Talk:Morris Dees

Morris Dees is a Unitarian
Morris Dees is a Unitarian, which documented in many, many sources.. It's also mentioned in "A Hundred Little Hitlers" by Elinor Langer on page 265 and mentioned by Dees in his book "A Season for Justice" on page 94. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan600007 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is a cited is his religion, which is cited, keep getting replace with something that isn't cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBiiis08 (talk • contribs)  20:06, November 15, 2008
 * Yes, I think I've previously reverted a change that somebody made from Unitarian to Agnostic, possibly from the same user. Dees is a Unitarian. Probably better watch this page for awhile for vandalism. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dees grew up in the Baptist church and switched to the Unitarian church in adulthood when it became clear his views were incompatible with those of the local Baptist congregations. Ref: Greenhaw, Wayne (2011) Fighting the Devil in Dixie: How Civil Rights Activists Took on the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama. Chicago, Illinois: Lawrence Hill Books ISBN 978-1569763452 --Dystopos (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Bond as a "founder" of the SPLC
Including Julian Bond as a "founder" of the Southern Poverty Law Center is inaccurate.

According to pages 132-133 of Morris Dees' autobiography, "A Season for Justice," Dees had never met Bond until after he and Levin had created the SPLC. Bond was tapped for public relations reasons and was not a key player in the founding of the Center.

On page 132, Dees explains that his choice of Bond was based solely on Bond's name recognition for the SPLC's initial mailing of fund raising letters. On page 133, Dees states that "Julian was familiar with some of our cases, and when I told him of our hopes and plans, he agreed to serve as president of the Law Center, a largely honorary position."

Dees continues, "Over Julian's signature, we sent out twenty-five thousand letters asking people to contribute..." and deemed the campaign "a great success" for garnering five hundred donors.

Bond's name is not mentioned again in the autobiography.

Cited in:

Dees, Morris (1991). A Season For Justice, (Dees' autobiography), Charles Scribner's Sons, ISBN 068419189X

Richardkeefe57 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Richard Keefe, 01/05/2009


 * Agreed. Dees should know. How about changing it to say: "Along with his law partner, Joseph J. Levin Jr., Dees founded the Center in 1971, the start of a legal career dedicated to suing racist organizations and other controversial discrimination cases."
 * You want to make the change? Better add the reference with page numbers too. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but thank you for the offer, though. I'm not familiar enough with editing Wikipedia to be comfortable doing so. I also have a number of reservations about the rest of that opening sentence.

In fact, the article glosses over a number of controversies, documented both in Mr. Dees' autobiography, the SPLC's current website, the American Institute of Philanthropy, and the Better Business Bureau. I cannot consider it to be balanced or unbiased. Joe Levin's "smear" comment is a perfect example of how the SPLC stifles legitimate criticism by denigrating the messenger.

For now, correcting the Bond reference is a good start. Richardkeefe57 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Richard Keefe
 * Ok, got it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Article under attack
This article--and some editors who attempt to make constructive contributions to it--seem constantly to be under attack by vandals and by persons who don't like SPLC or the successes it has had. It might be appropriate to protect or semi-protect it for awhile. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by two users "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards " and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source concerning the organizations finances, so it seems the objections of the two editors in that regard has no substance. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why linking to articles from reliable sources is considered to be defamatory or libelous. It doesn't seem to work that way with others. Is Morris Dees somehow 'holier' or more special than anyone else on Wikipedia? Does he donate more money? What is going on here? I and others are increasingly more disenfranchised with Wikipedia. This is not a fair system. It's not the SPLC Wikipedia entry that is being added to, but Morris Dees. It's very significant information that one can easily find via Google and then see the reliable sources. Why can't it be part of his entry under criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.30.118 (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed material that duplicates exactly paragraph in Southern Poverty Law Center article
I moved the following paragraph here because it duplicates exactly a paragraph in the Southern Poverty Law Centerarticle, contrary to Wikipedia policies. And it is about SPLC, which is run by a Board of Directors and a President, not by Morris Dees, who is only Chief Legal Counsel for SPLC. It is not appropriate in a biography about a living person. Unless somebody can convince me it is necessary and appropriate in both places, it will be deleted.


 * "In November 2000, Harper's Magazine published an article titled "The Church of Morris Dees" by Ken Silverstein, which was critical of the SPLC. In it Silverstein wrote that the SPLC is "the wealthiest 'civil rights' group" through years of escalated fundraising and many of its donors do not know about its assets. He noted that in 2000 the American Institute of Philanthropy gave "the center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors" and that it spent as much money on fundraising as it did legal action."

WP:Biographies of living persons:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability ... and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular..."

"Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Harpers' article was directly about Dees. Avocats (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please place your comments in chronological order, not in the middle of somebody elses comments. The article was not about Dees, and the principal criticism in that article appears to be that SPLC is too successful raising money to fight racism and hate. Using it in either article is highly questionable. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

American Institute of Philanthropy is NOT WP:RS
[This section was transcluded here from article on Morris Dees because it appears to be relevant in both locations now.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)] Studies of AIP's methods raise major concerns about the validity of the conclusions reached, and indicate it cannot be considered a reliable source. For one, AIP reviews only 500 charities, where Charity Navigator reviews over 5,400. How does AIP select the charities it reviews? Does it have a particular bias? There appear to be a large number of liberal groups on the AIP review list, along with a small number of pro-military groups.

Groups have been improperly categorized by AIP. For example, the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Fund was improperly categorized as a veterans service organization, despite the fact it is incorporated as an educatonal foundation whose purpose is to build and maintain the Veitnam Veteran’s Memorial in Washington, DC. VVMF was not organized to provide any services to veterans, is not a service organization, has never considered itself a service organization and, perhaps most importantly, it has never promoted itself as a service organization. AIP has been criticized by philanthropy experts for the validity of its evaluation methods and its conclusions. A study reported in the Stanford Social Innovation Review-an award--winning magazine covering successful strategies of nonprofits, foundations and socially responsible businesses--found that AIP and other questionable watchdog groups: This study's authors concluded that, as donors make important decisions using potentially misleading data and analyses, the potential of groups such as AIP to do harm may outweigh their ability to inform.
 * Rely too heavily on simple analyses and ratios derived from poor-quality financial data;
 * Overemphasize financial efficiency while ignoring program effectiveness; and
 * Do a poor job of conducting analyses in important qualitative areas, such as management strength, governance quality and organizational transparency.

A second study, Rating the Raters: An Assessment of Organizations and Publications that Rank/Rate Charitable Nonprofit Organizations, provides a separate, critical assessment of AIP and its counterparts. The major findings are:
 * Approaches and criteria are not the same. The methodologies and criteria used vary significantly among the various rating and ranking organizations.
 * Evaluation criteria may not be readily apparent. Not all nonprofit rating and ranking groups make it easy for the donor to determine the evaluation method and criteria used.
 * Evaluators may use criteria that are overly simplistic. Simple financial ratios and/or measurements that apply in some circumstances may not apply in others.
 * Evaluators focus on financial measurements and overlook program effectiveness. *Financial "efficiency" is assessed by AIP and most third-party ratings groups as a percentage of contributions received. This tends to be their primary focus.
 * Competence of the evaluator is critical and difficult to determine. It is virtually impossible for donors to determine the relevant credentials, expertise and experience of the rating organization's staff. At AIP, a small staff size and below-par salaries suggest that it does not employ enough individuals with the necessary credentials to provide quality, in-depth assessments.
 * Evaluators often derive revenue as a result of their rating reports, creating an obvious conflict of interest and questioning whether these groups are motivated by the desire to inform potential donors or by the media attention that improves their revenue stream. AIP, for instance, charges a fee for a sample copy and requires membership as a condition for receiving its annual rating reports.
 * AIP blatantly and egregiously ignores Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP), established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. These set stringent criteria for the treatment of fundraising and program education expenses. This deliberate disregard results in financial ratings by AIP that greatly vary from those issued by the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, which follows GAAP, and other groups like Charity Navigator, presenting an erroneous picture of a nonprofit organization's financial practices, especially its fundraising activities.

Consequently, AIP cannot be considered WP:RS for purposes of the charity ratings in this article, which should be removed. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Morris Dees entire Bio page is a Whitewash
Substantiated information such as Dees documented abuse of his ex wife and his affairs, per Alabama court records has been removed from this document as well as statements from The Nation, Harpers, and even the SPLC's hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, which all came to the same conclusion: the SPLC is a self-propagating fundraising machine with little regard for the truth. If Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge all negative attributions then what possible value is the service? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.231.120 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how one-sided and biased this bio is. None of the conclusions reported by Harpers or The Nation are attributed or reported. Also none of the divorce proceedings and physical abuse filings from Alabama courts are included. Most bizarrely, there is no documentation of the unbelievable amounts of money that the SPLC has used for the direct enrichment of Dees. Wikipedia is rarely credible when it comes to bios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellinghamsailor (talk • contribs) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This most definitely is a whitewash and shows yet again one of the fatal flaws of Wikipedia: some people are more equal than others. Maybe if I were a scam artist raking in big bucks by creating hysteria, I, too, could influence what goes on Wikipedia. Someone had the temerity to accuse me of being someone on the other side of the ocean, just because I saw the added information and that it had suddenly vanished and I then reverted it. I'd read the information elsewhere and think it should be part of Morris Dees' entry. Is he going to come after me now and break my knees or something? Nothing would surprise me now. The whole thing is patently unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.30.118 (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

watch this tribute to the guy...
youtube a vid called The Sordid Church of Dirty Morris Dees -by payday monsanto, vid by brand1angel

I think thats the real morris dees folks.

Campaign contributions

 * During his tenure at the SPLC, Dees has made contributions to Democrats in federal elections, such as to the Democratic National Committee and the Ralph Nader presidential campaign.

It seems unusual to report a bio subject's political contributions unless they've been the subject of reporting in secondary sources. In general, searching through primary sources for tidbits of info is not condoned. We wouldn't go through the property records to say how much property tax he pays either. If we can't find a secondary sources that comments on his campaign contributions then I suggest we delete this.  Will Beback   talk    19:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you regard Discover The Networks as a reliable source (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1809)?  In the meantime, I'll remove the addition. Drrll (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15.   Will Beback    talk    23:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Beat me to the punch. The RSN seems to lean toward The Huffington Post's Fundrace site being reliable (http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Dees).  What do you think? Drrll (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The FEC site is reliable too, that's not the problem. The problem is one of relevance. The subject appears in numerous government and private databases (as do we all). But why are we picking this particular fact and adding it to this particular biography? If we had secondary sources then we could say that at least one person and his editor thought it worth publishing. But we don't. All we have is that one WP editor thinks it's interesting, and that's where we stray into original research.   Will Beback    talk    01:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Marital information
Dees has been married five times, I believe. His current spouse figured rather prominently in a recent Montgomery Advertiser feature on the Dees homestead, yet there is nothing in our Wikipedia article telling the reader that he has ever been married. Curious. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Morris Dees Justice Award"
Why is there a whole section on the "Morris Dees Justice Award", including biographical notes on each of its recipients? The award is unconnected to Dees, other than being named after him. A single sentence about the fact that the award was established seems quite enough. It's like an article about Benjamin Franklin listing all the notable alumni of "Benjamin Franklin High School". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The award is an indication of Dees' legacy. Being named after him directly links between the two, and every recipient is covered by a different secondary source, thus establishing notability. Where is the problem exactly? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The secondary source might establish notability, but it doesn't establish relevance to this article. Care to respond to my hypothetical about "Benjamin Franklin High School"? I think it's apropos here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How many schools are named after Franklin and how many awards are named after Dees? Thought so. The paragraph serves as a substitute for a nonexistent article, therefore the list is notable by the standards cited above. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So if there were only one school named after Benjamin Franklin, things would be different? Now you're just coming up with arbitrary rules. Show me a single Wikipedia guideline or rule that even remotely backs up what you're saying. Meanwhile, I believe I have common sense on my side: the information there is simply not about Morris Dees. That seems like a basic rule of thumb for determining what should go into an article. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Morris Dees Award link on the bottom a Japanese phone company? hahahahaha

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 17:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Morris Dees. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070810225815/http://www.morrisdeesaward.com:80/ to http://www.morrisdeesaward.com

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 10:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Direct mailing endeavors
This is how he made his fortune, and how he built the SPLC endowment. His career section is woefully short,That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, propose some text and some reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Morris Dees. 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/20090206220530/http://www.splcenter.org:80/center/history/dees.jsp to http://www.splcenter.org/center/history/dees.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184754/http://www.splcenter.org/legal/docket/files.jsp?cdrID=36 to http://www.splcenter.org/legal/docket/files.jsp?cdrID=36
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070814/NEWS/708140328/1001
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193111/http://www.emporia.edu/bonner/dees.htm to http://www.emporia.edu/bonner/dees.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030032619/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com:80/series/inside/3954/Overview to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/inside/3954/Overview#tab-Videos/05946_00

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morris Dees. 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/20080516081941/http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2007/021207_dees.html to http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2007/021207_dees.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160502165035/http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/speccol/findingaids/egertonj_addition.pdf to https://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/speccol/findingaids/egertonj_addition.pdf

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) 17:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well that was excessive
Equinox ◑ 00:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Until and unless reliable sources start to give the allegations credence (and I mean first that the court documents say that), they're flat BLP violations and are candidates for redaction here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Given the way fraudulent allegations have appeared on 4chan against other people, I wouldn't take anything of the kind seriously until organizations with a reputation for fact-checking start reporting it.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)