate fact-checking. However, the particular document I authored was the opinion of my employer, presented to the task force. I should add, however, that documents created by the task force were usually advice to the FAA. That also seems to be the case for this document; it consists of advice from the task force to DHS, and does not necessarily represent the view of DHS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only have I worked for a government contractor, I've also represented non-profits on similar occasions. But I'm not going to comment on that experience here, because it would amount to both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and is not admissible. Kerfuffler (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

But I will say that your apparent notion that “DHS” and the “task force” (a.k.a. working group) are somehow disjoint is patently ridiculous. Kerfuffler (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The task force is not part of DHS, and does not speak with DHS's reliablility. However, as the statements aren't supported by the document, we don't really need to go there. Adding additional tags, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, we're already there, so come join us. Your stubborn refusal to accept the contents of this document is not persuasive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're there, but the document isn't a DHS document. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. The document is published on the official DHS web site and outlines what their task force is doing. This seems to be yet another case of raising the bar arbitrarily high. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible I didn't explain myself adequately. Let me just say that a "task force" speaks for itself; it doesn't speak for the parent/sponsoring organization unless that organization explictly approves. That is, even if the document supported the statements attributed to it, which it does not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also possible that you're mistaken, so the clearer the explanation, the less sense it makes as an argument. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Explaining the NPOV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the POV Template usage notes:

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

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

KillerChihuahua 19:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for rejoining productive discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing the original reason for the POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FRC hate group tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

And from CNN which is acceptable per

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Listings section out of date

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

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

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

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

SPLC Voice?

With this edit I reverted what was clearly vandalism. Along comes Little green rosetta with this edit to restore the vandalism -- the explanation "not in Wikipedias voice". Of course, it was already in the SPLC's voice -- the top of the section said, "The SPLC reported that 926 hate groups were active in the United States in 2008, up from 888 in 2007. These included:" I went ahead and added a redundant "by the SPLC" -- "problem" solved. Still, with all the controversies on this article it would help if editors would think a little before reflexively reverting. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the edit you reverted was "clearly vandalism" then I suggest it's time for you to step away from this article. While the ip editor made a change you disagreed with, it wasn't even close to what constitutes vandalism, In my view the ip had a point, the descriptions were using Misplaced Pages's voice. You fixed this. Your assertion that this should have been obvious because of the section heading apparently wasn't obvious to the ip editor.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Really -- an IP with this editing history deletes language with NO EXPLANATION AT ALL isn't committing vandalism. You say, "In my view the ip had a point". Really -- how exactly did the IP communicate what his/her point was? I didn't think ESP worked over the Internet. I issued a level 1 warning so the IP can respond if they choose -- preferably by a more traditional means of communication. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the ip edits fall under the examples inWP:VANDAL. You reverted content you disagreed with. No big deal, but don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am also mystified as to why the North Shoreman would consider the edit in question vandalism. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Ownership issues maybe?

Allow me to help out: removal of material for no stated reason is vandalism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't see that here: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't see it, it's because you're mistaken about the nature of vandalism. Randomly cutting words you dislike is vandalism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The IP editor's removal of the two words was not at all random. I can see his/her basic rationale for the changes readily enough, which is not to say I agree with those changes. No, edits that merely annoy us are not necessarily vandalism. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC) PS: I suppose I should have placed the Misplaced Pages definition of vandalism in my previous comment that I cut from the MOS in quotation marks. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If an editor leaves an edit comment, we can look at their stated objection and compare it to their actions. When there is no stated reason, we can only assume it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what IDONTLIKEIT really is about. But yes, in this case we can assume the ip editor didn't like the text in question. So they changed it. It wasn't vandalism. Tom restored the text and fixed the voice issue. I think we are done with this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Gotta disagree with you on that one, StillStanding-247. The point of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is conversations where one side plugs their ears and obstinately refuses to participate in discussion. This is not a case of that. —Kerfuffler 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, vandalism concerns "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages" and in this case an IP removed some unnecessary and contentious qualifiers that were being used in the editorial voice in violation of WP:W2W. I do not believe the removal of these terms was in any way an attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Appears to have been a good-faith removal by an anonymous editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Lot of people reading an IP's mind based on absolutely nothing factual. That's why we have level 1 warnings which I issued in this case:

Hello, I'm North Shoreman. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The edit as made by the IP did not correct the alleged voice issue -- rather it changed what the wikipedia voice was saying. What Little Green did by his/her edit was to put in wikipedia's voice (according to her allegations) the claim that the SPLC had designated "traditionalist Catholic groups" as hate groups when the fact is that the designation only applied to "radical traditionalist Catholic groups." If it really was about "voice" and not just a knee jerk reaction, then Green could have easily "fixed" it rather than simply reverting.

You also miss the point that the entire section was already in SPLC's voice as I've shown above. All my alleged correction did was to create a redundancy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I made some effort to address my concerns and presumably those of the IP. Note that the other parts of the list do not make such liberal use of the word "hate" even when it concerns groups that are not immediately identifiable as hate groups.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The net effect of the IP's edit (and Green's revert) was to include MORE Catholics and MORE Catholic doctrine under the category of hate groups. How exactly do you know that this was not their intent? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone is proposing to change the wording in question again, this dialogue is now becoming quite gratuitous. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This thread was collapsed (by me), and IRWolfie for some unknown reason uncollapsed the thread and and asked "why is this closed?". I say unknown, because two editors feel there is nothing left to accomplish in this thread and have clearly stated so. But since IRWolfie thinks there is more to discuss, let's hear what he has to say. After he's had his turn, will someone please put the carcass back in the freezer?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion is not even a day old. It's not your call to cut off discussions just because you don't like them. Let's see whether other folks want to contribute and let the archive bot do its job at the appropriate time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have made the same edit as North Shoreman but I would not have called it vandalism. I would have said it was a good faith effort but against NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What matters isn't so much the age of the discussion as the point(lessness) of the discussion. What are we doing here? Determining whether or not the North Shoreman should have called a particular edit vandalism? I've had my two cents on that; anyone else care to contribute? But where does that lead us? Now, if someone actually thinks that the IP editor was correct, or doesn't like something else about the current phrasing of the passage in question, that's a different story. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

White patriot party

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

Church of the Creator edits

I removed this:

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

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

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

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

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

– MrX 18:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

– MrX 21:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/march/coldcase_030210/civil-rights-era-murders-joint-initiative-yields-results
2. http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are/splc-history
3. http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are/financial-information

Additional SPLC-FBI sources

*Please comment above ^

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

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

FBI surrenders documents that judge ordered

1. Slivka, Judd (August 13, 1999). "Internet Protected Ground For The Racist's Spiel". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
2. Nimmo, Kurt (August 6, 2012). "Sikh Shooter a Former Psyop Soldier Linked to FBI's National Alliance". infowars.com. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
3. Cash, J.D. (October 21, 2005). "FBI surrenders documents that judge ordered". McCurtain Daily Gazette. Retrieved September 16, 2012.

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

Public-interest law firm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

• 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".

• 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.

• 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