Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 14

SPLC getting heat for attacking Maajid Nawaz and Ayan Hirsi Ali
A lot of major news sources are covering the SPLC's recent decision to attack authors/activists Maajid Nawaz and Ayan Hirsi Ali as being "Anti-Muslim extremists." Given this large level of publicity nand scrutiny of the SPLC's tactics and political leanings, this seems like it has to garner a mention in SPLC's broader Wiki Article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/branding-moderates-as-anti-muslim-1477866475

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/29/i-m-a-muslim-reformer-why-am-i-being-smeared-as-an-anti-muslim-extremist.html

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9210/splc-racists

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/216494/southern-poverty-law-center-blacklist

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/10/27/southern-poverty-law-center-ayaan-hirsi-ali-and-maajid-nawaz-are-anti-muslim-extremists/

https://heatst.com/politics/southern-poverty-law-center-marks-muslim-refugees-as-anti-muslim-extremists/ VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Why does this have to "garner a mention" in the article? It's today's conservative faux outrage, and it'll pass. See WP:Recentism. We're trying to write an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper article.
 * (And what makes an unsigned op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, partisan screeds from the Gatestone Institute, Nextbook, and Heat Street, and a commentary from Nawaz into reliable sources from which to build an encyclopedia article?) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that all reliable news source mentions of this major incident warrant to be linked to. Maajid is a liberal Muslim reformer. Attempting to shut him up simply because he criticises radical extremists is downright deplorable. David A (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * All of the groups listed by the SPLC question why they are listed. In the article, none of the groups listed by the SPLC are mentioned, except where SPLC has taken legal action against them.  If we do mention criticism by groups, then we need to explain what the SPLC says about them before providing their rebuttals.  This information is best covered in articles about these groups.  The last complaint comes from Quilliam, a controversial group founded by self-described former extremists that has invited former Islamophobes to join.  I do not see a high level of publicity.  TFD (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, change.org has also started a petition to remove them that already has over 5000 signatures. This is different from past additions. Intellectual matter-of-fact criticism of any ideology or idea must be allowed without being smeared as a hate-monger, or freedom of thought and speech have turned into truly hollow concepts. David A (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think that Qulliam have the right to criticize ideas then you should accept the SPLC has the right to criticize their ideas. In any case, their sections on Ali and Nawaz are supported by sources or contain information that is openly available.  What part of it do you think is a smear?  TFD (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The "anti-Muslim extremist" part. Maajid Nawaz is risking his life attempting to change attitudes such as the ones listed in this extensive statistical PEW Research survey to become more humane and tolerant, and has consistently fought against actual bigotry from all camps. He should be applauded as a hero, not mislabelled as some kind of hate-monger. He also did an extensive rebuttal of the attack on his own, that you can read here. David A (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically, to make a thought experiment, if 85% of the population in your home country considered stoning to death of adulterers to be fully acceptable (as is the case in Afghanistan, if I remember the statistics correctly), would you consider those attitudes to be a problem, or the people who bravely risk themselves in order to change those attitudes to be the problem?
 * This does not seem to be a legitimate in-depth intellectual criticism of ideas, so much as it is ideologically driven shallow academic name-calling. David A (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is fine to claim to stand for tolerance and humanism in theory, from a safe position, but it is quite another to start to publicly condemn the people who actually risk their lives fighting against the most extreme forms of genuine bigotry, specifically to make their work much more difficult. David A (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "anti-Muslim extremist" is a conclusion based on the information about Nawaz provided in the article. Is there anything in the information you think is a smear?  Do you think they have misrepresented any of his statements or fabricated his actions?  There is an article in the New Republic that relates the same points as the SPLC and note the British government removed funding to his organization.
 * TFD (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know all of the specifics, but have read two of his books, and find his arguments compelling. Here are a facebook post, and a news article with further points: https://facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1172557052811558&id=135775283156412 http://www.theexmuslim.com/2016/10/27/southern_poverty_law_center_loses_the_plot/ David A (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're fundamentally misunderstanding what we would need to see in order to include this. Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:NOR, for instance. I haven't looked into it enough to know if we should include this or not - I'm just saying that "I personally think he's a pretty neat dude", "look at this facebook post", and "Muslim countries are bad" are not going to help you get it included. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, going by the following article, the SPLC seems to have used an unreliable source as a basis for including Nawaz: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/white-left-issued-first-fatwa/ David A (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * SPLC aren't Wikipedia. WP and its sources have different standards - for instance, hate watchdogs and news sources can use a lot of primary-source info that we really can't. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Maajid is a member of the UKs Liberal Democrat party and in no possible way should be listed as some sort of extremist. the SPLC is acting out of extreme ignorance typical of white liberal americans who know nothing of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.22.23 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The SPLC has now refused the over 8000 signature change.org petition to remove Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali from their list. Heidi Beirich, a director of the Intelligence Project at the SPLC, made the following statements:

“That kind of talk is not what we want people to discuss when discussing Muslims. These are conspiracy theories and it’s dangerous to portray every Muslim essentially as an infiltrator,”

“My problem with that is he’s muddying that image with these conspiracy theories, so it’s hard for me to believe that that is his goal when he’s doing these other things,”

“He doesn’t sound much different from Pamela Geller or David Horowitz or some of these other people about how Muslims are infiltrating everywhere. So my suggestion would be, if that’s what he’s trying to do, then he should ditch the conspiracy theories.”

This seems to be about Maajid's informative self-experienced book, "Radical". David A (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It does not matter whether the SPLC is right or wrong, but whether this is significant to the article. Bear in mind that similar criticisms have been made against Quilliam.  If we include the criticism we need first to explain what SPLC said and the degree of acceptance it has before providing Quilliam's response.  And we would have to do the same with the hundreds of groups and individuals SPLC writes about, all of whom claim they have been unfairly singled out.  TFD (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is definitely significant. It has created quite the media uproar, and caused SPLC to lose an enormous amount of its credibility. Just type in #SPLCaddmetoo on Twitter, and you can see the constant backlash in real time. David A (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Why the fuss?

 * I don't see much need for debate here. Our article has a Controversy over hate group listings section. When the SPLC's listing of a particular group or person within a group garners significant controversy in reliable sources we should mention it in the controversy section. On the other hand we shouldn't go into great detail on it because that would make the section way too long and unwieldly. Why would anyone think that the SPLC is supposed to be some faultless arbiter of what constitutes "hate"? Of course there have been some controversies over its listings and there will continue to be, but in our article those controversies should just be summarily mentioned. Motsebboh (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as various articles have mentioned, Maajid's and Ayaan's listing also places them even more in the line of sight of jihadists who want to slit their throats, and simultaneously makes their work to attempt to reform dangerously widespread extremist viewpoints much harder. This is a massive betrayal of past good work that has given the SPLC currently apparently very unwarranted public credibility. Still, I suppose that mentioning this at all is better than nothing. David A (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is actually a trivial mention of the SPLC by the dwindling number of Quilliam supporters. It appears that no one has read the SPLC article so I will summarize criticisms that it and other sources have provided:  The British government withdrew its support of Quilliam, both Labour and the Conservatives rejected Nawaz as a candidate.  The Liberal Democrats did accept him, regretted their decision after it was too late to replace him but withheld funding to his campaign.  He attracted unwanted attention by being filmed in a strip club touching a stripper against club rules after consuming alcohol to excess according to the bouncer.  Such conduct and cohabitation are contrary to the Muslim principles he claims to follow.  He accused moderate Muslims of having the same ideology as al Qaeda and even claimed part of the Met were secret jihadists.  He has given conflicting information about his past and when he gave up extremism, paid the EDL leader, a convicted criminal, to support his group and disseminated disparaging pictures of Mohammed, which Muslims find offensive.  He has also accepted funding from a Christian Right group in the U.S.  Now if you support people like Pamela Geller who is barred from the UK or other people accused of Islamophobia, then there is nothing wrong with any of this.  But in mainstream none of this is reassuring.  TFD (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a remarkable list of insinuations and accusations against Nawaz - none of which you have sourced, TFD, which rather calls to question your neutrality in this matter. I suggest you either do so, comprehensively, or be aware that one editor at least now regards you as having by this post shown yourself as partisan and therefore self-disqualified from commenting here - let alone editing - on this matter. Alfietucker (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * More needless discourse, David A and TFD. The job of editors here is EMPHATICALLY NOT to defend either the SPLC or Maajid and Ayaan. It is simply to report the fact of a controversy when a reliably sourced controversy involving the SPLC's hate listings exists. Motsebboh (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Inserting material that is reliably sourced is not the only job of editors. We must also follow "Due and unde weight":  "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."  If views are not significant, we do not include them.  For example, if the editor of a tiny local newspaper writes an op-ed on the Middle East peace protest, we can safely ignore it.  We must also be neutral and pretend that Qulliam's opinion is more significant than the SPLC's.  That means we would have to explain the facts:  why the SPLC sees Quilliam as extremist, and why other mainstream sources have come around to a negative opinion of them.  The other problem is that the SPLC writes about lots of groups.  In order not to single out on any one, we would have to introduce Klansmen, neo-nazis, anti-gay groups, neoconfederates, Islamophobes and every other group that thinks they are hard done by.  TFD (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh Please!! Don't insult our intelligence! The listing of most "hate groups" by the SPLC gets no coverage at all, never mind coverage as "controversial", in outside reliable sources. So we obviously DO NOT have mention every group "that thinks they are hard done by". The SPLC listing discussed here obviously DID get significant coverage as controversial in a number of prominent reliable sources. Briefly mention the fact-- the complaint of those listed and the SPLC's rationale for the listing, and be done with it. Motsebboh (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The listing of hate groups by the SPLC is routinely mentioned in stories about those groups. And there is some coverage of many of these groups complaining about their classification.  Currently the article does not mention any group that SPLC calls a hate group, but if you think it should then we would need to greatly expand this article, explain why they are called hate groups, the degree of acceptance of the assessment and the groups' response.  Anyway, the list of people complaining is trivial:  a number of opinion pieces, with no secondary sources reporting them.  One of the sources provided is by Nawaz himself.  Incidentally, comments like "Oh Please!! Don't insult our intelligence!" are irritating and do not further collegial discussion.  If I wanted to insult your intelligence I would not be discussing this with you.  Incidentally, why do you use "scare quotes" around the term "hate groups?"  Is that an implication you do not consider the groups so classified to be hate groups?  I would point out that hate is a well understood term in relation to some political activists.  TFD (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Tell you what, instead of going on endlessly, why don't you simply edit the Controversy over hate group listings in whatever way you think is appropriate and we'll go on from there. I happen to think that I write pretty clearly but you apparently have trouble understanding me. NO, I've never remotely suggested that we repeat the SPLC's listing of hate groups here, in fact, quite the contrary (it's already been done, of course, in Wikipedia's list of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups). One hate group, however, IS mentioned in the Controversy section-- The Family Research Council because there was a significant amount of controversy over its listing. Though it is often very hard to tell the difference these days between reporting and opinion pieces (for example, EVERYTHING written in an SPLC publications) some sources on SPLC v. Nawaz appear to be intended as hard news, and those clearly labeled opinion are in very prominent publications. My use of quotation marks around "hate groups" is meant to indicate that they are hate groups by the SPLC's lights. Were I making my own list many of the same would certainly be there but I'm sure some wouldn't. Please don't respond before actually doing something to the article first. This isn't supposed to be a debating society. Motsebboh (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to briefly mention that having problem with the ridiculously extreme forms of bigotry clearly and reliably statistically examined here, does not remotely make somebody comparable to a Nazi or a Klansman. It usually means that somebody has a major problem with true bigots of all stripes. Double-standards regarding tolerance of extreme intolerance, do not make any sense. Also, you can read rebuttals of the SPLC's points in the various articles linked above. David A (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, have the SPLC placed any Islamists on their lists? If not, then, as Maajid said, they are cowards, only focusing on easy targets that cause no potential threat to themselves, such as Ayaan and himself, who very much do risk their lives on a daily basis. Ayaan's close friend was even murdered by an Islamist with a note that she was to be killed as well. David A (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a letter to the SPLC from an atheist living in Iran that illustrates how patently absurd all of this is. David A (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no known Islamist hate groups in the U.S., which is the only country which the lists cover. If you know of any, then please name them.  Inciting ill will toward other people on the basis of gender, gender identity, race, or religion is hate and contrary to the laws of most countries.  In the U.S., where it is legal, it is considered an aggravating factor in violent crimes.  Based on your links, it appears that you are arguing that hatred of Muslims is justified.  TFD (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am arguing that it is utterly intellectually and objectively absurd to pretend that the opinion polls statistics regarding Islamist bigotry do not exist, and to compare anybody who points them out, and wishes to change them to turn more humane and tolerant to the Ku Klux Klan, and Adolf Hitler, in order to shut them up. For example, I live in Sweden, where a recent poll shows that roughly 18% of Muslim youths sympathise with the Islamic State, and that 8 in 10 Muslim girls live under honour culture. Should we just pretend like nothing is happening forever, and not even talk about how these attitudes can be changed for the better? David A (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Atheists better watch their criticism of the Westboro Baptist Church. All religions should be protected equally after all. The SPLC has sadly become a parody of itself. There's a word for people who only attack safe targets: bullies. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * AND ALL OF THIS TALK IS DIRECTED TOWARD MAKING OR PREVENTING WHAT ACTUAL CHANGES TO THE ARTICLE?? THIS ISN'T SUPPOSED BE A FORUM ON THE SPLC.  WHAT SPECIFIC CHANGES ARE BEING PROPOSED?? Motsebboh (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about getting carried away. I find all of this very upsetting. Anyway, either we can keep adding new relevant references from major reliable newspapers to the current controversy section, or make a minor more elaborate specific column for this incident. David A (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion is about the controversy section. Controversy sections are of course poor style, since they cannot be written in a neutral POV.  (For a good explanation of handling controversies, see Criticism.  Controversy should be incorporated into aspects of the topic where controversy arises.  Every group investigated by SPLC feels hard done by.  We should mention that, but this section is undue.  If we had a section about SPLC tracking of Islamophobia, that is the place where their resentment should be discussed.  I note that David A has evaded my questio.n.  He can not name a single Islamic hate group in the U.S. yet calls the SPLC cowardly for not naming one either.  James J. Lambden, thr SPLC lists the Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group.  But they do not list Christianity and Islam as hate groups.  TFD (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Good. We're making some progress; at least up to the point where you say "I notice that David A. has evaded my question." You want to eliminate the subsection Controversy over hate group listings. I'll vote a swift NO on that one (though the subsection might be retitled to include controversies over the SPLC's negative branding of certain individuals). Criticism starts out by saying that there are times when criticism sections may be appropriate, and the subsection in question isn't a general criticism of the SPLC at all, but rather an objective noting of the times when its hate group additions have raised significant reliably sourced controversy. So your "every group investigated by the SPLC feels hard done by" isn't really an issue. The subsection in question only mentions controversies that have risen to the level of being reported by reliable sources. Additionally nothing prevents editors from (succinctly, one hopes) presenting the SPLC's side of any hate group listing controversy. Motsebboh (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not informed enough about the situation in the United States to state with certainty that there are Islamist hate groups there. I have read that CAIR may have ties to ones abroad though. Regardless, Maajid Nawaz is not a US citizen, but a European, so I thought that the SPLC catalogued people from Europe as well?
 * Anyway, I am both autistic and Swedish in combination, ergo oversensitive and uneasy with conflict, so I do not like situations such as this. All that I am saying is that I would appreciate if you read up on the various opinion poll statistics, as they are quite worrisome. In addition, there is a massive genocide of Christians going on in the Middle East, there are 10 countries with death penalty for homosexuality, Saudi Arabia is financing a massive number of mosques that spread Wahhabism in Europe and elsewhere, and my own country is rapidly completely falling apart socially, so all of this does not seem to just be paranoia on my part. David A (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Motsebboh by the way. David A (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact they only catalog groups in the U.S. although they sometimes write about people outside the U.S. Whether or not CAIR has ties to Islamist groups, they do not openly advocate hate, for example against gays or Christians, hence would not be included in the SPLC catalog.  Some Islamist groups, particularly ISIS do practice hate as defined by the SPLC and there are supporters of ISIS in the U.S.  But they have no known organizations there.  The SPLC does btw catalog black hate groups, such as the New Black Panthers.  The reality though is that discrimination against minorities is mostly carried out by groups in the majority.  In the Middle East of course Muslims are in the majority.  TFD (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is true. I do not have any solutions, and do not advocate hatred. I just think that we have to openly talk about these issues in a rational manner. David A (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "they do not openly advocate hate [..] hence would not be included in the SPLC catalog" Neither do Nawaaz and Hirsi Ali, so this is obviously not a reason against including anyone in that list. Also, as noted above, since Nawaaz is not American, not being American is not a reason against including Islamist groups outside the US either. It seems to me as if ending up on that list is essentially random and can happen to anyone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend actually reading the SPLC article on anti-Islam extremists. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc_field_guide_to_antimuslim_extremists_0.pdf https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists
 * These two people work with extreme right-wing Islamophobic organizations and spread hate and lies against Muslims. The hate groups they work for exist in both Europe and America. Some of them have been banned in Europe so they moved to America.


 * For example "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born activist who says she endured female genital mutilation and fled civil wars and an arranged marriage in Africa. She then moved to the Netherlands and became a parliamentarian for a time. But key parts of the story she told Dutch immigration authorities and the public there turned out to be false — she had never witnessed any civil war, attendees said she was at her wedding despite her claim to have not been present, and her husband paid her way to Europe and later granted her a divorce. Leaving the Netherlands after quitting its Parliament in disgrace, Hirsi Ali became a citizen of the United States, accepting an invitation to join the conservative American Enterprise Institute."


 * And


 * "Maajid Nawaz is a British activist and part of the “ex-radical” circuit of former Islamists who use that experience to savage Islam. His story, which has been told repeatedly in the British and American press and in testimony to legislators as well, sounds compelling enough — Nawaz says he grew up being attacked by neo-Nazi skinheads in the United Kingdom, spent almost four years in an Egyptian prison after joining a supposedly nonviolent Islamist group, but had a change of heart while imprisoned and then returned to England to work against the radicalization of Muslims. But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute. He told several different versions of his story, emphasizing that he was deradicalized while in Egypt — even though he in fact continued his Islamist agitation for months after returning."


 * "Nawaz sent a secret list to a top British security official that accused “peaceful Muslim groups, politicians, a television channel and a Scotland Yard unit of sharing the ideology of terrorists,” according to The Guardian. His Quilliam Foundation received more than 1.25 million pounds from the British government, but the government eventually decided to stop funding it. One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. Shortly afterward, Robinson returned to anti-Muslim agitation with other groups."


 * For "liberal reformers" they sure do have a lot of ties to extreme right-wing organizations that are pro-invading Muslim nations for oil. Of course that isn't the argument here. Anyone with common sense wouldn't really believe that these people aren't Islamophobes, hence why the SPLC put them on a hate list. It should be noted these people have no credibility in Islam, no degrees or anything. And simply are no different than Breitbart or any of those fake news websites. Their "criticism" of Islam is no different than the KKK or Neo-Nazi groups criticizing African Americans. This should be written from a neutral point of view with facts and statistics. If you're a fan of one of these people, you should focus on another article and not get upset if someone criticizes them. This talk page is also not a place to debate Islam or spread lies about them. Again if the SPLC states so then it's so. If you want to debate this then there are plenty of right-wing anti-Islam websites that are already doing it, go do it over there and not here. Remember a lot of people use Wikipedia for university, it's best not to post misinformation and justifying the ideas of fringe hate groups here. 67.80.214.221 (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "These two people work with extreme right-wing Islamophobic organizations" Yes, I know that there are some weird people who think that extremism is contagious - anybody who has contacts to somebody earlier defined as an extremist must be an extremist. So I guess I am an extremist too for defending those people, and therefore anybody who ever agreed with me on anything is also an extremist, and anybody who agreed with them.
 * The question whether the SPLC's descriptions you quoted are inaccurate and misleading is the reason there even is an issue. Quoting those descriptions as evidence that the descriptions are right... well, words fail me. Let me just say I have been discussing climate change deniers for the last few days, and you seem to fully match their capability of cogent discussion.
 * Anyway, the issue is at rest now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight
David A, instead of growing this paragraph so it overtakes every other controversy in the SPLC's 45-year history, please discuss your proposed additions and explain why they don't contribute to the undue weight problem. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Malik Shabazz, phrases like "stopping this cancer" are what I would call "hyperbole". And speaking of hyperbole, three lines in a long article do not, for me, qualify as "growing a paragraph so it overtakes every controversy in the SPLC's history". On the contrary I think that David A has made a good edit here, providing the SPLC's response to Maajid Nawaz's complaint which was well publicized in reliable sources. Motsebboh (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. I tried to compromise by adding both sides, and this is not a long paragraph that takes up significant space. In addition they are just quotes, and Maajid has good reasons for being extremely concerned about being attacked in this manner. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's collaborator was gruesomely murdered by Islamists. The same thing could very well happen to him. David A (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This minor quote does not add any factual value to the article; the opinion expressed (and the SPLC response) are both trivial (and hyperbolic) in the context of an encyclopedic treatment of the SPLC, and shouldn't be included. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the quotes help to flesh-out what is an otherwise threadbare paragraph. I don't think we should be making a huge deal of the affair, but the reader should be given some idea of the SPLC's reason for labeling the two people as anti-Muslim extremists and Maajid's reason for protesting the label. The "hyperbole" complaint is invalid because these are relevant (and short) quotations of the parties to the controversy, not statements in Wikipedia's voice. There are, quite reasonably, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of "hyperbolic" quotations in Wikipedia's articles. Hyperbolic quotations, in fact, are sometimes the subject of entire articles . Motsebboh (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Motsebboh, and this is far from hyperbole. Ayaan and Maajid are very much under constant threat of being killed by Islamists, and unlike Ayaan, Maajid does not have bodyguards for protection. David A (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

hyperbole language that describes something as better or worse than it really is. "They put a target on my head. The kind of work that I do, if you tell the wrong kind of Muslims that I’m an extremist, then that means I’m a target." Did the SPLC really put a target on Nawaz's head? Do "the wrong kind of Muslims" need the SPLC to tell them who is an anti-Muslim extremist? It may be a quote from a person on one of their lists, but it's still hyperbole, and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. (This is still supposed to be an encyclopedia, isn't it?)

Are we going to give "equal time" to every person on every one of the SPLC's lists to complain, and for the SPLC to respond? If not, how will we choose? These are not insignificant questions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * We obviously choose by the ones that receive considerable reliable media attention. And yes, I think that placing heroic reformers and critics of genocidally bigoted fascists on an extremist list, does very much likely put them in greater danger than previously. David A (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * To Malik Shabazz, you are ignoring my points. Hyperbolic quotations abound in Wikipedia which is fine as long as Wikipedia reports them and doesn't make them itself. Only you are raising the issue of "equal time" for others on the SPLC's lists. They only get equal time here if their listings are equally covered by reliable sources. Motsebboh (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * First, Ben Carson received much more publicity than Nawaz has. So this has nothing to do with reliable sources. Second, hyperbole is fine in a tabloid. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If reliable sources cover the hyperbole, then it may be sufficiently notable for its own article, but that's not the case here. You want to include the man's rebuttal to SPLC. Has it received any coverage in reliable sources? (His hyperbole, not the fact that the SPLC put him on its list.) Finally, I can bring up whatever relevant issues I care to. There are only a handful of people discussing this, so the fact that "only I" am raising the issue of other people on SPLC's lists doesn't sway me. You'll have to do better than that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The spirit of BLP requires we give subjects at least a couple of sentences to rebut accusations of extremism and hate-mongering – in whatever way they choose. Restored. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * To Malik Shabazz Feel free to add somethingto the paragraph that already exists on Carson. The "they put a target on my head" quote comes from the venerable Atlantic Monthly though it may be in other sources that David A. listed. Similar quotes are found in The Spectator. As for my mentioning that only you were bringing up the issue of other people or groups labeled by the SPLC, I suppose I could have said something like "only you are vapid enough to bring up such an 'issue'" but that would have been insulting and not precisely true. Other editors might do such a thing but it's still dumb since, as I've already said, the complaints of others branded by the SPLC have to be covered in reliable sources. Motsebboh (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And since one of those lists the SPLC has already been used as a hit list by a violent criminal - see Family Research Council - this is not some far-out speculation but a very real danger. People seem to listen to the SPLC, even the people the SPLC would rather not have listen. "They put a target on my head" is an important aspect that should not be omitted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And the question remains why exactly that Malik Shabazz and the SPLC seem to view the people who bravely risk their lives rationally criticising genocidally bigoted fascists as the bad guys? If you believe in humanistic and liberal principles, you should be fighting at their sides. David A (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, UN Special Rappateur on Cultural Rights Karima Bennoune has come out in support of Nawaz: https://mobile.twitter.com/UNSRCulture/status/795550388040581121 David A (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Long-term semi-protection
Is everyone on board with my requesting another long-term semi-protection? The vast majority of IP edits to this page are vandalism, and they also form a substantial proportion of this page's edits as a whole. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and semi-protected for three months. Previous terms have been shorter than that, but I'm convinced it has to be for a longer term.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

SPLC, a racist organization itself
Is Wikipedia only sourcing from mainstream media outlets? The SPLC are defending Black Lives Matter, undeniably a racist and violent organization, while labeling the reactionary and non-violent 'White Lives Matter' a 'white supremacy group'. Is there anyway Wikipedia could report the obvious bias of the SPLC, or is neutrality off limits here?--188.25.198.208 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia prefers mainstream outlets. No, BLM is not "undeniably a racist and violent organization". And White Lives Matter is absolutely a white supremacy group, even if they deny it. The "white genocide" dog whistle is a clear giveaway, not to mention the Confederate flags and "14 words" signs they're fond of. This article might be worth a read if you're unclear on the differences between the two groups. clpo13(talk) 20:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The editorial policy is to present views according to their prominence in mainstream sources. If you disagree with them, there are alternatives to Wikipedia that present views you might like better.  TFD (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL...not biased...oh your bias is so showing on anything that is opinion based. Yes there are alternatives... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D200:E645:4A8:B94F:1B1:B652 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ten Days After
The SPLC has released a report, Ten Days After (PDF and SPLC comments), on harassment and intimidation in the aftermath of the 2016 Presidential election. According to the reports a "national outbreak of hate, as white supremacists celebrate Donald Trump’s victory. In the ten days following the election, there were almost 900 reports of harassment and intimidation from across the nation. Many harassers invoked Trump’s name during assaults, making it clear that the outbreak of hate stemmed in large part from his electoral success." The report has been covered in the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera, CBS SFBayArea, The Guardian, NBC News, the Jerusalem Post, BBC News, Newsweek, the Daily Beast, the Independent, the International Business Times, a CNN affiliate, and no doubt plenty of others with more to come. I am posting here for the information of anyone who wants to add material to suitable articles here on Wikipedia. Some of the reports focus on a particular sub-set of the incidents – the Jerusalem Post focuses on anti-Jewish incidents, for example, and reports from Florida, Oregon, and Pennsylvania have a focus on those States. There have also been some criticisms of the report published, which are potentially relevant for balance, depending on the article being edited. Hopefully better quality ones will follow:. EdChem (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * From what I've read of Ten Days After, it would seem that the SPLC's key statement was " we have not been able to confirm the veracity of all reports." Motsebboh (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to The Independent, the DoJ is already investigating a spike in hate crimes:  EdChem (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * additional sourcing http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/1201/What-do-the-SPLC-s-post-election-hate-incident-reports-mean NPalgan2 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the SPLC deliberately slanted their report, and buried that 2000 teachers have reported hate crimes against caucasian students after Donald Trump was elected president: http://nypost.com/2016/12/05/report-buried-trump-related-hate-crimes-against-white-kids/

This should definitely be referenced in the page. David A (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If reference to the SPLC report is added to the article, I think the New York Post complaint should be given appropriate weight, considering the newspaper's reliability and reputation for slanting the news to suit its editorial views. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not think that every report by the SPLC should be added to the article, any more than every article in the New York Times should be added to its article. The claim in the New York Post that the "SPLC deliberately slanted its report" has only been picked up by a few right-wing sources:  The Washington Times, The Blaze and The Daily Stormer.  Given the misleading reporting typical of those publications, we cannot know if the claim is true.  And unless mainstream sources comment on it, it lacks weight for inclusion.  TFD (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, everything we are tossing around here falls (and fails) under recentism, not news and "anecdotalism". Motsebboh (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem this article faces is that the SPLC is the definitive source for information about hate groups used by the media, academics, police and public policy officials. Groups and individuals they call racist, homophobic, Islamophobic or extremist oppose the categorization and their supporters continually press for inclusion of this opposition as "controversies" in the article.  While I do not mind stating that these groups and individuals oppose their descriptions by the SPLC, unless there is credence given to these objections in mainstream sources, they carry little if any weight.  TFD (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * TFD, it would be more accurate to say that *some* media, academics, police and public policy officials view the SPLC as definitive regarding hate groups. Harvard and lots of respectable newspapers and think tanks don't seem to care that George Borjas is associated with the Center for Immigration Studies despite the SPLC, the WSJ doesn't care what the SPLC says about Maajid Nawaz, Harvard still keeps Ayaan Hirsi Ali a senior fellow at HKS.... Just look at the secondary RSs like https://books.google.com/books?id=5SOAAgAAQBAJ this one, there's plenty of criticism there. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear You are referring to opinion pieces published by the WSJ, not the news section. Indeed, there are columnists and a small number of academics who promote views regarded as racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic or Islamophobic by the SPLC and the mainstream media and academic writing. George Michael does not criticize the SPLC but reports criticism of it.  He writes that "Previously most of the criticism of the SPLC has been localized and confined to small local newspapers and right-wing critics."  But by 2003 there had also been a negative article in Harper's and the Bill O'Reilly Show and some civil rights organizations.(p. 22)  But all that criticism was about fundraising rather than the SPLC's analysis of extremism.  As he writes, "The major Jewish defense groups together with the SPLC constitute, in my opinion, the first level of watchdog organizations."  (p. 10)  TFD (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the piece signed by the editorial board of the WSJ, which is part of the mainstream media (largest circulation newspaper in the US, 39 Pultizers) if anyone is. They may be wrong, but it draws into question your claim the SPLC is the "definitive source for information about hate groups used by the media". And just googling Hirsi Ali, Nawaz and Borjas is enough to show they aren't treated by "mainstream media and academic writing" the way (for example) Kevin MacDonald is. (I thought there was criticism of the SPLC casting too wide a dragnet in Michael's book, but can't find it.) NPalgan2 (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. It is an opinion piece and per "News organizations" not a reliable source and has not been reported in mainstream media.  And the SPLC is not treating Nawaz the same as Kevin MacDonald.  They refer to MacDonald as "the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic."  Everything they write about Nawaz is sourced to mainstream media (actual news reports not opinion pieces.)  TFD (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not suggesting adding "SPLC is bad"(source WSJ editorial) to the article. I am suggesting saying the SPLC is the mainstream media's definitive source for information about hate groups and its ratings are viewed as definitive is, at the least, not universally true. And although the SPLC may cite The Guardian when discussing thew cartoon tweet, for instance, the characterization of Nawaz as an "anti-Muslim" extremist is theirs. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact the WSJ relies on the SPLC just as do other mainstream publications. For example an article in May describes the SPLC as "a civil-rights organization that tracks extremist groups," without qualifications, and quotes its director.  TFD (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, sounds like the WSJ editors won't be doing that again.NPalgan2 (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is distinct from the news reporting and has no influence over it. As stated in The Economist, "The Journal is not really one newspaper but two—a newspaper and a highly opinionated conservative magazine. Hitherto it has succeeded in drawing a line between them. " Or as an article in Investopedia says, "The Wall Street Journal's editorial page has long been anti-tax, anti-government regulation and staunchly opposed to health care reform in the U.S. However, the news reporting is generally considered to be fair and objective."  So the news section will continue to use the SPLC as a source for racism, islamophobia, hate speech etc. while the editorial board will continue to claim they do not exist. Similarly, the editorial page is a leading center for climate change scepticism, while news reporting is not. TFD (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that I said in my original post, that "I am posting here for the information of anyone who wants to add material to suitable articles here on Wikipedia" (emphasis added). I thought this would be a suitable place to alert editors interested in SPLC materials to the report to use in line with WP policies, I was not necessarily saying it was appropriate for inclusion in this article on the SPLC itself. My first thought was in a discussion of the Trump transition, but that article seems limited to decisions on appointments and the like, not on broader events. In the Trump context, there are the post-election protests that are relevant to this report, too. Just explaining my thoughts. EdChem (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It might actually be a suitable subject for a separate, new, article. Increase in hate crimes after the 2016 Presidential election or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is sufficient to sustain a full and balanced article, though anyone is welcome to investigate. I don't have any plans to write one, though.  EdChem (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What about the following article then? The SPLC now seems to consider the Orlando Islamist terrorist attack as a "right-wing plot": http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/08/the-splc-considers-the-most-deadly-islamic-terror-attack-since-911-a-right-wing-plot/ David A (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Daily Caller doesn't seem to have much support as an RS in the archives of the WP:RSN  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree the Daily Caller is not a reliable source. Certainly they have no expertise in categorizing terrorist motivation.  TFD (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The best source on what the SPLC says about a topic is the SPLC itself. Here is "Terror from the Right" which the SPLC describes as "A synopsis of radical-right terrorist plots, conspiracies and racist rampages since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. It includes a roster of murdered law enforcement officials." I do not think this means that every racist rampage is necessarily also a radical-right terrorist plot, and there is a big difference between "right-wing" (the term quoted by David A, above), which includes much or most of the Republican Party and a substantial percentage of Americans, and "radical-right terrorists" (the term used by the SPLC) which is a tiny but dangerous group of extremists.  If the Orlando attack was an Islamist terrorist attack then it does seem to fit the latter description; if it was a rampage inspired by homophobia rather than racism, the it does seem to be analogous to the last category which the SPLC is summarising.  I don't doubt that this categorisation can be criticised or critiqued, or even spun into something which seems appalling, as the Daily Caller has done (and they are not alone    ) by pretending everything on the list is a radical-right terrorists plot rather than a conspiracy or a racist rampage, or a murder of a law-enforcement official.  The SPLC are not the first to make such a list – here is one from the Anti-Defamation League.  If this SPLC list is to get covered on WP, it needs to be covered in reliable independent sources, like reputable newspapers which don't just spew bile.  I've yet to see such coverage.  EdChem (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the complaining sources are in any way reliable and one of the is just a reprint of the Daily Caller story. Racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic and anti-abortion terrorism is usually grouped with right-wing terrorism.  Mateen was also hated blacks, Jews, Hispanics and women.  Wikipedia editors cannot determine who is a terrorist or what type, so cannot comment on whether the SPLC categorization is correct.  TFD (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , in case it is unclear, I agree with you that they are not reliable, my point is that they are twisting the SPLC report to suit there own ends – as looking at the report itself shows. And, as OR, none of my comments on what they are doing / how they are doing it is usable in main space either.  As I said, if the report is to be covered, we will need coverage in a reliable source and I have yet to see that.  EdChem (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

More criticism towards the SPLC
Is the following article acceptable to add?

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.759186

David A (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you really think a single 2016 report is such an important part of the organization's 45-year history, keep adding to the paragraph about it. Or read WP:UNDUE and apply a little common sense. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In the source, Israel's ambassador to the U.S. criticizes the SPLC for calling Frank Gaffney an extremist. Gaffney was uninvited from CPAC after calling Grover Norquist and another CPAC member of secretly helping the Muslim Brotherhood.  He then appeared at a Breitbart conference with Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.  Breitbart has been in the news recently, accused of being the platform of the white supremacist alt-right movement, while Geller and Spencer are banned from the UK for advocating anti-Islamic views.
 * Every person and their supporters called an extremist by the SPLC objects. We need however to observe neutrality in reporting these criticisms.  That means in order to report the details, we would need to explain first why the SPLC considers him an extremist.  Since the SPLC reports on hundreds of groups and individuals, this is going to be a lengthy article.  I think the best approach is to say that the SPLC reports on groups and individuals and that all of them object to it.
 * The Washington Post ran an article, "Meet Frank Gaffney, the anti-Muslim gadfly reportedly advising Donald Trump’s transition team." It basically says the same thing as the SPLC.
 * TFD (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gaffney clearly belongs on the list, although he has never tried to grab a stripper - which is an important SPLC criterion for extremism, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding the 45-year history comment, their previous good work makes their current stance of indirectly running the errands of Islamists, by composing McCarthy-style lists of critics/political dissenters, all the more dangerous, as it seems to give them automatic clearance/legitimacy, almost no matter what they do. David A (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * David A, please review the talk page guidelines. This isn't the place to gripe about the SPLC, Islamists, or McCarthyism. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding TFD's statement, in this case the criticism is not coming from a labelled group but from the Israeli ambassador to the the US. I would suggest something like having the first sentence of the last paragraph in the "Controversy over hate group and extremist listings" read:

In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, attracting controversy which included a denunciation of the SPLC's action by Israel's ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer. Motsebboh (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You cannot say "attracting controversy" without qualification because it implies equivalency between the view of the SPLC and its detractors. In the Gaffney case for example, the Washington Post has said the same thing about him, and the story was picked up in mainstream media, while the criticism came from fringe right-wing publications.  We do not say for example that the theory of relativity is controversial because some right-wing sources oppose it. TFD (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't quite follow you, TFD. Our article already says "attracting controversy", my suggestion just presents a specific example. Gaffney isn't even mentioned in the section as it now stands. Motsebboh (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed that. The problem with saying attracting controversy is that we need to mention who is saying it not for verification but to establish weight.  In other words, we want to show whether the criticism is widespread or comes from a tiny minority of people who hold fringe views that the SPLC opposes.  Dermer is very controversial.  See for example, Haaretz published a column[[http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.640771 "Ron Dermer: A History of Arrogance

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.640771 "]] James Baker banned him from the State Department.  He irritated both Bill clinton and Joe Biden.
 * An editorial in the Jewish Week says, "Sharp criticism of Gaffney comes from a variety of respected sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls him “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.” The ADL says he “has promulgated a number of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories over the years.” Those include charges that President Obama is a Muslim, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood and Gen. David Petraeus follows Sharia law./Republican U.S. Sens. John McCain, Marco Rubio and Scott Brown have spoken out against Gaffney, as has former House Speaker John Boehner, calling such allegations “dangerous.”"
 * TFD (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I raised the issue at NPOVN. TFD (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep talking about Gaffney here??? Not only is Gaffney NOT mentioned in the section in question, he's NOT mentioned in the article at all. Specifically, it is the SPLC's naming of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali that is the point of controversy. Motsebboh (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, did you read the Haaretz article linked at the top of this section? The one about Ron Dermer accepting an award from Gaffney's organization? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, but that doesn't make Dermer Gaffney although maybe the SPLC will be listing Dermer pretty soon. He was born, raised and mostly educated in the United States, after all. More pertinent is the fact that Dermer's criticism of the SPLC has been widely (if not always approvingly) covered by many reliable sources, including Haaretz. Motsebboh (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article mentioned at the beginning of the section says that Dermer criticized the SPLC for including Gaffney in its article on anti-Muslim extremism. That's the complaint about the SPLC we are discussing.  Do you think that criticism should be in the article and how should it be worded?  TFD (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean that's the complaint about the the SPLC which you are discussing. David A. began the thread by simply calling the Haaretz article to our attention. However, I don't see why Gaffney shouldn't be mentioned along with Nawaz and Hirsi Ali in the way I suggested above. Motsebboh (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about comments Ron Dermer made when receiving an award from the Center for Security Policy, whose president is Frank Gaffney. Indeed the article mentions that he also complained about the SPLC's description of Daniel Pipes, Nawaz and Hirsi Ali, but it is mostly about his defense of Gaffney.  But what is your point?  Are you saying that the SPLC assessment of Gaffney was correct but he was wrong about the others?  In that case, why would we use the source, which is the topic of this discussion thread?  TFD (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"it seems to give them automatic clearance/legitimacy, almost no matter what they do" A case of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ("who will guard the guardians?"), where the guardians themselves are corruptible? Interesting idea, but whether this organization has abused its authority is a matter for reliable sources to decide. Not Wikipedia, and not everyone trying to discredit the organization to serve his/her own cause. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't brain surgery. Anybody condemned by the SPLC whom Dermer defended in his speech (Pipes, Nawaz, Hirsi Ali, Gaffney, or anyone else) could be mentioned. We could also (briefly) mention that Dermer praised the SPLC for earlier work Motsebboh (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we going to do that with the hundreds of organizations and people the SPLC has written about? Or am I right in concluding that you generally agree with the SPLC's conclusions, except in the case of Nawaz and Hirsi Ali? And per weight, we would first have to explain why the SPLC included these people and the degree to which their views were accepted.  TFD (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you revert to your pet hobby horse and strawman. NO! We are not "going to do this with the hundreds of organizations and people that the SPLC has written about." Only when the SPLC is criticized in reliable sources for attacking specific organizations and people. Motsebboh (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid using personal attacks instead of arguments. Not only do I find it irritating, but It provides me with the impression that you are incapable of proving your point using policy and guideline based arguments. This section provides a reliable source reporting criticism of the SPLC for their reporting of Gaffney, Pipes, Nawaz, Hirsi Ali and the Center for Policy Study. Similar objections have been mentioned in these talk pages on the SPLC position on the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Immigration Studies, Lou Dobbs and other anti-immigrant groups and personalities. Similarly when the Family Research Council was attacked, there was a flurry of reporting of their supporters criticizing the SPLC for listing "homophobic" groups and individuals. So basically reliable sources can be found reporting criticism of the SPLC for its listings of all hate groups. Yet statements similar to those made by those groups often attract prosecution in countries outside the U.S.

So how do we handle this in a neutral manner? Do we have an entire "criticism" section reporting the opposition of alleged hate groups and their supporters to inclusion in hate group listings? Surely that violates weight unless we explain why the SPLC has made its determination and mention that its listings are accepted by mainstream media, academia and law enforcement. Or do you think that an exception should be made for the two mistakes you think the SPLC has made?

TFD (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do as to whether or not I think that the SPLC has made "two mistakes", or a slew of mistakes, or no mistakes at all in its hate listings. When RELIABLE SOURCES report on controversy surrounding particular SPLC listings then editors interested in the SPLC article here should take a look. If lots of RS's have reported on it, as they have in the case of Ron Dermer's criticism, and the complaining source is a notable individual, as Dermer certainly is as the official representative of Israel's government in the United States, then it is fairly obvious to me that this information should at least briefly be included in our article. Naturally, any response by the SPLC should also, at least briefly, be included. And no, this kind of standard does not require us to let every complaining group or individual vent in our article. Motsebboh (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since it's "fairly obvious", please explain to the rest of us—who keep asking—how to avoid undue weight when dealing with criticism of the group's listings? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "The rest of us" as in you and TFD, I presume. Sorry, but I don't see ten lines of criticism presently (two of which are devoted to the SPLC defending itself) in an article of this length, as veering dangerously toward undue weight. Motsebboh (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Now you're engaging in double-talk. You want the article to include all criticism of the SPLC that is reported by reliable sources but you only want to discuss Dermer. Or you don't want to discuss Dermer, you want to discuss Nawaz and Hirsi Ali. Make up your mind. It isn't brain surgery. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In an earlier response to TFD who kept harping on Gaffney and his organization, I pointed out that the criticism section at present didn't mention Gaffney at all. However if Dermer's criticism of the SPLC is added to the article, and it should be, then it's a good idea to mention any supposed Islamophobe whom Dermer defended. By the way, do we have a copy of Dermer's remarks or just media reports of them? Motsebboh (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edit adding Derner to the article. It gives undue weight to an issue that already has a brief mention. By introducing a new issue to the paragraph (i.e. the Center for Security Policy) you open the door for requiring an explanation of why that group (not to mention Pipes and Gaffney) is targeted by the SPLC. As others have said above, this type of exercise is why criticism sections get out of control. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that if anything should be removed in the paragraph as I left it (and I don't), it should be the earlier stuff -- Nawaz himself complaining about the extremist label he's been given. As Joe Biden might put it, "The Israeli ambassador condemning an SPLC's labeling is much more of a big, f__king deal than one of the branded parties condemning the labeling". As for the criticism, or controversy, sections getting out of control, I think you will find that most of the big SPLC news stories in recent years involve exactly what our section in question deals with: criticism and controversy over the SPLC labeling of hate groups and individual extremists. Motsebboh (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add info about this incident to Ron Dermer? It seems (more) appropriate there. The article Ron Dermer only mentions that incident in the last sentence. It is WP:UNDUE to add it to the SPLC article. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

What is or is not a big deal depends on whether or not reliable sources determine to focus on them, not whether we think they are. Dermer's comments have received little media attention and none in mainstream U.S. news sources. The only mainstream attention was in Israeli and U.S. Jewish news. And they only covered it because Dermer "was speaking at an award ceremony held Tuesday by the Center for Security Policy, a think tank which openly espouses anti-Islamic views and conspiracy theories." He was not speaking in his capacity of the Israeli ambassador, i.e., he was not expressing the official views of the government of Israel, but a controversial person speaking as a private person. TFD (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Curious what you say about Dermer not acting in his official capacity since the featured SPLC gripe as reported in Haaretz is that Dermer's acceptance of the award "legitimizes the organization" and can be seen "as an endorsement of of anti-Muslim hate by the Israeli government." As for this story being reported mainly by the Israeli and US Jewish Press (though Politico is neither), that alone gives it a lot more news coverage than most of the information in the SPLC article. Motsebboh (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are getting weaker. Next thing you'll be telling me that if it weren't for Dermer, no one would ever have heard of the SPLC.  TFD (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I obviously agree with Motsebboh that the Israeli ambassador condemning the SPLC for systematically targetting anybody who rationally criticises radical Islamism (even Hirsi Ali, whose filmmaking partner was gruesomely slaughtered by a jihadist, and who needs constant bodyguards to avoid suffering the same fate), is an extremely big deal, and that the paragraph should definitely stay in the page. David A (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you keep believing in propaganda the war will never stop. That stuff happened a couple hundred meters away from where I am sitting right now. It must be difficult to form a moderate opinion about stuff like that for those who do not speak Dutch; there are probably not many people who wrote about this kinda stuff in English with a moderate opinion. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have mostly just read up on the statistics (such as PEW Research 2013), and they are terrifying. In addition, Maajid Nawaz is the very definition of a moderate, and he was character-assassinated by the SPLC. David A (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to form a moderate opinion about terrifying stuff. I know very little about Maajid Nawaz but I'll read his article. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * True enough. Anyway, I recommend Maajid's LBC radio show (available online), if you wish to know more about him, and his viewpoints. David A (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, interesting stuff. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. David A (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The SPLC isn't "systematically targetting anybody who rationally criticises radical Islamism". I checked the list, and it seems that Nawaz is the only one whose inclusion may be debatable (like I said, I know very little about him, I'll have to do more research). Of course Maajid Nawaz isn't as famous over here (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) as Hirsi Ali is. I'll check lbc.co.uk to learn more about Maajid Nawaz and his point of view. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I obviously disagree about Hirsi Ali, but am not very informed about the others. David A (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I got the impression (personal opinion, original research) that many people who've heard about Hirsi Ali from foreign media are not aware that wasn't working towards peace and love; quite the opposite in fact. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

"Peace and love" are irrelevant. What is important is whether or not she has been rational, fact-based, and realistic in her analysis. David A (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope, peace and love are among the most important things in this universe, they are never irrelevant. Hirsi Ali has not been rational, fact-based and realistic. Heck, she lied so much about her backstory that even those who supported her turned on her.
 * Hirsi Ali had been living comfortably and safely in Kenya with her family for at least 12 years before she sought refugee status in the Netherlands in 1992.
 * She left Somalia before there was any violence, and lived a comfortable middle class existence in Kenya. She attended a Muslim Girls' school in Kenya, where she received a full western style education in the Humanities and Sciences. Her brother attended a Christian school. She lied to the Dutch immigration service about coming from Somalia so they wouldn't send her back to Kenya.
 * Hirsi Ali admitted that she had lied about her full name, date of birth, and the manner in which she had come to the Netherlands.
 * She resigned from Parliament after admitting that she had lied on her asylum application. She almost lost her citizenship because of those lies. See Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You edited her article, weren't you aware of those facts? You seem to spend a lot of time making edits on Wikipedia that are related to islamophobia, and I wouldn't describe your edits as NPOV. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I was not aware of this, just that she is a prominent intellectual critic of radical Islamism.
 * I have admittedly turned extremely worried about this after reading lots of statistics and fact-based news regarding the issue, but to not have an opinion about anything is impossible. We are all biased in one way or another. I have not, however, done anything that breaks Wikipedia rules, mostly just monitored some pages for vandalism, censorship, or suspicious edits recently.
 * As for peace and love, I agree that they are important when realistic to achieve, but I do not think that it is possible to hug genocidally bigoted fascists into submission. To do believe so, is a type of irrational fundamentalism that is far more POV than I could ever hope to achieve. David A (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to avoid misunderstandings: This is a too complex issue for me to have any solutions. All that I am advocating is fact-based information, as opposed to lies, censorship, and wishful thinking. David A (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you think the root cause of terrorism is the Muslim religion, then people such as Gaffney, Tommy Robinson, and Pam Geller are heroes for risking their lives by exposing it and the SPLC through misguided or deliberately malicious claims of "tolerance" is helping to bring about the collapse of Western civilization, beginning with Israel. Similar arguments are made about homosexuality (destroying the family), race (watering down white genes), abortion (murdering the unborn), holocaust denial (destroying freedom of speech) and other issues.  Since no opinion is incorrect, we cannot endorse or refute the SPLC's views.  But per weight, we have to present them as mainstream and their opponents as fringe, in the sense that mainstream sources generally support the actions and conclusions of the SPLC and even opponents usually only oppose them on a few issues.  Dermer for example supports them on the issues of race and anti-Semitism.
 * Incidentally, you said above that some of the people described by the SPLC are not comparable to Nazis or Klansmen. In fact the SPLC does not say they are.  But most countries (the U.S. is an exception) have laws against hate speech, and the SPLC definition is no different from that.
 * TFD (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that the teachings of Wahhabism/Salafism qualify as a far more extreme form of hate-speech than the people simply matter-of-fact pointing it out, and as is clearly seen in the massively comprehensive 2013 PEW Research statistical survey that I linked to earlier, it has had a massive effect on Muslim viewpoints all over the world. That said, we should probably drop this, and return to the issue about the ambassador. David A (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Ambassador Dermer is the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, whether he himself is controversial is irrelevant. As the State of Israel's top government representative to the United States, his condemnation of the SPLC (over the specific people he mentions - i.e. Pipes, Hirsi Ali, Gaffney) is very notable.

Regarding whether or not he was "speaking in his capacity of the Israeli ambassador" or "as a private person." He can be a private person in Israel, not in America. As an Ambassador he represents his country wherever he goes in the US, especially when he's attending a highly publicized functions. Additionally, Ambassador Dermer addresses his criticism not only to the SPLC, but to "the SPLC and others who asked me not to come here (i.e. CSP award dinner)." Therefore, I would add criticism by Dermer to J Street, The New Israel Fund, The Reform Movement, and the Anti-Defamation League's Wiki articles The Armchair General (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * TFD's "If you think the root cause of terrorism . . ." statement above, helps me to understand his eagerness to quash criticism of the SPLC in our article. Among other things he misinterprets WP:Due, which isn't about some presumed notion of what is "mainstream" and what is "fringe" in the realm of thought about Islam, race, homosexuality, abortion, or the Holocaust. Rather, it is about the preponderance of information on those and other topics in reliable sources. The specific topic we are dealing with here is Controversy over [the SPLC's] hate group and extremist listings. Within that realm, Dermer's denunciation of certain SPLC listings is clearly significant and deserves mention. Motsebboh (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources....While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." It is actually not about the preponderance of "information," but about the preponderance of viewpoints.  By definition mainstream views have a higher preponderance than fringe views in reliable sources, although perhaps not the sources you normally read for developing your political opinions.
 * No part of WP:DUE makes Dermer's comments "significant." Dermer challenges the SPLC's categorization of the Center for Security Policy as a hate group.  Yet virtually every mention of the group in mainstream reporting says that the SPLC considers it a hate group yet does not mention Dermer's defense.  The problem is you disagree with how the media uncritically routinely reports SPLC opinions without what you consider appropriate balance.  You could be right on that, but there are no policy based reasons to correct the errors of the media in this article.
 * TFD (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not a serious reply. If the topic at hand were the Center for Security Policy then what you've just said would be an argument for keeping information about the SPLC listing in it, though I don't see anyone trying to change that. But the CSP isn't the topic at hand. The topic at hand is, once again, Controversy over the SPLC's hate group and extremist listings. In this realm, Dermer's defense of not only the CSP but Pipes, Hirsi Ali, and Nawaz, covered in numerous reliable sources is more than deserving of mention. Motsebboh (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not covered in MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CBS or ABC news. It was not covered by any major U.S. newpaper.  It was covered in only one mainstream news website (Politico).  No doubt it was covered in all the sites you rely on for news, which gives you a false sense of its signficance.  TFD (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since when do news stories primarily involving the SPLC get coverage in most of those networks? Looking at the whole "Tracking of hate groups and extremists section" of our article, much of it is sourced to the SPLC itself. While a three or four major news outlets are cited along the way, there are also citations to the likes of the Illinois Association for Cultural Diversity (??), the Atlanta Blackstar (??), and a Huffpo opinion column. Sources such as Politico and Haaretz'' don't detract from the quality of the works cited, they add to it. Motsebboh (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stories primarily about the SPLC receive coverage in major news media when they are significant, for example "Southern Poverty Law Center Reports 'Outbreak of Hate' After Election" Lawsuits against extremist groups also attracted attention.  You will find more useful information however in Google Books and scholar.  Current news articles are good sources for what happened yesterday, but books and serious articles are better sources for everything else.  TFD (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Except the NBC news story here is less about the SPLC than it is about some people's reaction to the November election, using the SPLC as a source rather than as a subject. But we are drifting away from the point of our discussion which is about why Ambassador Ron Dermer's reported criticism of the SPLC should or should not find a place in our article. Again, what you've said in your last remark is revealing. Yes, let's assume that scholarly monographs have often used SPLC facts and figures and have sometimes directly praised the organization. Let's concede reliable news sources have often used the SPLC as a font of information on hate groups and extremists. This does not mean that we therefore shy away from including reliably sourced but less than flattering material on it as a violation of due weight. By that standard we would never have an article such as this one on the beloved Gray Lady. Motsebboh (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you were writing an essay then you might be right. You could add Dermer's thoughts to articles about anything.  The reality is that mainstream sources have chosen to ignore his views on the SPLC which is the one and only reason we are supposed to ignore them.  I feel we are going in circles.  I have explained my position several times, is there anything you do not understand about it?  If you think mainstream media should pay attention to Dermer's views on the SPLC and other issues, then write to them, and if you are persuasive then those views will rightfully be reflected here.  TFD (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Motsebboh, you seem to get a lot of attention on 8chan from 629e91 who uses (a.o.) the nick "Wikidrama General". Feel free to call me an oldfag but I would recommend /pol/ instead of Wikipedia. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon my belated interjection here, but I just noticed the cryptic comment above. @The Quixotic Potato, perhaps you could be kind enough to explain it to me in plain English. Motsebboh (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As the State of Israel's top government representative to the United States, his condemnation, at a publicly attended event, of the SPLC and their hate-group list is notable. Claims that no mainstream news has covered the comments are false. There have been several articles about Dermer's comments. Politico, Buzzfeed, The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, and Haaretz With the exception of Buzzfeed, all of these are generally considered RS. A brief mention of this sort is not a due weight violation. I am placing a few sentences about the criticism on the page. It's notable and there's RS to back it up. This really is not something that should have been up for debate. The Armchair General (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreed. It is highly suspicious to wish to remove virtually any criticism whatsoever, no matter how notable. David A (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You couldn't be more wrong when you say, "This really is not something that should have been up for debate." Have you been appointed judge by some authority figure of when wikipedia's consensus policy doesn't apply? It is up for debate, just as any additions to a controversial article are, and to this point there is no consensus and the debate is simply going around in circles. The facts are that the incident has hardly been covered at all and simply because someone with some notoriety says something doesn't make his comments automatically relevant.  There is the additional problem of the way the material was actually entered without any context, but that doesn't need to be discussed until we get past the threshold issue of whether to add anything. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

My two peneth. It maybe worthy of inclusion if he was speaking as an official of the Israeli government expressing their opinion. If he was not then the question of undue does rather enter into it. Do we include all comments by all ambassadors (As long as they are made in public, of course)? Yes, RS have reported his comments, but why are they more noteworthy then any other ambassadors on any number of other pages. Is this really a criteria for inclusion we want "an ambassador said it"??Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Could anyone please point to the policy or guideline that says the Israeli ambassador's views are notable. Do you think that applies to everything he chooses to talk about?  What does he not have his own press corps following him around in case he has something to say, and why are his comments not carried in the papers every day?  BTW, Nawaz and Hirsi Ali were not added to the SPLC "hate group list."  They are not groups, and the group they belong to (Quilliam) is not on the list.  Nor does the SPLC accuse them of hate speech.  TFD (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Dermer is a major diplomat and made a long public statement condemning the SPLC's and their extremist list. It was picked up in several major publications as I show above (only one credible RS is actually needed). The idea that it shouldn't be added to a criticism a section specifically designed to highlight "Controversy over their hate group and extremist listings" is - to me - absurd.
 * Regarding whether he was speaking as an official of the Israeli government or simply expressing his own opinion. (My off-wiki background includes a stint in working with diplomats) As an major diplomat, whenever he speaks at a public event in his host country he is to conduct himself as a representative of his government. Additionally, Dermer posted his speech to his official Facebook page The Armchair General (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That does not mean he does conduct himself so, many ambassadors forget themselves. If he was acting in a private capacity at a private event that is what it was. And why is he a " major diplomat", more so then any other ambassador. That to me is the crux here, why are his views more noteworthy for inclusion then (say) the ambassador of Iran or Yemen or North Korea? Why are his private comments more inclusion worthy then any other ambassadors?Slatersteven (talk)
 * The United States has a very close working relationship with Israel, and I find it offensive to compare it with genocidal Islamist or Communist regimes. David A (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Armchair General, can you quote the guideline or policy that says that Dermer's statements are inherently notable. And can you please explain why major mainstream U.S. ignored him.  TFD (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not comparing the nations, I am comparing how noteworthy what their ambassadors say is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. My apologies. I am very stressed out in general, and as such am more on edge than I should be. David A (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Your statement of "If he was acting in a private capacity at a private event that is what it was." is false. There's nothing on the invitation page at CSP that claims the event was "Private". Expensive, Yes. Private, No. If it was "Private" it would not have been publicized and reported on prior to the events occurrence.
 * Private in the sense of "not a state function". As is "private" as opposed to "public" finaceSlatersteven (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious with this? The funding of event is not criteria for whether or not an event is Private or Public. The Armchair General (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How the hell do I answer this and not insult you? Public as in "the state", private as in "not the state". Really do you genuinely not understand this? It was not a "state" function in which he was operating in his official capacity.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please watch your tone. Again, you're not correct. Whether the function was a "state" function or a function sponsored by a "private" entity is irrelevant. Private think tanks have diplomats speak at their events all the time. When they do, they are still speaking as the representative of their country. He was at an event open to public attendance and reported on by several RS news sources. The Armchair General (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@TFD, it's not my job to explain why why major mainstream U.S. news outlets don't do their jobs. And the fact of the matter is IT WAS covered in several RS news sources and the coverage fits with Notability guidelines The Armchair General (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is about articles existing, not content of those articles.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The notability guidelines Armchair linked are indeed irrelevant. What is relevant can be found in the NPOV guidelines. A couple of quotes from the guidelines:


 * "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."


 * "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."


 * Derner, as a party of one, certainly falls within "small minority". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dermer as an official representative of a nation state does not constitute a "party of one."The Armchair General (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Only when functioning officially in that capacity, was he?Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In order to believe he was speaking on behalf of Israel, you would have to believe that Israel, for some reason, would want to announce an official policy attacking the SPLC, a leading opponent of anti-semitism in the U.S., while supporting Gaffney's extremist anti_Muslim group. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, (your hatred for Gaffney, and his group, aside) as an major diplomat, whenever a diplomat speaks at an event that is open to the public, within his host country he is to conduct himself as a representative of his government. The Armchair General (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So you say. And yet none of the few sources you cite make that connection, do they? "Israel Attacks Southern Poverty Law Center" would have been a great headline -- how come nobody used it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're logic is flawed. The articles repeatedly say the "Israeli Ambassador to the US" and "Israeli Ambassador, Ron Dermer," not "Mr. Dermer," or "some random guy." The Armchair General (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the few references to this event would want to tell the readers why they're even mentioning this guy. The fact that you ignore is there is no evidence at all that his intended audience was the U.S. government or that his comments on the SPLC were relevant, or even of interest, to either the U.S. or Israeli governments. Does either government have an official policy on the sPLC? You have the burden of proof since you want to add material and "because you say so" isn't good enough. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "The fact that you ignore is there is no evidence at all that his intended audience was the U.S. government or that his comments on the SPLC were relevant, or even of interest, to either the U.S. or Israeli governments." His intended audience and comments relevancy to the government is completely irrelevant. He is a notable public figure and diplomat who publicly criticized the SPLC's extremist list and it was covered in several RS sources. It belongs in the section labeled "Controversy over hate group and extremist listings."''TAG (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing your mind and acknowledging that his attack on the SPLC was not done in his official role as Israeli ambassador. Unfortunately, that leaves you with just one slightly above average known dude (there's a whole lot of famous people in this country) offering his personal opinion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in my claim of relevance to a government does that change the fact that he is an agent and representative of the government. TAG (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@User:The Four Deuces, Your earlier point about Nawaz and Hirsi Ali not being in one of the SPLC's listed hate groups is rather irrelevant since both the topic and subtopic of under discussion here are about the SPLC's "extremist" labelings not just its hate group listings. Again, when it comes to the SPLC being the subject of a news story rather than a source of information about a news story, this is a pretty big deal. Motsebboh (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tom: The "flat earth" comparison is absurd on the face of it. We are not talking about established physical facts; and we actually do NOT know what the majority of informed opinion thinks specifically about the SPLC's naming of the CSP as a hate group, or its inclusion of Pipes, Nawaz, and Hirsi Ali as extremists. The fact that a lot of people such as yourself have a high opinion of the SPLC is irrelevant. So, apparently, did Ron Dermer until recently. What we DO know is that the Israeli ambassador recently strongly criticized the SPLC in remarks that were substantially reported by reliable sources. By the standards you have been espousing here, Wikipedia could never report controversies that tended to show a particular entity in a negative light as long as most "experts" might side with that entity were they asked. Motsebboh (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Substantially reported"? Defining "substantially" as "to a great or significant extent", it seems like you're engaging in that "insecure rhetorics" referred to below. What we actually do know is that the story has not been "substantially reported" in the major national and local news outlets. The section I referred to requires wikipedia editors to make a distinction between "small minority" and "tiny minority".  It's not an easy distinction in many cases, but this is an easy case since you're stuck on a minority of one person's opinion. You want to make this all about one man's opinion, yet the few sources cited make it clear that among the issues relevant to the story are the specific criticisms against Gaffney et al.  Why exactly does the material that you three folks keep trying to add fail to even hint at why the SPLC is criticizing those folks. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "why the SPLC is criticizing those folks" is irrelevant. What is important is a notable person criticized the SPLC's extremist list and it was covered in several RS sources. It belongs in the section labeled "Controversy over hate group and extremist listings." There have been enough RS sources provided, to prove you're statement that this was not "substantially reported" is false. The idea that a story need be blasted across every (or nearly every) major national and local new station would be an untenable demand that most Wikipedia citations would fail to live up to. TAG (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So like your strange take on consensus not really being required if someone thinks a position they take is self evident, now you believe that NPOV is met when only one side of a story is told. Gotcha. BTW "substantial" and "barely any" are not synonyms. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that coverage in The Jerusalem Post, Politico, Haaretz, Jewish Telegraph Agency, Buzzfeed, Breitbart, Talking Points Memo, The Washington Free Beacon, and The Forward constituted "barely any" coverage. I would also advise you to discontinue the condescension.TAG (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My condescension? So what good faith intent did you have when you said to me, "Again, (your hatred for Gaffney, and his group, aside)?" ....
 * Your description of "Gaffney's extremist anti_Muslim group" as well as your attempts to insert arguments in defense of the SPLC in a criticism section wanting to insert "why the SPLC is criticizing those folks," i.e. Gaffney, It is pretty clear (at least to me) that you hold an animus POV towards Gaffney. TAG (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Motsebboh. There do seem to be insincere rhetorics in play here. David A (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Insecure rhetorics" -- like when you started this discussion by asking a question, then decided to implement your POV despite the fact that the majority of responses went against you -- claiming the non-existent "self-evident" exception to our policy on consensus? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to that I agree with this statement: "By the standards you have been espousing here, Wikipedia could never report controversies that tended to show a particular entity in a negative light as long as most "experts" might side with that entity were they asked."
 * Disagreeing with what I perceive as censorship of contrarian viewpoints is not the same thing as rhetorical manipulation. I have been very honest and upfront regarding my opinions. David A (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I am probably overreacting again. David A (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is somewhat true. "Fringe theories" says, "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."  Fringe views tend to be created in "echo chambers."  One fringe publication carries a theory and it gets covered throughout like-minded publications, but ignored by the mainstream.  The consumers of these publications rely on these sites and the views achieve great significance to them, while unknown to the general public.  In rare cases they bounce into mainstream publications, as happened with 9/11 conspiracy theories, birtherism and death panels.  They then receive the attention of the mainstream and can be added to articles so long as the "Fringe theories" guideline is followed.  If readers want to know about fringe theories in details, then can go to Breitbart or WorldNetDaily or Alex Jones and get an alternative view of things.  But they come to Wikipedia for a summary of what mainstream sources say about subjects.  Maybe we should give more space to right wing views, Trotskyist views, and conspiracy theories.  I myself often disagree with mainstream media coverage, for example they were uncritical of U.S. claims about Iraq in 2003.  But I accept the editorial policy.  This is not the forum to challenge orthodoxy.  If you think it should be, then challenge the policies and guidelines on the policy and guideline pages.  TFD (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm. . I don't get it!! What does any of what we have been discussing have to do with "fringe theories"?? Motsebboh (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

More criticism towards the SPLC (cont.)
Dermer's criticism of the SPLC is a fringe theory. TFD (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, right along with Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Wall Street Journal, and The Spectator''. LOL Motsebboh (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to distinguish between opinions expressed by publications and opinions expressed by writers in publications. When Nick Griffin expressed his views on the BBC, for example, that did not mean that he was expressing the views of the BBC.  TFD (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor does it make those views "fringe." Political views that deviate slightly from from the Four Deuces' notion of the liberal norm are not thereby fringe. Motsebboh (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit war
Stop it now or you may get blocked. You need to discuss that edit. The consensus is against you. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! Would you please be so kind to keep an eye on this article, I have to go shopping. Thank you. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Motsebboh, The Armchair General, and myself all agree that it should be included, and yes, it is self-evident that this information should be included, regardless of censorship attempt gangups through sheer numbers. David A (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Most editors commenting here disagree with you. Also, can you please quote the policy or guideline that says it is self-evident that Dermer's comments should be included.  TFD (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I am not well-read enough on Wikipedia regulations for that. I am too busy being the manager of one of the world's largest entertainment wikis to focus much on Wikipedia nowadays, but it definitely seems extremely notable, given the stature of the person making the claim, and that several major newspapers referenced it. David A (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You are both edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are specific policies and guidelines that editors must follow for all articles. In the case of reporting opinions, it does not matter whether you or I think something is notable.  I will post a "Welcome" notice on your talk page and ask that you acquaint yourself with basic policy and guidelines before participating further in this discussion.  TFD (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD is not WP:BRBRBRBRBRBRD. Protected for 14 days.  Now discuss. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Black Kite. As for the content at hand, I have no idea why the opinion of the Israeli ambassador, made in passing comments, would matter here. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because they weren't made as passing comments but rather as part of a prepared speech. Motsebboh (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you understand what "passing comment" means. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggested addition to "Controversy over hate group . . . listings"

 * In December 2016 Israel's ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, received an award from the Center for Security Policy (CSP), an organization which the SPLC has accused of spreading anti-Islamic conspiracy theories and lists as an anti-Muslim hate group. The SPLC had unsuccessfully urged Dermer to decline the award, saying that his acceptance would "legitimize" the organization and "could be read as endorsement of anti-Muslim hate by the Israeli government". At the award ceremony, Dermer rebuked the SPLC for labeling Nawaz and Hirsi Ali, along with Daniel Pipes and CSP president Frank Gaffney, as anti-Muslim extremists, saying that it was trying to "stifle debate". Motsebboh (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As before, no. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the above RfC, which resulted in a support vote? David A (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7 supports, one self-described as weak, 4 opposes, one self-described as strong, from an RfC open for 5 days over Christmas. Trying to call consensus on any result is premature, and that's without looking at the weighting of arguments based on policy.  EdChem (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To ber fair 5 days over Christmas would not seem to me to be a time when people will not post. the two days of Christmas yes, but not the three days before (it'as not as if people only edit Wikipedia form work).Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC was not written according to recommendations, which is that it should be written in a neutral manner. While the dispute was about weight, the phrasing is misleading by implying it is about reliability, and then says the sources are reliable.  Past experience shows too that whenever there is an SPLC story in the echo chamber, it draws a lot of supporters of fringe groups to the article, only to move on once it dies down.  TFD (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And you know that people who think Dermer's criticism should be mentioned in the article are supporters of fringe groups because. . . ? ? ? Motsebboh (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ...because editor histories are accessible. Your history for example shows a defense of the Crisis Pregnancy Centers.  TFD (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A. What my edit history shows regarding Crisis pregnancy centers is an effort to write neutrally about the topic. B. Though you may not like them, crisis pregnancy centers aren't fringe organizations. There are thousands of them, and in the US they are often supported in part by state governments. I don't see any of them (or their parent organizations) listed as hate groups by the SPLC. C. From your edit history I see that you have an annoying habit of gratuitously calling individuals, groups, and ideas which you dislike "fringe" without any real basis. Motsebboh (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of them before but I notice neutrality for you means removing negative stuff from pro-life groups and adding negative stuff to pro-choice groups. Fringe by the way does not mean views held by very few people, but views held by very few people in reliable sources.  While the SPLC does not call the centers hate groups (they are not), it does describe them in an unfavorable way, e.g., "SUSPECT IN MONTANA CLINIC VANDALISM MAY BE LINKED TO CONTROVERSIAL ‘CRISIS PREGNANCY’ CENTER".  And they certainly have links to groups described as hate groups, such as the Family Research Council.  You think the FRC should not be on the hate group, don't you?  TFD (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll put my response on your Talk page since we are going off the topic. Motsebboh (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we now lack consensus for this edit.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

More criticism
http://www.meforum.org/6447/a-journalist-manual-field-guide-to-useful-infidels

I personally do not like lists of people with different opinions, but since the SPLC seem to have put it into system, I suppose that I can make an exception. David A (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Final warning: Please read the talk page guidelines. The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the Wikipedia article about the SPLC, nothing else. If you can't abide by the rules, your future posts may be deleted. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That is a website run by Daniel Pipes. As I have mentioned many times before, people described by the SPLC as islamophobes resent the description.  While that is worth mentioning, fringe views have no weight.  TFD (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * How exactly is the above post violating any rules? You cannot start to issue threats as soon as somebody disagrees with you. David A (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you posted this link with the intention of mentioning it in the article, please note that blogs are very rarely acceptable as reliable sources. If you posted the link more by way of general discussion, thanks but article talkpages aren't really the place for that discussion to occur. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The former. I subscribe to Maajid Nawaz and the Clarion Project on Twitter, so they occasionally link to articles concerning the SPLC. David A (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see your post here as violating rules, but I don't see it as particularly helpful in improving the article, David A. Even if these particular comments about Morris Dees were found in an impeccable source, and they are not, they really aren't focused enough on the SPLC hate group and extremist listings to be of much use. Motsebboh (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay. Sorry. Never mind then. I am not familiar with the notability of the publication. I will try to only post links to more reliable additions in the future. That said, MShabazz threatened to get me banned from Wikipedia on my talk page, which I consider a massive overreaction. David A (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Clarion Project's advisory board includes Frank Gaffney and Daniel Pipes. TFD (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV article?
Given the international furore over the listing of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as "anti-Muslim extremists", it is pretty obviously peculiar that just a couple of sentences has been allowed onto this page to document it. I suggest that - given the obvious edit-warring here that is going on to prevent anything critical of SPLC being posted on the page, that the article be marked with the NPOV tag until the matter can be resolved, so that at least the casual reader be aware that there is more to read on the 'talk' page. Fig (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If you think there should be amendments to the article you should propose those amendments here and seek consensus for them. Another useful venue is WP:NPOVN. Please don't just add an NPOV tag to the article without also making a specific proposal to address your concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't added an NPOV tag, as I'm sure you can see. I have no intention of getting drawn into the circular arguments evidently repeated here for the last few months, but it's pretty obvious that there is now a critical-mass voting-block ("consensus") defending the page from the addition of any valid criticisms; and therefore, this page has become one of truth-by-majority. That is why the NPOV tag is warranted. I have nothing more to say on this matter. Fig (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Anything critical, or just one persons criticism?Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's because there has been no international furor: the story has been ignored by mainstream media, which is what we should do, per policy.  TFD (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Apart from this I assume, which no one has objected to or tried to remove.
 * "In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, attracting controversy. Nawaz who identifies as a "liberal, reform Muslim", denounced the listing as a "smear", saying that the SPLC listing had made him a target of jihadists. The SPLC responded “Our point is not to make these people targets for violence" “The point is to tamp down the really baseless targeting .""
 * So maybe the OP would like to amended what they are complaining about, as the material they want to see is covered, thus does not (according to what they want to see in the article) fail NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, Slatersteven, a few editors DID object to the mention of criticism you quote above. Check the archives for discussions starting on Oct. 31, 2016. Motsebboh (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And they failed, but you are correct, I was wrong to say no one had objected to it. None the less the material is now present.Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Years ago" template, faked(?) consensus, unnotable implication.
I removed the "years ago" template because it was, IMHO, patronizing, unnecessarily complex, unnotable, etc.. One fellow didn't like that citing a "consensus", but he couldn't (or wouldn't) point to evidence of such a consensus.

"Years ago" is unsuited for automatic inclusion in such infobox dates. It's out of place in many instances like "beginning dates" for things that are ancient for example. It also suggests we are keeping a running count or something -- as if we're celebrating anniversaries -- and that's POV. It gives undue (POV) importance to the counting of the years as if the years-since is very important. Now, if the such counting-of-years is important (and it might be in a few cases), it needs to be notable -- and notability needs to be established with secondary sources.

Anyway, just saying "it's consensus" when such a consensus is dubious -- without showing where it can be verified, and without giving any other opposing reasons is inadequate argument for inclusion.

I removed the "years-ago" template because the counting-of-years since that date is not notable. To imply that counting years since SPLC's "birthday" is notable would require secondary sources to establish that notability, otherwise it's dubious.

24.34.59.23 (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I don't really care about this little template, I simply think that the burden of proof is on the side that want to break the consensus. If you don't believe that there is a consensus please look at the template documentation: Template: Infobox_organization. Or most articles about organizations or compagnies. --RaphaelQS (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The Template: Infobox_organization is something like what I was looking for. I looked it over and it doesn't look like there's anything about a consensus in it though (or in it's talk page archives). In one spot it suggests "e.g. use " as an example of how to fill in the spot. In another spot, it just says outright "use ". So, it's ambiguous as whether a directive is being made about some sort of proper way to fill in the spot.

Even if there is a directive, it's not a strong one and there doesn't seem to have been any consensus behind such a would-be directive. Rather it looks like someone just said "hey, try this neat template" at one time without discussion, and nobody complained. Not much of a consensus I'd say. :-)

One could also look at the myriad of organization Infoboxes that don't use that (suggestive) template to see how it's perfectly acceptable to be simple by just writing in the date straightforwardly without the complexity of a template. 24.34.59.23 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The documentation at Template:Infobox organization/doc includes: "Use for the date on which an organisation was "established", " founded ", "opened" or otherwise started". I underlined "founded" because that is the date in question. Using start date and age is standard as can be seen by going to the template page and clicking "what links here" in the sidebar. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, some backwater template definition gives the opportunity to use the age template, but I see no supposed consensus that's been so vaunted here. It's not like some consensus-backed authority came down and said "Though shalt do it this way from now on and no other way". When those decisions get made, there's a lot of easily found discussion on it. On this matter there's none (except here!). Really, somebody just stuck "use the age template" in without much thought. Not much strength in that.

A much stronger tradition is to do what's best and bold here and now -- instead of what's automated in some template for long-forgotten reasons. :-)

24.34.59.23 (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your pronouncements would be more impressive if correctly indented, and with the signature on the last line of the comment. See WP:TP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to read validity of argument from how well someone meets your misinformed formatting standard is pretty major logical fallacy -- and obvious grasping at straws. Let's keep the subject on-topic. Alright? -- Your OP, 24.34.59.23 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The template is very widely used and supported on Wikipedia, and consensus is demonstrated by the 36,743 pages which use template:Start date and age. That's not counting the multiple related templates which would likely make that count substantially higher. These templates are so common they have their own lengthy organizing template: Template:Birth, death and age templates. Just because the reason is not obvious doesn't make it "long forgotten". If you're going to quibble about an obscure technical issue with page formatting, you should format your own comments correctly. I think this is a dead horse, but unless there is some specific reason the template shouldn't be used on this page, this definitely isn't the place to discuss this any further. Grayfell (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, "36,743 pages" doesn't demonstrate consensus unless also paired with the number of places is isn't used where it could have been. Your argument is confirmation bias or cherry picking (or something like that). Although, you do strike some thought... Hmmm...  We know there are 26,000 or so pages where the Organization Infobox template is used, right? What we would need to find out is: of that 26,000, what fraction use the "years ago" template in that particular way and what fraction just type in the date. Do you know how to do that? I think it would be fun! Alternately, we could pick a random sample (it must be quite random) of 50 or so articles that use the Organization Infobox and just check them by hand to see what fraction use what.

Anyway, I did make objections to using the "years ago" template "on this" page, right up front: "Years ago" suggests a notability of "counting the years", which isn't really established for organizations (such as SPLC) the way it is for people. The (somewhat hard to see!) arguments could (and should) have been easily addressed with counter-arguments. Instead, we got consensus-bluffing from RaphaelQS. Then, we got misdirection from you and Johnuniq, ascribing the importance of a mountain to something that isn't even a molehill, or even a thing at all (that's true, I checked WP:TP). That's all pretty disruptive I'd say.

I'm fine backing off on the merits of not using that "years ago" template, especially since the arguments require a little discernment to understand, and they're somewhat subjective too. But guys (all of you), I wish you could have focused on the task at hand (like adults) instead of trying to bamboozle an IP. Then we would have been over and done with this much sooner.

24.34.59.23 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's talk pages are very messy, obsolete, and arcane. (There was a plan to replace it, but it fell through). What this means is that while the formatting of your talk posts really doesn't matter that much, keeping it tidy is an important habit to get into if you want people to actually read your comments. Dismissing template documentation as "backwater" and listing supposed fallacies ("or something like that"!) in a general discussion is adversarial. To be fair, so is dismissing someone's comments because they didn't indent properly. This isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and not every discussion is a debate.
 * Regardless of your intentions, removing the template from this article in particular has POV implications. It downplays the significance of the organization's history based on vague reasons. You're speaking in generalities, but this isn't the place to discuss generalities; this is the place to discuss the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center. The counter-argument is that consensus has been established by widespread use. A parenthetical mention of the organization's age in an infobox full of similar information is not undue. We don't need to cite that the sky is blue, and routine calculations, such as ages, are specifically exempt from WP:NOR. The template's not universal, but it doesn't have to be. Templates are finicky and unknown to many users, especially new users. That they haven't been included (yet) isn't a valid argument for removing them from this specific article. If you seriously want to pursue this as a general practice, start a discussion elsewhere. Since the infobox's documentation specifically says to use that template, Template talk:Infobox organization would be my guess. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a fine diatribe. It has some valid points as well as some careless presumptions (about IPs). But, there's no need to review them all. I had signaled a willingness to back off with "I'm fine backing off..." hoping to give room for everybody to stop beating the horse. I guess maybe you WP:TLDR'd, which is partially my fault for being "TL". Anyway, I'm really done. 24.34.59.23 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Criticisms?
What happened to the criticisms section? This is a controversial organization, to wipe the article is irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.123.39 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Read the article. Criticism is mentioned in the lead and discussed in the last couple of sections of the article.Motsebboh (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Where to add the following paragraph?
Per the comment on the "controversies" section I did not add it there. This doesn't deserve a section of its own, so I'm looking for suggestions on where to add it in the article. It seems to me that expanding the "controversies" section to other topics other than the hate group classification would be ideal, though I did not read the RfC mentioned in the comment to see if there is a consensus on this. Another option would be to add it to the Intelligence Report section and change the wording to make it explicit that it was an Intelligence Report that was published. I think this is also a good opportunity for criticism on the proposed paragraph, I welcome any reviews. As for the justification for the addition, this attrition with libertarian figures is relatively well known and has been deemed significant enough to be added to the articles on some of the respective subjects (e.g. Mises Institute), also receiving some media attention in the case of Rand Paul

Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * People and groups characterized as racists, anti-Semites, Islamophobes, homophobes, neo-confederates and extremists resent how the SPLC characterizes them. However, the mainstream accepts these characterizations which is why these people and groups complain.  We can't provide the responses by the hundreds of groups which consider themselves maligned, unless we explain in the article why the SPLC characterizes each of them the way it does.  That of course would make the article hundreds of pages long.  Having said that, I wonder what the concern is about neo-confederatism, which is the view that the civil war was about states rights, rather than the extension of slavery into the territories.  TFD (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. "the mainstream accepts these characterizations" - I have to contest this assertion for the cases brought forward here. Who accepts *these* accusations in specific? Show me a list of reputable - *mainstream* - sources either showing support for the cases mentioned in this paragraph or for the assertions made by SPLC here. That is, either supporting SPLC in their accusations or calling the very same groups the very same things. There are none such mainstream opinions emitted as far as I know. In fact, the opposite seems to be true, which is even more reason to add them - the list where Rand Paul was put in features in the current "criticism" section of this very article, and I could not find any support for the other two cases by any mainstream source. Wikipedia's own articles on any of the aforementioned subjects don't describe them as anything near what SPLC accuses them of being. As opposed to, say, white nationalist groups complaining about being classified as radicals, which is in fact accepted by the mainstream. I have never proposed adding every person or *specific group* ever questioned by SPCL to the article. What I proposed was to add a series of small controversies related to a vague group of individuals - which "the mainstream" usually classifies as libertarians - somewhere in the article. Given the media attention that one of these cases got and the relatively high frequency with which this attrition seems to occur (I have only added the main ones, there are others ) I would go as far as to say that this paragraph or a revision of it should be added per WP:DUE Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your two news sources about the SPLC's characterization of Paul merely explain why the SPLC considers him radical right and does not provide any opposing view. Per weight, that does not look like criticism of the SPLC.  You should write to the mainstream media and get them to question the SPLC and we can discuss it then.  TFD (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the list itself was criticised (per ), though there is which mentions the criteria used for Rand - though I believe it is not "mainstream". I will look for other mainstream sources, I remember reading something on The Atlantic. Thanks again for your input. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm almost 100% certain that we read different "mainstream media", but Paul was widely described as racist and extremist when he said he was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but he might have hedged and said he "would have been" opposed to it, not that he "was" copposed to it -- honestly, a distinction without a difference outside the precincts of academia.) — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 05:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So the SPLC called Ben Carson homophobic after he compared homosexuality to child molestation and bestiality, then changed their mind because they normally require greater evidence. (There is no mention of Rand Paul.)  Do you want to put that in the article?  Are going to add criticism sections to articles about everyone who had negative things to say about him?  TFD (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I never mentioned Ben Carson. All articles about Carson are references either to the inclusion of Rand Paul (Ctrl+F Rand Paul) - because the ones dedicated to the inclusion of Rand are not mainstream - or to the criticism the list itself received (in the case of ). I never said I wanted to add criticism about everyone, in fact you already asked me if I wanted to do that and I already replied with a negative, so please stop insisting on this point. I didn't have the time to look for other sources as I mentioned I would - I still intend to do so and if I find them we can continue our discussion. I will not add the paragraph to the article until then. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You linked to a Fox News story about the SPLC and Ben Carson that does not mention Rand Paul.[19:47, 25 January 2017] You can't take one article that says the SPLC retracted its opinion on Carson and another that presents its opinon on Paul and conclude it was wrong about him. That's synthesis: "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That is not to say it is not necessarily a reasonable conclusion, but it is one that must be made in reliable sources before being included here. Certainly we should not be providing our own criticisms that mainstream sources, or any sources for that matter, have failed to report. TFD (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD, I guess you don't realize the problem with your reference to "mainstream media", including your comments above this comment. Maybe years, even decades ago, the term "mainstream media" might have been entirely non-perjorative, merely implying the vast bulk of the media, and implicitly excluding everything else as being extremist and biased.  But at least in the last 10 years, the term "mainstream media" has been heavily (and properly) perjoratively used to refer to the do-gooder, bleeding-heart, pro-socialist, "progressive", pinko, anti-religious news media, itself apparently permanently at war with about 50% of America. (the ones who, by and large, elected Trump.)  Saying that you are looking to see "mainstream media" sources is, therefore, skating very close to demanding biased liberal sources, and intentionally rejecting anything else.  Now do you see the problem?    75.175.68.89 (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That isn't how Wikipedia works. Your personal opinion that mainstream reliable sources are "biased" is not relevant here, nor is your stream of pejorative adjectives describing your personal beliefs about mainstream reliable sources. If you are looking for a wiki where mainstream reliable sources are rejected, you may want to try Conservapedia instead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter what we think of mainstream media, it is the standard that policy requires. You can ask that we change that policy or you can go to sites, such as Conservapedia, that share your view on reliable sources. But it is fruitless to argue against policy on article talk pages. TFD (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point on WP:SYN, I should find a better source which is about Paul specifically, though I partially share the concerns of 75.175.68.89 (and again agree with you that this is not the place to discuss it). Thank you for your input. Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

So I think the answer to the question posed by the section title is "nowhere"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Until there are better sources mentioning this criticism I see no reason to discuss this further. Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC about addition of Ambassador Dermer's criticism of SPLC's list
The question is, should the "Controversy over hate group and extremist listings" section of the SPLC's wiki article include public criticisms of the SPLC's hate group list, by Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer. The text of the speech can be found on Ambassador Dermer's official Facebook page, where he posted the text. -

The speech was reported on by numerous publications, including Politico, Buzzfeed, The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, Haaretz , Breitbart , Washington Free Beacon , The Forward , as well as several other news outlets.

For citation purposes on Wikipedia, JPost, Politico, and Haaretz would be considered the reliable sources for citation. TAG (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support He is a notable public figure and diplomat who publicly criticized the SPLC's extremist list and it was covered in several RS sources. As the State of Israel's top government representative to the United States, his condemnation, at a publicly attended event, of the SPLC and their hate-group list is notable. As an major diplomat, whenever he speaks at an event open to the public, within his host country, he is to conduct himself as a representative of his country.  Also, I believe that a demand for context as to why individuals Dermer mentioned are on the SPLC's lists, is an un-encyclopedic attempt at watering down the criticism and try and justify why they're on the list in the first place. The SPLC's criticisms of these individuals can already be found on their individual Wikipedia pages. TAG (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose As far as I can tell he was speaking in a private (not official) capacity and thus his views (whilst they are his) should carry no more eight then any other famous person speaking in a private capacity. As we do not have every famous persons views of SPLC in the article I fail to see why this persons should be here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support He is a notable individual and this was reported on by respectable news outlets. I don’t understand the above criticism regarding famous people.  If say George Clooney were to make the same statements at a similar venue and it receive similar news coverage it would also be notable enough to warrant inclusion The Happy Warrior (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support For much the same reasons as The Armchair General and The Happy Warrior. David A (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support For the reasons already given. I disagree, at least slightly, however, with TAG's recommendation that the SPLC's basic rationale for listing a group or person brought up in a "Controversy" should be excluded. It should, instead, be given concisely. Example: "The SPLC (had) accused the Center for Security Policy of blanket condemnation of the Islamic religion and conspiracy mongering." TAG does make a good point that SPLC criticism of almost any group or individual likely to come up will be found in the individual Wikipedia articles on them. SPLC fans here have made sure of that. Motsebboh (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite weak support It's got a few RS covering it, but I don't see any major news coverage. I'd be okay with including a single sentence as this person is notable and their opinion is apparently notable enough to get some news coverage. I worry it's a bit UNDUE, however, in the scope of the entire article. If this had more coverage to convey notability, I'd be a solid support. But until then, it just barely passes the threshold for inclusion in my view.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose A diplomat was asked to decline an honor; he refused, and explained why. The fact that he was asked by American liberal Jews, a group his boss holds in the highest contempt, is more meaningful than the fact that the contretemps involved the SPLC. Dermer and his boss are engaged in an ideological war with American liberalism -- doesn't anybody remember that Dermer arranged for his boss to bypass the U.S. president and speak to the Republican-controlled Congress, asking them to overturn the Iran treaty? The SPLC is small potatoes in a much bigger war, and it has nothing to do with a list of anti-Muslim extremists. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh! This sounds like a terrific argument for INCLUDING Dermer's criticism in the article. It lends the SPLC more of a big time aura. Motsebboh (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Current American "liberalism" is not really classic liberalism, as the term was originally defined. It seems to be more of a blend of social-democracy, extreme identity politics, opinion control censorship, and fundamentalist political correctness. Anyway, I think that being at war is a far too exaggerated term. This is what he could be argued to be at war with. David A (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And what in the world does that have to do with anything? Please read—and follow—the talk page guidelines. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I just disagree with that he is at war with liberalism, both because the ideology technically differs from how the current left defines it, and because he has far bigger existential threats to worry about. But I will drop the issue. David A (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The fact that someone is notable does not make everything they say noteworthy in the subjects they discuss. Many conspiracy theorists are notable and have Wikipedia articles.  That does not mean we post their comments to articles about every subject they discuss.  Whether or not opinions should be posted depends on weight, that is, the degree of attention they have received in reliable sources.  With one exception (Politico), the only reliable sources reporting Dermer's comments were in Israeli and U.S. Jewish media.  While that may make them noteworthy to his article, it does not make them noteworthy here.  TFD (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Because this Wikipedia is mainly for American Gentiles, I presume? Motsebboh (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Because the fact that the Israeli ambassador chose to accept an honor from an organization that the SPLC describes as "a conspiracy-oriented mouthpiece for the growing anti-Muslim movement in the United States" is of interest to people following Israeli politics rather than people following the SPLC.  Hence the way the story was written about in Politico:  "Israeli ambassador praises Frank Gaffney."  Incidentally, that article does not even mention Nawaz, who is the main person some editors questioned being included in the SPLC letter.  TFD (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Clearly of interest to some people who follow BOTH, and certainly to a far greater percentage of the much smaller total who "follow the SPLC" as compared to the millions who follow Israeli politics. Motsebboh (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is of interest to both, the major U.S. media failed to cover it. And if readers want to find out about Israeli politics, then they can read about it in articles about Israeli politics.  TFD (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, by the standard of the SPLC being the subject of a new story rather than being a source of information for a new story it got a great deal of publicity. Motsebboh (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support This is a significant criticism. Roger (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The subhead is "Controversy . . .", a/k/a "disagreement", so wouldn't the disagreeing side, a la Dermer, at least deserve brief mention? Bruiserid (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is argued that the speech was reported on widely--great. But that doesn't make every element of the speech noteworthy. I still don't see why this should be in here. It's hardly an in-depth investigation or commentary on the SPLC. Lots of people have said lots of things about the SPLC, which is also great, and I see no reason why that kind of commentary, by a notable person or not, should matter in the encyclopedic article on a well-known organization. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "But that doesn't make every element of the speech noteworthy"?? So what? The noteworthy parts are the parts that were reported, the parts where the Israeli ambassador to the US sharply criticized the SPLC for naming certain people extremists, following the SPLC's (reported) attempt not to have him accept an award (or speak) at the function. IE . . . Controversy. Motsebboh (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so what so what? I'll bite. Yeah, it's a sentence in Politico. Any section that starts proving notability by citing Breitbart is already suspicious, but there's just nothing here. You seem to be suffering from the old "it's verified so it should be in here" syndrome, which is especially important to a. fans (of K-pop, Meghan Traynor, etc) and POV editors--which is what we seem to be having here. The article is protected now because of your edit warring (thank you Black Kite), and perhaps when that's over, this whole "controversy" will too--as the media cycle rolls on from one tweet to another. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't edit war at all. I made an edit to the article which was reverted . . period. "A sentence in Politico", of course, ignores the substantial coverage in the Israeli and Jewish-American press. Take a good look at our SPLC article, Drmies; sections such as Tolerance.org mainly self-sourced, and Intelligence Report which dutifully lists second and third place prizes (What! no mention of honorable mentions!) taken by the SPLC in obscure journalism contests. And you are seriously saying that the Israeli Ambassador's criticism merits no place in the article. Get real. Motsebboh (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Get real"--sure. I think I'm being pretty real here. I don't know what your "sections such as..." fragment means, but if it means that questionable awards are listed, then go ahead and remove them, or propose removing them. Crap in an article is no argument for adding more crap; I thought that was elementary. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no, undue, for reasons explained above by User:Malik Shabazz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What reasons explained by Malik Shabazz? You mean his political diatribe above? As I noted before; it was a better argument for including the material than for canning it.Motsebboh (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per WP:UNDUE. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:UNDUE. Whether Dermer is a notable person and whether editors view it as significant criticism isn't relevant. The question is whether, when considering the body of reliable sources about the splc, it would be due weight to include. Based on the sources provided, the answer seems, to me, to be no. The bar for criticism in this article needs to be really high -- not because of the organization, its activities, etc. but because it has received a ton of coverage and thus requires quite a lot for weight to be established. It seems to me the separate list of hate groups (or another article) is a better place for talking about specific criticisms in response to specific publications/classifications. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the SPLC doesn't receive "a ton" of coverage. It receives a lot of use as a source by the media which isn't the same thing. The subsection in question already mentions the controversy raised by the SPLC's naming of Nawaz and Hirsi Ali as extremists. A mention of Dermer's criticism helps to flesh out the paragraph. Motsebboh (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You changed the tense of what I said in your reply to it. Regardless of whether it receives a ton of coverage, it has most definitely received a ton of coverage over the last 45 years (to the extent "a ton" is synonymous with "a very large amount"). You want to include a criticism based on meh sources published within 24 hours of one another. When better sources cite his criticism years from now, we can reconsider. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OMG!! I changed the tense!!! Motsebboh (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC) . . . from present perfect to present. How clumsy of me! By the way the title of the article section under discussion says "Controversy" not "Criticism".


 * Support Considering SPLC's original work exposing neo-Nazis and such, its repudiation by the ambassador of the Jewish State is highly relevant. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
 * Oppose - Lots of people have opinions about the SPLC, and this one doesn't seem to be any more particularly noteworthy than many other opinions. We are writing an encyclopedia, not an academic essay outlining and analyzing every supporting and opposing viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1. Dermer ACCEPTED an award from CSP. 2. CSP are considered an anti-Muslim group who promote bigoted, conspiratorial-thinking by anti-racist groups other than SPLC (e.g. ADL). 3. Dermer cites only the SPLC, despite him having first been approached by ADL, who asked him to speak out against CSP's bigotry. 4. IMO this information belongs in an article on Dermer, not SPLC, and an inclusion would need cite the early November ADL statement where they wrote to him, asking him to “seize the opportunity to deliver an unambiguous message that there is no place in our society for baseless claims or stereotypes such as those propounded by CSP and that hate directed against Muslims or any minority is wrong under any circumstance.”. Instead of speaking out as ADL requested, Dermer, during his acceptance of the CSP's award, railed against the SPLC. Luther Blissetts (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What your reasoning here amounts to is saying that Dermer's railing against the SPLC shouldn't be included because you don't like what he said about the SPLC. You like what the SPLC and the ADL said to Dermer so that should be in his article. Of course, there is no reason these things can't be included in both articles, and an editor not liking the content of a criticism should have nothing to do with whether or not the criticism is included. Motsebboh (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC) PS: The ADL didn't name Nawaz or Hirsi Ali extremists. The SPLC did that.
 * What I like and don't like doesn't come into this. The facts are that ADL first approached Dermer when they heard of the CSP award. The Israeli embassy also made a statement that suggested Dermer would rject anti-Muslim stereotypes" in his acceptance speech. The Reform movement requested he refuse the award. Liberal American and Israeli Jewish NGOs also urged refusal of the award, citing the ADL. SPLC also contacted Dermer. Dermer then criticised the SPLC at the CSP award ceremony.Luther Blissetts (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, statistical facts are not "bigoted and conspiratorial". David A (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the CSP, whom ADL have criticised, as possessing bigoted and conspiratorial views. Not a Pew Forum world opinion survey 2008-12.Luther Blissetts (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that according to said extremely thorough statistical survey, the average Muslim possesses enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism, who usually bear the brunt of such accusations. David A (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is sad that you do not realize that you hold far far more bigoted views than the average muslim. I sincerely hope you can escape from those who are in control of your worldview. I wish I could explain to you that islamophobia and antisemitism are two sides of the same foul-smelling coin. Extremists like Motsebboh are not your friend. All extremism is bad, on all sides. I am willing to bet that you know very few muslims irl, and that you got radicalized by propaganda on the internet. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is patent nonsense. I have simply tried to read up on the opinion poll statistics, Middle-Eastern politics, and the teachings of Salafism/Wahhabism. I think that everybody have a responsibility to do the same, instead of simply swallowing unfounded emotional propaganda. I used to be brainwashed as well, until I started immersing myself in facts. I do not, however, believe in the bigotry of low expectations, and think that all groups, including Muslims, should be evaluated by the same standards. David A (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So, how many muslims do you know in real life? How many of your friends are muslim? I don't think you understand the geopolitical situation well enough to judge over a billion people. I am not sure if you are Swedish but you are a native speaker of the Swedish language and muslims are about 5% of the population there. I have read some of your contribs and that is why I doubt your ability to distinguish between a good source of information and propaganda. Here is an interesting quote from an evil man for you:
 * "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

- Hermann Göring


 * Again, I am willing to bet that you know very few muslims irl. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Attempting to smear me with ad hominem Godwin's Law/"anybody I disagree with is Hitler" rhetorics, simply because I strongly disagree with the opinions expressed in the above linked statistics poll, that surveyed 38000 Muslims in 39 different countries, is a logical fallacy and an extreme false equivalency. I am extremely opposed to genocidally bigoted rhetorics, regardless if they come from a Nazi, a Communist, or an Islamist, and the last category are at least as genocidal towards Jews as Hitler ever was. Considering all of their ideologies thoroughly detestable, without attempting to act as an apologist for any of them, does not remotely make me into a bigot, it makes me morally consistent.
 * And speaking of Sweden, a recent statistical survey found that around 18.3% of Muslim youths in Gothenburg admit to sympathising with the Islamic State, whereas 80% live under the threat of honour culture. But of course, statistical facts are horribly bigoted, and must be ignored and covered up at all costs. David A (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please keep on topic, lay of the PA's and discus the merits of the proposal (and only that, not what Herr Goring thinks about anything, he is not editing Wikipedia).Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will shut up. If somebody wishes to talk further about this issue with me, there is always my message wall. Although I am very busy managing my entertainment wiki, so I will likely not respond quickly. David A (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The SPLC are lawyers. A lawyer's job is to defend a predefined position, no matter whether it is true or not. The SPLC seem to think that, since they made that list, they have to defend all the items on it, even the ones that do not belong there and came to be on the list because someone botched it. (The SPLC was right in most respects the past, and maybe they do just not know how to handle "having done something wrong" in an honest way.) That said, Frank Gaffney and his ilk do belong on the list, according to every RS there is, and, as has been pointed out before, practically everybody on the list will contradict their entry. So, to avoid to dilute the notable criticism of the entries the SPLC really loused up, Dermer's defense of a clearly right-wing, Islamophobic organization as not right-wing or Islamophobic does not belong. As a conspiracy theorist, Gaffney is fringe, and defending him is fringe. WP does not condone fringe, and we would need a lot of really excellent sources to override that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please keep on topic, lay of the PA's and discus the merits of the proposal.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:UNDUE &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It seems that a lot of the arguments around Opposing the addition revolve around the idea that 'the people Dermer's defending really do belong on the SPLC list' and ignore the fact that he is a notable person who made a prepared statement criticizing the SPLC, which was then reported by several reliable sources. This deserves at least a brief mention Grammarphile (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:UNDUE.  The main argument of the supporters seems to be that because Dermer is a notable person, anything (apparently) he says on any subject should be included.  Nobody has offered an explanation as to why the opinion of a foreign national on an American civil rights organization is relevant to this article.  Despite many in the oppose camp have mentioned UNDUE, none of the supporters ave attempted to explain how the opinion of one foreign politician with an obvious biases -- his interest is supporting a group that supports Israel rather than giving a reasoned analysis of SPLC decision making.


 * What UNDUE does say is:
 * "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."


 * "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."


 * Derner, as a party of one, certainly falls within "tiny minority".


 * Even if we were to add something about Dermer, the same section requires that we give appropriate attention to the majority view:


 * "In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader."


 * The originator states clearly in his comments that absolutely nothing be said about the SPLC's position. Ignoring that describing controversies requires providing both sides, he argues:


 * "Also, I believe that a demand for context as to why individuals Dermer mentioned are on the SPLC's lists, is an un-encyclopedic attempt at watering down the criticism and try and justify why they're on the list in the first place."


 * At least one supporter has agreed with this in the past. A "weak" supporter wants only one sentence total in any addition. Most supporters avoid the issue. If the supporters prevail in this RFC, it would resolve nothing since there is no agreement on possible language.  The originator doesn't say what language he wants to add however this is what he added in the past that was reverted:


 * "In December 2016, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer condemned the SPLC for listing Maajid Nawaz, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as anti-Muslim extremists. Dermer describing the SPLC's actions as an "Orwellian inversion of reality" and accused them of trying to "stifle debate."


 * This language is extreme. It offers no info at all on what the SPLC might have said nor does it provide the rationale for Dermer's extreme charges. It doesn't even say why Dermer is talking about the SPLC in the first place.


 * WP:Recentism is also applicable. This subject appeared in a few sources over a few days and then disappeared from the news. This essay states, "When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time." in this case, it appears that the subject's notability has already passed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Undue is a fairly simple rule to apply in the hard sciences when dealing with long discredited notions such as flat earth and geocentrism. It becomes much murkier in politics where "the majority view", and even the majority view of reliable sources, is often far from clear-cut. Moreover, one could argue that in defending Maajid Nawaz (and possibly Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as well) Ron Dermer was expressing the majority view of reliable sources on Nawaz, not the minority view. After all, columns and articles critical of the SPLC's naming of Nawaz as an extremist appeared in sources such as The Atlantic, the Daily Beast, the Wall Street Journal, and The Spectator. Was there any equivalent set of articles and columns defending the SPLC on Nawaz or even on the others?? Motsebboh (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The SPLC report has about 50 lines on Nawaz and 40 on Ali. Numerous charges accompanied by quotes from the subjects are included.  There may or may not be numerous people who have positive things to say about these people.  However it is these specific charges made by the SPLC (and three other organizations that co-author the report) that Dermer dismisses with a very few words that lack any real analysis. There is no indication in the sources presented that anyone else besides Dermer disputes the specific charges made by the SPLC et al.  It is speculation and OR to assume that people otherwise positively inclined towards these people would also call the SPLC report an "Orwellian inversion of reality" written only to "stifle debate. Remember, our article is about the SPLC and its opinions.


 * Here [] is the actual report. In order to give even a brief description of the SPLC's side of the controversy, much more than a sentence or two would be needed. The fact that one side of the debate amounts to little more than political sound bites by a single politician does not mean that the researched and detailed SPLC report, as it relates to the people mentioned by Dermer, should not be adequately summarized. In fact, the weakness and lack of detail of Dermer's charges are strong reasons why his remarks don't belong in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh no! When a criticism of an organization is noted, but not given in any great detail; just as the criticism of the SPLC is noted, but not presented in any great deal in our article, it makes no sense to present the SPLC's side of the story in great detail. The articles critical of the SPLC The Atlantic, The Spectator, the Daily Beast, etc. also go into detail about what they see as wrong with the SPLC's move but we didn't go into that detail in our article because our purpose was to note the controversy, not to detail it. Otherwise, we would write a separate Wikipedia article on it.
 * Also, you haven't addressed my main point above, Tom. What gives you the idea that the SPLC's condemnation of Nawaz and Hirsi Ali is the dominant view and that the defense of them is somehow "fringe?" Motsebboh (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Your assumption is that the proper course is to only “note” a controversy.  What policy or guideline does that come from?  If (that's a big "if") the alleged controversy is worth including at all, why is it wrong to give readers enough information, as UNDUE clearly requires, to understand both sides?  Aren't you trying to "stifle debate" when you do that? In fact, of course, there already is a mention of the Nazam and Ali aspects of the alleged controversy in the article.  Since the alleged controversy is already noted, haven’t you met your alleged goal to “note the controversy, not to detail it?”


 * The Daily Beast article you refer to is written by Nazam -- it details what he thinks, not what the Daily Beast thinks. The Spectator blog entry is a very rabid opinion piece that is just about Nazam.  The Atlantic article, in fact, gives both sides of the alleged controversy and does not support the extreme criticisms of the SPLC offered by Dermer and, once again, only mentions Nazam.  None of them mention Dermer or the folks like Pipes or Gaffney -- new details that you want to add.


 * The people who want to add the alleged controversy bear the responsibility to justify where the subject falls in minority versus majority. More from UNDUE:


 * "Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list


 * * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;


 * * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;


 * * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."


 * You folks are proposing adding material based on ONE POLITICIAN. He clearly doesn’t fall into the first two criteria and just as clearly does fall into the third. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean "Nazam" or Nawaz? It would help your case to know the man's name. Obviously we often note controversies rather than detail them in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Otherwise general articles on many topics would become unwieldly. Common sense. You've done nothing to show that the SPLC's opinion on NAWAZ, Hirsi Ali, Pipes, and Gaffney, collectively, is a significant minority opinion, much less a majority opinion in reliable sources. Where are the the opinion pieces springing to its defense in major publications?? Dermer's opinion, one by a very prominent individual whose position necessarily involves him in the subject of relations with the Islamic world, and representative of many critics of the SPLC's labeling of NAWAZ et. al., deserves a mention. Motsebboh (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

comment I'm looking at this and it reads like propaganda. It doesn't seem an official position of Israel provided by one of the Ambassadors it has to the USA. It reads like it's his own personal view. But we are placing the weight of the statement behind the fact that the guy is an Israeli ambassador. Ocdgrammarian comments I have to highlight. The matter of support doesn't seem to be because the individual is prominent but because his specific political position is prominent. Essentially the portrait that I'm seeing painted before me is that Israel do not support the SPLC. Beyond inclusion for the purpose of propaganda I don't see a swaying argument. One thing that wikipedia is not is propaganda. If I were to straw poll at the moment I'd have to lean towards opposition. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The sources are about Dermer and Gaffney, not about the SPLC. Groups labeled by the SPLC regularly lash out defensively. Dermer's digs at the SPLC don't seem like any more than that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are "about" whatever and whomever the sources talk about. Dermer, as yet at least, has not been one of the people labelled as extremist by the SPLC. Motsebboh (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You might say that, but I don't see the noteworthiness of this story with respect to the SPLC, as opposed to Dermer and Gaffney. Not everything that's reliably sourced belongs in Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per other arguments. MB298 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as undue weight would be conferred. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Luther, Malik, Fleischman and others. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Would be WP:UNDUE if added. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for UNDUE which I think is NPOV issue. To include this it would have to be x criticized some of this particular category including certain scholars and then the SPLC's reasoning of why they were included. Thus creating the largest ever footnote imaginable.

Discussion
There seems to be a bit of confusion about Ron Dermer and his comments about the SPLC and the meaning (on Wikipedia) of the word "notable". Dermer is notable; he is sufficiently important and reliable sources have written enough about him that Wikipedia editors have written his biography. His comments are not, and will never be, notable; they are not sufficiently important in and of themselves that one could write a reliably sourced encyclopedia article about them.

The threshold for inclusion in an existing article is not notability; that is the threshold for creating a new article. In order to include Dermer's comments, editors need to build consensus for their inclusion. See WP:ONUS. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. "Notability" is a guideline for creating articles:  articles should only be created about notable topics.  That guideline says in "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article", "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."  The notability of a person does not make his or her comments notable or noteworthy.  TFD (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But it certainly doesn't hurt their noteworthiness, does it? Motsebboh (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean the noteworthiness of their comments. In Wikipedia policy, the noteworthiness of someone's comments is irrelevant to the noteworthiness of who made them.  News media of course are more likely to report the comments of someone who is notable, they decide whether those comments are noteworthy and we include or exclude them based solely on the prominence of reporting in news media.  TFD (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note that starting an RfC does not invalidate opinions expressed before the RfC started. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So who has suggested we remove the criticism section? If no one has then claims that we are trying to create an article that is one sided (or that we are trying to silence criticism) are irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)