Talk:Center for Immigration Studies/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"A number of reports have been disputed"...

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

---

I made an edit to the lede which was undone by Volunteer Marek. I appreciate the attempt at compromise wording by NorthBySouthBaranof and think that the current wording is preferable to the version prior to our edits as it's less redundant and more precise. The reason for my initial edit was that some reports by CIS have been both disputed and cited by the fact checkers and news orgs listed. For example, politifact has cited CIS as an expert many times, such as here and here. As for WaPo, CNN, and NBC, all three have also cited CIS reports/analysts for expert opinion. A google search reveals that this was not a one-off thing--these organizations have cited CIS for expert opinion literally hundreds of times. However, it is also true that politifact has corrected false claims made by CIS, as have the WaPo fact checkers--both of which are rightly included in the Criticism section. As such, the prior wording seemed to be an NPOV violation in that it gave the false impression that these organizations only debunk CIS reports, when in fact most of the time they're actually citing them. As a compromise wording, I'd propose something along the lines of "A number of reports published by CIS have been cited by fact-checkers and news organizations, although other claims made in CIS reports have been challenged or debunked by those groups". I'd be amenable to phrasing it differently or perhaps tighter but I think I've expressed the point I'm trying to get across.

Additionally, it is an example of WP:SYNTH to simply say that CIS reports are routinely debunked/disputed. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

CIS are cited as representative of the anti-immigration sentiment. A lot of news stories take the format of "Here's what partisans A say and here's what partisans B say". They are not cited as experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

So this would then rule out pretty much everyone ever quoted in a newspaper about a newsworthy topics. What an incredible line of thinking. I guess we can go ahead and gut half of the "Controversial Reports" section then, given that it reads something like this -- " CATO Institute Person disagrees with CIS Person about methodology." Both are cited regardless of their affiliation, because they're seen as experts in the field. Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Daryl, because the way you're defining "expert" is too strict. If a reputable publication is asking CIS for their opinion on X piece of legislation, it's because they want an expert view. It may well be that they want CIS to represent the anti-immigration side of the debate--but why not ask any random anti-immigration person off the street for their opinion? Why not ask the Breitbart comment section? The fact that CIS represents one side of the immigration debate in articles/fact checks is not mutually exclusive with the fact that they're clearly being treated as an expert. Besides, Politifact actually uses the term "experts" to describe who they consult for their fact-checks. I do think it's noteworthy that various groups have debunked CIS reports, which is why I don't object to its inclusion in the lede. But it's not NPOV if we fail to mention that these groups have also cited them for expert opinion, regardless of what bias that expert opinion carries. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe any of this is important enough to be placed at the top of the article, but it would be better to use MM's language since it's more neutral and accurate in terms of describing what an expert is, compared to the current language. So if you are going to include it at all I prefer that phrasing.Bluewolverine123 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

First sentence

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

---

I made what I thought was a pretty innocuous and non-controversial edit, in which I tightened the first sentence by using the descriptor most commonly used by RS: some variation of "favors lower levels of immigration". My edit was undone by Snoogansnoogans, whose rationalization was that the longer version is a better represrentation. My rationale is that we should defer to RS, which describe CIS as simply "favoring lower immigration" with by the far the most frequency--I referred to politico, LA Times, and and USA Today, and could provided plenty more sources using that language if need be. I think this is perfectly aligned with the body, which shows that CIS' research clearly reflects their bias. It's tight, it's neutral, it reflects the body, and most importantly it's what reliable sources say. Further, Snoogansnoogans comment that CIS thinks "immigrants are horrible in every way" may or may not be true--obviously CIS has an agenda--but it's basically just pov pushing, and more reflective of the editor's own views than what an encyclopedia should say. I continue to believe that the tigher version is superior. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

We will not be using the white-washed language.--Jorm (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That adds nothing of value. Can you clarify why you think the language used by nearly every respectable RS is "white washed"? I'm not proposing any changes to the body or the rest of the lede, which is far from "white washed". I'm simply saying we should use the descriptor used by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Politico, USA Today, NBC, ABC, USA Today, and the Washington Post. Unless you're accusing all those publications of "whitewashing" too. Per MOS:BEGIN, the first paragraph should be written from a neutral point of view, establish context, but not be too specific. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@ModerateMikayla555: You really need to work on WP:BRD - build consensus before edit-warring your version back in. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We go down this road every single month it seems like... no consensus to change from a lead section that underwent a RFC within the past few months. Until proper consensus is established the opinion of Jorm should be ignored as it is unhelpful. Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do we need to work so hard to make sure people know these are non-profit racists? Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so the real bias comes out. We don't get to call them racists just because we personally think they are, or because we don't like their bias. Frankly, I think CIS' views suck and are harmful to vulnerable immigrant communities. But that doesn't change how we handle contentious labels on here. See WP:RACIST ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You're flipping the burden here with regard to WP:BRD. The prior version (to which it appears Darryl.jensen just reverted) was the long standing version, so we can definitely amend the lede but that would take consensus to do so. And as Darryl mentioned, we've been over this before and even had a major RfC with comments from dozens of editors about the language of the lede and have even debated this very specific issue multiple times. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-immigration" is fine and was settled in a RfC[1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That was specifically about the use of low vs anti further down the lede, as the context reveals. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the RfC question: "Should the lead describe the Center as a) favoring low-immigration, b) as being anti-immigration, or c) use both?". It concluded with "There is consensus for describing the Center for Immigration Studies as being "anti-immigration". There is also consensus against describing the organization as "favoring low-immigration"." It's frankly WP:TENDENTIOUS to keep edit-warring over this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You're the one being tendentious by altering the longstanding version without consensus. You're purposely mischaracterizing the RfC. Jsalzillo1 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you fully but to be clear, do you have any connection to CIS/this topic? You have very little history on this. Apologies if not. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I fully admit to being biased against racists. It is my clear, publicly expressed POV that racists should be excluded from polite society. But my question remains, why is it due in the lede that they're non-profit? What's the relevant thing we expect readers to learn about them here? Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from that "non-profit" is undue for the lede, and I'm amenable to removing it. But I wouldn't put "anti-immigration" in the first sentence because per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence should be especially NPOV and avoid being overly specific. As for the RfC, we already added "anti-immigration" to the lede because of the RfC. The question here is over placement within the lede. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the RfC is clear that it should be in the lede, we should not be putting in statements that contradict that prior to it in the lede. That's textbook WP:TEND. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not calling for any contradictory statements. Just saying that the placement of "anti-immigration" within the lede was fine where it was--at the bottom of the first paragraph. That was the result of the RfC. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think "low immigration" or "lower immigration" is very useful at all; anti-immigration is the most common descriptor in sources and the one the RFC agreed on, so I'm unsure how the "low/lower" language keeps creeping back in. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Because editors keep putting it back in as if the RfC hadn't settled this. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is incredibly straightforward. There was an RfC. As a result, we added the word "anti-immigration" to the lede to reflect consensus. Now, editors without consensus are rewording the lede so that "anti immigration" is in the lede twice--in both the first and second paragraph. "RfC consensus" was the prior, longstanding version to which I'm restoring the lede. RfC consensus is not a new version that an editor randomly decided to add months after we already edited the lede to comply with the RfC ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• The RFC clearly stated that "anti-immigration" is the appropriate descriptor for this organization, because that's what reliable sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  I agree. Fortunately, that descriptor was already in the lede, in the longstanding version. So stop changing it. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  The 'anti-immigration' mention comes at the end of the second paragraph to refer to groups founded by John Tanton. It's perfectly fine to include it in the first line of the article to describe the organization in straight-forward terms. The RfC concluded that there was no problem in using the term for this group, so your repeated 3RR violations are getting pretty damn tiring at this point. It would be inane to start a second RfC that asks virtually the same question that a recently finished RfC asked, but if you feel that the consensus has drastically shifted to such an extent that editors would oppose including the line 'anti-immigration' in the first sentence, feel free to start a second RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

COI accounts

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

---

Pretty much all the accounts that are reverting the lede in violation of a recently concluded RfC (some of which have now also repeatedly violated 3RR) are accounts whose first edits to Wikipedia where to CIS or CIS's founder Mark Krikorian:

• Darryl.jensen
• ModerateMikayla555
• Griffy013
• Jsalzillo1

To me, this seems weird. It's also worth noting that both Darryl Jensen and ModerateMikayla demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia policies and practices in their early editing. Again, to me, that's weird. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

20 minutes after ModerateMikayla555 gets warned about violating 3RR, suddenly the SPA Griffy013 shows up for the first time in three months to continue the edit-warring where ModerateMikayla left off. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the COI noticeboard.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I'm going through my own edit history and it's pretty obvious I knew nothing about WP policies for all my early edits. Besides, you've accused me of being a sockpuppet among other things before and they've never panned out. I'm not sure why you have a fixation on attacking me (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope it's not a transphobia thing/playing into the stereotype of the "distrustful" trans woman) but it is quite odd and a little upsetting. Regardless I have no COI or other issues so I guess it's a moot point. I just wish you'd extend the courtesy that maybe I disagree with you in good faith. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Protecting the page

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

---

We should protect the version of this page that existed prior to the edit warring which started 4 days ago. Darryl.jensen (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what I suggested to El_C after your post on his page. This version. Glad to discuss changing it after on here without edit wars. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• [3] is a white-washed version that is not neutral. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. Editing through protection is done only with a clear consensus, and that clearly doesn't exist here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should simply have a new RFC, "Should the first sentence continue to include this language". --Jorm (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A new RFC seems reasonable to me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Amenable to a new rfc, but I object to that language--"continue" implies that's what the first sentence has been; that it's the status quo consensus. Really, the question is whether to *add* it to the first sentence, after it hasn't been in there before. Look at this page any time before 4 days ago. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Well of course one is amenable to an RFC when one arrogates to oneself the right to !vote as many times as desired. In light of the section below, it seems to me an RFC is not required. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Tanton and POV pushing

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

---

Socks have been heavily invovled on the page. Regardless of what these socks do or don't want, there are some glaring issues here that I'd like to resolve, specifically around how to label John Tanton, where these labels go, and whether POV pushing has replaced neutrality.

There are red flags here, sourced claims in the lead. However, that is old-school. Because every fact asserted in the lead should be covered within the article proper, it was not considered necessary for statements in the lead to be sourced, the sourcing would be in the article body. However when there is controversy, and users are attempting to insert text into the lead against opposition, they will add citations. See WP:Lead. The lead should be carefully neutral, because it will be the takeaway for many or most readers, as explained in the guideline.

What I see as obvious immediately, is that CIS is presented as an"anti-immigration think tank." Is that fact or opinion? If it is opinion, whose opinion?

The first source ([4] is The New York Times. It's convincing that CIS is an "anti-immigration think tank," but it also torpedoes the lead's over-emphasis on John Tanton as founder. The Times' article is quite good investigative journalism, in avoiding the black and white conclusory mess that the lead here is. Is CIS *still* simply "anti-immigration." Or has their position and work become more nuanced? If they claim a fact, is it a fact?

The second source [5] is PolitiFact. Reliable source, my opinion. However, it does not support the text, at all. It cites CIS research as if fact without mentioning a political agenda. In fact, Politifact describes CIS using the "low immigration" language that's been disputed here.

Bad sign. A research institution may be founded with a political goal in mind, but it may also become dedicated to fact. To those editing this article, CIS is forever contaminated by not only the fact of the founder, but also subsequent views and positions and accusations against the founder.

So I will turn to the other obvious issue. Is John Tanton a "white nationalist," so clearly that this may be stated as a fact? Some white nationalists are very clearly so, and clearly acknowledge it and proclaim it. But others are called this as conclusory opinion, which is only usable on Wikipedia if the source is notable, and it should always be attributed. These are basic academic standards, and they have often been lost as factions battle it out on Wikipedia. Truly neutral text will either enjoy broad consensus, from editors with various points of view, or dissent will be obviously uncivil, fractious, and not actually seeking consensus.

This is all complicated by the habit of many "good standing editors" to facilitate the ban of those whose points of view they dislike. This seriously damages the neutrality of the project, by warping the body of users working on articles. So what do we have here?

[10] is the same source as [4]. Sloppy. "White nationalist" occurs in the article, but it is not a reference to Tanton, rather to others, and possibly to claims about him. The article presents fact that roughly defends Tanton from the charge.

“What kind of racist does that?” he said. “They’ve never accused us of doing anything that’s racist or white nationalist. It’s only that Numbers U.S.A. ‘has ties’ ” to Dr. Tanton.

He added: “Even if there were some mild strain of white nationalism in John, the fact is that the results of everything he is pushing in immigration policy would disproportionately help black and Hispanic Americans.”

The Center for Immigration Studies, where Dr. Tanton played a lesser role, has come closest to criticizing him, writing last year that he had a “tin ear for the sensitivities of immigration.” (A blogger then attacked the center as undermining “the patriotic struggle.”)

[11] is a highly opinionated article from SPLC, openly and explicitly a political action group. SPLC opinions are notable, but should always be attributed. They are not neutral and unbiased. The SPLC article is more or less contradicted by the New York Times article. It is political rhetoric. About FAIR

"Its founder was white nationalist John Tanton, an avowed eugenicist who created the modern anti-immigrant movement in the United States."

That is a dense, conclusory claim. While I'm sympathetic to the goals of the SPLC, and much of their work is excellent, they also demonize those with opinions diverging from their own. My own opinion is that racism is not defeated by demonizing it, but by confronting it with good will, not hatred-in-return.

[12] Is a Wired article, breathlessly dramatic about " FAKE THINK TANKS FUEL FAKE NEWS—AND THE PRESIDENT'S TWEETS." This is junk sourcing, with heavy political bias. Is that Wired article notable? I think so. But this is an off-hand mention. The only actual article on Tanton in the mix holds far back from calling him a "white nationalist."

So what we have is an article being maintained in a POV-pushing state, not actually neutral.

And in other news, Pope Catholic. A full report at 7.

(I have no opinion on whether or not Tanton is or is not a "white nationalist." My concern has always been neutrality and fairness, not "defending racists," of which I have been accused for writing things like this. However, are there sources which look at the allegation? Has Tanton notably denied the claim? He is very old, late 80s. Over a long life, he may have said many things that he would no longer support, and some of the things he is reported as saying can also be interpreted in non-offensive ways, or were opinions that were common at the time that are no longer in fashion, etc.)

tl;dr John Tanton probably said some racist things decades ago. However, there is not strong sourcing to describe him as a "white nationalist advocate", his role at CIS is disputed at best and limited at worse, and there is clear POV pushing here to paint CIS with guilt by association by tying it to Tanton's remarks--at readers' expense. Alison Alice (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, the more I read up on this, both CIS and Tanton himself deny he's the founder? How has that not been discussed? Alison Alice (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed by at least three of the sockpuppets/sockmaster. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok well pardon me for not knowing the apparently deep history but what was the conclusion? We have reliable sources saying he's the founder, and reliable sources saying he's not even involved in the organization let alone the founder. Can we reliably determine which is correct? I don't get why even the mention that CIS disputes this is being removed from the article. In what universe should that be left out? What am I missing here? Maybe people are just on edge b/c of socks. I get that people are distrustful but I feel like I'm raising very legitimate concerns about the sourcing and pov pushing and I'm just being met with snark and borderline mockery. Pinging Jorm for help. thanks. Alison Alice (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not how pings work. You have to include the ping in an edit that includes your signature. Adding them after the fact doesn't work.

And you're right! You're being met with snark and borderline mockery because it's very... convenient... that you, new to this article, arrived a day or two after a whole nest of sockpuppets got banned, pushing the exact same agenda.

Ducks go quack and all that.--Jorm (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not new to this article. I've been editing CIS since December, on and off. And you're still not really addressing my question. If CIS and Tanton both dispute that he's the founder, and reliable sources say so, shouldn't that be mentioned? If not, why not? How is that neutral? I also resent the claim that I'm "pushing an agenda", when I've added a whole range of reliable material to the page. If anyone's pushing an agenda, it's the people adding two paragraphs of crap to the lead about a guy who may or may not even be involved with CIS. Alison Alice (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct, you aren't new here. You've edited here before and went on the talk agreeing with the sock accounts proposals, requesting their proposals be BOLDly adopted, and now you are basically restating their proposals here. You've also edited on other pages connected to this one or to connected anti-immigration orgs like NumbersUSA, including John Tanton, Social Contract Press, Roy Beck, and VDARE. Most concerningly, as Snooganssnoogans observed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ModerateMikayla555, your account fits the exact same profile as the socks - namely, that you claim to be a moderate or a liberal while focusing on anti-immigration groups and generally promoting the removal of negative content.

So yes, forgive us if we find this extremely fishy. Toa Nidhiki05 03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

If I'm a sock ban me. Until then, try not to be a prick. I've raised valid arguments about the undue nature of the lead, and you're repeatedly avoiding them because you don't want to address them and frankly you probably can't. I don't know if this is sexism or elitism or what but it's bullshit, take a long hard look in the mirror. Alison Alice (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Did this editor copy-paste this reddit post[4] by a blocked editor or vice versa? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Both comments were posted yesterday. Reddit does not give an exact time, but this is too close for comfort and with Alison Alice being suspected of being a sock, this would not shock me in the least. It would also explain why this page has been targeted: User:Abd is a notorious far right conspiracy lunatic. Time to start a sockpuppet investigation for Alison Alice and maybe crosscheck everything against both the known socks here and Abd. Toa Nidhiki05 00:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Alison Alice is a SOCK!!!

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

---

I have made two very simple points:

1. Tanton's role in founding CIS is disputed. Does that mean we leave it out of lead? Nope! But the guy cis claims founded them (otis graham) wrote years before TAnton even became controversial that tanton wasn't involved. Tanton says he wasn't involved, yet he curiously doesn't deny being involved with fair or numbersusa or any other anti immigration group. And cis themselves insist he wasn't involved, all of which is backed up by reliable sources. All I'm saying is the fact that tanton is the founder is in dispute, and it seems like a very intentional ommission to leave that out of the lead. As it stands now, it's basically just a way to slander cis for what some guy who may or may not have founded it said 35 years ago in some racist ramblings.

2. The lead is way overly detailed with john tanton. Think he's a racist? Cool, me too--so add it to the tanton article. People don't come here to learn about john tanton's views on eugenics from 1970. They're here to learn about CIS, and you're doing a disservice to readers by prioritizing pov pushing over actual notability. Hell, the whole reason I started getting re-involved in this freakin' page is because I opened it to learn about CIS and instead was greeted by this monstrosity. You've gone so far beyond rolling back socks it's ridiculous.

You can call me a sock all you want, but I'm not. I've been repeatedly slandered and called slurs for trying to make what I strongly believe are good faith edits. If socks made similar arguments to me, that has nothing to do with me and it doesn't mean what I said is autoamatically BS. I'm a very amenable person and even a couple token changes to the lead in the pursuit of neutrality would satisfy me, and I'd be glad to discuss any aspect of the above. But it's hard not to be frustrated when your motives are repeatedly impugned. Apologies for the drama. Add some token mention that CIS/Tanton disputes Tanton's role, and maybe trim the lead a bit and I'll be satisfied it's neutral. I really don't think I'm being unfair, despite the hystericsAlison Alice (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppets on this page and article

Jsalzillo1 and ModerateMikayla555 (aka ModerateMike729) are checkuser confirmed socks of Darryl.jensen. All three are indefinitely blocked. It is possible that User:Factchecker atyourservice was the original sockmaster but as they quit editing a year ago after their topic ban appeal was denied and they were blocked for a week for violating it, there is no data available to confirm it except for editing data, eg interaction data.[5] Note that sockpuppet edits can always be reverted (see WP:BANREVERT and talk page edits struck through. Posting this here because all 3 have been involved in editing the article and talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This is fairly shocking, given that large amounts of discussion on this page involved at least two of those socks being used in concert to try and create an appearance of consensus. Normally I would be more cautious even when it comes to WP:BANREVERT, but based on the extensive and targeted nature of the socking (and the high probability that they were both socks of an editor who was already banned from the topic area), I suggest going through all their edits on this and related articles, and removing anything remotely controversial or unusual that any of those accounts added or altered. It's fairly important that there be no "reward" for this sort of socking. Obviously any edits that anyone feels are worth vouching for can be re-instated if someone believes they can back them up, but it seems as though in the vast majority of cases the only person vouching for their edits when there was a dispute was their own sock. --Aquillion (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I have raised concerns that the editors Griffy and Alison Alice are also sockpuppets or somehow related to the blocked accounts and/or CIS.[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Far be it from me to sully august company with my presence, but I also agree. It certainly seems that a lot of what transpired on this page was as a result of sockpuppet smoke and mirrors. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed to all of this. All traces of them need to be eliminated from this articles. I will say that I am extremely impressed that even with this concerted effort from multiple socks, the real users here were still able to prevent anything major from happening. The socks didn't win because of the vigilance of editors here. Toa Nidhiki05 15:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, we need to check other articles of connected figures. John Tanton has been edited by one of the banned socks as well as numerous IPs. Toa Nidhiki05 15:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: could a discretionary sanction requiring users to be extended confirmed to edit the article be put to use here? Would help at least slow down the socking. nableezy - 20:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I would support this. 1RR could be worth considering as well but given the socks here work in pairs it probably wouldn’t be ideal. Toa Nidhiki05 21:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Having read this talk page, well done to the editors who spent a lot of time engaging with these sockpuppetts on this article; I would support enhanced protections on this article (ECP or 1RR, or both), to avoid sinking material additional time on such cases. Britishfinance (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that I don't think I'm the right person to add specific sanctions as I've edited the article. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I should definitely be given an award for good faith for dealing with these clown accounts for more than two years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I checked old talk pages, and apparently Simonm223 busted someone for sockpuppetry in 2018.[7] I don't have the time to search for that particular sockpuppet investigation, but it's worthwhile to check if those socks are related to the socks which were busted days ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Found it. Sock of User:Architect 134 but maybe Moderate Mike as well. Toa Nidhiki05 14:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Galobtter and Volunteer_Marek who were involved in the last SPI, and may have some input on the hive of CIS socks.[8]

• These types of articles are so important to create, however, they drain the editing resources of some of the best editors on WP (e.g. those who have the skills to defend them without themselves getting sanctioned/burnt-out). I see a core of experienced editors who do a lot of the "heavy lifting" in this area (several on this article) and I wonder how long will they last? And are they enjoying it?

ECP+1RR on these articles would materially reduce the editing resources required to defend them against editors who are not here for the right reasons. We have a MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, why don't we also have a similar list articles that are always controversial? As the ratio of "content-to-good editors" is always rising, without this, we could lose this battle long-term? Britishfinance (talk)

As someone who edits controversial topics and is frequently stuck in edit-wars (often with IP accounts and single-purpose accounts), I find that 1RR usually works to the advantage of the bad editors. They will violate 1RR, but it prevents regular veteran editors from daring to violate it, even to restore normal sensible versions of articles. Usually, when dealing with 1RR, I revert once (and the bad accounts revert twice), I start a talk page discussion, I let the bad edit stand for a few days, and then revert back to the normal (at that point the bad editor is no longer interested in editing) so as to not violate 1RR. On pages with 3RR, it is easier to revert bad edits without running afoul of the 3RR restriction, and the bad editors usually get fatigued or lose interest after reverting 2-3 times. 1RR is particularly hobbling for regular veteran editors on pages that are not prominent and where there are not many veteran editors patrolling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That is interesting – question then is what kind of set-up should these type of articles have that would make your work more efficient (and less draining)? Britishfinance (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - this article is now the subject of off-site canvassing on at least one social media site. We can expect additional socks/brigade attacks.--Jorm (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Can you link to it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Never mind, I found it. Possibly one of the sock accounts is complaining about the page on reddit.[9][10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• And we're already under 1RR here, so the legitimate editors here at a severe disadvantage in accounts start ganging up. I think we seriously need to consider getting full protection for this page for a week and hope these people just go away. Toa Nidhiki05 00:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing list of all socks that have edited this page

The following sock accounts were involved in this article:

1. ModerateMike729 / ModerateMikayla555 (talk · contribs)
2. Darryl.jensen (talk · contribs)
3. Jsalzillo1 (talk · contribs)
4. Molarcons (talk · contribs)
5. Alison Alice (talk · contribs)

Suspected sockpuppets/suspicious accounts:

1. Griffy013 (talk · contribs)
2. Factchecker_atyourservice (talk · contribs)
3. Pacificus (talk · contribs)
4. AdelfoMontanez (talk · contribs)
5. 47.133.248.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Anyone is welcome to add any accounts I missed to this list. Any contributions the socks made should be removed and any contributions the suspected accounts have made should be highly suspect. Toa Nidhiki05 00:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It may also be worthwhile to check Pacificus who has a similar editing profile as the other editors, and who was coincidentally weeks ago temporarily blocked by Berean_Hunter for abusing multiple accounts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I have created a sockpuppet investigation for Alison Alice. Let's see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Toa Nidhiki05 01:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Everyone who disagrees with me is part of a deep and secret conspiracy of sockpuppets and BOTS to undermine my edits. I am flawless, and it's impossible that my pov pushing could lead to objections. Alison Alice (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Alison Alice, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have to realize there was a lot of "socking" happening here. Suspicions are up with reason. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make bold changes, or advocate for your views, but be prepared for pushback and for change to happen very slowly. Sometimes the Wikipedia mill grinds slowly, but, well, it grinds slowly. All there is to it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I get it. I'm reading through all the sock drama and I see where you're coming from. But I am convinced that I'm right that the lead has gotten out of hand, and it gets frustrating having motives impugned again and again. I'll try to discuss more here first, but it's a two way street. Alison Alice (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Added AdelfoMontanez and 47.133.248.225. — Newslinger talk 06:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

(Comments by confirmed sockpuppet of "Moderate" Mikayla struck.)--Jorm (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Despite my benefit of the doubt, I can't say this is a terribly surprising outcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think whoever is paying them to do this needs to get their money back, because Daryll/Mike/Mikayla/Alice sucks at advocacy.--Jorm (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, well that escalated quickly! Woke up to find the article ECP'ed and Alison Alice escorted to the exits – very impressive work all around. As I said above, I would support any proposals you could think of that would improve the efficiency of patrolling/defending unambiguously controversial articles like this. Britishfinance (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If I were to re-write the rules, I'd say that it: (1) should be OK to revert someone beyond 1RR and 3RR if the other editor violated those restrictions first, (2) should be OK to violate 1RR and 3RR first if the other editors (plural) involved are newly created accounts or IP numbers, and (3) all pages with a history of vandalism and edit-warring should get really long protections ensuring that only regular veteran accounts can edit them (one of the things I spend a lot of time on at the start of every day is regularly reverting bad edits on the same pages - it's really annoying how protections are only added for 1-2 weeks if you ask for it, which almost makes it a waste of time to go to the Request Page Protection board). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

What you say makes sense. I do ordinary AIV-type work, and at RPP I find articles that clearly "have always been/will always be" problem articles are a struggle to get to PP for any reasonable term, and ECP is usually out of the question. Articles like this one, in my view, are strong 1-year ECP cases (and 3RR per your observations above). Would a facility like the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist work? E.g. a "controversial article list", which, once approved, get 1-year ECP and stay at 3RR? Maybe some of the senior admins like TonyBallioni who also do a lot of work in this area might have a view (perhaps this has been considered in the past)? My concern is the ever scarcer editing resources/and avoiding burn-out in what seems pretty draining work (as evidenced by the intensity of interactions on this Talk Page alone). Britishfinance (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think a year here at first would be pretty excessive, but I’ve ECP’d it for a month. Just report any new socks to the merged SPI whenever a clerk finishes merging it. If they come back after the protection expires, I can reprotect it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni. To your credit, I would suspect that you are one of the most distinctive WP admins in terms of taking full action, and getting situations like this contained decisively in one action (e.g. I woke up this morning to find you had ECP'ed the article, and processed the SPI case – I am sure much appreciated by all here). Do you think a "controversial article list" would help to clarify situations where admins could (and should) act decisively as you did? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Tanton is dead

He died according to his Wiki bio. That needs to be corrected in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Where does it say that he is alive? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12

58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Really, who is the founder?

I think the issue of who exactly is the founder of the CIS is legitimately unclear: Otis Graham or John Tanton. I know lots of socks have been posting screeds about this issue but I think it should genuinely be looked at to make sure we are identifying the correct founder. CIS claims it was founded by Graham, [11] while acknowledging that Tanton was "one of several individuals who were instrumental in starting the Center for Immigration Studies". [12] The New York Times states that Tanton "played a lesser role" at the CIS compared to Numbers USA. [13] PolitiFact acknowledges that Tanton "helped found CIS", and Tanton states that "I also helped raise a grant in 1985 for the Center for Immigration Studies, but I have played no role in the center's growth or development". [14] I suspect that it may not be a good idea to unequivocally describe Tanton as the founder of the CIS. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Reddit discussion[15]. For what its worth, my preferred language was that of PolitiFact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have altered the article to say that Graham and Tanton founded CIS (in the lede), and that Graham was the founding chairman and later founding board member, and that Tanton was "instrumental" in the foundation (in the body). I have added the Times and PolitiFact citations from above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is some possible context for why so many new users are flocking here to dispute the connection to Tanton. Just something to be aware of.--Jorm (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting!

I don't think there's any doubt about a connection to Tanton, only about the nature of that connection. It's certainly possible that Graham was acting (knowingly or not) as Tanton's "beard" in the founding of CIS. Perhaps the papers in those boxes might shine a light on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a comment: I find the University's position in this rather odd. What difference does it make if institutions subject to the FOIA get fewer donations of documents of possible historic value if they seal those documents and no one can see them? Unless, of course (I don't think the article says) they're sealed for X number of years). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

WaPo explicitly describes him as a founder: To gain even more authority, Tanton founded CIS to act as an independent-seeming “think tank” that could produce research with a “greater appearance of objectivity,” in the words of FAIR President Dan Stein.. So does the SPLC. This recent article from the NYtimes also sheds some light on Cordelia Melon Scaife's involvement in funding the group. Both articles make it pretty clear that the ambiguity surrounding the founding of the group was intentional, but Tanton was the primary force behind it. Nblund ^talk 14:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

edit On closer reading, I think that Washington Post piece could reasonably be called an op-ed by a noted historian, but the Politifact article also describes him as a founder, and the distinction between "helping to found" vs. "instrumental in starting" seems inconsequential. Nblund ^talk 15:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Full disclosure--I initially found this page through the reddit discussion above. To IntoThinAir's point, I do think it is legitimately unclear enough that we probably should not definitively call Tanton the founder, but I'm unsure the current language in the lead where we simply list both Graham and Tanton is any better. I'm going through the sources above and occam's razor says that Tanton is probably the real founder and CIS has an obvious reason to want to hide this, no? But can we say that in wikipedia's voice? Rather than get into the nitty gritty, I'd propose just shifting the debate to the history section, while noting the strong sourcing indicating Tanton's role. If editors think Graham belongs in there as well that's fine. GeauxDevils (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to circle back to this as this appears unresolved. GeauxDevils (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's resolved, just not the way you, Reddit, Tanton's estate, or the CIS wish it to be. Someone should close this section. Question for GeauxDevils: do you have any conflict of interest regarding this page, are you being paid or otherwise compensated for your work here, and have you ever edited under a different account? --Jorm (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope.GeauxDevils (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

SPLC Lawsuit

CIS sued the SPLC for calling them a hate group. A federal judge threw out the complaint. I can't find any coverage of this (yet) but someone else may.--Jorm (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't either, but this is a situation where primary sources are actually useful. The opinion can be cited for the status of the legal case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Kunzelman, Michael (September 16, 2019). "Judge tosses lawsuit over law center's hate group labels". Associated Press. Retrieved September 16, 2019. AndroidCat (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd added it to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Funding

Here is a recent article that talks about where some of the funding comes from. I'm not sure what's usable in it, however.--Jorm (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Could be useful to mention May directly, rather than just Colcom, which is apparently her vehicle. Thoughts? GeauxDevils (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Edits by GeauxDevils removing Tanton's Description

GeauxDevils has been attempting to remove information that describes Tanton as a white supremacist in the lede without discussion. They have been told to obtain and get consensus for the edits. Here is a place where they can attempt to do so!

I believe that this information should remain in the lede. --Jorm (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

According to GeauxDevils, I am a profoundly unintelligent person, so that should be pretty much all we need to know about this.--Jorm (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Err, yeah. I think that's a good spot to put a pin in that discussion. I don't necessarily have a problem with saying that CIS has disputed the extent Tanton's role in the organization, but I don't think anyone denies that he was involved in some capacity. Moreover, the edit gave the impression that there were historians or independent experts that dissented from the view that Tanton was a founder. Nblund ^talk 18:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly rude and snarky, I simply matched your tone. Perhaps that was inappropriate of me, but it's hard not to be frustrated with your attitude. Personal jabs aside, I have no issue mentioning that Tanton is a white nationalist. Because, well, he is. That's quite well documented by the splc among others. 'But' if the organization disputes that, or Tanton disputed his role when he was alive, that clearly belongs in the article. In fact, it appears that it used to be int the article for quite some time, so I'm not sure when exactly it was pulled. I think during the edits subsequent to the banning of sock accounts. It's weird that this material was all wiped from the body.GeauxDevils (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please point out to me where I've called you stupid or made a personal attack. If you can't, I'm going to ask that you strike your comments.--Jorm (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I struck them. Please don't accuse me of hiding Tanton's white nationalism when I specifically added that back to the lead, and when it's not relevant to the question of whether he and CIS disputed his involvement. GeauxDevils (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Uninvolved reliable sources have been cited for Taunton's role and a consensus discussion on this talk page confirmed the use in the article. Please do not change to information again without getting a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• At least regarding this edit, the WaPo source cited there is an opinion piece (and not one by Tanton, so we can't cite it for his opinion). We can't cite it for statements of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Should Tanton's description go before his name? It makes Graham sound like a eugenicist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underinflation (talk • contribs) 18:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think "eugenicist John Tanton" reads better, yes. It's also consistent with how we put historian before Graham's name.GeauxDevils (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There are currently five sources (of varying reliability) being used to justify the white nationalist label. Curiously, the only two of those five sources that actually call Tanton a white nationalist are Wired and the SPLC. The other three--Politifact, The Hill, and the NYTimes, don't actually use the term, or if they do, they attribute it to the SPLC. Per WP:RSP the SPLC is considered "biased or opinionated" as an advocacy group and should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Under no circumstance should wikipedia's voice be using such a contentious label like "white nationalist" without attribution and strong sourcing. GeauxDevils (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been decided before when Taunton was alive. Given he is now dead, there is no BLP issue and even less issue given the variety of sourcing on the topic. Toa Nidhiki05 21:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP or not, you've deflected. What sourcing indicates that he is a white nationalist? GeauxDevils (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wired and the SPLC, but here’s more:

NPR

Washington Post

Daily Beast

Detroit Free Press

I can gather more. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an odd set of sources to include, since they prove exaxtly my point--they are citing the SPLC, not calling him a white nationalist themselves. Both WaPo and DFP attribute the phrase to the SPLC. NPR doesn't specifically him a white nationalist--but it says he went in that "direction." And Daily Beast is far from a highly reliable source. I appreciate you digging these up, because they further confirm my point. GeauxDevils (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Tucker carlson a "white nationalist"

I undid this edit adding a parenthetical calling Tucker Carlson a white nationalist. There has already been plenty of discussion on this topic on Tucker Carlson's talk page, so I won't beat a dead horse. But I'd point you to the RfC to see where editor consensus is. Regardless, it's a blatant case of WP:COATTRACKING to add it to this article, since it's not relevant to the subject at hand. At most, we could add a paranethical calling him a conservative journalist, as his own page does. But even that seems gratuitous. GeauxDevils (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this is gratuitous. But the repeated undos need to stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. GeauxDevils (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, do not make this change; attempting to interact with you is pointless.--Jorm (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate response. You suggested we move this discussion to Talk. I did, and the only feedback I got was someone agreeing with me. After a week, you said nothing, so, given the lack of disagreement to consensus, I reverted the change to the long-standing version of the page. Regardless of your apparent disdain for my editing, if you have a substantive reason for wanting to include this, I'd encourage you to share. Because from my perspective, this appears to be a cut and dry case of coattracking and obviously not relevant to CIS. GeauxDevils (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Jorm--glad to see you're still perusing the talk page. If you believe noting that Tucker Carlson is a white nationalist is WP:DUE, please explain you're reasoning--rather than ignoring the discussion and undoing changes you dislike. GeauxDevils (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A different approach

I've followed the discussion, and I wonder if the page should quote Carlson at all. Can Carlson be removed from the article altogether? Compare the two versions:

• Current: The SPLC described the suit as an attempt to suppress their right to free speech.[59] Some conservatives came to CIS' defense, with Tucker Carlson (himself described as white nationalist by the SPLC and others[60][61]) saying there was "no basis" for the "shocking" hate group designation and National Review's Rich Lowry describing the organization's views as "perfectly reasonable."[62][63] The lawsuit was dismissed in September 2019 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson for failure to state a claim.[8]
• Suggested: The SPLC described the suit as an attempt to suppress their right to free speech.[59] The lawsuit was dismissed in September 2019 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson for failure to state a claim.[8]

--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Since there were not objections, I've implemented the change. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)