Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roscelese (talk | contribs) at 05:14, 23 December 2010 (→SPLC character assassination denounced). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Removing/disputing Krikorian source in 'fundraising' section

The following needs removed:

according to Mark Krikorian, the SPLC lobbied against the Pulitzer

This should be removed because the material fails WP:RS on several accounts.

• 1) Mark Krikorian is not a journalist or an academic.
• 2) Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration group that is criticized by the SPLC.
• 3) Nowhere does Krikorian state how be came to this conclusion or his source about SPLC lobbying. In fact, the entire relevant part Krikorian wrote is in bold:

Exposés on the group have run in the Montgomery Advertiser (which probably would have won a Pulitzer but for the SPLC’s lobbying efforts against it), Harper’s, and The Nation

How does Krikorian know what the Pulitzer group was going to pick? Telepathy? Maybe its linked to the "leftist" conspiracy theory he describes in the article, again, without any evidence to support it?

• 4) The article, published by National Review, is about "The multiculturalist war on free speech takes different forms in different places." That is an editorial and fails WP:RS
• 5) The article is a hit piece in which he calls the SPLC "amateurish hackwork" and even criticizes the SPLC because it "didn’t even mention my book." This is not an academic, journalistic or any other type of WP:RS.
• 6) The claim appears no where else, but this source. That it is not attributed and comes from a target of the SPLC, that is a serious warning sign.

No attributed claim in editorial from an anti-immigration group should be used as a source. The claim is not backed by any other source. Thus, the claim isn't supported by WP:RS, doesn't warrant inclusion and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The article currently does not state as a fact that the SPLC lobbied against the Pulitzer; it attributes that claim to Krikorian. His claim is found at the reliable source National Review. If you prefer, we can state this as a fact, attributed to a news story in the New York Times on April 13, 1998: "Perhaps the most vigorous challenge was filed three years ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center against a critical series by The Montgomery Advertiser in Alabama. The campaign included a letter to the board by George McGovern, the former Democratic presidential nominee. Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board." Drrll (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a disjoint between what the NY Times and what Krikorian wrote. The NY Times article, which you left off the title, is "Press Critics Strike Early At Pulitzers" and is about groups, including the NY Times who "filed an unusual number of complaints to the Pulitzer Prize board, challenging the facts and context of articles and trying to knock them out of the running for the awards."

The sentence you quoted was about targeting that series before it became a finalist ("Despite these efforts..."). On the other hand, Krikorian asserts "which probably would have won a Pulitzer but for the SPLC’s lobbying efforts against it" (he supplies no evidence and there is no RS that states that).

Notice the difference? Krikorian, without evidence or attribution, implies that the article didn't win because of the "lobbying" efforts. The NY Times points out it became a finalist "despite" the efforts. My questions above, including "How does Krikorian know what the Pulitzer group was going to pick?," have not been answered.

Also are you arguing an editorial in the NR is a WP:RS? An editorial by an opponent of a group has no place is using his conspiracy (that "they would have won" except...) in the article.

Yes, feel free to point out that the SPLC, like other groups, disputed facts of a piece that was then nominated for Pulitzer, according to the NY Times. Let's not use Krikorian's misreporting and conspiracy ("they would have won") from an editorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what Krikorian (someone tarred by the SPLC who dares criticize it in a respectable source) says about the Montgomery Advertiser not winning the Pulitzer is speculative, even though it is plausible speculation, given the lengths the SPLC went to in lobbying against what could have been a PR and fundraising nightmare. But that speculation is not included in this article (though it could be--attributed to him as his opinion). What is included is backed up by the NYT source. Despite you saying "The claim appears no where else, but this source...The claim is not backed by any other source" above, you were awfully familiar with the NYT source--accessible only through paid databases--to point out its title and several details about the article.

Yes, the NYT articles states that other groups have lobbied Pulitzer like the SPLC did. But it singles out the SPLC as "perhaps the most vigorous challenge."

I see from your first post in this section that you think that the SPLC should be an arbiter of what is and what isn't a reliable source: "Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration group that is criticized by the SPLC." I know that the SPLC is accustomed to glowing coverage by the national media, but even that media has not granted the SPLC such a lofty position. Drrll (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So, if you don't dispute that that it is (1) a singular (2) speculative criticism from (3) a person who has a personal motivation to criticize that (4) appears in only one source, then why the hell are you even bringing it up? It fails almost every major content guideline, most especially WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT, and is not suitable for inclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Henry00sher6 is one who originally brought up the speculation and kept repeating it, even though the speculation is not in the WP article. That the SPLC has criticized Krikorian and his organization does not disqualify him from discussing the SPLC in a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, you haven't addressed any of my points. Krikorian is not a journalist nor an academic. He published an editorial to argue against the SPLC's "agenda". WP:RS is clear. Krikorian's editorial is not a WP:RS.

You write "even that media has not granted" the SPLC complete praise. Yes, which is why we should use journalism and academic sources. Not Krikorian's work, who has an obvious, agenda that drives what you call is his "speculation." (Driven in part by long-running criticism by SPLC for ideological differences.) Even if you want to ignore WP:RS, Blaxthos points out it fails WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. Do you have RSes to argue against that? If not I will be removing that sentence for the several reasons I gave and the four more reasons Blaxthos gave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

PS I dug up the times article after you offered a quote. I did this to verify its accuracy and after reading it I see why you failed to mention the title of the article or details in the article. But you prove my point nonetheless. According to LexisNexis, there is ONE and ONLY ONE article that makes the claim the SPLC "lobbied" against the series' NOMINATION. (The wikipedia article is misleading now because it neglects to mention they lobby against it like other groups do before it get nominated). A search for Southern Poverty Law Center + Pulitzer (or plural) has 12 hits with only one, as cited above, mentioning anything related to this. Can you find any other sources besides ONE NY Times article? (Articles from blogs or partisan hacks have no place here.) Congrats on finding the one RS that mentions this, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that opinion pieces like Krikorian's should not be used in Misplaced Pages articles to state a fact as a fact. Misplaced Pages does allow opinion pieces to be used for stating an author's opinion. On the issue of who is and who isn't a journalist, what criteria do we use? A degree in journalism? Nina Totenberg and many other journalists would fail on that account. Lack of participation in advocacy? Again, I would suggest that Totenberg fails on that point, and certainly George Stephanopolous does. Krikorian used to be an editor at a newspaper, has had published hundreds of pieces in National Review, as well as pieces in less ideological sources.

When I discussed what the media has not done in regard to the SPLC, I meant granting them status as an arbiter of what is an acceptable source--as you suggested they should be. What I referring to as Krikorian's speculation was what you brought up, but is not included in the WP article: "which probably would have won a Pulitzer but for the SPLC’s lobbying efforts against it." Obviously, that the SPLC lobbied Pulitzer is not speculation.

I didn't mean anything by not including the title of the NYT's article or its details. I would have linked to the article if it were available for free online. I have not done extensive searching for other sources that mention the lobbying, but certainly the NYT citation is adequate. Drrll (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A journalist is someone employed by a news agency for journalistic purposes. That means there is oversight and fact-checking, and why we call it journalism (See: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs: "as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"). Krikorian's is not a journalist (As is clear from the "speculation" or telepathy of who should have won the award.). He did not write the piece as a journalist. He is the head of a group that hopes to influence policy.

You are using Krikorian editorial to state a fact attributing it to him. That violates policy Misplaced Pages:RS#News_organizations per the section on opinion pieces:

When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others

As explained above: 1) you are alleging fact from an editorial. News story's establish fact, not opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are cited for opinion. 2) The writer is not an expert of non-profits, law or journalism. Krikorian fails. 3) I asked you for other sources proving WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. You have one source in the last 15 years that mentions this off-handily. Therefore, its not a "significant viewpoint."

Those are three specific reasons rebutting your claims by proving it fails WP:RS. If this is such a big issue you'd think several news organizations would have mentioned it. Rather, you are sourcing an editorial by the head of Center for Immigration Studies--who obviously has an agenda in slamming the SPLC and critized them for not mentioning his book! Give WP:RS about this event to prove it notable or it will be removed soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Henry, the source is biased and therefore should not be used for a potentially libelous claim. We need to see more reliable confirmation of this before it's included. I've removed the parenthetical line (which as of 2min ago did not include the attribution to Kirk.). -PrBeacon (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement was sourced to a NYT news article and is not a "potentially libelous claim." Drrll (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point that "a journalist is someone employed by a news agency for journalistic purposes," although I don't think that WP policy requires that. "As the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"--he is a professional and the blog may be subject to National Review Online's full editorial control (certainly his articles for the magazine are subject to National Review's full editorial control). "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts"--he qualifies as both on the issue of immigration. So he "obviously has an agenda in slamming the SPLC," but the SPLC doesn't have an agenda in slamming Krikorian? All this is moot now since I replaced the Krikorian reference with the NYT reference. Drrll (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, an editorial can be used to explain the editor's opinion if its "significant." The citation isn't offering an opinion but a fact. (Please stop trying to use an editorial to offer facts. WP:RS does not allow it.) Since its been removed this is a not an issue. The issue now is WP:WEIGHT. Are there WP:RS that demonstrate this is notable outside the one NY Times article from more than a decade ago? If not then its not notable for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You are contradicting your earlier statement about using the NYT reference: "Yes, feel free to point out that the SPLC, like other groups, disputed facts of a piece that was then nominated for Pulitzer, according to the NY Times." There is not an issue of weight, given that within the scope of reliable sources that discuss the Montgomery Advertiser's being in the running for a Pulitzer for their series on the SPLC (that is the scope being discussed in the WP article), all of the sources discuss the SPLC's lobbying. Of course a series that ran a decade and a half ago in the Montgomery paper would have been reported "more than a decade ago." Drrll (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Giving undue weight is the "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Unless you can demonstrate that this one NY Times piece is not undue weight, it will be left off.

Your belief that about contradicting statements doesn't remedy WP:DUE. Supply WP:RS and avoid polemics. Henry00sher6 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You would have a point if the pool of reliable sources discussing the Montgomery Advertiser's bid for the Pulitzer for their articles on the SPLC were larger. Also, it's tough to argue that on an American topic like the SPLC that the NYT is insufficiently prominent as a reliable source. I can also source the statement to another source that's already used twice in the WP article. Drrll (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Either you can list sources to demonstrate "overall significance" or you can't. If its not notable in the overall coverage of the SPLC then its not notable for an article on the SPLC. Henry00sher6 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've given two sources that demonstrate "overall significance" to the SPLC. You keep moving the goalpost as to providing a source besides the Krikorian source, providing a source outside the NYT source, and now needing additional sources. How many sources are you up to now that would demonstrate its significance? Drrll (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not moving the "goal post." I didn't think there was one source on it, but you found one source. Congrats, you win the prize for finding one obscure mention in one article from more than a decade ago. However, one source (or two) does not prove that out of the thousands of articles about the SPLC that specific claim has "overall significance" for an article about the subject. (Mark Krikorian is a lobbist with an agenda, not a journalist or an academic. An article where he pathetically complains that the SPLC didn't cite his book and alleges a conspiracy about an award fails RS.)

Misplaced Pages does not have a number. You should let the sourcing do the talking. Provide what you have and we can talk about it. If you have sources that demonstrate its relevance for an article about the SPLC then offer them up. Henry00sher6 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you first said the material should be removed because the Krikorian source was not a reliable source, but that the NYT source would be adequate. When I replaced the Krikorian source with the NYT source, you then said that the NYT source was insufficient and that additional sources were needed. I added another source already used in the WP article, Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard to the article, but you now believe that those two are insufficient (sorry if I was unclear about my second source in the discussion above--I wasn't suggesting the Krikorian source as the second source). You are ignoring the specific language that you quoted above, "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." One short sentence about the SPLC's lobbying within a lengthy article is hardly disproportionate. Discussing the SPLC's lobbying within the context of an article series about the SPLC is significant. Drrll (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading anything I posted? Just repeating yourself doesn't prove WP:DUE. Right now, you have not demonstrated that this one source overcomes WP:UNDUE. If you want another pat on the back for finding one source when I thought there was none here: good job, Drrll.

Do you have any sources that show the the event is signififance enough for inclusion? Do you have anything other than one small paragraph from one article ten years ago? If not, then you should consider that unnotable, or WP:UNDUE. (Also I'll ask you kindly not to insert it until you have consensus.)

It's really simple: If you want it included supply sources to demonstrate its notable per policy. This is completely reasonable. All the arm waving doesn't change this. Henry00sher6 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for something being significant enough for inclusion is discussion by reliable sources, not the arbitrary declarations of a WP editor. It was significant enough that a NYT news story about Pulitzer lobbying singled out the SPLC as "perhaps the most vigorous challenge" three years after the fact. It was significant enough in a discussion at the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard about media coverage of nonprofits to be mentioned as noteworthy for push-back by a nonprofit. If you want a pat on the back for getting the Krikorian reference removed, then you can have that pat on the back. Drrll (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not the threshold and (I think) you know it. WP:RS is only one of several considerations, including WP:Due. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess this conversation is done and we're leaving it out since you need to take up the issue at WP:DUE. This is not the forum to argue against policy. You don't include something just because there is a source (see: WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE). Henry00sher6 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? I demonstrated how it was a significant part of the NYT news story and how it was a significant in the Nieman source (which you still have yet to acknowledge exists). I would love for you to lay out your current criteria for how this issue could ever be significant enough in sources to include. Would there have to be entire stories in the NYT and/or the Wall Street Journal dedicated to discussing the SPLC's lobbying against the Pulitzer for the Montgomery Advertiser? In case you haven't noticed, WP:UNDUE has nothing in it about sources having to being fully devoted or mostly devoted to a topic for being worthy of inclusion, and if you look around WP a little, you'd be hard-pressed to find many examples of such sources being used in articles. Drrll (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth my time to respond to your misrepresentation/straw man of my points. You've been given many chances to demonstrate this claim meeting WP:DUE with relevant sourcing. But you've failed. Henry00sher6 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So you really don't want to have to lay out your scenario for inclusion. I haven't failed--you have just refused to listen to clearly significant coverage by two strong sources. It's obvious from your constantly evolving standards of what's needed that you would never accept this inconvenient fact about the SPLC being included in the article. Drrll (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for proper sourcing

So far all I've seen for what Drrll is calling "the NYT source" is a reference to Barringer, Felicity (1998-04-13). "Press Critics Strike Early At Pulitzers". The New York Times." into which the burden is put upon others to check. He has misrepresented sources in the past (notably at theMedia Matters article), so I'd like to request a quote from this source and some sort of further verification. Also, since Drrll is fighting for the "vigorously" qualifier, I'd like to see support for this, which the Nieman page does not provide. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You better have solid proof that I "misrepresented sources in the past" if you are going to so easily throw around such charges. I have already quoted the relevant excerpt form the Times article earlier above in the discussion. And since the other editor has access to Lexis-Nexis, he would have pointed out if I misrepresented it. Here's the excerpt again, "Perhaps the most vigorous challenge was filed three years ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center against a critical series by The Montgomery Advertiser in Alabama. The campaign included a letter to the board by George McGovern, the former Democratic presidential nominee. Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board." Drrll (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the most blatant examples are when you leave out relevant bits of quotes or source background which would provide an important context. Even worse, trying to use sources like the Gerth anti-Clinton book for facts about Clinton and MMfA, not just opinion. See MMfA archive 5 and 6. Btw, you never acknowledged that the NYT was forced to print a retraction because of Gerth's inaccuracies in reporting. You have also attempted several times to misrepresent RS/N discussions at article talkpages like Fox News about sources which you don't like, as with MMfA. Given this history, I think we need more than your version of any quote. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I verify that what posted on 17:34, 8 December 2010 is part of the article, but it should be pointed out that is the entire mention about the SPLC in the article. Furthermore, the entire article explains how common and why groups "lobby" against the nomination criticizing errors in the reporting. In addition, there are no claims that the SPLC "would have won" (or such unfounded allegations that Mark Krikorian made). The article pointed out the SPLC and other groups criticize the accuracy of the material. Thus, even this one mention did not dwell or focus on the SPLC, which again is telling why it is not significant to include. Henry00sher6 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What "relevant bits of quotes" did I leave out? Yes, I admit to using as a source the book of a respected NYT journalist, whose crime seems to be that he wasn't a full-bore Clinton apologist. A perfectly reliable source. So the Times had to print a correction for something Gerth wrote? How newsworthy is it when news sources print corrections? No, I reported on a RS/N discussion that had the widest community participation--one with an RfC. Suit yourself. Find a library with Lexis-Nexis access and see the source for yourself. Drrll (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Retraction is a big deal in journalism, it was not just a correction. I assumed you knew the difference since you like to talk about "respected" journalists and all the (now dubious) Pulitzers they win. Yet again you're qualifying and even misrepresenting your own posts, as you attempted to frame the RS/N in more than one place. And now repeating the same tired tactic of your idealoques by putting words in my mouth -- Gerth's opinion may be reliable, he doesn't have to be an apologist to pass that muster, but his journalistic ethics are suspect. I guess you only like the NYT when it suits your purposes. And as Henry confirms, you've ommitted the context of the article in this case and the due weight consideration inherent to its use here. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What is your source that the NYT had to publish a retraction of Gerth's work? A Lexis-Nexis search of "Major world publications" using "Gerth" and "retraction" (or "retract") found no references to such a retraction. It's hard to believe that Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz, for example, wouldn't have reported about such a major media event by the NYT. Do you think that a discredited reporter would have gotten a major book deal to report about Hillary Clinton? While I quoted the part of the NYT story that said "Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board," sorry I didn't quote the article in it's entirety (is that even allowable under copyright law?). Drrll (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't find it because the NYT didn't call it a retraction, but that's what it was. For the semantic nuances, see Safire's column from a few years ago. Of course you're free to continue equivocating, but my initial objection stands. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for wider discussion

I realize that the main discussion going on in this talk page is about the lead, but I would ask that others weigh in here on re-adding a short sentence about the SPLC lobbying against a Pulitzer for articles critical of them. There is strong sourcing detailing this lobbying in a New York Times article and at Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard. The editor who brought this issue up is strongly opposed to having this in the article at all despite the strong sourcing and despite having agreed earlier that the NYT source was adequate. Drrll (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It might help encourage discussion if you: 1) lay out all the sources you have and 2) demonstrate the event meets WP:DUE-- after all those are the objections raised to adding it. Is all you have still one article from a decade ago briefly mentioning this? Henry00sher6 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have demonstrated above that the 2 sources meet WP:DUE and the sources speak for themselves as to the significance of the SPLC's lobbying. Yes the sources are over a decade old precisely because the series on the SPLC by the Montgomery Advertiser was written in 1994 and nominated for the Pulitzer in 1995 (the sources on the lobbying actually occur 3 and 4 years later, respectively, which also speaks to the significance of the lobbying). Here are the sources:

• Press Critics Strike Early At Pulitzers, by Felicity Barringer, April 13, 1998, The New York Times:

"It is unclear what effect challenges have had in the four years since their consideration was allowed. Perhaps the most vigorous challenge was filed three years ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center against a critical series by The Montgomery Advertiser in Alabama. The campaign included a letter to the board by George McGovern, the former Democratic presidential nominee. Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board."

• Panel Discussion: Nonprofit Organizations, moderated by Bill Kovach, May 1999, Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard:

"The other point is, when this was nominated for a Pulitzer, Morris Dees, who is one of the great fundraisers for a lot of political figures in the country, mobilized some of the best-known and probably most liberal politicians in the country for whom he had raised money and they lobbied the Pulitzer Board against this series, the first lobbying that I know of of that kind, and without knowing anything about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s activities they were lobbying the Pulitzer Board not to recognize this work."

Drrll (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If what Drrll said is true, I'll have to agree with him. Further, it appears to me what he said is true. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1) Your sources (all two of them) contradict each other. The NY Times reports, the SPLC "challenged" The Advertisers series before it was nominated ("despite these efforts" it was "nominated"). The Nieman conference article says the lobby happened "when" it "was nominated." Which one is correct? Did this "lobbying" happen before or during the nomination?

2) WP:DUE reports: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." You have two sources from a decade ago, which contradict one another. The NY Times mentions the case in passing, in one small paragraph. The second source is a quote from a conference in 1999. Do you have any proof that these contradicting reports represent a relevant view significant to include in an article? If this hasn't been discussed beyond two contradicting sources (a minor mention in a paper and a statement made by a person on a panel at a 1999 conference) in a decade how does this meet WP:DUE? The fact that these decade old sources contradict each other raise more questions about inclusion.

3) According to WP:UNDUE, giving undue weight is the "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Adding mention of something sourced to one paragraph and one speaker at a conference from a decade ago, is the very essence of giving undue weight. Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't contradict each other. Both sources make it clear that the SPLC lobbied the Pulitzer board, whose job it is to determine the Pulitzer winners from the finalists rather than determine the finalists. The "despite these efforts" wording in the NYT article hints at additional lobbying by the SPLC (of Pulitzer jurors) before it was a finalist as well as after.

If you read further at WP:UNDUE, you'll see that "the views of tiny minorities" refers to fringe viewpoints like those of flat-earth adherents or Holocaust deniers, rather than facts reported in major reliable sources like the NYT the Nieman Foundation at Harvard. Reporting on the Advertiser's bid for the Pulitzer is (fully?) unanimous that the SPLC lobbied against it. You can't point to any required threshold of coverage within sources at WP:UNDUE for the inclusion of facts. There's no requirement that a fact reported by reliable sources be proven significant (that would make for an awfully sparse WP); the sources speak for themselves as to the significance of the fact ("Perhaps the most vigorous challenge" in the NYT source; "the first lobbying that I know of of that kind" in the Nieman source). Drrll (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic"--note that it talks about proportion not a binary not include / include scenario.

Regarding UNDUE, this SPLC article is gigantic and is (or was) filled with statements direct from the SPLC, sometimes plagiarized. We all agree to that now. I think the UNDUE argument that SPLC's effort to lobby Pulitzer is undue when viewed in the context of this giant article that is filled with material directly taken from the SPLC is laughable. Not the editors claiming UNDUE, they are doing what Misplaced Pages wants us to do. Just the fact that a little fact that is not complementary of the SPLC could be UNDUE in a giant article filled with SPLC advertising direct from splcenter.org is laughable. I'll bet if it were complementary and on splcenter.org, it would no longer be UNDUE. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The two sources contradict ("lobbying" 1) before or 2) during the nomination)-- the fact that you deny that is intellectually dishonest. You only have two sources: a quote from a 1999 conference and minor mention newspaper ten years ago.

WP:UNDUE SAYS: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The two contradicting news reports from a decade ago are "disproportionate" to "overall significance" in the article. Let me repeat, that is directly addressing news reports about an event that may be "verifiable and neutral," but are "disproportionate". You want to add in a view of the SPLC that is not worthy of inclusion because Bill Kovach's claims/view (which you want to add) are "disproportionate" to the overall article.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, as several editors pointed out, you don't speak for everyone so don't phrase things like that. Your perceived problems of other aspects of the article doesn't mean we add unnotable things from a decade ago to appease you. Henry00sher6 (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't play games. My "perceived problems" have turned out to be actual problems that we are all now working to resolve, and even my detractors then and now refer to the plagiarism and copyright violations in this article and are working to remove them. I have another "perceived problem". It's that the SPLC trying to quash a Pulitzer award for reporting against the SPLC's interest is not undue. I am certain it can be written in a way that is not undue. And the refs may contradict on certain things, but not on the SPLC effort to quash the Pulitzer. If that was the FRC, it would be called censorship. For the SPLC, it's called undue. You really need to stick to the issues and stop maligning me with "perceived problems" or that I should not "phrase things like that" or that I seek to be "appeased". I tell you I have no issues at all with the SPLC--I'm only looking at Wiki policy. I think the constant effort to make false claims about me is a bit of psychological projection. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your fringe and conspiracy sources speak for themselves. Your antics reveal your motivations. But let me ask you this on what you want included: Did the SPLC "lobby" against it being nominated or did they "lobby" while it was being considered as a finalist? And was the lobby successful? Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ech, could you please post the sources gain? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BeCritical, was that a questions for me? Henry, I am asking you politely to stop make false claims about me and to stick to the issues. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, ok please answer the questions. I want to know what you want the article to say about this. BeCritical Drrll posted them above plus the Mark Krikorian at the top. Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want the article to say anything. I was merely generally supporting Drrll because I believe his arguments have more merit, and because the sources he cited are compelling. I'm leaving it up to others to do the actual drafting. If you can provide other sources to counter Drrll's, I would consider them as well. Right now, Drrll has the sources and the logically superior argument, in my opinion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's the issue and why you might be having difficulty knowing what should be added. You can answer yes to each question or no to each question depending on the source. You see the 1998 NY Times article says the lobby happened before it was nominated ("Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board.")-- the SPLC was a brief mention in the article. The Kovach statement at a 1999 conference was the lobby happened while it was nominated ("when this was nominated for a Pulitzer, Morris Dees ... mobilized some of the best-known"). And Mark Krikorian, a critic of the SPLC whose article started this discussed, claimed it would have won if not for the lobbying (without any evidence) . So what do you want the article to say? There is no consistent story.

Also I have to ask if this concerns the 1995 Pulitzer Prize, why are there only two RSes and they come from a 1998 article and a 1999 conference statement, while no RSes have mentioned it since or before? Is it not notable enough? Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not sure I can judge the notability from the quotations given, because without the total article, how much weight did the original sources give them? And although the NYT is a very good source, is this all the press that the lobbying got? Oh well, maybe I should read this whole thread. Ah, here is one. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Mr. Topping said that the board had changed its rules in 1994, permitting jurors to see such challenges because it reduces drastically the likelihood that after the process is over we make discoveries about an entry that might affect the board. " So basically the board was supposed to see such challenges? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article you linked is where Drrll's NY Times quote is from. As you can tell, a very minor mention of the 1995 event from a 1998 article. Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, that's Seymour Topping. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Seymour Topping says they encourage criticism and challenges of the stories. The article is by Felicity Barringer and about how and why groups are allowed "strike" at people who are considered for the award. It points out cases where people and groups criticize reporting. One small paragraph on the last page mentions the SPLC. Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The NYT is "all the news that's fit to print". If it's in the NYT, it's newsworthy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol, that's a kind of an advertisement line, I forget the word for those right now. But the question we have to answer is whether it's notable for an article in Misplaced Pages about the SPLC. and if they weren't doing anything shady then I say it's not notable. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm coming into this thread late, and haven't read all of it. If this isn't a legit question, please just tell me. But if they are supposed to have the opportunity to protest, and there is only one small paragraph on SPLC there, I don't think this source justifies mention. Is the other one a lot better? Is there a link to it? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

<unindent to answer question> I didn't think so, but here is Drrll's other source: statements at a conference in 1999 (see bottom of page). Does that statement at a conference make this event worthy of inclusion? 04:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs)

The SPLC's lobbying against the Pulitzer was noteworthy enough in the NYT story to be singled out 3 years after the fact as "Perhaps the most vigorous challenge" (the other examples in the story were much more recent examples) and to be mentioned 4 years after the fact as "the first lobbying that I know of of that kind" in the Nieman source. We're just talking about a single short sentence or parenthetical mention of this fact in the SPLC article. Drrll (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BeCritical you've highlighted part of the additional context I mentioned earlier which Drrll is leaving out. That and the fact the SPLC's challenges were based on factual errors in reporting. A better question is: why even mention the Pulitzer here? The newspaper didn't win and it's a second-rate award ever since the Janet Cooke fiasco in the early 80's (her story was fake, she had to give the Prize back). You might also want to read about scandals in the past decade when old awards were re-investigated, though the Pulitzer folks stopped admitting anything was wrong -- as I've pointed out to Drrll & others before. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, if it was included do we also add a parenthetical mention that groups are supposed to make challenges? Or should that be left off? Henry00sher6 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem including that as well. Put in there that challenges are encouraged, along with the fact that (according to both sources) the SPLC's challenge was particularly noteworthy compared to other challenges. Drrll (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, since you knew it was in that article, then why didn't you add it to begin with? That the committee encourages challenges is relevant to the SPLC making a challenge, right? Henry00sher6 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't know of the NYT source until later--only the Krikorian source at first. Drrll (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why mention it if it they didn't win. And why does the parenthetical endorsed by drrll not mention that SPLC was within its rights to do such lobbying? ? I have no opinion on the rest of PrBeacon's post as I don't know the history for myself. And why is it notable for this article anyway? And we are considering taking that mention of the USA Today article out anyway, as it is redundant to the Harpers and Advertiser articles. I fail to see the need/weight/notability for mentioning it at all, regardless of whatever sordid history there may be surrounding Pulitzer. Let's say Pulitzer was stainless, it still wouldn't merit mention. That's because A) the article didn't win and B) SPLC was not doing anything shady by lobbying against it even if they were wrong about the substance of their complaint (is there a source saying they were lying in their complaint?). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to the possiblity of removing mention of the series being a finalist. I'd like to hear some arguments for keeping it. Henry00sher6 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because "despite these efforts" of a major campaign against the Pulitzer by a politically powerful group, including by the Presidential nominee George McGovern, the series ended up as one of three finalists in its Pulitizer category. Drrll (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Henry00sher6's explanation for me above, I read the second source (thanks (:). My take on it is, yes it sounds like a notable event, with politicians mobilized against the Pulitzer, but if this is all the sources we have on it I doubt it merits mention. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by more sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

When I asked for more sources above to demonstrate its significance, I got the brush off and hence this section ("Request for wider discussion") was created by Drrll. Henry00sher6 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So in spite of the fact that the NYT source at least is good, the coverage within that source, and the coverage within the conference, seems too little to make this article. We need more sources with deeper coverage to include it. Given such sources, it would probably merit more mention than we're giving it now, but without them it is a passing thing in which no one knows of any wrongdoing. And without wrongdoing on the part of the SPLC -or some other significance-, there isn't any reason to include it here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We're in agreement. Henry00sher6 (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The "some other significance" is demonstrated by both sources pointing out how unique the lobbying was by the SPLC, as well as the lobbying including such political heavyweights as the Presidential nominee George McGovern. Those things put the lobbying by the SPLC in a class by itself. Drrll (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if it was so significant as you say, "in a class by itself," then either you've uncovered a left-wing conspiracy of silence, or else the rest of the press didn't consider it so important. Either way, we need more sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering the typical pattern of positive/noncritical coverage of the SPLC by most news outlets (e.g. from the former editor of The Montgomery Advertiser: "For many years after I first got to The Montgomery Advertiser, probably three or four, we were essentially boosters for the center. We parroted their press releases"), of which you are no doubt aware, I think it says a lot that two major sources have pointed to the unique level of lobbying by the SPLC ("perhaps the most vigorous challenge"; "the first lobbying that I know of of that kind""). How often is it that a detail is left out of a lengthy WP article because there are "only" two major sources that point to its significance? Drrll (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What I see here is not the "majorness" of the sources- that's fine. What I have a problem with is that they both relegate this to the last one or two paragraphs of long articles. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why even mention the Pulitzer here?

So then, the question has come up in this discussion, perhaps re-phrased a bit more clumsily but generally: Is it undue weight to mention that the Montgomery Advertisers criticism of SPLC fundraising was a finalist for the Pulitzer prize? Here is the content in question:

The SPLC has received significant criticism for excessive fundraising and having excessive disproportionate reserves. ... In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser ran a series alleging the SPLC was financially mismanaged and employed misleading fundraising practices. In response Joe Levin stated: "The Advertiser's lack of interest in the center's programs and its obsessive interest in the center's financial affairs and Mr. Dees' personal life makes it obvious to me that the Advertiser simply wants to smear the center and Mr. Dees." The series was a finalist for but did not win a 1995 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism.

Above, Drrll characterized the SPLC's challenge as a 'major campaign' -- what is your source for this claim? Because using the given sources seems like a violation of WP:synthesis. And mentioning the Prize also reeks of a tit-for-tat response to the SPLC's counterclaim. How much back and forth should there be? -PrBeacon (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think that it was a finalist for the Pulitzer should be removed from the SPLC page. That's more of a fact for Montgomery Advertiser's article. We don't know why it wasn't selected nor is this an important point for the SPLC. Was it factual errors? Henry00sher6 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mention of the Pulitzer non-win is optional in my opinion. Do any of the other encyclopedia sources mention it? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the seriousness of the charges alleged by the Montgomery Advertiser, I think that mention of the series being a Pulitzer finalist adds important context to the credibility of such charges by such a small newspaper. PrBeacon, "major campaign" probably can't be sustained by the sources, but it certainly wasn't a minor effort by the SPLC given the description of the lobbying in the sources ("perhaps the most vigorous challenge"; "the first lobbying that I know of of that kind") and the utilization of a major party Presidential nominee to be part of the lobbying. Henry, do you think that if there were serious factual errors in the series, Levin wouldn't have mentioned it in his statement about the series? Drrll (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Drrl, even as you back away from the hyperbolic "major campaign" (unsupported by sources), you still attempting to bootstrap legitimacy when it doesn't exist. You can't use the "seriousness of the allegation" to bypass our core criteria -- any way you slice it, a single unsubstantiated accusation from a single source 16 years ago flatly fails WP:UNDUE. Unless you can provide significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to demonstrate weight, the issue is moot. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Blaxthos, I can admit to the sources not supporting "major campaign." We all know how you're never given to flights of hyperbolic rhetoric. "Bootstrap legitimacy when it doesn't exist": A multi-part series of reporting by the local newspaper, supported by three years of research, a finalist for the Pulitzer, and cited by traditional encyclopedias, articles, and books lacks legitimacy?? Exactly what kind of sources would not lack legitimacy? Sorry, but unless you can show more recent reliable sources that contradict the Advertiser series, I don't see where you can point to policy that would diminish the value of such a significant source simply because it was published in the mid '90s. And, BTW, the quote you provided refers to a guideline on notability for the existence of WP articles, not to policy on undue weight. Drrll (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I very much resist the continued bloating of a minor issue sourcable only with a single source of 16 years ago. That is not notable to add here. -- Kim van der Linde 22:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a single source does not constitute due weight. For the record, my quote was intended to concisely paraphrase the well-known standard by which we assign weight. If you're looking for the exact policy language as the nail in this issue's coffin (emphasis in original):

Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

— WP:UNDUE

One source == no weight == no mention. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I may just be being stupid and not know what's going on in this thread, but are you saying we need another source besides this to say that they almost won? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of mentioning the fact that the Montgomery Advertiser series was a Pulitzer finalist is that we quote the SPLC spokesman's accusation that the Advertiser has smeared the SPLC and its founder (as presented in our article, by the way, this retort is about double the length of our mention of the series). A southern newspaper being accused of smearing a well known civil rights organization is, for reasons that I think are obvious, a grave charge. The Pulitzer nomination casts some relevant light on the journalistic bona fides of the Advertiser's series and the SPLC's response. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that does put a bit of new light on the matter. There are certain aspects of wikipedia which have to do with editorial judgment, and this is one of them. I would say that 1) we do have good sourcing for saying they were finalists for Pulitzer; 2) I would say that we need a good reason to put that fact in, since otherwise it's just puffing up a source which already seems perfectly reliable. If you are saying there is reason that the reader would think of the source as unreliable when it is not, then that might be a reason to include the mention of the nomination. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, because it hinges on a single 16 year old source that mentions it in a byline. Typical case of undue. The Pulitzer price itself is far better documented. -- Kim van der Linde 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that. Are you questioning the validity of the source? If not, then the Advertiser article's notability for this article lends notability to the Pulitzer, if there is an actual reason to include it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I question it under WP:UNDUE to add the lobbying source. -- Kim van der Linde 03:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lobbying? I thought we were talking the Pulitzer and the Advertiser? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's be clear exactly what we are talking about here. An editor has recommended that we drop the mention of the Pulitzer Prize nomination, not merely the assertion that the SPLC was lobbying against it. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right, that issue... I think it's obvious we need better sources to discuss the lobbying case. But I was talking about the mention of the Pulitzer in the text relative to the Advertiser: "The series was a finalist for but did not win a 1995 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism." Being a finalist obviously has some significance to Pulitzer, or they wouldn't list it like this . BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

BeCritical, I understand your point about editorial judgement, but you seem to be responding to original research and synthesis. We shouldn't mention the Pulitzer finalism to "cast some relevant light on the journalistic bona fides" unless that is directly sourced, which I don't see. Henry was right before, this issue may be relevant to the article on Montgomery Advertiser, not here. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

But exactly what kind of source would you need for that? Just an RS which makes that connection? Google has lots of results from RS and not-so-RS which make the connection inline, just as WP is doing now. Here are a couple: from the National Catholic Reporter. For the purposes here, it looks to me that RS do tend to make the connection when they write about the Advertiser article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

??? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Those sources mention the Pulitzer nomination along with the article, but they don't make the specific connection we're talking about. With several editors objecting to its inclusion, I think we need more than that. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that because it seems such an extremely high standard to meat. Iinstead of saying

"They seem to consistently exaggerate conservative threats as a tool for publicity and fundraising – essentially, to scare up liberal dollars. Since 1994, when the Montgomery Advertiser ran a Pulitzer-nominated series “Charity of Riches,” exposing SPLC’s highly questionably practices, journalists have painstakingly reported exactly how the organization operates. "

And

"..and to articles on Southern Poverty Law Center in The Progressive (July 1988) and The New York Times (Sept. 9, 1992), and to a Pulitzer Prize contender series on the center in the Montgomery Advertiser ..."

The sources would have to say something like:

"Montgomery Advertiser ran a Pulitzer-nominated series “Charity of Riches,” (and FYI we mention that to cast some relevant light on the journalistic bona fides of the series) exposing SPLC’s highly questionably practices, journalists have painstakingly reported exactly how the organization operates."

Maybe that's not what you meant though. I originally agreed with you, but I considered Badmintonhist's point about a Southern publication not being taken seriously on these issues to be pretty compelling. But you said we shouldn't mention it unless such mention was directly sourced. So I went and found some RS which seem to directly source using that connection between the Advertiser series and the Pulitzer. But you seem to want the sources to not only demonstrate that it's valid to mention the Pulitzer, but to say directly that they are doing it to lend legitimacy to the source. Which of course is never going to happen and is an impossibly high standard. But I'm not sure I understood you right. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The suggested line is deceptive through omission. The actual claim isn't "questionable practices", it's simply that the SPLC's estimates differ from the estimates of a critic. It's just as easy to say that the critic underestimated threats. Dylan Flaherty 01:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "misleading fundraising practices?" The current line is "In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser ran a series alleging the SPLC was financially mismanaged and employed misleading fundraising practices." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. The above are quotes from the sources, not suggestions. They are a response to PrBeacon saying we need sources for mentioning the pulitzer in the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what Dylan's comment has to do with the issue here. The issue here is whether the Advertiser's Pulitzer Prize nomination should be mentioned in connection with the series it ran about the SPLC, particularly in light of the SPLC's claim that the Advertiser had smeared Dees and his organization. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have taken my quotes as suggested WP text. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Categorization?

Since the SPLC appears to be the most influential hate group watchdog in the United States, perhaps its listings should have a Misplaced Pages category? Something like Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center — similar to the function of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government and similar categories. I thought it would be best to float the idea first. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed. I think the category is a bad idea. Imagine having a category on every political organization by every non-profit that rates the organizations. Henry00sher6 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure this is the proper venue to discuss this proposal. I'm not well versed on the procedure to suggest a new category, but wouldn't this discussion be better placed on a Category talk page, or perhaps the pump? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Eh, I thought it might be a good idea. But whatever, I'm not really attached to it. I didn't even expect an actual vote — just a discussion. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Supported As Gilgamesh said, being on the SPLC's list of hate groups is notable and a good way to find others of its kind. Dylan Flaherty 05:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - as nom Gilgamesh says, there are a bunch of similar categories at Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator. Roscelese (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - 3 to 1 seems like a small reaction overall...but I'd also not want to advertise reactions which could be slantedly for or against. I suppose the only way to know if such a category can succeed or fail is to measure the reaction to its being launched. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I have to say...while I proposed the categorization and still think it's a good idea, I'm not entirely sure I want to start it myself. Such edits, while legitimate, may be a magnet for the worst kind of extremist online behavior. And, when it comes down to it, I am not actually interested in dwelling on the world of hate, or being called back into dwelling on it because of edits I already made. It's a social underbelly whose study can have taxing effects on an editor's sanity. Misplaced Pages needn't shy away from such notable content, but I'm only one user on Misplaced Pages who makes casual edits in my free time, and I don't particularly like being excessively reminded about the myriad ways human beings can treat one another other with inhuman contempt and cruelty. I still support, but I may just have to bail from involvement. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose due to WP:CAT. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you specify what policy at WP:CAT you're referring to? I don't see anything that would preclude the formation of a category, though a list would also be an alternative. Roscelese (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OVERCAT. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you specify what policy at WP:OVERCAT you're referring to? I don't see anything that would preclude the formation of a category, though a list would also be an alternative. Roscelese (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Report section

This section seems to give undue weight to criticism, while ignoring plenty of data which is much more complimentary as shown by the sources (see above) . Should be updated/redone. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

On this matter, we agree. The scare-quotes around "watchgroup" (twice!) are a particularly undue touch. Essentially, this is a fringe view and it's not even saying anything particularly relevant. Group A has slightly different estimates than group B but concede's that B's estimates are reasonable. Boring. Dylan Flaherty 06:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

this entire bit about exaggerating stuff should be taken out or put in the financial section, IMHO BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Both of the sources discuss the accuracy of the SPLC's research and belong there. I don't understand why you eliminated the positve information about the Intellgence Report in the first place. If I recollect properly, McVeigh says nothing in the entire article about fundraising and the section quoted from Dobratz is the sole mention of financing and applies to watch dog groups in general, not just the SPLC -- a fact that your edits removed. The financial section, as I've stated elsewhere, is already bloated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I definitely don't recall eliminating positive information about the intelligence report. I certainly put in a very very strong endorsement from the sources I recently found. And what I think needs to come out is the Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile bit. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the McVeigh quote BEFORE you edited the section. The boldfaced content is the very positive info you cut from your edits and which I partially restored:

Such measurement bias, if it exists, would be more likely to show up in claims concerning membership or in descriptions of the movement's goals, rather than in a listing of organizations. The SPLC's lists of U.S. racist organizations are by far the most comprehensive available. Its outstanding reputation is well established, and the SPLC has been an excellent source of information for social scientists who study racist organizations.

I had added the McVeigh quote to counter the Dobratz quote. I have no feeling one way or the other about retaining the Dobratz quote, but McVeigh is an excellent source and all the information he provided should stay in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now I remember. I agree on keeping the source, but I put that information in the head, and what I think should be done is take out the whole back and forth bit about "the SPLC may determine what it focuses on in order to influence people to make contributions" and have the information you're talking about left in where I put it "The Intelligence Report is cited by scholars as reliable and as the most comprehensive source on right-wing extremism and hate groups." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FBI and SPLC

Hi,

A comment or reference might have been lost in all the shuffling. <humor>zombies</humor>

As Badmintonhist asks,

By the way, is the FBI listing of the SPLC as a source on hate groups (which I know exists) listed in our article? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have looked on FBI's web site with this search query. I found a few possibilities but no definitive statement: <humor>no smoking gun</humor>

• Investigative Programs: SPLC helps with Civil Rights era cold cases:

  In response to this proposed legislation, the Civil Rights Unit of the FBI established the Cold Case Initiative. With assistance of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Urban League, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and our local and state law enforcement partners, 100 potential cases were identified that matched the established criteria.

• Our Outreach Partners: SPLC is listed as an African-American Outreach partner. (Over thirty other organizations were also included: American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Anti-Defamation League)
• Hate Crimes: SPLC is listed along with five other links to resources

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant, Kevin. I saw the Hate Crimes section of the FBI website. It doesn't use the term "reliable source" but that is Misplaced Pages's term of art. It would seem to me that the FBI information is vastly more important than a reading list statement from the obscure "Illinois Association for Cultural Diversity". Badmintonhist (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Section title

While a legitimate problem was identified, the solution is not to elevate the status of David Horowitz by mentioning him in a section title, placing him on an equal footing with the major categories of SPLC activities. I believe it is better to leave the material in the section "Tracking of hate groups", but place it as a subsection. The Berlet article does include discussions of some hate groups so the material is not out of place here.

My sugestion is to make the title reflective of the general theme of the article by Berlet ("Into the Mainstream") and add an introductory paragraph that applies to the entire article. My suggestion:

Mainstreaming of hard right extremist language

Chip Berlet, writing for the SPLC in 2003, identified 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." Berlet said that while many of these groups, some of whom are labelled as hate groups by the SPLC, claim to be part of the political mainstream, they still rely on the use of "prejudice, fear, disdain, misinformation, trivialization, patronizing stereotypes, demonization and even scare-mongering conspiracy theories."

One of the groups listed is David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (now called David Horowitz Freedom Center). Berlet accused Horowit... Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you give a better description of the problem? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Which problem? The problem with the previous organization or the problem with the first effort to solve it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Was Horowitz's group specifically labeled as a hate group or was it one of the 17 which were not listed as a hate group by the SPLC? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't listed as a hate group or no it wasn't one of the others? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't listed as a hate group. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why would an editor put it back into the hate group category and back into the neo-Confederate subcategory neither of which fit? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's one way the discussion can go. Along that line, why don't you explain why you want to give such prominent exposure in an article about the SPLC to a right wing extremist such as Horowitz? I suggest a better way to go is to discuss my alternative. If you don't want it under hate groups it would fit nicely under "Litigation and advocacy" as a subsection right after (or even as part of) "Criticism of right wing rhetoric". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As you seem to be fond of saying, North Shoreman, you were not responsive to my question. I would say that as a temporary measure we should we should get rid of your last edit on the article and go back to mine. Referring to Horowitz as a "right wing extremist" doesn't exactly evince a willingness to set one's ideology aside and approach the article from a NPOV and perhaps explains why you seemed loathe to work with my change instead of reverting it. That being said the last part of your suggestion about locating the material seems okay. Your earlier suggested title for the material is definitely not okay. It's biased and conclusionary. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am simply following Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle -- is there some urgency that I am unaware of? My title is descriptive and accurately covers the thrust of the article by Berlet -- what you're really saying is that the SPLC is "biased and conclusionary". This has been the thrust of your editing since you made your initial appearance here.

I didn't like your initial title so I suggested another one. Since you don't like my suggestion, provide an alternative that doesn't have Horowitz's name in it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If You didn't like my initial title then you could have changed the title, not thrown the material back into a section and subsection where you should have known it didn't belong. Your anxiousness to put Horowitz back into the hate group category makes you "more royalist than the king" so to speak, since the SPLC itself didn't put him in that category. My bias in this article has been against lazy, complacent, POV editing. I put Horowitz's name in the edit because the name of his organization has recently been changed (with his name now in it) and the old name was rather unwieldly to put in the title anyway. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-reponsive. To repeat myself, "I didn't like your initial title so I suggested another one. Since you don't like my suggestion, provide an alternative that doesn't have Horowitz's name in it." If you would like (it wasn't clear which of the alternatives in my last proposal was OK), feel free to move the material in question into the existing subsection "Criticism of right wing rhetoric" without adding or changing any section or subsection titles. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I completed the transfer as I had proposed -- it was added to the section I suggested w/o any separate new title. I have highlighted what I proposed in case there was a misunderstanding. Badmintonhist did slightly change the title of the recipient subsection, but I don't have a problem with that.

Berlet was writing about 17 separate groups, not just one. If a new subsection is created, then its title should be applicable to all 17 groups, not just one. The text itself should also make this clearer than it currently does and the language I suggested above will accomplish that. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a pleasant surprise. Perhaps we should now sing Kumbaya. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is the episode with David Horowitz notable enough -weighty enough- to be included? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. It is hardly encyclopedic to get into a back and forth between sides. Here you've got seventeen lines dedicated to a SMALL PART of ONE SPLC report and one individual's opinion of the report. Horowitz is not a stand alone reliable source so the text was manipuated in order to justify having his opinions inserted into the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Fundraising section

I did a bunch of edits to the section, but they are for the most part copyediting and putting it in chronological order. I took out all but one quote which seemed appropriate, and put in a sentence to begin with which in conjunction with the second sentence seemed to sum up the whole section, both positions. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tolerance.org

BeCritical flattered me recently by suggesting that I make a list of problems with the article. I'm not ready to do that and I don't think that other editors would take too kindly to such a presumption, anyway. However, I do think the article is bloated. People are more likely to read a relatively concise article than an article as long as this one. I think it could be cut significantly in size without losing much of its meat. One place we could start is on the subsection Tolerance.org. It is about SPLC activities and seems to be sourced entirely by the SPLC, itself. Could we perhaps find a reliable third party source that concisely describes the program and base a much shortened section on that? Badmintonhist (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It certainly feels like two or three of you are "on the warpath", so to speak, with regards to this article. It's biased, it reads like an ad, it has primary sources, it's plagiarism, it's bloated, it might be too long to read so we should helpfully trim it... I'm not sure what you're doing is actually productive, and even if the article does need some work I'm not sure any of you are honestly objective enough to be the ones to do it -- from where I sit, it looks like your tribe has been trying to take an axe to this article for the last several weeks. Maybe it's time to step back and let the landscape cool awhile. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Help out then. I just removed 3 paragraphs of specifics of the org that were simply not needed. What remains is SPLC's description of the site. That's fine, barring primary source problems, etc. It really reads and looks way better without losing anything of encyclopedic significance. I mean really. It won a Webby Award? The award winning aspects of the site from Webby Award is not really encyclopedic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what Blaxthos just said? Cool it with the contentious edits. This is not the time to be wp:bold and remove such a large portion with no specific discussion of it here, and especially with an edit summary of "remove bloat/more SPLC advertisement - didn't check but it wouldn't surprise me if copyvio was present" (my emphasis). While I agree this section could be trimmed, thats alot different than simply removing it without proper justification. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

One reason to write a list would be to give people an idea of what you think needs to be done so they don't feel you are out to ax the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'll make a list after the holidays. For now I'll make the observation that any intelligent adult would make, bearing in mind that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry. It is waaay too worshipful, in tone and in content, as befits an article which largely was, and to a substantial extent still is, "self-written" by and about a organization which sees itself as righteous and heroic. The lead sentence still has the absurdly unencyclopedic formulation to the effect that "the center dedicates itself to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society." Not counting the articles that receive very limited attention, it may be the most biased lead sentence that I have seen in my three years of editing here.

The history section reads like a testimonial geared to juveniles. It's all about the the center's bravery in battles with obvious troglodyte types, many of them taking place two decades or so after the political starch had been taken of such groups, rendering them easy legal targets. Nothing in it about the criticism of the center from moderate, liberal, and lefty sources. That comes at the end, and for a naive reader who actually gets there, it might be disillusioning. Everything else has been so glowingly positive. How could the Washington Post possibly call it controversial? Why would any nice person accuse it of using scare tactics to raise money? How could it possibly be spending more on advertising than on legal services? Why would it be using its huge endowment to provide big salaries for the already well-off?

Look, I know the SPLC has done many fine things. I doubt that any editor here is sympathetic to its more obvious targets, certainly not the early ones. Cleaning up messes after the Klan and similar groups had already been weakened, gaining damages for its victims, helping to put some remnant leaders behind bars, monitoring upticks in Klan-like behavior, looking out for the safety of groups who tend to be scapegoated, all of those are fine things. It doesn't mean that our Misplaced Pages article about the SPLC should be a love letter. Aren't we a little too sophisticated for that? Badmintonhist (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See, here's the problem... on your very first edit to this article, you attempted to change the introduction with the edit summary "My Goodness, who wrote this lead that I'm editing? The SPLC's press agent?". As it turns out, the introduction was derived and endorsed by a strong consensus of 12 editors after a long discussion, though you call it an "absurdly unencyclopedic formulation". Fuck that 12 editor consensus, eh? From where I stand, it looks a hell of a lot like we have at least two editors (Badmintonhist and LAEC) who have a less-than-friendly history with anything progressive (and a very friendly history with conservative causes) trying to gut this article. Making snarky comments like "any intelligent adult" would agree with you only belies your true disdain both this article and any dissenting editors. Again, this looks more like a witch hunt by right-wing editors than it does an honest attempt to improve the article via consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to partially disagree. The problem is not that these two editors are conservative -- I'm pretty conservative myself -- but that their behavior is unreasonable. There's room for people who disagree to edit harmoniously, but they have to learn from the example of Bad and LAEC instead of repeating their errors. Dylan Flaherty 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

BeCritical -- As far as BAD being "out to ax the article," how can anyone conclude otherwise? With his very first edit he insulted the editors of the article and his latest effort, with phrases such as "any intelligent adult" and "geared to juveniles", only reinforces my belief that he is not interested in a collaborative effort. Some of us were making progress on the article lead, but that discussion has been abandoned as BAD and LAEC have decided to start maing controversial edits to the main article. Anyone who wants to fill the role of an honest broker needs to recognize that folks who so arrogantly dismiss anyone who disagrees with them needs to be placed outside the process. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In the area of insults and snarky comments Blaxthos takes a backseat to no one working in Misplaced Pages. If twelve editors took part in approving that opening sentence then I can only say that they messed up. It happens. It tends to happen more when some get accused of right-wing bias and get worn down. As far as axing the article goes, some editors have done a pretty good job of that already. I noticed that the editor who introduced much of the most blatantly plagiarized material into the article (with nary a peep from any fellow editor, Tom) was awarded a barnstar for his work on it right around the same time. I guess people were just too trusting. As clumsy with a computer as it gets (my son just told me how to copy and paste without using the right click side of the mouse), I nonetheless discovered it in about 20 seconds of effort. As I said before, the amount of effort that some editors here make defending a flawed article seems to dwarf the amount of time that they actually spend improving it. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We do need to rewrite the lead. That's been well started above, but delaying it is a good idea while the rest of the article gets combed out. I've seen worse leads. Is there other RS stuff that is critical of the SPLC we are leaving out? I agree there should probably be a sentence about the finances or criticism in the history section. Dylan, I am not drawing conclusions on editors, I was making an observation about what editors here think of BAD (as he seems to be called now). Anyway, let's be honest about the way Misplaced Pages works: the attacking editors are either trying to improve the article or they are trying to introduce POV. Either way, it causes the article to improve (and the article would have been static without them). So they are part of the real process. So are the editors who stonewall, as a necessary balance to the attackers. So long as the whole dynamic pushes the article toward a better state (and it usually does or crowdsourcing wouldn't work), everything is good. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that some here wouldn't be happy with any reasonably balanced portrayal of an organization (the SPLC) which has listed another organization that you support (Family Research Council) as a hate group? A little digging shows that Badmin & LAEC have been fighting criticism of the FRC at that article, e.g. , failed, then came here to work on breaking down this article. For example here, the illinformed criticism about SPLC's advertising costs versus litigation is misleading to say the least: promotion and outreach efforts are more than just advertising -- PSAs, publications, educational programs, various other campaigning and collateral materials, etc can all be (improperly) lumped together as marketing, and thus advertising. Taking the critics' word for it in this case is undue. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

While not disagreeing in general, I'd like to recast this in terms of accuracy, not bias, so as to put aside any personal issues. In the end, what matters is not the motivation of the editor but the extent to which their suggestions are justified. In the same way, it's perfectly fine to look at what critics are saying, just so long as we don't simply take them at their word or give them undue weight. In the case of SPLC, the amount of praise overwhelmingly exceeds the few cases of mild criticism from reliable sources, so we should follow this pattern in the article. Dylan Flaherty 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks for saying that about how to treat editors. I don't think the Harpers criticism was mild though. But certainly the praise is much more extensive. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to address one more thing here -- to quote Badmintonihst: "If twelve editors took part in approving that opening sentence then I can only say that they messed up." That sentence alone shows that Badmintonhist not only refuses to accept a consensus with which he disagrees, but also that he does not understand the word consensus. You can't just show up, say "those editors must be wrong", and then proceed as if the judgment of two or three should supersede the hard work of twelve. That statement alone is demonstration that he is not an honest broker in this discussion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There's more to Misplaced Pages than just consensus. If 12 out of 12 editors agree the Earth is flat, they still have no Misplaced Pages basis to change the page to say the Earth is flat. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

One, that's prima facie incorrect in terms of WP:CONSENSUS. Two, it's a false analogy, as you're improperly equating an immutable fact with an issue controlled by subjective opinion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's true you can't come in and change the consensus by fiat. But consensus can change based on the persuasive power of new arguments. Those arguments can change the minds of those who came to the former consensus. I think you see persuasion happening here... the article is improving, and by consensus. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast there with that assumption, the article has improved by cautious editing and rewriting previous copyvio content, not by supposed persuasive reasoning against long-standing consensus on the contentious issues. Please don't conflate the two. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As Legit and I have previously pointed out, some users devote far, far more effort to defending the status quo than they they do to improving the article. My friend Blaxthos is a textbook example. All sorts of edits on the talkpage, basically excoriating those who dare to criticize the article. I think one substantive edit on the actual article over the past six months. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on "improving the article" is far from objective. Do you deny that you resisted the SPLC-sourced criticism at the Family Research Council article before coming here? -PrBeacon (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Now you are going after someone for edits on another page. Will you please just get back to improving this page? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your misguided attempt to re-frame what I just said is indicative of contrary evidence to WP:AGF. Both of you continuing the argument from the FRC article to here is relevant to what Badmin wrote just above. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Now you are going after me for edits on another page. Will you ever just work on improving the Wiki page? I mean this page is getting filled with your comments about the supposed failings of others. Please, take a little break from the personal comments for a day or two. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And you could choose to set the right example, by stopping yourself first. is anybody preventing you from doing that? -- Kim van der Linde 23:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to try not responding to the persistent personal attacks. If it ends up with people believing the substance of the personal attacks, then I will return to responding. Please consider asking these people to stop the incessant comments of a personal nature. Asking a bullied victim to stop complaining about the bullies doesn't work in real life. I doubt it will work here. But I'll give it a go given your suggestion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I had already the agreement of those opther above, so I will take that that they will agree with doing the same.Looks like I am wrong.-- Kim van der Linde 23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Please see NPA - What is not.. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that comment a personal attack. If you still think so, take your complaints to WQA, but stop deflecting the central question: Do you too deny that you have continued your FRC crusade here? -PrBeacon (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Issue with hategroup listing section

It does seem odd that out of 900+ groups labeled as hate groups by the SPLC, only 2 are discussed by name. I'm sure it's pure coincidence that both of those are conservative groups. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I count far more than two being discussed in the article. -- Kim van der Linde 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, I didn't think that anyone would really think I meant the entire article. I'm talking about the section about hate group listings. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that clarifies. I created a header as to make this clear. Anyway, yes, and I think that is just an artifact of h0ow WP is pieced together. I actually think we should either remove those two entries, or condense it and make it more general. -- Kim van der Linde 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just editing on that section, hope people like what I did. I'm curious about how the groups under "Organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object to this characterization:" were picked? Why just those? Was it purely chance, when people came upon sources? If there isn't a good reason, I agree with Kim in taking them out. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Assuming it was just a coincidence and that the 2 picked just happened to be conservative orgs, then it shouldn't bother anyone if the list is either balanced or those two removed. There is nothing wrong with how you edited it, but nothing really changed either. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to change anything, just to improve the structure and make it more encyclopedic sounding. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift, the reason that any list of groups named by the SPLC as hategroups would be heavily weighted toward conservative groups is that the SPLC really isn't that interested in hate on the left. Out of the nearly 1,000 groups they identify, you could probably count on one hand the number of left-wing groups that the SPLC identifies as hategroups. Their prominent blog Hatewatch is subtitled "keeping an eye on the radical right" and a quick glance at the entries there reveal a focus on not just hategroups, but on mainstream conservatives. Drrll (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm on the SPLC's mailing list. I know who is on their list and there are non-conservative, non-right groups on the list. So I'm curious why the only two listed are conservative. Since I'm assuming good faith, it must be a coincidence, right? So the remedy would be to either balance the groups mentioned by name or remove the two specific examples, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer would be to come up with some sourcable way to justify listing any particular groups who object to SPLC. I would suggest just taking them out and forgetting about the issue. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of a two, three sentence section with a general picture that groups often do not like it that they are listed, although I have seen some exceptions to that. -- Kim van der Linde 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It is probably because hate groups are typically right-wing. TFD (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not really conducive to keeping what's left of a nice atmosphere here. And yes, we could say they generally don't like being listed... although I don't know why we'd bother. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It should not be taken that way. I have never heard of any hate group that was not right-wing. TFD (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't remember one off-hand either. Sigh. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• You guys need to get out more :) Ever heard of the Nation of Islam? They're on the SPLC's list of hate groups. New Black Panther Party? They are on the list too. The The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ is a black separatist group that is on the list. Of course I don't truly consider the c of CC to be an actual conservative group (just using conservative in your title doesn't make you one), but there is a chance it was specified in the section because it has the word conservative in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For example, some left-wing animal right activists fit the category of hate groups. -- Kim van der Linde 03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC) To add, if you really want to get a real feel for that, look at some groups in Europe, where left wing hate groups do exist. -- Kim van der Linde 03:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that either. How do animal rights groups discriminate or hate people because of their immutable characteristics, not their choices? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Re your addition about European groups, I don't know anything about them. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some pro-Palestinian groups can be called left-wing hate groups because of their hate against Israel. -- Kim van der Linde 03:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that is an example, thx (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know of any left-wing anti-Semitic or anti-Israel hate groups in the US? Drrll (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The US is very far to the right on the political scale covering the world. What you consider left wing here is our hard core right wing, like liberals. -- Kim van der Linde 03:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the SPLC, "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics". Can you name any left-wing Palestinian group in the United States (which is the only country where the SPLC monitors hate groups) that meets this description. TFD (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No idea. I was talking from a European perspective for the moment in order to demonstrate what the left wing hate group COULD look like. -- Kim van der Linde 04:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: these two groups are specifically mentioned because of their objection to being listed, apparently thought notable enough to include and survive over time -- I think that's what Kim meant by 'artifact' of editing -- not by coincidence. In the past others have been mentioned as objecting to the designation. Besides, hate groups are not so easily ascribed to any part of the political spectrum. For example, isn't the Nation of Islam considered right-wing? I believe TFD has mentioned Laird Wilcox's work before on this. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Who considers NOI to be conservative? They are black separatists that believe that black scientists created the world on a plan that repeats every 25,000 years and a number of other fringe theories. They are far from conservative. Picking out 2 of 900+ that you happen to be able to find disputed the designation doesn't seem like any sort of balance or pattern. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Do some digging before you make such a blatantly false allegation. I never added either one. As far as I can tell they were both added by editors who are sympathetic to conservative causes. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• What allegation? I haven't made ANY statement about any editor. I don't know who added them. I don't care who added them. Who added them is completely immaterial to the discussion. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but everything I say isn't about you. Read it again, realize that you have imagined some allegation (maybe surprise me and admit it) and stick to the topic, m'kay? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Then choose your words more carefully, especially given our history of disagreements. And while you're at it drop the sarcasm. You clearly said "Picking out 2 of 900+ that you happen to be able to find..." (my emphasis) -- this is not an imagined reference to me when it comes directly after my comment. That's a natural implication of your (sloppy) word choice. I know that you don't appreciate it when others do that to you. Perhaps you assumed I was defending the questionable content as status quo -- that would be another mistake. As Kim said, the section should be reworked anyway and I don't give a damn if conservatives are mentioned with their objections or not. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oh give it a rest. You (PRBeacon) want to ignore the rest of the entire conversation and manufacture an allegation because of a generic "you"? See, unlike you (yes, PRBeacon), I don't enter every conversation carrying the baggage of every conversation I've ever had with you (PRBeacon). If you (PRBeacon) bothered to get past your (PRBeacon) own sense of self-importance, you'd (PRBeacon) see that I said almost the exact same thing at the start of this discussion. In fact, I avoided contributing in some of the other discussion you (PRBeacon) were involved in because I predicted that you (PRBeacon) wouldn't be able to have a conversation without dragging everything ever said into it. Stop manufacturing drama where there is none. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, ' give it a rest ' and then that ridiculously pointy reply? Get off your high horse and stop trying to re-frame what I said. It's a stale old tactic of trying to wear down other editors because you have nothing more substantial to add. You're free to move along and suggest a re-write of the section, as others have already agreed to. Yet you prefer to focus on the partisan angle, apparently. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, give it a rest. There is no accusation. Period. Repeating yourself won't change that. And now you start with accusations of your own? What was your point? Apparently, it got buried in all the bullshit about the imaginary allegation. Can you make the point again, without the paranoia this time? Stop living in the past and focus on the topic. Are you able to do that? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Takes two to tango eh. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No one said they were conservatives, any more than one would call Kim Jong Il a liberal. They are listed as a hate group by the SPLC and as right-wing extremists by Laird Wilcox. Their leaders have met with George Lincoln Rockwell, Tom Metzger and other rightist leaders. TFD (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, :)

I added the two organizations described by hate groups who object to the characterization.

Because we don't have a Criticism section in this article, criticism of the SPLC is spread throughout the article. In this case, the groups that criticize the SPLC were listed as hate groups. So their criticism goes into the "Hate group listings" section.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

...And the entire financial section is criticism. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So can I take out the selective objecting groups from this section? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Will try this edit later if no one responds. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-encylopedic Fund Raising Section

The best way to determine whether something in wikipedia is encyclopedic is to compare how the same material is treated in other encyclopedias. They seem to manage to cover the same material w/o resorting to inflammatory quotes or discussions of Pulitzer Prizes.

From the Encyclopedia of Alabama ():

"The dramatic, and often heroic, work of the SPLC has not gone without its critics. Questions have been raised in local and national media about changes in SPLC's fundraising tactics as it has grown to become "one of the most profitable charities in the country," as noted in Harper's magazine. Critics contend that efforts at marketing the organization for potential donors have taken the focus off the important work of the organization, such as its early efforts to fight the death penalty."

From West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (original article pasted at ):

"In addition to being the subject of continuous vitriolic attacks by extremist organizations, whose activity it monitors, the center was the subject of strong criticism by Washington, D.C. based writer Ken Silverstein. Writing in the November 2000 issue of Harper's Magazine, Silverstein accused the center of raising millions of dollars from fund-raising and investments but spending only a portion of the money raised on its civil rights programs."

The Encyclopedia of Business at in a very detailed article doesn’t mention it at all.

The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties covers the issue in more details (start at and then switch to Amazon to get the rest of the section -- I can’t paste from either site) but it still zeroes in on what’s relevant by focusing only on what the Advertiser and Silverstein w/o inflamatory quotes.

Since there is an expressed concern about streamlining the article and the use of quotes, this section would be a place to start. It would certainly show good faith from that faction that seems to me to be concerned only with the encyclopedic nature of material that conflicts with their personal views of the SPLC. We should be able to reduce the section to one paragraph representing the SPLC position and one on the criticism, eliminating the quotes and limiting it to Silverstein and the Advertiser. I note that ALL of the encyclopedias list it LAST in their articles and NONE mention it in the opening paragraphs.

Let's discuss FIRST and edit only if consensus is obtained. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Um... I just did that yesterday, see what you think. And I don't think we're quite to the stage yet where everyone has to discuss first. People here aren't so upset that they aren't able to value a respectful incremental edit with a good summary. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the recent changes to this are an improvement in terms of balance. However, now that it's stated more accurately, it's become clear that there just isn't much to say here. Yes, it's possible that they'd be influenced by such motivations, but it doesn't seem as though there's any evidence of this actually happening. Reporting such vague speculation seems undue. Dylan Flaherty 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It really boils down to outsiders criticizing the internal financial decisions of the organization. No laws have been broken and all contributions are voluntary. The only actual investigation (the Advertiser's) is over 16 years old. I agree -- there's not much there and it takes up too much space. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Um back at you. You left in the Pulitzer prize stuff, a redundant USA today reference, a redundant Cockburn reference, and a final paragraph discussing charity ratings that besides being unnecessary relies entirely on primary sources -- where is the secondary source to show the significance of the ratings? My point was that we have examples of how encyclopedias do it and the wikipedia version does it differently.

I have no problems with purely style issues, but here I'm talking about more than style. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: the Pulitzer prize issue is being discussed in a previous section, concurrently. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall the criticisms are too significant to leave out. Just the fact that they said that they would stop collecting at a particular point and did not makes it quite significant. The point of having the older sources in there is that it gives the perspective of criticism over time, and that's necessary in this case. I streamlined the section quite a bit already. What do people think needs to come out? I would agree if the criticism hadn't been sustained over time. These are reliable sources with significant criticisms. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying to take all of them out. I'm saying to limit them to the Harper's and Advertiser sources, just like the three encyclopedias that mentioned it did. The Colburn and the USA Today quotes come in 1996 and 1998 -- between these two. There is a difference between being sustained over time as opposed to just being repeated over and over again by political opinion writers and every group criticized by the SPLC. There is no reliable secondary source that I am aware of that has done what the Advertiser did over 16 years ago. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it's an interesting suggestion. Could you edit it and paste it here at the talk page so people can see just what you're talking about? I would say, keep the sources in the article, but put the two you want to cut (USA today and the Nation) after "The SPLC has received significant criticism for excessive fundraising and having excessive reserves" just so we have them in the article for future, and they lend extra credence generally. Then cut specific mention of them from the text. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Small point but worth mentioning; the Encyclopedia of Business that the North Shoreman referred to does briefly mention the SPLC fundraising issue. You'll find it under the Key Dates section as part of a summary of the criticisms of the SPLC found in the Harper's Magazine article. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thx, I didn't have time to read those. It does seem notable. It might not be if it weren't covered by such good sources. Harpers is an excellent magazine.... IMHO. And the other encyclopedias seem to think so. But I's dwunk wight now tho mebby i'm wrong. **GRIN** BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As of this revision on 12 December, the fundraising section read like a hyperbolic tirade. IMO, as of this present revision, after Becritical's edits yesterday, it is far more encyclopedic in its presentation. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's an improvement but there's still some tightening I would suggest. Though at first I wondered why start with the line on criticism, I see that a simple switch with the second sentence doesn't work so well. I'm also not sure how exactly is it 'significant criticism' if no laws have been broken? (as Tom mentions). Here I would like to reiterate my point from another section -- advertising budgets (as they relate to fundraising, here) can be misleading since, depending on how they are calculated/perceived by an outside audit, they might include marketing efforts not strictly promotional: publishing, outreach and educational programs, PSAs etc. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've made a simple copy-edit to replace the second excessive (and to fix the problem with parallel construction) but I thought it best to ask others before replacing significant-- how about noteworthy or notable? Because the term 'significant' has several connotations: how exactly has the criticism been significant? Has it resulted in a marked change in practices, as noted by reliable source(s)? Has it resulted in legal action or other official inquiries? If these are valid questions arising from a misused word, then we should simply look for a better alternative. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Two for the price of one

Well glory be! Whether or not the North Shoreman realized it at the time, he's helped to solve two problems in one search. The sources he found in working toward streamlining the "Fundraising" section of the article should help to solve the problem that I mentioned with "Teaching tolerance" section of the article; to wit, that it was exclusively primary sourced. Two of the books he discovered, The Encyclopedia of Alabama, and The Encyclopedia of Business, have a reasonable amount of material on the project. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion that we return to the lead

While more remains to be done on body of article, it is substantially better than it was a week ago. I would suggest that we return to the lead to correct the peacockery and primary source problem found its first sentence. No reason, however, not to get the whole thing done. I think we should work with the North Shoreman's 1.1 model which, in my opinion, is fine until the middle of the last sentence starting with "welfare rights" when he lists some things that aren't talked about much in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Because what happens here is that there are multiple discussions ongoing about other aspects of the page that are not resolved, and contentious. The outcome of those discussions will affect what needs to be in the lead, so I suggest we first finish the issues with the article itself before dealing with the lead again. Besides that, I do not see the issues as you indicate, and more important, I think you maybe better concentrate on that yet-to-be-produced list of issues with this article, which might change what needs to go in the lead by itself. -- Kim van der Linde 21:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree it's not time to edit the lead yet, and it should be done on the talk page first. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

funny bot antics

Hi everyone,

About ten hours ago, a bot reverted a change an IP user made where he changed American Family Association lead sentence from:

The American Family Association (AFA) is an American group.

to

The American Family Association (AFA) is an American hate group.

Even though I object to calling the Americian Family Association a hate group, I think it is strange that a bot would make this decision. I think it is a decision that the editors of American Family Association need to make.

I have notified the bot that it made a bad revert. I have also written on the user's page that the edit he made wasn't vandalism.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't vandalism, but I doubt the bot would have done that for a regular user. Bots can't be perfect, and it looks like they know that which is why they say "possible vandalism." However, the IP might have been responding to the source added by another IP . BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

To someone unfamiliar with the article, an IP changing "group" to "hate group" would appear to be vandalism. It is up to the IP to deal with the bot. TFD (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, TFD! --Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Badmintonhist's proposed changes.

Ok, go ahead and justify them. Dylan Flaherty 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I did think some of the edits were good. Good copy edits, and also possibly some sound judgments on taking things out. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some of them were. Would you like to provide diffs? Dylan Flaherty 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I like most changes, except for the removal of the section highlighting that the SPLC was the target of assassination plans etc. Why are those removed??-- Kim van der Linde 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For example this took out some unnecessary text, and also took out an unnecessary mention of Hal Turner. That is kind of random information which doesn't really add to the informational needs of the article but does drag in something rather off-topic. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting choice, as I would have picked that one out as an example of a sloppy, pointless edit. Look at how, in the "after" version, there are two references to GruvermontgomeryJuly back to back. Sloppy. He removed a quote on the basis that it sounded kind of silly to point out that this was going to be a bigger threat than past ones, but this is precisely the thinking of the sender, so why are we doing them any favors? Finally, while the brief explanation of who Turner is could be cut, the reference ought not be, precisely because we'd otherwise not have a clue about his role. Dylan Flaherty 00:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Badmintonhist has reverted his change twice now, the second time with a dishonest "minor" flag, but hasn't said a word here. Clearly, he is not interested in cooperating, and that's reason enough to throw out everything he did. Dylan Flaherty 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of not needing to repeat the rhetoric of terrorists, and also of paring the article down as much as possible while still retaining its core information. We want to have something that people will actually read. In that light, it just seemed like a good edit to me. Any sloppiness could be corrected. He also corrected some sloppiness, for example "While Metzger lost his home and will not be publishing any more material" ---> "While Metzger lost his home and ability to publish material." So I just don't think we can condemn the entire series of edits, and it would be worthwhile to do corrections or further edits rather than wholesale revert. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

All possible good he did the article aside, however, the edit summary here is disruptive of normal WP process, as he was reverting almost entirely to the changes he himself had just made. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the boldly removed part, under WP:BRD. Now that it is reverted because I think the reasons are not valid, discussion is next. -- Kim van der Linde 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. I prefer to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring, so I generally stick to 1RR and only go to 2RR if its warranted. The one thing we seem to agree on is that discussion is needed, but Bad has not seen fit to join the discussion. I think it's very nice of Becritical to try to step in for Bad, but it's ultimately Bad's job. Dylan Flaherty 01:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that each and every change was wholly bad. However, they're a mixed batch and there's enough bad in them to make it hard to filter out the good. I recommend that each change be considered individually, resolving it fully before moving on. Dylan Flaherty 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree about either more discussion or more editing care. here is the current state of the changes after I put some stuff back in. I accidentally moved the information about Bond, but don't see a reason to correct that. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And note that "Several neo-Nazi groups held a rally in front of SPLC headquarters in early 2003." is still missing, as is ""promising the most dangerous threat" ever faced"" et seq. I'm leaving it up to others to vet this current version. I'm not endorsing it necessarily as the one that should be kept. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I might have joined the discussion earlier but my singing talents are often in demand on Saturday nights. Right now the family computer is being demanded by my wife so more detailed comments will have to wait. For now, I'll just observe that my recent edits were excellent and should be embraced by discerning editors throughout the Misplaced Pages project,. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

/cringe. Jeez, now he's channeling fictional character Ignatius J. Reilly?! Next he'll be quoting Boethius and Fortuna. Even more so now, I stand by my earlier objections to his editorial opinion of what constitutes article improvement. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We bow to thee, great Badmintonhist the Mighty. It is thy editing which doth set us an example, tho verily never shall we meet thy admirable standard. Forgive us our humble objections, for it is merely our ignorance and perversity which hath overcome us in our tear-filled and loathsome debasement. Whilst thou walkest among the stars of True Knowledge, do we scrape our bellies on the lowly thorns, and drag our weary tails in the mud of ignorance and contrariness. Be lenient and patient with us, oh Badmintonhist, Father of All Good Writing and NPOV, for we are weak. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

:P BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

All kidding aside, I took the time to write edit summaries for all but the most obvious edits so I would have expected an individual approach to each edit rather than a blanket deletion. I would be happy to defend each change that I made but not all at once. Dylan sent me a rather odd note threatening to "report" me for mischaracterizing my edits as minor? Where does that come from? Badmintonhist (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I have to compliment BeCritical on his rejoinder.

A note which you ignored and apparently fail to understand. The note includes a diff in which you made many significant changes but labeled it as Minor. This is Bad. Do not do this. Dylan Flaherty 17:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As I remember I was hurrying out for the evening. Perhaps I noted some small glitch in the edit summary, corrected it, and unconsciously labeled it a minor change before clicking "submit." Even the great ones can make small mistakes from time to time. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain you'll be more careful in the future. Marking a large reversion as Minor may be seen as suggesting that you are reverting vandalism. Dylan Flaherty 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think wiki software automatically labels some kinds of reverts as minor, it's a flaw in their software rather than something he did on purpose (or at least that used to be the case, they keep updating the software). He obviously didn't mean to do that and it's too obvious a ploy for any intelligent person to have done it to try and get by our radar on this article. Since it can't have been bad faith, let's AGF. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the case, but I'm willing to AGF if they say it wasn't intentional. Dylan Flaherty 05:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Categorization or List

Take 2, since the first try generated no consensus. So, two questions here:

• Should Misplaced Pages have information on groups that the SPLC designates as hate groups?
• If so, should this information be in the form of a category, or a list?

(If you're going to link to a policy page, it would be helpful if you'd provide a quote so we know what you're referring to.)

• Yes - its tracking of hate groups is definitely notable, and Misplaced Pages already has both List of designated terrorist organizations and Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator (some subcats of which also include lists). So it's clearly not unprecedented, and it's also notable. I have no opinion on whether it should be a category or a list. Roscelese (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes - this is an authoritative list and therefore quite helpful. Ditto about category/list, although leaning slightly towards category, for convenience. Dylan Flaherty 04:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strong No - A list might be okay for "information on groups that the SPLC designates as hate groups" if is it presented as the SPLC's list, not an actual list. But then why have that at all since a simple link to the SPLC will suffice? Designated terrorist organizations come from a reliable source, a national government. They have encyclopedic significance. Hate groups as listed by the SPLC would come from a source that has admitted it is trying to smear certain groups, not in so many words, of course. SPLC's listing is not encyclopedic, except to the extent that a hyperlink is made to the SPLC web site for the SPLC's list on an as needed basis, or except for mention on the SPLC page itself. Giving the SPLC's list an encyclopedia page would give its list qualities of reliability, etc., that its list on the SPLC site does not now have, and that is not the mission of Misplaced Pages. It may be the mission of SPLC, but not Misplaced Pages. On a related note, a list of actual hate groups would be a strong magnet for trouble.

And a category is inappropriate per WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT.

Procedurally, I am not comfortable with attempting to gain consensus in a new section for something that had no consensus so recently, as in a day ago. The existing section was entirely appropriate for continuing the conversation. By having this new section, it essentially nullifies the previous one, and if the editors there do not comment here, suddenly their votes have disappeared. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already asked you to specify what policies at WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT you're referring to, since I see nothing there that would preclude the creation of a category. Now I'll also ask you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups." Roscelese (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The list is the more likely of the two, and that suffers from serious problems as I stated. So I'll pass on spending time on the CAT problem for now. As to the smearing, see, for example, the Tom Brokaw matter here: "SPLC's Cowardly Lyin'", FRC, 8 December 2010. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand. When I ask you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups," I mean that I want you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups." Roscelese (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the other issues you raised: 1. Procedurally, I started a new section because I wanted to discuss the alternate possibility of creating a list. Hopefully some of the editors from before will contribute their opinions as well, but I think it's neater this way. (I don't see what you're worried about with opposing votes being lost - of the people from the previous discussion who haven't commented here yet, the number of supporting and opposing is the same.) 2. What makes the government more reliable than an organization whose mission is, largely, tracking hate groups? I suppose the Simon Wiesenthal Center is also not reliable, because it is not a government and it is biased against Nazis. Roscelese (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to hear you actually answer her question. If you don't, I will give "Huckleberry Finn" as a Christmas gift to a teen. Dylan Flaherty 04:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Easy answer. You misquoted me. The full quote is, "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups, not in so many words, of course". The key phrase is "not in so many words, of course". However, I have linked to an article where Tom Brokaw questioned the SPLC's action. There's a RS if there ever was one. The focus here is on Misplaced Pages, not on it editors. Tom Brokaw, not LAEC. And Tom Brokaw or the like did not question the Simon Wiesenthal Center on why it was smearing Nazis. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has an impeccable reputation. As the Tom Brokaw matter shows, the SPLC does not.

Huckleberry Finn is outstanding writing and beloved by almost everyone, including myself. That said, the book comment was genuinely funny. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Then provide that evidence in "not so many words." Even if Brokaw had said anything of the kind in the unreliable source that you cited, his own personal opinion, as someone completely unaffiliated with the SPLC, would not be a substitute for the admission you are claiming exists. Roscelese (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no need for the category. People should be able to find the up-to-date on the SPLC website. LAEC, could you please stop linking to sites that cannot be used as reliable sources. I find them just as offensive as you find pornography. TFD (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean, I think it would be useful as a navigational tool - so that articles about the groups would all be in one place or all accessible from one place. Roscelese (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We could have a list with links, which would be easier to maintain. We probably do not even have articles about most of the groups, so it could be helpful in showing that. TFD (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of the alternatives I was suggesting. So, to be clear, do you, like LAEC, oppose the idea of Misplaced Pages's having this information, or is it just that you oppose a category? Roscelese (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD, good to have you back. I do not oppose pornography, unless it is illegal. I know the ref is not necessarily a RS, but we are talking in Talk and Tom Brokaw is the RS contained in the link I provided, and he directly calls into question the SPLC motives for labeling certain groups as hate groups. I see that Tom Brokaw/SPLC exchange and I am not impressed with the SPLC's response, and it appears neither is Tom Brokaw. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

^Pls. note that this comment misrepresents the source in multiple ways: Brokaw says nothing of the kind, nor is his personal opinion (ie. not a news broadcast on which he is host) a reliable source. Roscelese (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the category because the terminology is specific to the SPLC and will no doubt cause disruption over dozens of articles. But a list article would be fine, if someone wants to copy over the 900+ organizations and provide internal links. TFD (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear (again), the proposed category would be something like "Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center," so it would be quite clear who was doing the designating. Roscelese (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD is exactly correct. And in saying "copy over", that reminds me of the potential for WP:COPYVIO. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh - do you also support a list? (I really should have made two separate headings so this would all be clearer.) Roscelese (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support a list, but for the problems TFD and I have discussed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The category would have no utility and would soon be out of date. We can always mention in individual articles that groups are listed by the SPLC as hate groups. I do not see btw any copyright problems with copying a list but you may wish to check it. Incidentally if you were to create a category at a later date, having a list with internal links would make the process a lot easier. TFD (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I've addressed your contention about reliability - do you really think there would be a copyvio problem, given that the information would likely be presented in a different way (I see no reason to organize by state, as their website does - moreover, this would mean that individual branches of groups would not have to be listed more than once)? Roscelese (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What would the list consist of? Just the list the SPLC has? If so, we don't need that list here, and it would be an inferior source since it wouldn't be updated as well as the SPLC's version. A category, however, would be highly appropriate for hate groups in general, but not limited to the SPLC's. TFD's point about the disruption it would cause is a good one though. I say, don't do either. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There could never be a category "Hate groups" without including who designates the group as a hate group, for the same reason the "terrorist groups" categories are by designator. Roscelese (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Right so I'd say it's definitely not something we should do... and the list is merely redundant to the SPLC's and less up-to-date. There's a reason to have List of designated terrorist organizations, since it includes more than one authority's designation. I doubt that is feasible in this case? If we could include groups designated by other authorities, it would be a good idea to have the list. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think it would be useful as a navigational tool, but that's a decent point, and it would be an even better list if it had more than one organization's info. We could add the ADL. The article hate group says the FBI also tracks hate groups, which I confirmed on their website, but I can't find a public list. Roscelese (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Be cool if we could find the FBI list. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did find this, useful for the article as it recommends SPLC. We already knew that, but could add it. I didn't find an FBI list either, and I think I would have if one existed. They keep track, but don't publish the list apparently. I would think they wouldn't, it would give the groups a heads-up. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I saw that as well - guess there's no list we could use. Do you think we'd be able to start an article with the SPLC and ADL, though? (Any other monitoring groups I might not be thinking of? I found something called Hate Directory, but no reliable info on the creator's credentials, so I wouldn't include it.) Roscelese (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure... the Anti Defamation League "publishes a list of the "ten leading organizations responsible for maligning Israel in the US", which have included a group calling for the United States to "stop funding Israeli apartheid"." That's not much to go on is it? What it looks like to me is that the SPLC is it. It maintains the list on which the FBI depends and no other organizations feel the need to duplicate the SPLC's work. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I found at first, too, which isn't very useful, but then I dug a bit and found this, which has at least a few. (the "movements" category on the sidebar also includes the KKK and others). Roscelese (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The ADL lists the American Front's ideology as "Anti-Semitism, White supremacy, Third Positionist". The WP article already puts them in the category of "White supremacist groups in the United States". We also have a category, "Antisemitism in the United States", and could create a sub-category for organizations. We could also create categories for third position, etc. TFD (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's actually a discussion going on now over whether it's acceptable to categorize groups as anti-Semitic, since previous consensus is that they can't be categorized as homophobic. An attributed list would solve the POV issue. Roscelese (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it would not. No one wants to be labeled with a negative category, just because it's "attributed." I know three public libraries that are defrauding the government of millions. Should there be a "defrauder" cat that attribute the allegation to me? Some libraries even cover up child pron crimes. Should the "child pron" cat be added to the pages of various libraries? And the cat you seek, even if attributed, would still suffer from all the other problems discussed by the various editors above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you cute. Since your opinion is so clearly authoritative, as substantiated by dozens of reliable sources, how about you try adding "Cat:Libraries that LAEC thinks are committing fraud" to the articles and see what happens? Maybe you'll get an A on your school project. Roscelese (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Really, I'm not joking, you've just made my point. Besides that, I view your last comment as incivil. Between that and your driven efforts to promote your view, I will now ascribe less weight to your contributions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Roscelese (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have been thinking about this, and I have come to the conclusion that a category called Category:US hate groups would be valid. The hate groups of course aren't going to like it, but heck that is just their bad luck. -- Kim van der Linde 23:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support after contemplation. We should absolutely not consider what hate groups "want" when making editorial decisions. I'm amenable to either list or category form. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This would be a list or a category of hate groups designated as such by some official agency I assume such as the FBI, right? Sounds okay to me but why are we discussing it on the SPLC talk page? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some reliable sources that don't accept the SPLC's categorization prima facie? We have plenty of demonstrations of reliable sources that do. Let's not travel down the fringe rabbit hole... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the FBI have a list? There are a number sources, some used in our Misplaced Pages article and hardly "fringe" (Harper's, The Nation , The Montgomery Advertiser) that have accused the SPLC of exaggerating hate group threats. The FBI has been known to exaggerate too but I think we would be safer and more "official" with its list if we're going to have one. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Becritical's recent edit, the FBI recommends the SPLC's list. Roscelese (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that any organization that makes the SPLC's hate group list should have this fact stated in the article, in addition to any category or list. Dylan Flaherty 01:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To be more precise, Roscelese, The FBI lists the SPLC as a resource in it's hate crimes effort. However, as far as I know the FBI doesn't simply accept the SPLC's list of hate groups as its own. Again, why use a private organization's list as opposed to the list of the federal government agency which officially investigates hate crimes and hate groups? Badmintonhist (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)\

The SPLC hate group list is generally used by researchers etc as the list to use. See one of the links BeCritical gave above. -- Kim van der Linde 03:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I think I would go with a more official kind of list, Kim. One that's got the U.S. government behind it. Besides, the more I read from sources that the SPLC hasn't yet designated as hate organizations , such as Harper's and The Nation, the more it seems as if the SPLC has a pecuniary interest in exaggerating hate threats. I'm not sure we should be giving a charity that gets failing grades for raising lots of money that it doesn't use on its mission such weight in our encyclopedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We obviously disagree here. -- Kim van der Linde 03:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How long do we let editors like Badmintonhist just make things up, and/or push fringe facts/conclusions not supported by mainstream sources and deserving of no WP:WEIGHT? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Not supported by mainstream sources"--what exactly would be mainstream sources if Harper's, The Nation, The Montgomery Advertiser, and Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard are not mainstream in your estimation? Drrll (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What sources support the statement "the SPLC has a pecuniary interest in exaggerating hate threats"? Are there enough to rise above a fringe viewpoint? You guys are are simply cherry picking those 3 or 4 sources from over 20 years of the SPLC's existence and trying to use them to legitimize fringe viewpoints. It's dishonest, inappropriate, and it certainly looks like you're more concerned with being sympathetic to their cause than you are interested in reflecting what is commonly accepted by nearly all mainstream sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• No to category. Undecided to list or template. Based on my personal Misplaced Pages experience:
  • Small categories that I have been involved with are quickly deleted or turned into templates:
    • Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Discussed December 4 to 14, 2010. Deleted.
    • Category:International Christian Leadership. Discussed December 15 to 28, 2010. Deleted and Template:The Fellowship Navbox created.
  • Templates that I've created are kept, watched, and maintained:
    • Template:The Fellowship Navbox. Created December 30, 2009. Discussed January 31 to February 2, 2010. TfD withdrawn.
    • Template:Goodwill Industries Navbox. Created February 21, 2010.
    • Template:Chick Publications Navbox. Created June 22, 2010.
  • --Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes to list. The SPLC hate map says that it lists 932 active hate groups. It would be good to have a list that is restricted to groups that already have a Misplaced Pages article.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's return to my first objection. What is the point of using the SPLC's list as opposed to the FBI's list? I have the feeling that the major purpose for some editors is to bloat the list with non-violent but politically rightish organizations which certain editors dislike. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. If you want me to cite policies WP:POV and WP:UNDUE for starters.

1. The FBI publishes no such list.
2. The SPLC's list is accepted prima facie by all the reliable sources and government organizations we've seen. By any preponderance of the available reliable sources, the SPLC is accepted as the authority on hate group tracking and categorization.
3. Couldn't it also be said that the "major purpose" of some other editors is to push fringe viewpoints sympathetic to hate groups?

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If such a list article is created, it should specify for each group listed whether it is designated as a hate group by the SPLC and whether it is designated as such by the ADL. The ADL is a far less ideologically-charged organization than the SPLC and thus has more credibility on such matters. The 'Resources' section on the FBI page on hate crimes lists both the SPLC and the ADL. It should also include reliably-sourced responses to the designation, such as the response in the Washington Post by the Family Research Council. Drrll (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is your declaration that the SPLC is "ideologically charged" and therefore "has less credibility" based on your own opinion, or do you have some sources to back up your assertion? So far, this looks more like a case of ideologically-motivated Misplaced Pages editors trying to inject a fringe viewpoint not supported with demonstrated weight in reliable sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I dunno, Blax. The Nation calls Dees's outfit "one of the greatest frauds in American life," Harper's calls it "basically a fraud," The Washington Post calls it "controversial;" all sorts of liberal once-allies have turned against it, complaints about the way it treats black employees, tons of money raised by pushing the "danger" posed by hate groups but little actually spent on seeking justice for hate's victims, horrible official ratings as a charitable organization, big annual salaries for Dees. I wouldn't think we would be anxious to sully the pristine reputation of our noble Misplaced Pages project by relying so heavily on the dubious virtues of such an organization. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Whow, lets see. The Harper quote of about their financial strategy, they do not say if their work is suspect. The nation link I cannot find. The Washington post link is an opinion piece of someone labeled a hate group, geez, how surprising. -- Kim van der Linde 22:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh Harper's Ken Silverstein very much questions their work as does ol' Alexander Cockburn (tough name to be born with) over at The Nation. There is an intimate connection between the SPLC's hate group danger pushing and its finances since the hate group alarm is integral in filling the coffers of the organization. It apparently needs plenty of money to fight the hate group problem and secure justice to its victims but very little of this money actually goes into substantive programs for those purposes. Dees does manage to set aside $350,000 of it for himself each year. Most of the rest adds to the richness of its treasury. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's already covered under Southern Poverty Law Center#Finances, which already takes up one fifth of the article. TFD (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Kim, the Washington Post piece Badmintonhist was referring to is a straight news piece. Drrll (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence it is a straight news piece:

• It is listed in the "politics" tab of the Washington Post web site, instead of the "opinion" tab.
• It is written by a person on the staff of the Washington Post Staff, unlike a guest from another organization.
• Phrases like "I think" or "I want" or "I believe" are absent. Lots of opinion pieces are written in first person.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, there is plenty of support in reliable sources that the SPLC is an ideologically charged organization. For starters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Newsweek, and The ABA Journal all call the SPLC liberal. The premier publication of the SPLC, The Intelligence Report describes itself as "the nation's preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S.," not something like "monitoring radicals in the U.S." Their very active blog, published by The Intelligence Report staff is subtitled "keeping a eye on the radical right." In Ken Silverstein's (no conservative) words from Harper's, the SPLC "has a habit of casually labeling organizations as 'hate groups.'" Drrll (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On the one side, we have your synthesis of sources complaining that the SPLC is too successful at raising money. On the other, we have the FBI using their hate list as a resource. What should we really care about? Dylan Flaherty 02:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Your synthesis of sources complaining that the SPLC is too successful at raising money." That's not his only argument. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I went after his strongest; the rest are worse. For example, it's a simple fact that hate groups are not associated with liberalism in America, so you'd expect a liberal group to monitor hate groups. Stieg Larsson, who monitored hate groups in Sweden, was a communist. Therefore, the fact that a hate-watching group is liberal does not make it at all biased. Dylan Flaherty 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

While true hate groups in the US are largely on the right, the SPLC doesn't limit its criticism to just hate groups, but to what it considers hateful speech and radical actions. Hateful speech and radical actions are hardly monopolized by the right. Drrll (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC monitors "patriot groups", like the John Birch Society, because they share some beliefs (such as the New World Order) and membership with hate groups. On the other hand, the radical Right in the U.S. is a hundred times larger than the Left, and there have been no violent actions by left-wing groups for over twenty years. TFD (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I was referring primarily to hateful speech and radical actions by individuals rather than groups, which the Intelligence Report staff regularly report on. But haven't there been violent actions in the past twenty years by such left-wing groups as environmentalist, animal rights, antiwar, and anti-globalization groups? Drrll (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course there have. But "hate group" and "terrorist group" aren't synonyms. Some animal rights groups commit terrorism in the name of protecting animals, but one could hardly argue that they hate humans. On the other hand, many of SPLC's groups haven't committed violent actions, but it would be equally difficult to argue that neo-Nazi groups are not full of hate.

Also, can we end this tangent about their finances? It's already covered in the article, and it has apparently no bearing on the credibility of their list. If no one has - not only one source contesting the credibility of their list, because there exists strong consensus on the credibility of the list from other sources, but a substantial number of reliable sources contesting that credibility - then there is no reason not to use it. Roscelese (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources are required to state that the SPLC is "ideologically charged". TFD (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what I asked for were sources that support Badmintonhist's statement that the SPLC is less credible. What I got was a few editors trying to cherry pick disparate sources and distort their meaning to give validity to a fringe viewpoint. Reliable sources, academia, and the government all regard SPLC as authoritative on hate groups; Misplaced Pages doesn't give equal voice to fringe viewpoints, and at this point I'm questioning whether the article gives undue weight to those viewpoints already. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

FBI partnership

I found that the FBI actually formed a partnership with the SPLC. This should probably be in the article in a special section. What do others think? ; this might be of use for something BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Two years ago, the FBI and the Department of Justice began to work with the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Urban League on the Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative. " BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is notable, relevant and should be included in this article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Drrll (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's save some time here: does anyone actually object? If not, let's move on. Dylan Flaherty 13:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks guys for the vote of agreement. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

SPLC character assassination denounced

22 members of Congress, including House speaker-designate John Boehner, several state governors, and other conservative politicians have signed a public statement denouncing the SPLC's inclusion of the anti-gay groups on its 2011 watch list as "character assassination." They said the list is an attempt to "shut down informed discussion of policy issues."

Source of above quote: "Anti-Gay Chicago Groups Make 'Hate List,'" by Mark Saxenmeyer, FOX Chicago News, 20 December 2010.

This article may otherwise be relevant to this SPLC page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would include a mention of this in the section on the Family Resource Council's response to the SPLC's hate group designation, but that was removed from the article. I doubt there is much support for putting their response back into this article. Another article goes into more detail about exactly who signed onto the public statement. Besides Boehner, it includes upcoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, as well as a couple of U.S. Senators. I say it belongs in the Family Research Council WP article. Drrll (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I think it belongs here in SPLC somehow as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You also have editors asking, "Actually, what I asked for were sources that support Badmintonhist's statement that the SPLC is less credible". It appears to me the 2 articles cited so far in this subsection go a long way to satisfying that concern. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what we have here is individuals either criticized or associated with criticized say they are not credible. That is a primary source, and we need secondary or tertiary sources claiming that. -- Kim van der Linde 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The actual ad by the Family Research Council is at http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10L12.pdf

The associated web site is at http://www.startdebatingstophating.com/ (note: © 2010 Family Research Council at bottom of web site)

SPLC's response is at http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/12/15/splc-responds-to-attack-by-frc-conservative-republicans/

Google news search to find more sources: http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADSA_enCA387&tbs=nws:1&q=%22John+Boehner%22+anti-gay&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=8d4887a6ba3c5b14

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could be included in the "Hate group listings" subsection as a reaction to their 2010 designation of several conservative Christian organizations as hate groups, not just the FRC? As far as I know, there hasn't been a more public objection to the SPLC's designation of hate groups by prominent public officials as this. Drrll (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The story is from "FOX Chicago News". Unless we can find other sources it appears to lack notability. Also, we should point out other aspects of the story. FCN refers to "the respected Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) annual round-up of hate groups". AFTAH claims that FCN, which is part of the "pro-homosexual media", tried to ""expose" AFTAH as a "hate group"". TFD (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be mentioned, and maybe we indeed have to make a small section about the listing of many anti-gay groups as hate groups and include the response there. We than need of course also the responses who have welcomed the listing of those organizations to avoid WP:UNDUE. -- Kim van der Linde 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It probably needs to be in, but I can't find any really good sources on it yet. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides the Fox Chicago and Daily Caller sources, there is a Slate source and perhaps most relevant to this article, the SPLC response to the criticism that Kevinkor2 listed above (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/12/15/splc-responds-to-attack-by-frc-conservative-republicans/). Drrll (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh cool, where is the Slate source? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/12/15/boehner-cantor-bachmann-pence-and-more-against-the-southern-poverty-law-center.aspx Drrll (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the SPLC lists over 900 hate groups, this section would not be small. If a group is not mentioned in the article, there is no need for their response. I would like to see intelligent sources that challenge SPLC's categorization, but no one has been able to find any. TFD (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what we see is source after source of hate-groups whining about being called a hate group. -- Kim van der Linde 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Members of congress signing something in support of -what was it- Family Research Council is notable. Which is why I mentioned I can't find a really good source. We'd have to limit any criticism or criticism section to the best sources, and only give a brief summary of those. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is notable, but also the group least likely to be objective. Not a reliable source in that sense. -- Kim van der Linde 21:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability is determined by media coverage. Since the story first appeared Monday, it may be that it attains notability but so far it has not. TFD (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reliable sources for what happened two days ago are the media. TFD (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But media coverage is not notable unless the media is reliable. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The section could be small based upon such factors as which groups designated as hate groups have their objections published in reliable sources, which groups garner support from prominent public figures, and which groups are designated as hate groups solely by the SPLC and not by the ADL. Drrll (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What do we actually expect a hate group to say after being called a hate group? Are they going to cheerfully admit to the designation or are they going to vehemently deny that those "liberal, pinko, Jewish lawyers" just might have a point? Think about it. Reporting denials is pointless because it's not news. Dylan Flaherty 01:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true, that's what I meant about limiting it to reliable secondary sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. If the SPLC decided that AA was a hate group because it hated alcohol, we'd find plenty of reliable secondary sources calling SPLC on this insane accusation. We won't find any reliable secondary sources denying that the KKK is a hate group, though I'm sure the KKK wants us to believe it's a civic organization that just so happens to have an all-white membership roster. :-) Dylan Flaherty 02:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is news when you limit the section to only objections published in reliable sources like The Washington Post or to groups that garner support from prominent public figures. Drrll (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any of those? Dylan Flaherty 02:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Family Research Council. Drrll (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be yet another hate group claiming it's not. Dylan Flaherty 03:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think calling FRC "another hate group" lends itself to objective editing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if two editors think the FRC is or is not a hate group. Anyone with a grain of sense should be able to see that the Family Research Council is not a reliable source for the statement "The Family Research Council is not a hate group." Roscelese (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism or controversy section

I was on the edge about suggesting this before, as it's usually better (I think per MOS) to keep criticism and controversy in-line. However, especially with the section above, there seem to be a significant number of reliable sources which are critical of the SPLC, and which would be disruptive to the general flow of the article if not focused into a summary. So what do people think of putting most of the critical material (such as financial section and new info) in its own section? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, as long as we have two separate criticism sub headers, one by groups listed by them as hate groups, and one from third parties. -- Kim van der Linde 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As of this revision, why does the "Finances" section begin with criticisms of SPLC's finances and center largely around them? Why not call the section "Criticisms of the SPLC's finances" or similar? Or maybe, perhaps more consistently with WP:NPOV, why not begin with a summary of SPLC's finances and then get to the criticisms of what some regard as excess holdings and fundraising costs? ... Kenosis (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but I'm suggesting there are enough criticisms they need their own section; and probably our sources mainly cover criticism in this area. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the idea of a criticism ghetto. There's not much criticism that belongs in the article -- we don't need a long list of "Sons of Aryan Death denies being a hate group as does Cousins of White Power Hour, as does..." -- and it's best to deal with it briefly and in context. Dylan Flaherty 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I dug up a few more RS which criticize as well as info supportive of SPLC like the FBI stuff, and now we have the congressional stuff. It's not a ghetto, it's keeping the article from becoming a criticism/response. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading through these while looking up information. The first article talks about an org named "We are Change" that was branded a hate group. On the one hand, it does claim to be peaceful. On the other, they're 9/11 "truthers", which is a fringe (chiefly) Libertarian view that does indeed enable right-wing extremism. I was unable to find a site for "We the People" (even after plugging in the quoted statement). As for Republic of Texas secessionists, the complaint seems to be that they were slow in adding them to the list, not that the label is wrong. It complains that the Hutaree, all of whom are imprisoned, were not listed, and it also repeats an accusation about the Pulitzer Prize thing. It quotes a zinger out of Ken Silverstein's piece for Harper's, but I can't find the original article to get some context. Finally, it quotes a much milder complaint by Alexander Cockburn. Frankly, if this were in a Misplaced Pages article, we'd be laughing at it for undue synthesis, but I guess all's fair in journalism.

Where's all this coming from? Well, this is an opinion piece from the New America Foundation. The NEF is a radical-center org, whose goal is to play down the left/right dichotomy, which is what the SPLC plays up. There's the bias right there, as well as a question of notability.

The second article is an opinion piece from National Catholic Reporter, whose web site is practically blank, but does have an article here that calls it a liberal Catholic paper. In any case, it has complaints about how successful the SPLC is at getting contributions, but doesn't seem to be suggesting that they inaccurately label hate groups. Their main concern is that, by highlighting web sites of hate groups, this will lead to censorship. While this is a reasonable concern, the decade since the article was published do not seem to support it.

I'm not averse to including criticism, but I hope we can do better than this. Dylan Flaherty 04:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

1. "Attacking a Home-Town Icon" Jim Tharpe, Nieman Watchdog 1995.
2. Dan Morse. "A complex man: Opportunist or crusader?", Montgomery Advertiser, February 14, 1994
3. Dan Morse and Greg Jaffe. "Critics question $52 million reserve, tactics of wealthiest civil rights group", Montgomery Advertiser, February 14, 1994
4. "1995 Finalists: Explanatory Journalism". Pulitzer Prize. 1995. Retrieved 2007-09-18.

• 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