Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up
This article needs some major cleaning. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Biased article
I just read the article and agree it need "major cleaning". I removed "though not all SPLC listed groups engage in criminal activity" because;
 * The words "not all" is controversial, misleading, and unsubstantiated. I read over some of the list included as "hate groups" and on the list are churches that have not, unless someone can provide reliable sources, been suspected or charged with any criminal activities. There are other unreferenced statements that I will address, tag, or both. Otr500 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all, because some have. Typically, racist hate groups are more likely to be violent, which is where you get criminal charges. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Types of hate groups
I restored this section because it's extremely relevant. This article is not itself just a list of anti-gay hate groups, it's an article about the list. As such, it's useful to know how the anti-gay hate groups figure in to the total. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. It could be reworked a bit but i don't see that as more of a priority than developing content on how this list was created and evolved. Insomesia (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

copypaste
Most of this has been copypasted from other Wikipedia articles without attribution. That a copyright violation and needs to be fixed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually all that is needed is this section noting where some of the content came from as all that content is under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. BTW the copypaste template is used for content copied from other sites, not Wikipedia. Insomesia (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the copypaste template that implies it should not be used when it's Wikipedia's copyright that is being violated. I restored the template. Please do not remove until copyright issues have been fixed. This means that each article that was copied needs to be attributed either in the article history or on this talk page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the applicable guideline:


 * "When copying content from one article to another, at a minimum provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page. If substantial, consider posting a note on both talk pages."

Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to the original author. For most pages, this is supplied by the page history, with exceptions associated with copying and deletion. In these cases, supplementary attribution must be provided by either a link back to the source page, if available, or a list of authors. At minimum, this means a linked edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving a note at the talk pages of both source and destination.


 * I think a citation linking back to each main article would be sufficient in this case. This is creative commons content and the content is all on enwiki, so there's no basis for considering this a copyright violation at all. Perhaps Nathan would be willing to help address the attribution gaps. – MrX 15:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It is very unclear to me what the complaint justifying the copypaste template is. This appears to be an exceptionally well-sourced list. Can someone please be specific about what text is claimed to be copypaste, or I advocate removing this template. -- Ryvr (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

An experienced editor removed the copypaste template because the text in question was reasonable use of parts of summaries from other articles used in appropriate ways. Another editor reverted that to put the copypaste template back in saying that it "does not look like it has been resolved on the talk page." Shouldn't he have made his case here on the talk page then, rather than reverting an experienced editor's judgment without discussion? I think that copypaste template needs to be removed unless someone makes a convincing and specific case here. -- Ryvr (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the experience of the editors has much to do with it. In any case, an "experienced editor" added it in the first place. A couple of editors have disagreed with the tagging, but no-one seems to have taken steps to resolve the issue. StAnselm (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Discussing a controversial edit on the talk page is always the best route. But if you are talking about being an experienced editor, User:Insomesia has had an account for five months while User:StAnselm has had an account for over five years.  So experience is probably not a reason to revert or not revert . . . the content of the edit is what is relevant.  A consensus should be reached here on the talk page instead of going back and forth. 72Dino (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is squabbling over an internal use of Wikipedia material not a copypaste issue for which the template refers. And I have added the appropriate template at the top of this page so I consider the matter resolved unless StAnselm wants to again over-dramatize a simple editing matter into something more. Insomesia (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, no credible point has been made here for why to include this copypaste template! For a person who nominated the page for deletion, lost that debate, to now be using undefended editing technicalities does not seem reasonable. Of course consensus should be reached instead of "going back and forth," but I really think there would need to be a specific and credible defense of why to have it there, which no one has given, rather than no argument at all, and just claiming there is no consensus for no apparent reason in the first place. -- Ryvr (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have posted a note on User:Nathan Johnson's talk page, although as far as I'm concerned, the template added on this page is enough. But in any case, the point was made above - content was copied from other articles without due attribution. I'm surprised anyone would be disputing that. StAnselm (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not opining on if the template is appropriate, but I am including a link to the guideline at Copying within Wikipedia. MrX already quoted from the guideline earlier in the section. If there was attribution in an edit summary, it sounds like the article is probably fine.  If there has been no attribution, then a null edit with an edit summary including the attribution should be done (see WP:RIA).  At least that is my interpretation of the guideline. 72Dino (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to have been any attribution in the edit summaries. StAnselm (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does " " in the talk page banner suffice as attribution? 72Dino (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the fact that Wikipedia's attribution policy is somewhat nonsensical, because when content is added, the original author is not claiming a requirement for attribution per CCA SA 3.0. In fact, I'm sure I read in some other policy or guideline that no attribution is required when copying text between articles on enwiki.


 * A combination of the revision history logs and the wikilinks/backlinks to original articles should more than suffice for Wikipedia's attribution requirements. The template that Insomesia added makes it bulletproof. This is really much ado about nothing. - MrX 00:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Attribution when copying between articles on en.wikipedia is needed. That's always been the case. Not providing attribution for copying another person's work is not only illegal, it is academically dishonest. Copyright violations are a huge problem on en.wikipedia as evidenced by WP:CCI. Please don't add to the problem. The tag is only meant as a signal that it represents a problem that needs to be fixed. I do not think that attribution has been properly given. Copying within Wikipedia says that "A statement in the edit summary such as copied content from article name; see that article's history for attribution will direct interested parties to the edit history of the source page..." There are still no links in the edit history that link back to the articles where the text came from. The template added to this talk page is "helpful", but is not sufficient.


 * Edit warring over tags is silly and pointless. They are maintenance templates that help editors find and fix problems. If Groups of editors disagree over the appropriateness of a specific tag, they should discuss it on the talk page and not edit war over it. I have no particular interest in this list, but when I added the tag, there was certainly a copyright violation that needed fixing. In my opinion, there still is. It should be fairly easy for the originator of this list to provide attribution in the edit summary of a null edit (or two or three). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The attribution requirement has been satisfied by placement of the template above, per WP:COPYWITHIN > Proper attribution > Hyperlink. Problem solved. - MrX 03:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Have you actually read that section of the guidelines or do you not care that someone is violating copyright on Wikipedia. You yourself copied it to this page: "When copying content from one article to another, at a minimum provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page. If substantial, consider posting a note on both talk pages." I've added bold and italics to guide your eye to the relevant parts. The link has to be in the article history, not on the talk page. The link on the talk page is simply for convenience. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I must note your Herculean efforts to complain yet not fix the error you seem so concerned about. No one was trying to get away with anything, just do whatever you think needs to be done and maybe people will stop regretting dealing with the issue. Insomesia (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Next time Insomesia please (a) follow WP policy ("expanding article" is not good enough as an edit summary if it is not your orginal work), and (b) admit that you've made a mistake rather than edit war over templates. StAnselm (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * StAnselm that wasn't a very clear policy if it took a handful of people to figure out what it meant so please get off your high horse. As you have been a model on how to edit war i don't find following your lead or advice a very good idea at all. Insomesia (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * StAnselm, working to actually improve Wikipedia is probably a much more useful pursuit than blaming and faulting people for a slightly different interpretation of certain policies. You appear to have an emotional reaction to small things regarding this particular article. Have you considered whether that is a good role for a Wikipedia editor? -- Ryvr (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryvr, if I have an emotional reaction like you describe, it's probably because you accused me of having a POV agenda. That was a personal attack, and I think you should withdraw it. StAnselm (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Questionable edit unlinking anti-gay?
An editor just unlinked "anti-gay" in an edit on 26 October. I think that is unfortunate, and I'm not sure what that editor's justification is since he only says in the comment that he did unlink it, and has not discussed it on the talk page prior to the edit. The link seems to have been very useful to me because the "anti-gay" article clarifies the categories and meaning of "anti-gay," which is important in this context where people who are not very familiar or relate to these issues might not understand what "anti-gay" is referring to here. I think the link should be restored. -- Ryvr (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Anti-gay goes to a disambiguation page, which is probably why it was unlinked. If there is a link to a more appropriate or precise article, that should be added. 72Dino (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the link provides helpful information because if someone wonders about the meaning of "anti-gay," that link gives a lot of good info like linking to Anti-LGBT rhetoric and Heterosexism. There is a template on top of the "anti-gay" page which suggests "should be converted into a broad-concept article." I would agree with that, and that perhaps would satisfy your concern more, but in the meanwhile, I think the linking provides useful info and should be kept. I don't think we can choose just one of the articles because the SPLC probably includes multiple types of anti-gay behavior like both rhetoric and heterosexism. I think it is important to discuss changes like this on the talk page. I'm surprised that editor just did it unilaterally without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryvr (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An experienced editor has replaced the link, now pointing it to Anti-LGBT rhetoric, which is definitely a solid, encyclopedic article. Also, the information seems relevant, so I would agree that was a good resolution. -- Ryvr (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about not being precise in my edit summary. I was disambiguating links using dab solver, and it did an automatic summary. As User:72Dino has said, it was unlinked because it was pointing to a disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Source of some controversy"
This addition has been challenged, so it should be discussed here. Personally, I think it's a no-brainer - it's totally appropriate to include a statement like this, pretty much the same group of us had discussed it ad nauseum at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center and reached a consensus, and the statement itself is exceptionally neutral and balanced. I don't actually see what User:Insomesia is objecting to... StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As written the content did not explain if "some" of the groups that didn't like being labelled hate groups include any of these groups. Were these groups the ones that complained? If so we need to state that. Insomesia (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Uhmm . . . why would your "concerns" here, Insomesia, cause you to delete the copy that you have recently deleted?? I'm baffled. If You want to include specific, reliably sourced objections that one or more of the listed groups has made, then go right ahead, but don't delete copy relating to "outsider's" criticism of the SPLC 's list without a good reason. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs context to show why it's being wedged into this subset list. My "concern" is that we are engaging in a logic leap. Please fix the content to show why it's being added to this subset of the larger hate group list. Please show it actually applies here. Insomesia (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would we need to? Take a look at the article. As I mentioned earlier, there is plenty of copy in this "subset" article that relates not to the "subset" list per se, but rather, more generally, to the SPLC's bona fides as a collector of information about, and enumerator of, hate groups. The entire Intelligence Report section is devoted to this. If we allow properly sourced testimonials to the SPLC's competence we also allow properly sourced criticism. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We include a summary of the hate groups to demonstrate the categories that the SPLC has traditionally covered, we include the Intelligence Report as that is the main published repository of the SPLC's work on hate groups in general as well as on anti-gay hate groups. Again, I'm not saying the content doesn't belong but I feel we need to demonstrate why this information is being wedged in - specifically in the lead if it doesn't apply to this subset of groups on the larger list. Insomesia (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that the critical material needs to be in the lead. We could have a separate section, perhaps incorporating the testimonials found in what is now the Intelligence Report section along with the critical material but, again, why do you keep deleting the critical material? The section titled Intelligence Reports doesn't simply inform the reader that this is "the main published repository" of SPLC's material on hate groups, it also presents the reader with glowing testimonials to the publication and, by extension, the SPLC's hate group listings. Those testimonials should be balanced with properly sourced and duly weighted criticisms even if those criticisms don't specifically address the SPLC's list of anti-gay groups (although I'm pretty sure that some of them do). Badmintonhist (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had hoped someone else would have addressed this already but I've taken a try at addressing my own concerns. Now the content explains why this is in the lead, or indeed included in this subset list at all. As this is a newer subset list of the larger I was also concerned that the criticisms were leveled prior to its existence and should only be in a subsection but I'm satisfied we are more NPOV now. Insomesia (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that was a good edit because it added some important context. I'm not sure why Little Green Rosetta thought it wasn't neutral. - MrX 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose my edit summary for the edit that Insomesia recently reversed was done a little too hastily. What I should have said was that Ken Silverstein's cited criticism of the SPLC's hate group list WAS MADE BEFORE THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL WAS ADDED TO THE SPLC's HATE GROUP LIST. Therefore we shouldn't have copy in our article that says that Silverstein's criticism was made after the FRC was added to the SPLC's hate group list. Have I made my point clear enough now?? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You should work to fix it then instead of repositioning a previously stated problem. Insomesia (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I was about to make the same edit as Insomesia just did, after reading Badmintonhist's persuasive argument. Silverstein's criticism is obviously not relevant to this article. - MrX 00:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We seem to have a couple of editors here who are quite selective about which "persuasive arguments" they choose to address. My main argument (and perhaps someone will address it now) has been that the article's positive testimonials to the SPLC (testimonials that mostly predate the SPLC's anti-gay hate group list and that are not directly related to it in any case) should be balanced by equivalent criticism. Why does our article cite the SPLC's Intelligence Report as a "reliable" and "comprehensive" source on hate groups? Why does it note its "Green Eye-shade Excellence in Journalism" awards and its "Distinguished Public Service Award"? Our article does this to establish the SPLC's credentials on the subject of hate groups in general. Again, not specifically "anti-gay hate groups", for the SPLC's venture into that field has been relatively recent, but hate groups in general. It is therefore appropriate for us to include criticism, or, at least, mention of criticism of the SPLC's credentials on the subject of hate groups. Again, not necessarily anti-gay hate groups specifically, but hate groups in general. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we should hear from others, but in my view, the Intelligence Report section establishes the SPLC as a respected authority on the topic of hate groups. It is simply background information. Is there an equivalent report refuting SPLC's list, published by Dana Milbank, John Boehner, Michele Bachmann or Ken Silverstein that is researched and published regularly, and carries the weight and credibility of SPLC's report? I view the critics' opinions as reactionary, and frankly not all that notable.


 * Milbank, for example, was fairly equivocating when he was pressed about his criticism of the SPLC by Michelangelo Signorile. In fact, he came across as ignorant about the scope and content of the SPLC's hate group listings. None of these critics have their own list of hate groups with which to compare to SPLC's, as far as I know. Their views barely rise to level of anyone's attention, and are certainly not on the same level as one of the most prominent civil rights advocacy organizations in the US.


 * (I do understand your question, by the way. I just don't accept its premise.) - MrX 04:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Intelligence Report is a primary source, and thus is not suitable for establishing respectability as you appear to surmise. External sources, which probably exist, are needed.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Notable criticism of, say, the FBI's public information offerings doesn't require the critics to have their own rival operations. It's revealing and interesting that MrX finds the SPLC's critics' opinions "reactionary" and "not all that notable," but, as one kindergarten friend of my son said when she met me, "WHO YOU?" The SPLC has long had vocal critics left and center as well as right. The Daily Kos, for example, recently published a piece attacking the SPLC. For more than a decade folks such as Ken Silverstein, the late Alexander Cockburn, and law professor Stephen Bright (who runs a "rival" civil rights organization, the Southern Center for Human Rights, and pays himself less than a tenth of what Morris Dees does) have blasted Dees and his operation from the left. From the center the Montgomery Advertiser ran a highly critical Pulitzer Prize-nominated series on the SPLC in the 90s. As for the background information in our Intelligence Report section, a lot of it, as Little green rosetta alludes to, is sourced to the SPLC itself. The organization has never been shy about blowing its own horn. The awards that the publication has received have not been especially prominent ones, certainly nothing approximating a Pulitzer. Its "Distinguished Public Service Award" comes from a small, not especially prominent {no Wiki article,) pro-immigration group. As for its endorsement by scholars, the field of "hate group" study is rather limited and even here there is some criticism: check the main Wiki SPLC article under "Academic assessments." Badmintonhist (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * perhaps you could be more direct in what exactly you think should be added to "balance" things out? It would seem this exact discussion has already happened on the main article. Insomesia (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that the SPLC has critics, nor suggesting that they are above reproach. However, this article is not the best place to do into an exhaustive analysis of those criticisms. That is best done in the main article. Considering the push back that you experienced there, I'm not sure why you would expect editors involved with this list article to be more receptive to such digressions. - MrX 19:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article isn't the best place to do an "exhaustive analysis" of criticisms of the SPLC and its list. That subject is better handled here by ONE simple statement similar to one in the main article; such as: "The SPLC's hate group list has been the subject of some controversy with critics accusing the organization of an incautious approach to assigning the label." However when I added that statement it was removed by an editor who apparently wanted the SPLC's list here to be treated with pristine reverence. The problem with the "criticism" of the SPLC found in this article now is that the wording has been manipulated to make it appear that only ONE columnist along with some disgruntled right-wing politicians have criticized the list. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can hold off on the bad faith assumptions and note that I did support content, in the lead, that explained itself why it was there, on this subset list tied to these groups. And yes, in the lead we are giving these few biased critics their say. If you propose to add criticism of the rest of the list it would not be appropriate in the lead here but is appropriate in the lead on the article about the entire list ... and it is already there. Insomesia (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You'd have made a good broken-field runner in football, Insomesia. My point is not to suggest that my edit should go in the lead. I placed it there originally because it did not fit easily into any other section without redoing the section in other ways. I found it easier to place it there initially, but on second thought it probably should go in the section now titled "Intelligence Report" which should be reworked (probably made more generic and shorter) and retitled. That is the section which praises the hate-group work of the SPLC and would thus be the logical spot for critcism as well, unless we use separate but contiguous sections for praise and for criticism. And now, ONCE AGAIN, to my main point: "Generic" criticism of the SPLC's work on hate groups is entirely appropriate because it complements the "generic" praise for the SPLC's work on hate groups already found in THIS article. If you wanted a "list" article free of criticism of the SPLC you should have created a bare-bones list without endorsements of the SPLC's work. The POV nature of what we now have in this article is made clearer by your last comment. We have given "a few biased critics their say" in the lead (and pretty much presented them as biased by our wording there) while heaping fine sounding praise on the SPLC in the "Intelligence Report" section of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there notable criticism on Intelligence Report? If so it might need to be included. What have you found? Insomesia (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * More broken field running. Stop playing dumb. On second thought, I'll just proceed with my edits. No sense dealing with an editor who is being intentionally obtuse. Badmintonhist (talk)
 * I don't know what broken field running is but it seems like more bad faith. I suggest you make clear what notable criticisms have to be on this article to keep things collegial. Insomesia (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you've clearly shown that you have no interest in serious discussion. If you don't know what broken-field running is watch Harpo Marx in the climactic scene in Horse Feathers. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in watching some scene in some movie. Please be clear what you mean and please clearly state what specific changes you seek if you want others to discuss. Insomesia (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Some concerns about recently added content
While I can appreciate Badmintonhist's bold edit, I have tagged this new content

as possibly undue (perhaps 'confusing', or 'off-topic' would be a better choice). I'm concerned that sentence may confuse readers. It seems a little out place in an article about anti-gay hate groups. 00:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I pondered a bit over this inclusion myself but decided to leave it in. The section, after all, discusses the SPLC's general competence in providing accurate information about hate groups of all kinds. Moreover, the commendations in the first paragraph pretty much exclusively involve the SPLC's hate group tracking abilities PRIOR to its listing of anti-gay hate groups. It isn't as though the organization becomes entirely new simply by its taking on a new cause. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * IIRC most (if not all) the critiscm of the SPLC with respect to the hate group label applies to some groups that have been labeled anti-gay hate groups.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've rolled back these very POV changes. I don't see any of it as really improving anything unless the goal is to dig up every criticism and ensure it's prominently displayed regardless of appropriateness here. Essentially the goal seemed to be to change the Intelligence Report section and convert it into a criticism section which I strongly oppose. Insomesia (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nah, You're the one clearly pushing the POV here, Insomesia, by restoring an unbalanced "Intelligence Report" section and an ending to the lead that marginalizes criticism of the SPLC. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should get more eyes on the situation so we can see if there is clear consensus for the changes you seek? Insomesia (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is classic WP:DRNC. Exactly what is the POV as you see it?  You would be well advised to actually discuss these concerns here before attempting to "get more eyes" on the article.   Editors are expected to make a good faith attempt to resolve differences before requesting more opinions.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 05:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out there is concerns about this extra criticism being WP:Undue and therefore violating WP:NPOV. I asked Badmintonhist to discuss changes prior to enacting them and they failed to point out the exact changes. Both myself and MrX have problems with the proposed changes but I'll let MrX clarify their issues. For me I see no benefit to our reader in building a criticism section here when we already has notable and accurate criticism in the lead. Instead we are suggesting a disportionate amount of criticism when actually there is very little and most of it is quite partisan. In their long history there is very little and we are looking at playing all of it up for maximum discrediting. That's highly POV. There has been a history on anti-gay hate groups of diminishing the fact that the SPLC is considered an expert in this field and that these groups foment hate. I fully expect that we'll need another RfC to settle this but I would welcome the proposition that that is unneeded. If you think we have to, yet again, endless discuss POV edits before we ask for more eyes I'm afraid the good faith has run out in this issue area and with a few editors specifically. Time and again consensus has been going against the "conservative" POV on these articles but I would hope we can bypass those steps in this case. If not, no worry, I'm in no rush to ensure we follow NPOV here despite the personal jabs and insults. Insomesia (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

First, avoid ad hominem arguments. There is no "conservative" POV, and by extension its purported editors. You've no idea what my political leanings are. The text added by is not even remotely POV. It is worded neutrally. There is a question of whether it belongs here, but that isnt a reason you can scream "POV" and then revert. MrX has saw fit to tag one part of this edit, which might need some work. I agree partially with his rationale. Considering most of the criticism came in the wake of the FRC shooting, it would be appropriate to use that specific criticism, as thenFRC as you know is on the anti gay list. Some of the non "antigay" criticsm may not be helpful. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First, and respectfully, WP:DRNC is an essay, and it's contradicted by other guidelines and policies. I tend to think that more than a simple mention that SPLC's hate group listing is probably undue. As discussed above, any criticism related to other type's of hate groups (e.g. white supremacists) doesn't belong. I would also prefer to leave out the Dana Milbank criticism altogether, or at least clarify that his central issue was including anti-gay groups on the same [hate] list as the KKK. I also think that the Intelligence report section may be a little excessive, and could be shortened to about two sentences. If the latter is done, it seems that it would address Badmintonhist's concerns. This article should focus on the list and the reason groups are included on the list, and the detailed praise and criticism of the SPLC should be left in the main article.


 * I have to believe that there is some compromise that can be reached here without going to a full RFC. Can we at least identify what we all agree on and work from there? - MrX 14:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * RFC is a waste of other peoples times, so let's avoid that. I've no issue with most of your suggestions.  And as for the Milbank critiscm, we absolutely should include the KKK comparison/worry. That is the entire point of the critiscm.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, editor MrX has questioned only ONE SENTENCE in the changes I've made, so he doesn't appear to be Insomesia's ally here. The section that I reworked from the former "Intelligence Reports" section contains BOTH PRAISE ("COMMENDATIONS") AND CRITICISMS of the SPLC's work on hate groups. These reliably sourced criticisms, by the way, run to aboutthree and a half lines of copy in an article which otherwise presents the SPLC's unencumbered perspective on the listed groups, so, if anything, that criticism of the SPLC is disproportionately light, not disproportionately heavy. As for the the previous "notable and accurate criticism in the lead", the fact that Insomesia earlier described it as "giving a few biased critics their say" rather indicates that it was included more to impeach the validity of criticisms of the SPLC than to give a fair representation to them. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I spoke too quickly. Actually, I appreciate MrX's contributions to the discussion, but I disagree with his whittling down of the criticism paragraph of the "Commendation and Criticism" section. MrX may believe that he has removed is a digression which doesn't directly involve the anti-gay hate group list, but if so, then the plaudits attributed to the SPLC's anti-hate group activity in the first paragraph of the section are also digressions, because they also involve SPLC activity not directly related to its anti-gay hate group list. The only difference is that the criticism from the white separatist study's authorsl lets the reader know this.Badmintonhist (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

About Possible SPLC Motivated Terrorist Attack and allowing groups to respond
One editor doesn't think the fact that there was an attack on one of these groups, possibly provoked by the SPLC list, should be mentioned or that these groups should be quoted themselves. This is bias.

Information about the questionability of this list and the attack on one of the groups:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is listed under the Resources section of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's web page on hate crimes and has provided the FBI with information on hate groups. Since 1981 the SPLC has published a quarterly Intelligence Report that monitors what it views as radical right hate groups and extremists in the United States, providing information on the organizational efforts and tactics of these groups. It has been cited by scholars as a reliable source on right-wing extremism and hate groups. The SPLC also publishes a newsletter, the HateWatch Weekly, and maintains a blog, HateWatch, which monitor the extreme right. Rory McVeigh, Chair of the University of Notre Dame Sociology Department, has described the SPLC as "an excellent souce of information for social scientists who study hate groups."

The SPLC's expertise on hate groups has been questioned by journalist Ken Silverstein who argues that the organization sometimes exaggerates the threats posed by certain groups Laird Wilcox, claims to have provided SPLC with some of the information initially used to compile their list of "hate groups". He "concluded that a lot of [the SPLC's hate groups] were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC." Some of the "hate groups" were creations of SPLC informants, rather than legitimate groups. And with the advent of the internet, some of them exist "nowhere except in cyberspace." Wilcox concludes, "The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors."

In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group. Dana Milbank, of the Washington Post, wrote that the SPLC was "reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions." Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council,” said, after the attack, “I believe [the gunman Floyd Corkins] was given a license to do that by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.” Capital Research Center states that the SPLC "deliberately mischaracterizes conservatives and tea partiers as “extremists”." Yeoberry (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reverted you. This is a list article, not an article about the SPLC. List articles are, well, lists. The lead defines the list, the rest of the article is a list. It isn't an article about the members of the lists. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone else reverted you before I did. It doesn't belong in the article, and if you continue to edit war over multiple articles you'll probably end up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

SPLC expands list of anti-gay hate groups
The list at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-gay/active_hate_groups has been expanded, according to http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2014/02/39681/ Will collate tomorrow when I have some time, unless someone wants to do it first. TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 04:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups → List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups – The SPLC changed the label from "anti-gay" to "anti-LGBT." 71.59.58.63 (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support, I don't know if this even needs to be discussed. 83.251.94.184 (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I came in here expecting to be annoyed, and find that the request is eminently reasonable. The SPLC itself uses LGBT, so changing the article's name makes perfect sense. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 15:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, as long as the redirects are maintained, seems logical. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It's obviously proper to use the same name for this list as the SPLC uses for the list this list is based on.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intrinsic Neutrality Compromise of Article
The way this article is currently structured, there seems to be an inherent compromise to its neutrality. It is written on a topic that I think few would doubt to be controversial. Therefore, it cannot be in the interest of neutrality to have an article list numerous organizations under an implicitly and potently deprecatory category without substantial justification of its encyclopedic value. What the proper course of resolution is I am not quite sure. Perhaps, it would be best to present supplementary opposition perspectives on salient groups' listings (rather than provide the SPLC's reasoning for classification as a hate group), although I suspect that that would either spark a politically-charged debate regarding included content or would be otherwise undesirable. There was a previous nomination for deletion; it may very well be that if no other sufficient remediation is feasible, that option should be further explored. Regardless, continuation of the article in its current state is very much disagreeable. At the very least, I am recommending the addition of a Contested neutrality template to the top of the article, though I will initially refrain from doing so in the interest of caution and due to the contested political nature of the topic.  Ergo Sum  18:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to presenting supplementary opposition perspectives provided that they are referenced to independent reliable sources. - MrX 18:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added an NPOV tag. However, this article in my opinion still needs to be thoroughly re-worked.  Ergo Sum  22:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the tag is productive, and strongly feel that it should be removed. The significance of the SPLC's designation is clear, as the majority of the 190 sources are secondary. This is a factual list. It's not "List of anti-LGBT hate groups", the title and the article are very clear that this is one very significant group's description, which is backed up by many, many substantial sources. If the designation can be taken as deprecatory, then the complaint is with SPLC, not Wikipedia. Encyclopedias absolutely should include unflattering content if it is presented neutrally and is supported by sources. As MrX says, if independent sources can be found regarding the neutrality of the designation, great, but otherwise the template seems like a 'badge of shame', and doesn't clearly indicate what actions could be taken to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem that anyone objects to editing the article to include opposition perspectives, so it would seem that the POV tag is not needed., you should feel free to add material that you think is relevant, but missing from the article, provided of course that it's properly sourced.- MrX 02:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrX and Grayfell. There is no need for the tag. SPLC doesn't add organizations to its hate lists lightly. If you have a solution for your concern, please voice it.
 * Also, if you look at the deletion discussion, there were about 14 keeps, three merges and one delete. I don't think that avenue would be anything but a time-sink for everyone. Jim1138 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not SPLC adds a group to its list and the process by which it does so is of no concern to me or to Wikipedia. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not obliged to reproduce such a list if it is violative of neutrality standards expected of all articles. As I stated previously, at present, I do not have one concrete course of action that I think would reduce article bias. I simply ask that such a concern is recognized and special attention is paid to minimizing the possibility of a slanted perspective in an article which is deprecative by its very nature. Dismissing my claim as being directed toward SPLC's criteria for addition of a group to its list is hardly conducive to mitigating potential neutrality compromises.  Ergo Sum  23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The SPLC's list seems well supported by fact to me. Would you say any of the groups listing is wp:UNDUE? To censor a list given the facts would be slanted. Jim1138 (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to dismiss your claims, and keeping the article neutral is important. I don't believe that the deprecative nature of the label is all that relevant to the article's neutrality. There are lots of very controversial lists on Wikipedia, but neutrality is harmed rather than helped by downplaying them just because they are controversial or unflattering. Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Grayfell. I agree completely. @Jim1138, again, I want to make clear that I take no issue with what actually comprises the SPLC list. As such, I cannot comment on what should or should not be listed on it.  Ergo Sum  04:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120405234542/http://www.boston.com:80/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/05/antigay_pastor_refocuses_on_aiding_springfield/?page=full to http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/05/antigay_pastor_refocuses_on_aiding_springfield/?page=full
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140102193614/http://savecalifornia.com/randy-thomasson-bio.htmlpublisher=SaveCalifornia to http://savecalifornia.com/randy-thomasson-bio.htmlpublisher=SaveCalifornia
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130511005502/http://au.christiantoday.com/article/baptists-denounce-latest-westboro-stunt/5495.html to http://au.christiantoday.com/article/baptists-denounce-latest-westboro-stunt/5495.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919155856/http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-s-anti-gay-hate-list-compiled-with-diligence-and-clear-standards to http://splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-s-anti-gay-hate-list-compiled-with-diligence-and-clear-standards
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515070740/http://www.wiu.edu/ISCDA/resources.shtml to http://www.wiu.edu/ISCDA/resources.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.towleroad.com/2010/11/southern-poverty-law-center-updates-list-of-anti-gay-hate-groups-adding-afa-frc-others.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/SPLC-adds-11-anti-gay-hate-groups/36596.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/03/seven-more-groups-now-designated-by-splc-as-anti-gay-hate-groups-2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218193904/http://www.mediatransparency.com/story.php?storyID=189 to http://www.mediatransparency.com/story.php?storyID=189
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715194218/http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=31 to http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=31
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129185413/http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners to http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184613/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=CO&m=5 to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=CO&m=5
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.towleroad.com/2012/03/southern-poverty-law-center-designates-11-new-anti-gay-hate-groups-in-report-on-rise-of-extremism.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622025855/http://www.sonsofthundr.com/pastorandmrsball.html to http://sonsofthundr.com/pastorandmrsball.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023073320/http://www.sonsofthundr.com/thebabykillers.html to http://sonsofthundr.com/thebabykillers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120705101053/http://www.sonsofthundr.com/sodomitescanbesaved.html to http://sonsofthundr.com/sodomitescanbesaved.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617221016/http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=8992 to http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=8992
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707223315/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/WBC/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=WBC to http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/WBC/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=WBC
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305025103/http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/HATE03_20100302-222805/327944/ to http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/HATE03_20100302-222805/327944/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406033316/http://temple-news.com/2010/03/30/hate-group-protests-this-week/ to http://temple-news.com/2010/03/30/hate-group-protests-this-week/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120110104729/http://blogs.sparenot.com/workmen/2011/10/27/you-are-still-alive-now-is-the-time-to-repent/ to http://blogs.sparenot.com/workmen/2011/10/27/you-are-still-alive-now-is-the-time-to-repent/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819091609/http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/dec2002/Outlaw_Sodomy_12-3-2002.pdf to http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/dec2002/Outlaw_Sodomy_12-3-2002.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100202154812/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?T=29&m=4 to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?T=29&m=4
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/dunkerton-principal-to-announce-resignation-monday/article_97ca118e-6d49-11e1-a5df-0019bb2963f4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008015554/http://minnesotaindependent.com/58393/gop-linked-punk-rock-ministry-says-executing-gays-is-moral to http://minnesotaindependent.com/58393/gop-linked-punk-rock-ministry-says-executing-gays-is-moral

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://media.afa.net/newdesign/about.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110102550/http://www.chalcedon.edu/vision.php to http://www.chalcedon.edu/vision.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217192921/http://www.familyresearchinst.org/index.html to http://www.familyresearchinst.org/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330112335/http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/3591528-418/civil-couples-quinn-illinois-unions.html to http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/3591528-418/civil-couples-quinn-illinois-unions.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070308113420/http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/default.asp to http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316085715/http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/06/08/a-historians-analysis-of-the-pink-swastika-part-1 to http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/06/08/a-historians-analysis-of-the-pink-swastika-part-1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316090130/http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/06/09/a-historians-analysis-of-the-pink-swastika-part-2 to http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/06/09/a-historians-analysis-of-the-pink-swastika-part-2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604205513/http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/1998/june1998/cyberpatrolblocks.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/1998/june1998/cyberpatrolblocks.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091653/http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=3818 to http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=3818
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911112108/http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_southeast_valley/tempe/a-new-report-by-a-national-organization-labels-a-tempe-church-a-hate-group to http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_southeast_valley/tempe/a-new-report-by-a-national-organization-labels-a-tempe-church-a-hate-group
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214114150/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=26 to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=26
 * Added tag to http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc3=&id=72193
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015123712/http://www.missionamerica.com/about.php to http://www.missionamerica.com/about.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120724193045/http://www.missionamerica.com/articlelistbody.php?catnum=100 to http://www.missionamerica.com/articlelistbody.php?catnum=100
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120411144031/http://www.parentsactionleague.org/faqs to http://www.parentsactionleague.org/faqs/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130416000207/http://profam.org/people/thc.roylance.htm to http://profam.org/people/thc.roylance.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014071541/http://defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/aboutus/aboutus.cfm to http://defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/aboutus/aboutus.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120724162642/http://unitedfamilies.org/downloads/Sex.pdf to http://unitedfamilies.org/downloads/Sex.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717070352/http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/45727977.html to http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/45727977.html
 * Added tag to http://youcanruninternational.com/aboutus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

"Good Source"
Here is the diff page showing my post and a contributor's deletion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_anti-LGBT_hate_groups&type=revision&diff=955045234&oldid=955041628

It shows that my addition was deleted because the contributor couldn't find a "good source." Instead of taking it to the talk page before deleting, they deleted and told me to take it up to the talk page. I would be happy to add another good source, although one was already listed and Google can bring up many more about the situation.

I want to restore my post and add another unquestionably "good source:" https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/splc-apologizes-to-quilliam-foundation-over-listing

Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain
 * OK, I found a good source: . But, your addition clearly had neutrality problems. This had nothing to do with LGBT hate groups, the subject of the article. Plus, the Washington Times story is a good example why we avoid it as a source. This is covered in article Southern Poverty Law Center, where it belongs. O3000 (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

-- Thank you. Your help is appreciated. I'll add the source you found. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain
 * As I said, it doesn't belong in this article. O3000 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

-- :O -- I totally misunderstood your comment when you said "OK, I found a good source" and your reason for seeking the good source. Are you saying that the Atlantic article is already in the other entry? Or that I should add it there? confused... --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain
 * The subject of Quilliam is in the main article. Look, this was an error based on the fact that the subject was previously an extremist. They corrected the error. The also respected the orgs work and donated money. It wasn't a penalty. You appear to be trying to denigrate the SPLC in multiple articles for some reason, in this case with misleading text. O3000 (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

-- We are to assume the best intentions. I have a particular interest in many nonprofit organizations. One article automatically leads to another on a similar subject. The article I posted said it was a settlement to the Quilliam Foundation. A settlement, though voluntary, that comes at the conclusion of years of litigation, is not entirely voluntary. If an article is about a list, we should be able to use a reliable source to add information about the specific list and that is what I did. The paragraph in question clearly only uses the SPLC's own words. It is a "puff piece" as it is. Regardless of whether you or I agree with all of their work, we should work to make the entry more accurate and complete. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain
 * You do not know that it was not voluntary. The situation you added has nothing to do with LGBT-hate groups. All orgs make errors. If they don't correct them, we don't consider them RS. SPLC is considered RS. O3000 (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

-- Are you going to propose a solution or just shoot down my concerns? Wikipedia editing shouldn't be a zero-sum game. There is a give and take until a solution is found. If you have a citation to the fact it was voluntary, then by all means that can be added to clarify. [The SPLC was considered reliable (although biased) before and during the time of the litigation while the plaintiff was complaining about the designation. So, whether they admit errors or not has nothing to do with whether SPLC is on the list of reliable sources.] --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain
 * I already gave my solution. It is mentioned in the Southern Poverty Law Center article. Also in the Quilliam (think tank) and Maajid Nawaz articles. That's where it belongs. This article has nothing to do with Muslim extremism. (albeit they don't like LGBT either) O3000 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Rename?
Makes more sense for this article to be titled "List of anti-LGBT hate groups". Zenomonoz (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The list produced by the SPLC is the list produced by the SPLC. Why should the article title not reflect that? TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 03:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)