Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 18

John Stossel's opinion on hate group listings and the SPLC
There's no good reason why Stossel's opinion was removed from this section. He's a notable mainstream figure. There's no "specific incident" requirement, but even if there was, the very first bullet is not a "specific incident" either. How then should this be added? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the first one should not be there either, what we should not have is just a random list of peoples objections. But is has been there a while, your new addition has not. This is why we should not have criticism sections, they just become bullets point of some pundits opinion. What we can (and should have) is prose about notable controversies.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with not having a "random list of people's objections," but Stossel is a well-known individual who has been in the mainstream for years, so it's not just some average Joe's hyper-partisan opinion. The source also does reference several notable controversies including the Ben Carson labeling, and the gunman who entered the Family Research Council headquarters. Is there some other way you would phrase this? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I said "random list of people's objections," not "list of random peoples objections", why (beyond he is well known) his his opinion of SPLC worthy of inclusion, what does it tell us we do not already know? We already cover those controversies, so again his view adds nothing beyond being just a bit of criticism. This is the kind of thing we are encouraged to avoid, overburdening articles with lists of criticisms. I really so not see why his opinion is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the first part of your sentence, did you read what I wrote? What is the difference? There are many more controversies in the source than those two, I just mentioned them because they are already in the article. Stossel's opinion matters because he is a mainstream figure who has long criticized both the left and the right - how is his opinion not relevant? What I'm getting from you then is, I should reference the other controversies in the source which do not appear above, alongside Stossel's opinion. Do you object? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference is that I did not say he was just some random person of the street (thus that is not the basis of my objection). And no I did not say "reference the other controversies in the source which do not appear above, alongside Stossel's opinion" and it is hard to see how you came to that conclusion. I am saying his opinion is not relevant, any more then  100 other media personalities whose opinions we do not list (and that is all he is he is not a law maker or elected official, nor is he an acknowledged expert (as far as I know) in the fields of civil rights or social sciences). What does this opinion adds we do not already know (besides adding his opinion)?[[User:Slatersteven|Sl

atersteven]] (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you think the SPLC is beyond reproach? I invite you to check out the source - it would take more time to make a list here than for you to see it. Off the top of my head, there were two former Muslims on the list who criticized Muslim extremism, and were then wrongfully listed on the SPLC as anti-Islam. There was also another organization wrongfully accused of gay hatred according to the source. I don't see how using an opinion of a figure on the level of Stossel is damaging to the article. Mainstream opinion sources have been used not only for controversy sections, but to change opening paragraphs of certain articles. There are numerous examples where this has happened, (including the Alex Jones article we previously argued about.) I didn't "come to any conclusion." Please read more carefully. I'm trying to figure out how this should be edited to make it palatable. And are you suggesting a mainstream journalist's opinion is less relevant than "a law maker or elected official?" By that logic, if Trump or any politician on the right trashed the SPLC we could add it in. If Stossel's opinion is not relevant, so is every opinion of every journalist in this article. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And are there 100 opinions on the subject in the mainstream on the subject by people as well known as Stossel? I think not. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Have I said we should remove all criticism?Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No, but your removal of the content comes across as agenda-driven. This is apparent to anyone who has seen your replies on other articles. It's not only you - there appear to be the same 15-or-so editors plowing the same ground. I have asked how the post could be changed to be added, and you've offered nothing concrete, just vague, slippery language. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are just going to cast aspirations, and make strawman arguments there is no point to furthering this discussion. I am not required to try to find ways to include what I consider irrelevant information. End of discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't seem qualified to have this discussion. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Slatersteven. Stossel has no particular expertise in this subject, besides which he is well-known to hold political views which are not neutral in regard to an organization such as the SPLC. Stossel stopped being an objective reporter when he switch his focus away from consumer issues towards politics. The inclusion of his views about SPLC would serve only to unbalance the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it may be appropriate to include Stossel's views, but only if they're cited with respect to the specific incidents he (and hundreds of others) writes about. For example, add his criticism to the bullet about the other Republicans and conservatives who griped about the SPLC labeling the FRC a hate group. He doesn't appear to bring anything new to the party, which is what it would take to merit a "bullet point" of his own. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP editing question is whether Stossel's commentary is WP:NOTEWORTHY. Given the various criticisms of SPLC, he should be included. Doing so will help balance allegations about SPLC's political leanings. – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In what respect are Stossel's comments "noteworthy"? He's nothing but another Fox News robot.  He has no expertise, no background in politics, nothing except a camera in front of his face.  None o f that nakes him "noteworthy", we might as well quote Anderson Cooper.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also how does it bring balance, what view do we have that his views counterpoint?Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If the reason for excluding Stossel is his lack of a background in politics and questionable notability, then perhaps the criticism of Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel, or former White House chief policy domestic policy advisor Karl Zinsmeister could be included instead  . Some type of criticism section is certainly warranted given the numerous reputable people across the ideological spectrum who have condemned the SPLC. Zime2005 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There's already a somewhat bloated section full of such commentary. Which commentary in there would you want to replace with those?  My own preference, incidentally, in a case like this - where a huge number of people have weighed in - is to summarize the broad views and list prominent people who have expressed them rather than quoting a bunch of people individually.  This serves the encyclopedic goal - covering the prominent perspectives on the topic - while discouraging people from dropping in random op-eds or the like simply because they found one quote to be particularly biting.  It also shifts the focus from what any one individual says to who is saying it, which I feel is often the important part anyway.  In other words, if Karl Zinsmeister is truly so important, it should be sufficient to say something along the lines of "several people have said that the SPLC's hate group listings are biased, including X, Y, and Karl Zinsmeister", and have Karl Zinsmeister's inclusion in that list of names be meaningful, without the need for any further elaboration on the details of what he said (since the important part is the broad strokes of multiple critiques that we can summarize and condense into a sentence or two, rather than the specific words he or any other specific critic used.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The significance of a person's opinion on a topic is not dependent on that person's notability but on the its coverage in reliable secondary sources, which has not happened in ths case. Otherwise, every opinion expressed by a notable person on anything could find its way into articles about the subject matter.  TFD (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think inclusion of Stossel's opinion in the article is warranted. The reliable sources don't show that his criticism of the SPLC is a particular focus for him (he's a contrarian who criticizes a great deal of things) nor do they show that his criticism is significant to the SPLC (his criticisms are not particularly well-known or unique). Criticism of the SPLC are already fairly listed in the article. WP:WEIGHT. Neutralitytalk 20:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

SPLC article "Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets"
Here. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think you mean is this one to the SPLC article rather than the one you have posted to the WP:Functionaries page... EdChem (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Doh! Thanks for catching that. Doug Weller  talk 13:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good article. It's nice to know that some people recognize that we're under a concerted attack from the far-right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't a fan. As to the "concerted attack from the far-right", I very much doubt it. The far-right isn't that good at concerted anything. Kleuske (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

What has any of this to do with improving the article?Slatersteven (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it was interesting and worth bringing to the attention of editors here, who even if they didn't use it for improving this article might find uses for it elsewhere. That's a good enough reason to post it here. As for the IP's comment, it's a non sequitor and certainly has nothing to do with improving the article, which is no change from their previous edits, both of which were reverted. Doug Weller  talk 18:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a wacky conclusion. Certainly the SPLC's priority is protecting minorities from hate, rather than complaining about far right attacks on itself.  TFD (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is to be expected that any organization or institution, of whatever type, function, or size will be "eager to combat threats against its reputation." Why should the SPLC be any different? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * But its main focus is tracking hate groups. TFD (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that that's true. The SPLC describes its main priorities as HATE & EXTREMISM, CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, ECONOMIC JUSTICE, IMMIGRANT JUSTICE, LGBT RIGHTS, CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM at splcenter.org Yes, the extremism listings receive a lot of coverage and is their single largest activity, but I'm not sure that it's what they spend the majority of their budget on. Currently, these activities are mentioned anywhere in the article. Seems incomplete. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

www.splcenter.org/about says, "The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the SPLC works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality." It also says, "Currently, our litigation is focused on five major areas: children’s rights, economic justice, immigrant justice, LGBT rights, and mass incarceration." (NO USE BTW OF UPPER CASE.) You are confusing main focus and litigation. There's obviously no litigation against hate speech speech because in the U.S. it is protected by the constitution. TFD (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ken Silverstein
We can say "Ken Silverstein said it" if the source says he said it. We cannot say "and others" if the source does not say "and others", what dopes the source say?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This really isn't difficult. Keeping the basic form that Glynth used we could say something like this:
 * Starting in the 1990's some observers, including Ken Silverstein writing in Harper's Magazine, were critical of the SPLC's fundraing appeals and finances. He alleged that the group was "essentially a fraud" that used hyperbole and overstated the prevalence of hate groups to raise large amounts of money.


 * Speaking of raising large amounts of money, our figure for the for the SPLC's endowment is now outdated. It one year it has moved up from about $319,000,000 to about $433,000,000 . It seems that the year following Trump's election has been a godsend for the SPLC. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That works.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to change "He":at the top of the second sentence to "Silverstein". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, the reference is perfectly clear, but it's no big deal in any case. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. The subject in the first sentence is "Ken Silverstein and others", so you can't go with a singular pronoun in the second sentence, because it doesn't call back to a singular person in the first.  The second sentence must use "Silverstein". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm on board Captain! 68.14.86.118 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Come to thinks of it this might be better:
 * Starting in the 1990s some observers have been critical of the SPLC's fundraising appeals and finances. Ken Silverstein writing in Harper's Magazine alleged that the SPLC was "essentially a fraud" that used hyperbole and overtstated the prevalence of hate groups to raise large amounts of money.

68.14.86.118 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Better, I agree. Nit-pick: commas before and after "writing in Harper's Magazine". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this, with the commas, is a great suggestion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Outdated information
The Infobox stats on the SPLC's annual revenue, endowment size, and number of employees are out of date. The endowment size should also be changed in the Finances section of the article. 68.14.86.118 (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What is preventing you from doing that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps either time or ability, or merely discomfort of making changes, if we assume good faith. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming nothing, just letting the IP know they can make the change themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No they can't; not when the article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.86.118 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Source for attempt to kill Dees (just deleted)
The book mentioned here. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to add this
In the "controversy" section i'll add:

"The SPLC has strongly been criticized by a number of figures in public policy, academia, and media including Karl Zinsmeister, Edwin Meese, Kimberley Strassel, and Niall Ferguson. In September 2017, a coalition of 47 conservative leaders released an open letter to news outlets, calling on them to refrain from citing the SPLC. The letter read in part: “The SPLC is a discredited, left-wing, political activist organization that seeks to silence its political opponents with a 'hate group' label of its own invention and application”."

This is the source: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2017/09/06/conservatives-urge-media-cut-ties-splc-over-dangerous-hate-map

93.36.191.55 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We pretty much have a constant back and forth over how much criticism to mention where in the article, but since this doesn't have a reliable source, it's a non-starter. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Newsbusters is not a reliable source. Furthermore a reliable news source would provide context to the letter. Two of the signatories, for example, Pamela Geller and Richard Spencer, were denied entry to the UK by both Labour and Conservative governments and lost their appeals in the courts. The fact that British authorities came to the same conclusions as the SPLC, and in fact provided evidence from the SPLC, belies the claim that they are left-wing or discredited. Per weight, it would be wrong to provide claims by people who object to their treatment by the SPLC without first explaining what the SPLC has said about them. Their claims make sense if and only if one believes that the Islam is evil and the Muslims present an existential threat to Western civilization. TFD (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have advised Kleuske on their talk page to re-read WP:TPO, their removal of the above comment -- twice -- was not within policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske actually removed the comment three times, but thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism from notable people
Many seem averse to including John Stossell's criticism of SPLC in this article but there a number of other reputable public figures who have criticized the SPLC. The article in its current state does not mention the substantial number of respectable people who do not consider the SPLC to be a fair and neutral organization. There are a number of “criticism” sections on Wikipedia articles that quote specific notable people; the certified “good article”, Black Lives Matter, is an excellent example of this. Specific criticisms should be added to the article to make it more balanced. I propose the following as a lead in to a “criticism and controversies” section:

''The SPLC has strongly been criticized by a number of figures in public policy, academia, and media including Karl Zinsmeister, Edwin Meese, Kimberley Strassel, and Niall Ferguson. In September 2017, a coalition of 47 conservative leaders released an open letter to news outlets, calling on them to refrain from citing the SPLC. The letter read in part: “The SPLC is a discredited, left-wing, political activist organization that seeks to silence its political opponents with a 'hate group' label of its own invention and application”.

--Zime2005 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We have such a section. And like the BLM section discuses specific accusations, it is not just a list (well actually it is, and needs a rewrite to make it a prose section, not a bullet pointed list) of people who criticized it. When it reads like the BLM section (with the material it currently has) then we can start to discus expansion, but lets get it into shape first.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Any section including critical views must also include positive views. We do not create sections merely to list every single person who has ever said something negative about a person or organization. We could have a section entitled "Reactions" which would include positive and negative views in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Someone tweeting about something, or making a YouTube video, is not necessarily relevant or fit for inclusion unless it has been discussed in a reliable secondary source - of which Twitter and YouTube are not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"Any section including critical views must also include positive views". I'm not sure what the basis for that assertion is; is it an official policy? As I wrote above, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia which contain criticism sections without positive views on the subject matter (e.g. Black Lives Matter). There most certainly is a large amount of criticism directed at the SPLC which is well documented in a number of reliable sources (here is another source for Zinemeister's criticism https://archive.is/lpQ5k). If, for some reason, there are stylistic objections to making a list of critics, perhaps the first sentence of my proposed lead in could remain intact with just the citations of the criticisms. The open letter to the media definitely deserves a mention in the article. --Zime2005 (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The Philanthropy Roundtable, i.e. the neocon 501c funded by the Koch Brothers? Yea, hard pass there, buddy. TheValeyard (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And when the section we have here reads like the section in BLM, then we can discus adding material to it. But if it does not read like that using the BLM article as an example and then wanting to keep this one the listy mess it is is a very poor argument. Fix, then we can discussion inflation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's call a spade a spade here: these attempts to add criticism to the article, and to label the SPLC as "left-wing", are entirely based on the fact that the right wing hates the SPLC -- which is the primary reason why the article is going to remain balanced and not include the bullshit that the right keeps wanting to add. Just ain't gonna happen, because we're Wikipedia and not Fox News. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Weasel requires that we explain who is criticizing them and neutral point of view requires that we explain the relative weight of these views. The expression "a number of figures" doesn't tell us who they are or how many.  The "47 conservative leaders" did not include any elected officials, but did include leaders of groups the SPLC lists as hate groups, including Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, both of whom are barred from entering the UK because of their anti-Islamist activism.  The editor of WorldNetDaily, a site that promotes conspiracy theories, is also listed.  Essentially people who see nothing wrong with the positions that the SPLC and other reputable sources see as hate object to the SPLC listing hate groups.  TFD (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Niall Ferguson may be associated with the quite reputable Hoover Institution etc., but his Twitter feed is WP:SPS and not RS when it comes to third parties. Leave out. – S. Rich (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He's also married to Hirsi Ali. TFD (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the phrase “many figures” constitutes weasel words and naming specific people is bad style, then perhaps reputable mainstream sources which have published criticism of the SPLC could be mentioned. There certainly is a precedent for this on Wikipedia. The first sentence could look something like this:

The SPLC has been the subject of criticism published in the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, Politico Magazine(https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312), and Bloomberg News (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-07/southern-poverty-law-center-gets-creative-to-label-hate-groups).

The Politico piece is quite lengthy and could be a valuable reference for an expanded criticism section. Simply put, there is an abundance of criticism of the SPLC from respectable people which is documented in reliable sources; this article in its current state does not cover it adequately. Zime2005 (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have said, write a new section as prose containing only the materiel we have now and lets see what it looks like. It's not as if this is a critisism free zone now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that the Politico article does not criticize the SPLC but reports criticism. Bloomberg News did not criticize the SPLC, but included an article by a right-wing blogger (Megan McArdle) that did.  I could write that some people say the moon landing was faked or 9/11 was a false flag operation, but that would be misleading unless I explained who these people were and how accepted their views are.  The reality is that almost all this criticism comes from groups the sPLC describes as hate groups and their supporters.  And most mainstream sources accept the sPLC description.  TFD (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

“The reality is that almost all this criticism comes from groups the SPLC describes as hate groups and their supporters.” This is a very vague assertion with no evidence. As I have pointed out, there are numerous reputable critics of the SPLC who do not have a conflict of interest.

There is a precedent for the style I proposed above on other Wikipedia articles but... whatever.

Is has been suggested that I write a new section as prose. This is a bit challenging to do without adding a little bit more material. I think that the last sentence of the “assessment” section quoting Berger should be moved down and expanded upon. This is my proposal for an amended section:

''The SPLC's identification and listings of hate groups and extremists have been the subject of controversy. Critics of the SPLC say that it chooses its causes with funding and donations in mind, and argue that the SPLC is a partisan organization the often uses the ‘hate group’ label as a weapon to silence its political opponents. The SPLC sometimes responds by reviewing its actions and removing people or organizations from hate listings, such as that of Ben Carson; however, it has stood behind the vast majority of its listings.''

''In 2013, J.M. Berger wrote in Foreign Policy that media organizations should be more cautious when citing the SPLC and ADL, arguing that they are "not objective purveyors of data". '''Berger was subsequently quoted in Politico Magazine as saying that the SPLC “wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information”. William A. Jacobson, a professor at Cornell Law School has questioned the SPLC’s credibility, saying “time and again, I see the SPLC using the reputation it gained decades ago fighting the Klan as a tool to bludgeon mainstream politically conservative opponents”.''' ''

All quotations come from the Politico link above.

Zime2005 (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Conservatives don't like it when conservative organizations and persons are criticized. Stop the presses! Every action or organization earns praise and criticism, what should be looked at is whether the criticism is a widely-held point of view. Abortion has two well-established and thoroughly-argued sides, as does climate change and health care. Here, two naysaying pundits doesn't seem to rise to the level of the wealth of sourcing that the SPLC is a reputable citation for haste groups. I don't even need to get into the ADL angle, as the "criticism" they receive is largely rooted in antisemitism. TheValeyard (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It is considerably more than just “two naysayers”. I think have done a good job of documenting the numerous reputable critics of the SPLC. My proposed edits expand on the commentary of one critic already mentioned in the article, add criticism from an Ivy League academic, and replace an un-sourced general claim with a well-soured and well-documented claim. By any reasonable criteria, the edits are an improvement to this article. Zime2005 (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's perfectly reasonable and encyclopedic to include criticism of the SPLC when it comes from neutral reliable sources, but criticism from people and organizations who see the SPLC as an ideological opponent is almost entirely worthless, even if there's a lot of it. We're not here to be part of the Great Right Wing Echo Chamber (that's what Fox News is for), we're here to report what reliable sources say about the subject of our articles. and in this particular instance, the complaints you want to report come from biased non-reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is if only conservatives criticize SPLC, and the conservative view is almost entirely worthless, then the moment a neutral organisation (or individual) criticizes them you deem them a biased non-reliable source and continue to protect SPLC from criticism. They aren't a sacred cow. If SPLC as far-left is the standard view amongst conservatives that merits noting despite not being the liberal viewpoint. Remember neutrality not the liberal view is what matters, or have the rules changed? 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The neutral view is that SPLC is not a far-left organization, and that's what the article will continue to say. If and when some neutral reliable source criticizes the organization, it will certainly be reported in the article, but partisan whining from the right will not be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What counts as neutral? Sources are increasingly viewed as partisan, and wikipedia editors talking about "whining from the right" doesn't help. 人族 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

SPLC as Charity Thought Police?
Per: http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/06/splc-partner-google-facebook-amazon/

SPLC works with Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter in policing their platforms but while Facebook emphasizes its independence, Amazon relies on them to determine which organisations may participate in the Amazon Smile charitable program. In fact the SPLC is the only member of the Smile program to determine which other groups may join. Those deemed ineligible are removed\banned thereby preventing customers from choosing to direct Amazon's 0.5% of purchase price donation to them. While several conservative groups have been recently banned, anti-Semitic groups are still approved members of the charity program.

Not suggesting this piece be used as a primary source in a new section, however it does raise an interesting topic. What influence does SPLC wield over charity programs etc? And if there's a clear anti-conservative bias that'd need to be noted. 人族 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What if anything do you wish to add to the article that is backed by RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note, Daily Caller is not a reliable source, so nothing based on the piece cited will be added to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * A neutral way to phrase it is that the SPLC is regarded as the authoritative source on hate groups. The Daily Caller is of course unacceptable as a source. TFD (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Replies to assorted points:
 * At present the SPLC article notes they are a non-profit advocacy group that engages in litigation, publishes a list of entities it deems hate groups, and creates SJ materials for students and teachers. None of this notes their role in internet censorship. Despite SPLCs all too frequent inaccurate labeling of conservative individuals and organisations as hate entities, major companies are using them to police their platforms for 'hate' content. In the case of Amazon this extends to SPLC banning groups from the charity program that it doesn't like. This level of power\influence over civil discourse and resource allocation is alarming and noteworthy IMHO. Whether media coverage exists to prove notability, that's still TBD. If\when notability is demonstrated I'd be thinking coverage comparable to the projects section i.e. brief but to the point.
 * For those contending Daily Caller isn't an RS, please note I specifically said I wasn't suggesting it be used as the primary source for a new section, merely that the matters raised may merit inclusion here.
 * And no the SPLC is not considered authoritative on hate groups, nor does it pretend to be. Its mission is to identify right wing groups as hate groups. Left wing hate groups are outside its mandate and not considered. If you do a quick search of a site like Fox News you'll see numerous articles referring to SPLC as Far Left, controversial, a hate group etc. As far as I'm aware they're the main non-Left news source in America, and at times the top rating news source. 人族 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, you've just lost our credibility. You've made up a mission for the SPLC, and by any non far-right criteria most American news sources are centrist, very few are left wing, perhaps even less than those that are right wing. And please don't confuse Fox opinion pieces, blogs, etc with news. Fox has programs such as Fox and Friends and Hannity that aren't news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? I summarised the first paragraph of the SPLC article. Do I need to quote it verbatim? Oh! Is this in reference to the point "its mission is to identify right wing groups as hate groups"? If so that point is based on the hatewatch description - "... a blog that monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right." Unless you're contending the SPLC are mislabeling their own content the Left gets a free pass. As for most American new sources being centrist, that's an absolute lie. Somehow or other I stumbled over https://mediabiasfactcheck.com which, while having its own skew, at least provides a measurement of how things compare. As regards the Fox results, I did a quick and dirty search of the site for SPLC and reported on the results. A second slightly more in depth look has such language being used in video summaries, by associate editors, and by reporters. Yes such phraseology may also be used in "opinion pieces, blogs, etc" but that's another matter. I trust this will clarify your confusion and either an apology or further clarification regarding your confusion will be forthcoming shortly. 人族 (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh I do apologise. I shouldn't have said "centrist", I should have said middle-of-the-road. Not left-wing, unless of course you consider someone like Hilary Clinton or being anti-Trump left-wing. Most of the media in the US is between center-left and center-right. There's a big difference between being liberal or conservative and being left-wing or right-wing. National Review is conservative, Breitbart is right-wing. Hm, that's interesting. What news service is as influential as Breitbart and as far to the left as Breitbart is to the right? There must be one. Doug Weller  talk 15:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes I definitely consider Hillary Clinton left wing - she's a Democrat remember. If you're suggesting she's not Left that's rather enlightening. As for anti-Trump being left-wing, no that's not absolute - it'd depend on your rationale e.g. distaste for his choice of vocabulary. Most of the US media may indeed be center-left, however that still counts as left of center. You state that there's a big difference between liberal and Left or conservative and Right however general use is to conflate them, and to confuse the issue further, some Liberal parties around the globe are right-wing\conservative. Left wing equivalent of Breitbart? A quick Duck suggests Occupy Democrats (though MBFC lists them as fringe Left fake news), Vox, Salon, or HuffPo - certainly the closest by traffic. On a totally different note I see this talk page has a sanction alert on it regarding article edits, also that my personal talk page has a cryptic alert about sanctions, though it specifically states that the alert does not imply any misconduct on my part. I've checked the talk pages of several other users here and can't figure out why I'm so privileged to have the alert. Is it autogenerated, or was it manually generated in light of your misunderstanding my prior post? If the latter then obviously you'll remove it as soon as you remember, but if it's the former why don't all talk pages show it? Thanks. 人族 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You must have a bizarre definition of left-wing, because it usually does not mean supporting the interests of major corporations. TFD (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * He's got a simplistic view of the political spectrum, including evidently believing you can measure a center point and then label everyone left and right if they aren't somehow meeting the center point's definition. I'd love to know what he'd call a Republican that believes in balanced budgets, lower taxes, free trade, deregulation and welfare reform—moderate Republicans differ in that some are for affirmative action,[17] same-sex marriage and gay adoption, legal access to and even funding for abortion, gun control laws, more environmental regulation and anti-climate change measures, fewer restrictions on legal immigration, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and more relaxed enforcement of illegal immigration and support for "sanctuary cities" etc. There are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, and there are many of both who are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. You can't just pigeonhole everyone. And he's confused about the media. Occupy Democrats Vo isn't part of the news media, Vox Media didn't allow a labor union until this year and if he means Vox the website I don't know what it's politics are and our article doesn't mention them. Not every news outlet has an official political slant, some present all sorts of viewpoints. Breitbart isn't just right wing, it's far-right with an Alexa ranking of 67 in the us vs Vox's 284. Huffpost is 80, still not as big as Breitbart. Our description of Salon is a bit confusing but it's US Alexa ranking is only 1220. And I asked about something compared to Breitbart - which would have to be far-left with a comparable Alexa ranking. As for the DS alert, removing them can be done but it's pointless as it's an alert and you can't be unalerted. Once you are alerted you are assumed to know about sanctions and an uninvolved Admin (not me) can sanction the editor without further warning or that can be done at WP:AE. We on the Arbitration Committee never intended them to be given automatically, but only to those where there is a chance that they might have a problem in the area and should know about the relevant sanctions.  Doug Weller  talk 12:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I forgot. Media bias/fact check is an amateur organisation which does small samples and sometimes has a very confusing display with an arrow that might suggest a site is all the way to the left or the right but with descriptions that don't support that. Here's what the Columbia Journalism Review said about them. Doug Weller  talk 12:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * TFD, there's no problem saying major corporations are left-wing - just consider their positions on any number of ethical issues. Now if you're trying to contend that major corporations aren't capitalistic you might have a point, but that's not my contention.
 * Not so much simplistic as there is limited language to describe the political spectrum. Everyone talks about Left v Right despite the fact that there are multiple axes - ethics, economics, degree of authoritarianism etc. Regarding your theoretical Republican, without more info I'd look at them as center-right. Balanced budgets, lower taxes, and deregulation are right-wing issues. Free trade is somewhat debated. Is protectionism or fair trade a left-wing or a conservative issues? As for welfare reform, what does that mean? More free stuff for more people, or less support and less eligible? Your moderate Republicans are voting Left on ethical issues. I accept there are conservative Democrats, however they are an endangered species. The fact a news outlet doesn't have an official position doesn't mean it doesn't have a generally recognised position - the consensus of the staff. One study of journalist political allegiance found the majority are left-wing, and at one major organisation the Far Left is a very very close second. Right-wing journalists generally ranged for rare to near non-existent. As I said I did a quick search to see what others suggested as comparable to Breitbart. You may not like the results, you may disagree with the results, but you cannot deny that folk have suggested those are left-wing equivalents. Yes HuffPo may not be quite as popular as Breitbart but to contend it's not as ideological is disingenuous. The HuffPo article says it is a liberal alternative to the Drudge report, and yet that article notes a study placed Drudge as left of center because of the aggregated content, whilst a quick look at the sites reveals they are quite dissimilar - Drudge provides links to stories, HuffPo creates its own news. Folk on forums I participate in reference HuffPo as fringe. If sanctions are a manual decision then the speed at which you resort to that level of warning is ... troubling. I'm aware that Wikipedia is considered political, at least by those I chat with, and one reason I limit my participation, so to be warned without reason has a chilling effect on discourse. Perhaps sanctions are not meant to be understood as as serious as I see them, but the warning reads as DefCon 2 without cause to me. Obviously it still rankles. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This discussion has drifted into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Any future comments which do not deal specifically with how the article can be improved will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

news article related to the recent SPLC controversy
looks relevant to the article. --2001:8003:4023:D900:31D3:8C5F:5497:57E0 (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Frank Gaffney, conspiracy theorist who has a bone to pick with the SPLC. Not news.
 * Brigitte Gabriel, Islamophobe who has a bone to pick with the SPLC. Not news.
 * Ken Cuccinelli, mobber of scientists and a one-man hate group. Not news.
 * Trevor Loudon, Joe McCarthy wannabe. Not news.
 * Gary Bauer does not seem very conspicuous though. Is he left over from the sane wing of the Republican party that has been shrinking for decades? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When this has an effect it might be worth including, but this (at this time) is just a catalogue of the usual suspects.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * While the Washington Times is a reliable source, coverage in that paper does not establish weight for inclusion. Basically the newspaper exists in order to draw attention to stories that mainstream media ignore. While these stories are typically repeated throughout similar publications (the "echo chamber"), they do not achieve significance unless they obtain a wider audience, which means repetition in the New York Times, the Washington Post and major news channels. That seems unlikely, because, "When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news." TFD (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post - Republican\non-liberal Opinion
This piece may be of interest: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html.

Not suggesting any use just yet but the line "... it has become a caricature of itself, labeling virtually anyone who does not fall in line with its left-wing ideology an 'extremist' or 'hate group'" is significantly stronger than the lead in this article which states the SPLC is "... the subject of criticism from conservatives and others, who have argued that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad or unwarranted". 人族 (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Opinion pieces, even in mainstream publications, are not reliable sources and in order to report this opinion you need to show its significance as shown through its reporting in news articles. The article was written by Marc Thiessen, who falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wrote a book in defense of what is normally described as torture. In the Post opinion piece, Thiessen basically repeats talking points already in the article. He even defends Charles Murray, who claims that black folks are not as intelligent as white folks. TFD (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not wholley true, Op-Edds can be RS, whether this one passes that criteria is another matter. A better objection is the one to do with (in effect) weight. What exactly does this add we do not already say?Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy says "rarely." I have never come across an exception. TFD (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the Washington Post's less thoughtful conservative columnists has a reflexive column about a liberal spectre and raises all the usual complaints. Family Research Council? Check. Alliance Defending Freedom? Check. Ben Carson? Charles Murray? Check and check. What exactly does Thiessen's column bring to the table, beside the pedigree of being published in the Washington Post? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable tertiary sources helpful in due-weight calculation
Some data from the second-most reputable English-language encyclopedia's article about the subject group, "Southern Poverty Law Center," Encyclopaedia Britannica, last modified January 9, 2017 (accessed from Bing).

527 words = 3,539 characters describing the subject organization.

62 words = 457 characters describing accusations against it.

457 ÷ 3,539 = 0.129.

About an eighth of the article text is used to describe accusations against the SPLC.

WP:TERTIARY policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. They may also be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC) 23:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Finances
The text says SPLC spent 68% of its revenue on programs, citing the subject group's 2016 Financial Statements. I can't find that calculation in that source. -Dervorguilla (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Cherrypicking
The WP:CHERRYPICKING essay says (in the nutshell), when selecting information from a source, include contradictory and significant qualifying information from the same source. The information that"From 1984 to 1994 the SPLC raised about $62 million in contributions and spent about $21 million on programs, according to the newspaper..." qualifies the information that"For 2016 ... SPLC spent 68% of its revenue on programs..."which looks like it may have been cherrypicking -- as it suggests by implication that the 2016 financial data given in the source are representative of the other years' financial data given in that same source. Very misleading! See revision 847680190. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC) 04:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You're saying that the one passage "doesn't" qualify (or contradict) the other. So, if the WP:CHERRYPICKING essay doesn't prohibit using the 2016 info, it doesn't prohibit using the 1984-1994 info. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

SPLC agrees to pay $3.4million in damages to Maajid Nawaz for defaming him
This is obviously very major news (it always was - despite the best effort of numerous editors on here to keep it off the page). It should have its own section at 4.4 or 5.1. Also, is it the largest damages payout SPLC has ever made? https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation Fig (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I accidentally hit ‘thank’ on the above post—I didn’t mean to do so. In any case, my view is that this merits a sentence or two, but not much more. Neutralitytalk 16:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be mentioned, but a sentence or two is sufficient. Part of that should be the SPLC's straightforward admission that they were wrong in their assessment, and that they changed their evaluation due to the differing views of people they respect. Their mistaken list as Maajid Nawak as a Muslin extremist is one thing, but their willingness to publicly admit their mistake speaks highly of their editorial culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is another source for this, from Quilliam Interntional. --1.152.104.27 (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is another source needed? Used it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend the addition of secondary sources. The write-up, which I think is excessively detailed, is based almost entirely on primary sources. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 23:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is true, but at least concerning the settlement, both sides are quoted now. I do think thatthe entire section can be trimmed and re-sourced, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean, "their willingness to publicly admit their mistake one and a half years after they made it and one and a half years after they were told it was a mistake", right? Also, they did not list him as a Muslim extremist but as an anti-Muslim extremist. (He actually was a Muslim extremist before he became a reformer.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * While it would certainly be better if they had spun on a dime and instantly corrected themselves, we're talking about a not-for-profit public interest institution with staff lawyers and outside counsel, a board of directors to answer to and an internal bureaucracy to be dealt with. Three years may seem like forever, but it's actually not all that bad when you consider all that -- criminal and civil cases, even minor ones, frequently take as long as that before they even come to trial. (What's the old saying about grinding slow but exceedingly fine?)What's important is that the SPLC did the right thing: they publicly apologized and made amends. I can think of many organizations -- especially those masquerading as "educational" non-profits, which actually exist to push a specific political point of view -- which have never acknowledged making major errors, and probably never will. It's the difference between having integrity and being intellectually honest and doing whatever is felt to be necessary to put over political propaganda. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Being more honest than... well, I can guess what type of organization you are talking about and which grand old American party they are allied with... is a pretty low standard. But since they are lawyers, I guess low standards are appropriate. Still, I don't think the article should praise them for doing this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on the comment by User:Beyond My Ken, we need to clarify that the group was willing to admit this mistake only after it got sued (which would speak poorly of its editorial culture, not "highly"). Dervorguilla (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't have your facts straight: their was no lawsuit, merely the threat of one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, they removed it rather quickly, but were negotiating a settlement before apologizing. It never reached court. Dave Dial (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My error. Thank you for correcting it. "Nawaz is currently suing the organization". Malik, New York Review of Books, June 7, 2018 . I ought to point out that the distinction may not necessarily be significant with regard to the importance of the SPLC's wrongdoing. See generally Black's Law Dictionary, under "Settlement": An agreement ending a dispute or lawsuit . --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC) 04:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd contend there was more than a threat. Based on https://www.quilliaminternational.com/shop/donate/donate-to-help-maajid-take-on-the-splc/ it appears that Quilliam was raising funds for a lawsuit but SPLC settled first. 人族 (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding a (minimalist) sentence to the lead: "The SPLC wrongfully listed Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation as anti-Muslim extremists and paid them a $3.4 million settlement." Revise as needed! Dervorguilla (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Any addition of this relatively minor incident to the lede will be removed per WP:WEIGHT. This article is not going to be skewed by POV-pushers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. No, per undue weight. Dave Dial (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See POV, under WP:STRUCTURE, which is policy. Segregation of text into different subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear undisputed, whereas other, segregated material is deemed 'controversial'. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't need to, and it's dealt with and sourced, in the 4th paragraph. Any more mention makes it POV, since the SPLC is a respected organization that reliable sources and the FBI use for information on hate groups. Dave Dial (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accordingly, we can rely on the SPLC's own admission as legitimate and authoritative. And it thinks the matter is important enough to warrant paying out a $3 million settlement. I'm going along with the subject organization's own judgment here; and I can and do categorically deny edit-warring or disruptive editing . --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC) 04:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you were not a party to the negotiations which resulted in this settlement, you have no way of knowing what either the SPLC or Nawat/Quilliam were thinking. You cannot assume that either organizations was thinking anything particular: Statement A thus means exactly what is stated in Statement A and nothing more. Interpretation or analysis is forbidden by WP:OR unless it comes from a reliable source.  You have nothing of that sort to support your contentions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reread WP:OR, graf 1. This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Duh. I wasn't talking about the talk page, but the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reread your comment. Any addition of this relatively minor incident to the lede will be removed per WP:WEIGHT. This article is not going to be skewed by POV-pushers.  Nothing there about any "interpretation", "analysis", or WP:OR violation in the article itself. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The story got reported in Financial Times: David Bond, "US Rights Campaigners Apologise over Listing UK Group as Muslim Extremists". It's also been reported or republished by the Atlantic, Newsweek, AP News, CNBC, ABC News, and Japan's largest English-language newspaper, Japan Times. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Whilst we should mention this I am not convinced it is worthy to go in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Nor is this claim particularly leadworthy: Its classifications and listings ... have been the subject of criticism from conservatives and others, who have argued that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad or unwarranted. As a designated class, "conservatives" could be presumed to have an agenda against the organization because of its struggles to fight right-wing extremism. Also, the term "others" may need to be tagged as vague or ambiguous. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Different issue, please do not derail this with unrelated matters. If you wish to challenge anything else in the lead strart a new thread.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3 million out of a 50 million budget is not small potatoes. Of course it should be added to the lead. Along with the Ben Carlson screwup. And being dropped by the FBI and Pentagon. It all needs to go into the lead.– Lionel(talk) 09:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We can readily substitute the better sourced, more interesting, and more leadworthy claim for the (somewhat related) current claim - which really does seem to be vague and ambiguous! We could alternatively try including both claims, but some well-informed editors would reasonably oppose on POV grounds. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Less then 10%, so not sure it is that big (ohh and remember this has been going on for three years). And again anything else is a different issue.Slatersteven (talk)
 * The two issues are related; the two claims are in part duplicative; and POV policy applies to the claims in aggregate, not in isolation. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree and now oppose any addition until I know what it is I am discussing. I cannot agree to X if X may be expanded to become Y.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The case should be mentioned but per weight does not belong in the lead. "Recentism" says that articles should not be imbalanced toward recent events. It is speculation what the long term effects will be. Some editors see it as no different from many similar cases involving media outlets, while some see this as vindication of other groups listed by the SPLC. But per "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", we need to wait for reliable sources to determine that before assigning significant weight. TFD (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This says the settlement will come out of insurance, not their budget. It also points out that they would likely have won any lawsuit, and that their surrender could possibly play into Trump's desire to make it easier to sue the media. It also says "threatened lawsuit". I've seen no actual evidence that a lawsuit was ever filed, and we shouldn't state that it was without being certain. Doug Weller  talk 11:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that the FBI's relationship with the SPLC had changed, although I know the Pentagon has. Just as new is the fact that Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Amazon work with the SPLC and Amazon gave them a million bucks. Doug Weller  talk 11:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This WP:BATTLEGROUND action is relevant to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Beyond My Ken said that this 3RR action was a WP:BATTLEGROUND action intended to punish him for preventing the OP from pushing her political POV. User:Dave Dial and User: Malik Shabazz immediately added that the OP had engaged in disruptive editing. A respected admin then advised Beyond My Ken to take a break. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, "the OP" is you, Dervorguilla. "OP" = "Original poster", i.e. of the 3rr report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. In the phrase her political POV, the adjective her does use the grammatical gender appropriate for a user named Dervorguilla. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

As suggested in the calculation at § Reliable tertiary sources helpful in due-weight calculation, around an eighth of the lead can be used for describing accusations against the subject. (This works out to 35 words.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Using sentence in Hell Followed with Her to support the statement about 'sources'
I checked Neiwert, And Hell Followed with Her, to see whether it directly supports this material: The SPLC's listings are considered authoritative by academic and media sources.

Apparently, all it supports is the information that Neiwert himself considers them authoritative. To me, at least, using it to support that passage sounds like OR.

I have a couple of other questions (which I'm quoting from the Reliable Sources Checklist essay) and answers.


 * Does the author have an opinion on the matter? On the continuum running from "utterly disinterested investigator or reporter" to "complete polemicist", where does this person fit?
 * He doesn't hold himself out to be disinterested. He says in the Acknowledgments that he's friends with the group's intelligence leader.


 * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?
 * Yes. He wrote half of it himself.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is being used as an example.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It can't be used an example to support this material: The SPLC's classification and listings ... are considered authoritative by academic and media sources. It's not an academic or media source. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC) 19:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It Mr Neiwert not part of the media?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Once was. Hasn't been since 2001, though. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly how you define "the media", but seems to me he would still qualify.Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary, 2016 ed., s.vv. “media” (def. 2), “mass medium”.
 * media
 * a singular or plural in construction : mass media b plural : members of the mass media
 * mass medium
 * : a medium of communication (as the newspapers, radio, …, television) that is designed to reach the mass of the people and that tends to set the standards, ideals, and aims of the masses — usually used in plural
 * Neiwert's not a staff writer for (or other employee of) any newspaper or radio or television station. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

See what I wrote above, "The first source. Intelligence and Security Informatics (p. 95), says, "the web sites of the "Southern Poverty Law Center" (SPLC, www.splcentyer.org) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL, www.adl.org) are authoritative sources for identifying domestic estremists and hate groups."" We don't need multiple sources just because some editors wish that were not the case. TFD (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Neiwert matter has been disposed of, thereby ending this section. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Source is needed that directly supports 'are considered authoritative'
The lead says, The SPLC's classification and listings ... are considered authoritative by academic and media sources. (Not "were considered".) It attributes that material to four sources. None of them directly supports it.


 * Chen, Intelligence and Security Informatics, was written in 2005.
 * Chokshi, "Year of Enormous Rage", just says the SPLC considers itself authoritative but its critics don't.
 * Neiwert, And Hell Followed, was published by Nation Books, "a co-publishing venture of the Nation Institute and the Perseus Books Group". The Nation Institute is a self-acknowledged advocacy group.
 * Swain, New White Nationalism, was written in 2001.

Can anyone provide a (current) RS that supports that material directly? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Five years after New White Nationalism, Swain gets quoted -- by Chokshi -- as qualifying (or maybe contradicting?) the material that's attributed to her in the lead."“They paint with a very broad brush and in the process they tend to be sweep up people that are politically conservative,” said Carol Swain, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University who has criticized the organization’s methodology in the past. “I think they do it in a very harmful way and they abuse their power as an organization.”"Note to User:EdJohnston (cc to User:MShabazz): It looks like everyone's been discussing the points of interest; so there's no need to worry about page protection! --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does look a bit synthy, can any one provide sources that say it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The first source. Intelligence and Security Informatics (p. 95), says, "the web sites of the "Southern Poverty Law Center" (SPLC, www.splcentyer.org) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL, www.adl.org) are authoritative sources for identifying domestic estremists and hate groups." That does directly support the text. Whether or not it should be authoritative is another issue. The National Review for example routinely runs articles attacking the SPLC, but one of its columnists, Dennis Prager, writes, "it is cited and even relied upon by the New York Times, Facebook, Amazon, Google, CNN and others." He then argues that it should not be considered authoritative. But this article already says in the lead that there are detractors. TFD (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The first source (Chen) looks like it could be used as a reputable mainstream RS for claims about the subject group's history. It would directly support any passage that says the SPLC was considered authoritative in or around 2004. But not one that says it still is. (See WP:AGE MATTERS guideline.)
 * By 2016, Swain (the fourth source) was saying (in the second source, Chokshi) that she did not consider the SPLC authoritative. "They paint with a very broad brush ... in a very harmful way." So it looks like the article may need a subsection under "History" with some information about when and how the group changed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC) 18:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You would need a source that something says the statement is no longer valid. Also, you need to distinguish between what a reliable source says about consensus and what they say about their own opinions. The article clearly states that a small number of writers are detractors of the SPLC. That does not mean that it is not considered authoritative in reliable sources. Even Fox News regularly cites it. TFD (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Around 2015, the FBI stopped officially using SPLC as a legitimate source of hate-crime reports, according to Fox News. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And this may not in fact be true .Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are (or were) arguing that "Even Fox News regularly cites it." To me, it looks like you are (or were) relying on yourself as an authority for that claim. (Most people do this kind of thing from time to time.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was when?. Also what has this to do with the FBI (who are not as far as I know yet to be sold to News Corp).Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I misspoke. DFW is (or was) arguing that, not you. I can only say that I am amazed that a man of my intelligence should have been guilty of [ making such an error .] --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is at least one link in the discussion pages to a Fox news story citing it. Note that in addition to carrying heavily biased talked shows, Fox News Channel also has news reporting. TFD (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The byline says Associated Press. And the dateline says PEARL, Miss. – PEARL, Miss. (AP). --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fox News isn't terrible, but citing it and saying that it is Authoritative are two different things. I think at the moment is is clear that the SPLC used to be considered authoritative, but currently that is quite unclear. Fox News did recently re-publish this opinion piece entitled "The Southern Poverty Law Center isn't authoritative, it's garbage" that was originally published in the Washington Examiner. Interestingly, that piece was published as an 'Opinion' piece, but doesn't have an author listed, just "Washington Examiner". In it, they cite Ken Silverstein with the comment "Ken Silverstein, the liberal investigative journalist who probably has studied the SPLC more than anyone else, wrote in 2010, “I feel that the Law Center is essentially a fraud and that it has a habit of casually labeling organizations as ‘hate groups.’”". It seems that all of the recent coverage that the SPLC has "lost all credibility" and "Isn't authoritative" are all Op Eds though, at least in so many words, though the Atlantic in an article (not Op Ed) notes: By overreaching in its description of Nawaz, SPLC undercut its own reputation and the noble goal of fighting against anti-Muslim sentiment. Given the lack of clear claims of being authoritative in anything near to being current, and claims to the contrary by experts in the field, I think we can't say that it is currently authoritative. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

What I said was, reliable sources say the SPLC is considered authoritative in media and academic writing and that it is regularly cited in major news media including Fox News. I don't think anyone questions that. What some do question though is whether or not it should be considered authoritative, just as some people question global warming or evolution. Incidentally, Silverstein's original writing on the SPLC was in 2000. But while you describe him as a liberal, his views are considerably to the left of most liberals. There's very little in his writing you would support, so it is strange that you would pick this one. TFD (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't describe him as a liberal, the source did (it was a quote), and I don't know anything about him beyond what the source said. Not sure why you brought up global warming or evolution either. "reliable sources say the SPLC is considered authoritative in media and academic writing and that it is regularly cited in major news media including Fox News." I question that. Some sources call it authoritative, others call it all kinds of things that you shouldn't say in polite company, and the SPLC has changed quite a lot in the last decade or so, so it depends when the sources you are talking about are from. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally am not questioning whether whether ... it should be considered authoritative, TFD. Here's the point I'm making: Some mainstream reliable sources (may) say they still consider it authoritative - but others don't. So we can improve the lead by adding "some", removing "conservatives and", and correcting the verb tense, like so:
 * The SPLC's classification and listings . . . have been considered authoritative by some academic and media sources but have been the subject of criticism from others, who argue that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad or unwarranted.
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC) 03:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The reality is that almost all the criticism has come from conservative sources, most of whom hold at least some of the views that the SPLC defines as hateful, in particular anti-Islamism. Ken Silverstein founded CounterPunch, which routinely runs articles attacking conservatives, liberals and progressives from the left. TFD (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your point? Partisan politics is partisan? That is a revelation. In all seriousness though, we don't need to reinvent the wheel, just tell it like it is. Dervorguilla's wording above sums up the situation rather well. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  10:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that the opinions expressed by most SPLC critics lay outside mainstream opinion in mainstream journalism and academic writing and should not be misrepresented as mainstream criticism. In fact, the same critics typically criticize the media and academia as far left. Here is a link to a July 1 article in Al Jazeera that cites the SPLC's description of a far right group in the U.S. There is no proviso, such as "many critics disagree with the SPLC's assessment of far right groups." TFD (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into a discussion of "how biased are the media?". The point is that some think it is, and some think it goes too far. Keep it simple and lets not make a political thing out of this. This discussion is straying dangerously toward American Politics discretionary sanctions territory. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  11:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No issue with the suggested alteration.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * TFD, I think it may have been true in the past that "almost all the criticism has come from conservative sources, most of whom hold at least some of the views that the SPLC defines as hateful". But this is clearly no longer the case.
 * As summarized by The Atlantic:
 * "The list that included Nawaz became a central bone of contention in a broader debate over SPLC in general. While the fabled nonprofit has long had its critics, many of them hatemongers like Gaffney, the new chorus included sympathetic observers and fellow researchers on hate groups, who worried that SPLC was mixing its research and activist strains. 'Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?' Politico Magazine asked."
 * For the same reason, sources published in 2006 and earlier are not sufficient to support the present tense statement "are considered authoritative by a number of academic and media sources".
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have helpfully added two citations to 2018 articles published by The Washington Post and The New York Times which cite the SPLC as experts on hate groups, and changed back the wording to "are." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These two articles don't support the general "authoritative" claim. They surely support the notion that there are cases where SPLC's research is still being quoted and reported on in quality media, but that has (as far as I'm aware) not been in doubt, and it's a far cry from showing that these news publications consider it "authoritative". Most newspaper articles are, at least partly, based on another party's statements (press releases, reports by other news media, interviews etc.), without implying that that party is the gold standard in the corresponding field.
 * Is it possible to find a current reliable source that directly states that the SPLC's classification and listings are considered authoritative, like the cited paper by Chen did in 2006?
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not looking good for that material. See "Southern Poverty Law Center SPLC Morris Dees", Bing. So the challenged material has to get removed per WP:UNSOURCED policy. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds ... material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if that information is directly present in the source. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 05:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ben Schreckinger, "Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?", Politico Magazine, June 28, 2016. "Beirich ... concedes that the SPLC prioritizes the other end of the political spectrum. “We are focused, whether people like it or not, on the radical right,” she says.... “I think the SPLC has jumped the shark,” [Krikorian] says."
 * Kathleen M. Brown, "Southern Poverty Law Center", Encyclopædia Britannica, January 9, 2017. "The organization has been accused of financial mismanagement, misleading fund-raising methods, and institutionalized racism. In addition it has been charged with exaggerating the threat of racism for purposes of fund-raising, of wrongfully applying the term hate group to legitimate organizations, and of promoting a left-wing “politically correct” agenda under the guise of civil rights."
 * Ken Silverstein, “Hate,” Immigration, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, Harper's Magazine, March 22, 2010. "I feel that the Law Center is essentially a fraud and that it has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” ... In doing so, the SPLC ... raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people."
 * The edit summary here, the information that *a number of sources* consider them so isn’t *directly* present in this source is a nonsensical Catch-22. The statement in question is that "a number of sources consider the organization to be authoritative." The source removed, which directly and extensively cited the SPLC as an expert source of information about Atomwaffen, is one of that number of sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, my edits are an attempted compromise with HaeB's version. If you object to my version, I object equally to HaeB's version, and the correct challenged removal would be all the way back to status quo ante. If that's what you prefer, I will go there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's how I interpret your argument.
 * 1. It's OK to say:
 * The SPLC's classifications and listings ... are considered authoritative cited by ... the New York Times[13] and the Washington Post[14].
 * 2. Consequently it's OK to say:
 * The SPLC's classifications and listings ... are considered authoritative cited by a number of ... media sources, including the New York Times[13] and the Washington Post[14].
 * Did I get that right? Because if 1 were OK, then 2 would be OK too. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 02:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

'The listings are considered authoritative by the Post.[14]' may be OR
The Post is a primary source of information about whom the Post considers authoritative or not authoritative. So the WP:PRIMARY policy unquestionably applies here.


 * A primary source may be used only to make a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact that can be verified by any educated person with access to that source. • Do not interpret or synthesize material found in a primary source.

It looks like some educated persons can verify to themselves that the Post really does consider the Poverty Law Center's listings to be authoritative - just from reading the Heim story. But User:Dervorguilla herself can't. Maybe she's just dim. Nonetheless, she is (for better or worse) "educated". Which means neither she nor anyone else can use that story as a primary source to directly support the statement that the Post considers the Center's listings to be authoritative. (Indeed, having just reread it, she now believes that Heim and the interested Post editors don't regard those listings as gospel! But that doesn't matter. What matters is that she can't verify that they do regard them as such, just from that story.)

Consequently, we can't use that story as a source to directly support the information that the SPLC's classification and listings are considered authoritative by the Washington Post. This material needs to get removed (as OR) per WP:PRIMARY policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC) 05:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

'The listings are considered authoritative by the Times' may fail verification
The article says "The SPLC's classification and listings ... are considered authoritative ... by ... The New York Times. (Bromwich, "What Is Atomwaffen?", New York Times.) I checked the source. It doesn't support that statement. Bromwich gives the SPLC just 21 words; he then gives the ADL 40 words that directly contradict the SPLC's.


 * An intelligence analyst at the [SPLC] cited a ProPublica report that said.... But ... a senior researcher at the Anti-Defamation League said she had no evidence that the group had that many members. She estimated that....

The article text has failed verification; so it needs to get removed. See WP:UNSOURCED policy. The cited source must clearly support the material. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What does he say about the SPLC?Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All Bromwich says about SPLC itself is that one of its intelligence analysts read a ProPublica report on Atomwaffen and spoke to him about it. His story focuses on Atomwaffen - not SPLC. It's RS for Atomwaffen but not for SPLC. So ought to move that citation to Atomwaffen.
 * See SOURCE policy: Use sources that directly support the material presented and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness depends on the context. Likewise the CONTEXTMATTERS guideline: Cite sources focused on the topic at hand.... Sources should directly support the information as presented in the article.
 * We can (as a rule) improve an article by removing sources that don't focus on its subject . --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC) 19:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the SPLC listings were authoritative a few years ago, but the listings have greatly increased their scope in recent years, and have been criticized widely from both the right and the left. No, they are not authoritative anymore. They are just the controversial opinions of some political activists. Roger (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * People keep changing "have been considered authoritative" to "are considered authoritative". I have restored the 'have been' again. Hope this addresses your concerns. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Bromwich story doesn't support the statement that the SPLC's classification and listings have been considered authoritative by The New York Times. It doesn't even support the statement that they are or have been considered authoritative by Bromwich. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Roger, please note that (per WP:TALK) this is not the place for mere opinions about the article's subject that are not grounded in external sources and/or Wikipedia policies. Please also consider that individuals who have been in conflict with the SPLC themselves (e.g. because they were called out in one of its publications) could benefit from evaluating whether they have a conflict of interest. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Despite the outcome of the discussion above and the so far unsuccessful search for references supporting the present tense statement, TFD has has changed "have been considered authoritative" to "are considered authoritative" again, arguing that "Past perfect tense [sic, 'have been' is actually perfect tense ] implies may not be true now, which is not supported by reliable sources."

I don't think "have been" implies that. And vague speculations about possible misinterpretations are not a license for violating WP:BURDEN. In any case though, I have changed "considered" to "described", so that the sentence refers more clearly to the publication of statements at a particular point in time (rather than views being held - we don't know how these views may have changed in the last 12-16 years), and specified the timing more clearly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Source is needed that directly supports 'are widely cited'
The lead says, The SPLC's classification and listings ... are widely cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues. It attributes that material to two sources. Neither of them directly supports it. Can anyone provide a (current) RS that supports that material directly?

For a helpful definition, see Webster's Unabridged, 2016, s.v. "cite" (def. 2) : to quote by way of evidence, authority, proof. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We can paraphrase. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. We can paraphrase. Still, neither source directly supports that information. See also Dictionary.com, s.v. "cite" (def. 1): to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), especially as an authority: He cited the Constitution in his defense. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 04:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that a huge number of media sources can be found which cite the SPLC is demonstrable proof of this fact. That is not "synthesis," it is merely stating an indisputable fact. If you would like me to footnote that section with about 100+ separate sources, that can be done. But it would be, of course, citation overkill. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See what I wrote above, "The first source. Intelligence and Security Informatics (p. 95), says, "the web sites of the "Southern Poverty Law Center" (SPLC, www.splcentyer.org) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL, www.adl.org) are authoritative sources for identifying domestic estremists and hate groups."" We don't need multiple sources just because some editors wish that were not the case. TFD (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That (assumed) fact would indeed be proof. But that fact doesn't actually exist. A helpful definition is found in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed., s.v. "cite" (def. 2). To refer to or adduce as precedent or authority. The SPLC was widely referred to or adduced as authority, not is. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, the recent citations to, and widespread coverage of the SPLC's listings, are not "was," they are "is." Just earlier this year, the NYT devoted much of an article about Atomwaffen to the SPLC's expert commentary, in fact. You'll have to do some impossible mental gymnastics to explain how that is not "citing." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked that source. It contradicts your erroneous statement. It supports the contrary statement -- that the Times devotes very little to the SPLC's commentary (not "much").
 * The article gives the SPLC just 21 words, and
 * 21 words ÷ 1,040 words = 0.020.
 * Also, it then gives the ADL 40 words describing the SPLC's commentary as false authority. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 19:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, a disagreement as to a precise figure doesn't constitute "false authority." If the NYT didn't believe the SPLC number was relevant, they simply wouldn't have included it. That you don't like the citation is not relevant. It is a citation. If you'd like more, I'll happily find more. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That source was written in 2005. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Its 'annual list ... is often seen as an authoritative survey ..., but....' 'After criticism of his inclusion ... the SPLC said that ... he should not have been branded an extremist.' Lewontin, "Does the Center Target Conservatives?. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See Equivocation. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, so every time you read something on the Daily Caller, we are supposed to update our sources? Show me a source that says academic and news sources no longer consider them reliable. BTW, since you believe mainstream sources no longer rely on the SPLC, do you believe that they are now representing anti-Islamist, anti-LGBT and similar groups fairly? TFD (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not about if they are an RS, that discussion is currently taking place at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive1, but rather whether they are "widely cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see anything here that supports the removal of the NYT article as a source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the Daily Caller. ( Replying to your comment about "every time you read something on the Daily Caller" .) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC) 03:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * We're in DENY territory here. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Roger that. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I could drop this in,, but it might be argued that it's the journal of Blacks in higher education, and thus biased, haha--since proper sources are white and don't see color so they don't even have to mention it. Or this, And I suppose I could plow through that article's bibliography to find the four sources mentioned in that study. Or this, . And those who think (like that student who wrote that master's thesis for JMU, which was a hit job) that the SPLC somehow benefits from "biased" overestimations of the number of hate groups should read note 14 of this article. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We're just discussing "are widely cited", though. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No we're not. You are doubting "widely-cited"; no one else is. (And of course you're doing semantics that no one cares about.) I'm here watching the rerun of today's Tour de France's episode, with JSTOR open so I can prove what is already obvious. Along the way I'm dropping nuggets for the next time someone asks a redundant question, and I'm doing so in proper templates, so I can rack up some more "thanks" spam in the future. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The parcours is quite delectable today; much preferable to the endless coastal flats. I've only 23km left in my watching of the stage so I shan't spoil it for you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You finish watching already? I don't know--getting kind of tired of him; we could do with a new face, haha. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To understand what the term "cite" means in this context, see Webster's Unabridged (to quote by way of evidence, authority, proof); Dictionary.com (to quote, especially as an authority); and Black's Law Dictionary (to refer to or adduce as precedent or authority). That article doesn't quote, refer to, or adduce the SPLC as authority. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah well. Peter, I suggest you agree to disagree, lest the world run out of electrons. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Check the section title. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OMG you're a bore. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This section title says "are", not "were". ( Replying to your comment that "No we're not." ) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) 03:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Replying to your comment that "We could do with a new face": You can find many new faces at this other section. Bye, Dervorguilla (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For a new face, I actually had Dylan Groenewegen in mind, but sure. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The prevailing topic of this thread (following the above editor's bye, is the topic of whether or not or how this thread should be collapsed (with a cycling competition trailing by a hair). I never restore and always discuss after being reverted, so I won't collapse it again without a discussion, but please for the love of what ever deity, whose casual mention least offends you, put a bullet (back) into this thread and leave it until better sources/better proposals come along. FYI, ask a feminist if you aren't sure: Bye means bye. Edaham (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm replying here because it seems more polite than leaving messages on Edaham's talk page, and I'm a bit weirded out by the referrals to yourself in third person. If something being discussed distresses you, it's far better to raise it at ANI than edit war to remove or hide somebody else's comments. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or collapse the entire thread if it's not going anywhere :) - The collapse and hat templates support leaving a reason in the roll-up bar, and in it you can suggest further related discussion, perhaps bringing different view points to the subject at hand. This is especially useful if people subject fork, by replying to different comments at different levels in the stack. In this case you could colapse a thread and start two new ones for example. This is regarded as helpful rather than offensive as it doesn't imply an issue with any particular editor's comments and just serves to organize things better. Edaham (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

My 2 cents - my take on something like this is that truth doesn't necessarily justify inclusion. Is it widely cited? Yes. But if no one has discussed the significance of SPLC being widely cited why is it important to mention it in the article? The issue here seems to be that the statement lacks context without a source. Drmies sources look pretty good - its worth noting the controversies should probably be discussed in the same section. The article balance needs to be improved - for example In 1986, the entire legal staff of the SPLC, excluding Dees, resigned as the organization shifted from traditional civil rights work toward fighting right-wing extremism. deserves more than one sentence - especially with so much of the article dedicated to positive opinions of the same. Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of policies relating to "article balance": 1. UNDUE § BALASPS: Balancing aspects. An article should strive to treat each aspect of its subject with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. 2. IAR: Improve the encyclopedia.
 * So, has anyone found other RS that treat this aspect (that when SPLC shifted direction in 1986, its legal staff all resigned)? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have, but I would have to go searching for them again - I will try to post some of them here later tonight. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Its legal staff did resign - but on the grounds that the Center was no longer doing much to help poor minorities. (Reportedly, Dees had found that affluent liberal benefactors were more interested in fighting hot-button high-profile targets than in - for example - suing to reduce the disparity between poor black schools and affluent white ones.)
 * Silverstein, "The Church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Profits from Intolerance".
 * In 1986, the Center’s entire legal staff quit in protest of Dees’s refusal to address issues—such as homelessness, voter registration, and affirmative action—that they considered far more pertinent to poor minorities, if far less marketable to affluent benefactors, than fighting the KKK.
 * Schreckinger, "Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?".
 * In the 1980s, the group’s entire legal staff quit to protest Dees’ obsession with the remnants of the KKK—which still captured the imagination of the group’s liberal donor base—at the expense of lower-profile but more relevant targets. . ..
 * Ken Silverstein, a liberal journalist and another critic of the group who authored a scathing investigation of its marketing and financial practices for Harper’s in 2000, attributes the growing scope of the SPLC’s censures to a financial imperative to wade into hot-button issues that will rile donors.
 * Schreckinger links to Silverstein, "Church of Morris Dees," at a non-RS URL, http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html. And sometime around January 21, 2018, the host site (American Patrol Report) got "taken offline by its owner". Luckily a copy of that page (captured December 28, 2017) is still available at Internet Archive. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the one I was thinking of - I got it confused with the staff quitting in 1986 - this actually isn't in the article  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like the book got consigned to the "Further References" section... Can you put some of that material in the body? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Maintaining INTEGRITY in lead
I challenged this claim:
 * The SPLC's classification and listings of ... extremists (... people that, in its assessment, "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics")[9] have been described...

It's sourced to the SPLC's "Hate Map" page. But that page says nothing about extremists. Nowhere does it support this claim about extremists being people who, in SPLC's assessment, attack or malign an entire class.

VERIFY policy: Any material whose verifiability has been challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports it. INTEGRITY guideline: If an element is footnoted with a source, adding new material that the source doesn't support is highly misleading if the material is placed in that element so as to make it look like the source did support it.

I've now removed this text - "and extremists" - and this text - "and people". --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added an additional incredibly obscure source that was clearly too hard for you to find. Hopefully this helps. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's another source for good measure: https://www.splcenter.org/issues/hate-and-extremism  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

What SPLC means by the term 'extremist'
I believe that this material can't be verified:


 * The SPLC's classification and listings of . . . extremists ( . . . people that, in its assessment, "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics") have been described . . ..

My reasons:

1. After I added a Failed Verification tag, two editors tried to provide references. Neither of the sources they cited supports this material.

2. One of the sources directly contradicts it. See SPLC, "Hate and Extremism":


 * We track more than 1,600 extremist groups operating across the country. . . . There are 917 hate groups currently operating in the US.


 * 1,600 extremist groups - 917 hate groups = either 683 or 1,600 extremist groups that aren't hate groups.

3. The other source describes what SPLC means by the term "hate group". See SPLC, "Hate Map".


 * What is a hate group? The SPLC defines a hate group as an organization that . . . has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

So, the lead is making an obviously false assertion about those sources' facts.

SPLC is a world-class organization and it needs a world-class Wikipedia entry. I've contacted the Center about fixing this obvious error per BIOSELF policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It is clear from the website that the term extremist is wider and includes groups such as the John Birch Society which is not a hate group but referred to as a "patriot group." The SPLC monitors them because people who join violent hate groups usually have some contact with patriot groups first. TFD (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * For now I've fixed it by moving 'extremist' to after the description (making it only apply to 'hate group', which is what the source says.) This is accurate but obviously leads to awkward wording, so we should probably revise the entire sentence. Note that the SLPC website is clear that extremist and hate group are different designations and that the one does not imply the other.  Probably we should also try and find secondary sources rather than citing the SPLC website.  (I suspect that such sources will give us what we need for better wording here, anyway - part of the problem here is that citing the SPLC website limits us to very straightforward factual statements with no interpretation, which makes it hard to write a good summary in the lead.)  --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As they do not mean the same we should make it clear they are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Update on Endowment
I think the endowment should be updated. Right now it has the 2016 sum of $319.3 million, but the SPLC currently reports their endowment as $432.7 million. See here: https://www.splcenter.org/about/financial-information DiscoStu42 (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As this will change regularly maybe remove it entirely?Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We should update it by all means .GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz
Should this be updated to include the Maajid Nawaz case? https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/29352-acting-like-a-hate-group-splc-pays-large-settlement-and-may-be-sued-further

(Mr Dog 1982 (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC))
 * I am failing to find what it says that is new about the case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

FBI page
Malik Shabazz, I'm not sure how you can state that it is not true that the FBI has removed the splc as a resource from its hate crimes page when the page itself confirms it, while the SPLC and ADL are mentioned briefly on the FBI's hate crimes webpage, they are simply listed as having had partnered with the FBI in certain areas in the past, the SPLC is not referred to as a reference, and there is no actual link to its website, you can see for yourself here,

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

If you know of another FBI page that contradicts this page please list it here.Underneaththesun (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this edit because neither LifeSiteNews nor HotAir are reliable, independent secondary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This story about the FBI cutting links keeps coming up. Here's a link to a story debunking it. TFD (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there some one to salt this now, it is getting a bit tedious.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, I never said that the FBI had completely severd links with the SPLC, my edit simply stated that the FBI's hate crimes web page no longer refers to the SPLC as a resource, which appears to be true (see FBI webpage link above), in fact I actually used the story that TFD mentioned as a source on my first edit because it states that the FBI did make "a minor website change" Underneaththesun (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When did Malik Shabazz say anything about it not being true?Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

revision 851698323 (see revision history) Underneaththesun (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The FBI decided that its source page would only provide links to other government departments and had nothing to do with its connection with the SPLC. So there is no relevance, except that conspiracy theorists have tried to interpret this as a severing of ties. This article should not give credence to that by implying there has been any change. TFD (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

But the page was changed, regardless of what the motive was, simply stating this in the article in no way gives credence to conspiracy theorists as long as the reason for the change and the fact that it was a minor change is made clear. Underneaththesun (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well for a start it is their civil rights (not hate crime) page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the hate crimes page a subsection of the civil rights section, the actual civil rights page on the FBI's website is located here:
 * https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/

Underneaththesun (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And what exactly, would this trivial piece of minutia about the FBI's website do to improve our SPLC article? Mojoworker (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether or not this is mentioned is determined by "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If something is not mentioned in reliable sources, then it is disproportionate to mention it. And if it is a minor change that in no way reflected a change in the relationship between the FBI ad SPLC, there is no reason to mention it. TFD (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, so we've gone from saying the change didn't even happen, to saying mentioning it gives undue weight to "conspiracy theorists", to saying it is simply too small of a change to warrant being mentioned in this article. I am glad we are all on the same page now. The question remains, why the conservative news media was so obsessed with it, and yes, I would in fact argue that sites like the Daily Caller and the Washington Times are simply conservative news sites as opposed to conspiracy theory sites, but that is a topic for another page. Underneaththesun (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Left-Leaning SPLC
Suggestion: There should be a mention in the first sentence that Southern Poverty Law Center is a "Left-Leaning" or "ideologically liberal" non-profit advocacy organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.72.199 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2018‎


 * I have no objection, but RS might back up your claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

With regard to excluding the following section from the introductory paragraph:


 * SPLC has been described by Fox News as a "far-left" organisation and a "money-grabbing slander machine".

This type of criticism, if included in the article at all, should be in the criticism section. However in my opinion these references fall short of the criteria of Identifying_reliable_sources. A closer inspection of the two links will show that one is a commentary by John Stossel, and the other is a news story that cites John Stossel's opinion and other unnamed "critics" of the organization. Wikipedia should rely more on published, scholarly sources of factual information, and less on biased news and opinion pieces. Mike Restivo (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should rely more on published, scholarly sources of factual information, and less on biased news and opinion pieces."

Biased sources are not excluded in Wikipedia.:
 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. ...Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking."
 * "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. ... Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format." Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is not inclusion but where it should be. As I said I have no personal issue with it being in the lead (not seeing it as an attack) I also agree that being biased is not a reason for exclusion, but we also have wp:balance. The lead is for summarizing important points in the article, and not to emphasize anything. Thus I can just as easily see how just a couple of opp-edd and commentary pieces are not good enough for the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's correct that Dimadick brought up the point that biased sources are not excluded, however the second part of the policy guideline seems to be more significant: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Should we conclude that Fox News commentaries meet these criteria? Furthermore, when using opinion pieces, "it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author" (which was not done in the case of the sentence in dispute). Furthermore part two, does John Stossel represent an expert or reputable source for opinion about this organization? For these three reasons it appears reasonable to exclude this sentence from the introductory paragraph, but include it in the criticisms section. In addition I stand by my opinion that Wikipedia should rely more on scholarly sources of factual information over biased news and opinion pieces; note that I did not say that Wikipedia should prohibit biased sources, but that we as a community should rely more on scholarly sources. Mike Restivo (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Should we conclude that Fox News commentaries meet these criteria? " - no, it fails the "reputation for fact-checking" part, obviously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone expressing their own opinion on Fox News Channel is not necessarily expressing the opinion of Fox News. Also, when U.S. libertarians call something left-wing, it says more about their view of the world then what they are describing. To them, everyone who does not share their views on global warming, Islamic terror and the privatization of sidewalks is left-wing. TFD (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Strange sentences
In the "Controversies" section the paragraph covering the Family Research Council starts very oddly. The gunman introduced by surname only in the second sentence: I'm guessing that his full name used to appear in the first sentence but was mistakenly edited out. Also, the references (those that I could access anyway) don't seem mention anything about chicken sandwiches.  Tigerboy1966  06:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the problem, Tigerboy1966. I fixed it. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Relevant link
If the POV pushers are not watching this article anymore, here is a relevant link: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/southern-poverty-law-center-hate-label-deserves-vigorous-response/ + https://nypost.com/2018/08/11/the-splcs-terrible-year-just-got-worse/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial point of contention from the far-right. There's abundant prior discussions, please don't waste our time by making us repeat those things for you.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're an inch away from "Everyone I don't like is Hitler", disregarding well sourced material to push your own POV. There was no previous discussion concerning the linked article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The first article is by Michael Farris, the CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which the SPLC describes as a hate group They say, according to the SPLC, that there is a "homosexual agenda" to destroy Christianity and society and thinks that homosexuality should be illegal and trans sterilized. Are you saying that the mainstream view of those positions is that they are not hateful? TFD (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious coming from someone who started this thread by saying something to the effect of "Everyone I don't like is a POV-pusher." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * These discussions always go in circles. Critics of the SPLC should explain whether a) they believe that the concept of hate speech as normally defined in reliable sources is wrong or b) the SPLC departs from this definition. It seems to be the first. TFD (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * you don't need to be a critic of the SPLC to want to neutrally report them, they have an agenda and a bias, to report them as a neutral is biased itself. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So how does the article say they are neutral?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * so how does our article currently report the organisations agenda and bias? Govindaharihari (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to provide an RS saying what its agenda and bias is (care to tell us what it is yourself?)? We do report what it does, and a number of controversies. But without knowing what you mean we cannot kn ow if the article in fact addresses your concerns already.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They clearly report their agenda and bias on their website. It's "fighting hate and bigotry." No one is trying to hide that. TFD (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Me too, I am against that, but I read this article and I see a bias that is not allowed to be reported here repeatedly and anyone that says such is attacked. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which bias is that? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

2012 FRC event
Regarding this revert: The incident is already mentioned later in the same section with sources. Repeating it a few paragraphs higher in a place of prime importance with less neutral language is both redundant and editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Attempted multiple homicide as a result of the splc's "hate group" designations is quite serious, and the current placement of the event buried in the bullet points looks visibly like whitewashing and in violation of WP:BALANCE. I'd be glad to discuss where the FRC event can be moved to display more prominently. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it wasn't as a result of the hate group designation. That's like a killer finding a victim's address in the phone book and blaming the phone company. TFD (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Corkins found the FRC because it was listed as "anti-gay" by the SPLC, meaning he found out about it because of how the SPLC designated it: Source. It's not as if he already had determined he wanted to shoot up the FRC, and just found its location by consulting the hate map like a phone book. If the SPLC didn't designate it as a hate group, he wouldn't have shot it up. That certainly merits prominent mention in the piece. It doesn't necessarily speak to the validity of the hate group claim (e.g. perhaps FRC really is an anti-gay hate group), but it does speak to the list's consequences. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because a person used a register of hate groups to commit a crime doesn't mean that person is suddenly relevant to the organization who created the register. This is wandering toward WP:COATRACK territory. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Corkins said he wanted to target an ant-gay group and used the SPLC website to find one. He then looked at the FRC website before deciding to attack them. Do believe that no one would know that the FRC is anti-gay unless the SPLC told them or that someone looking for an anti-gay group would be unable to do so were it not for the SPLC? Or that he could not determine on his own that the group was anti-gay by reading their website unless the SPLC already said they were? TFD (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the bullet points looking visibly like whitewashing and in violation of WP:BALANCE is the fault of those who wanted a criticism section to highlight criticisms. Many of us have argued for a long time it should be prose. But if we have a criticisms section that is where criticisms go.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet /. See. —  Newslinger  talk   12:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Facts important, yes?
In the introduction, the bit that says "it is noted for its successful legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations" should note that the SPLC's classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations is deeply flawed, to say the least. I mean, they were persistently asserting that Quilliam headed by Maajid Nawaz is an anti-Muslim extremist group. How far from reality can one get? They could not have been more wrong. Come to think of it, it's quite hateful to assert that someone who isn't a hater is. Is the SPLC a hate group? At any rate, the intro should be changed to "...its controversial classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations..." or something along those lines so as not to appear misleading or outright false. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We do, just not in the first paragraph. But I think you will be hard pressed to find that any RS say its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations is deeply flawed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering their defense of alt-right speakers such as Carl Benjamin and Stefan Molyneux, and their desire to see "data" at the race and intelligence article, I rather suspect that their definition of reliable sourcing is almost the opposite of this site's. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the guy is trolling. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "alt-right speakers such as Carl Benjamin and Stefan Molyneux"
 * lol. 108.41.8.142 (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

SPLC critizised by the Washington Post (not really)
SOURCE here --2001:8003:4023:D900:FDE2:2177:F26:CB8F (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting article, and likely a good source. Not sure why you characterize it as "SPLC critizised (sic) by the Washington Post" - it's not really critical, not really positive, but a good even-handed analysis of the SPLC's arguments and the counter-arguments of those it considers hate groups. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you want to add to the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, the article is by David Montgomery not the WP editorial board, so it is incorrect to attribute the opinions expressed to them. NorthBySouthBaranof is correct, it is not really critical. Montgomery makes an interesting observation: "I was struck by just how little [Gaffney] had disputed the SPLC’s claims about the frankly disquieting positions he has taken. To some extent, it was similar to my experience at the FRC and ADF. They simply saw those positions as admirable, or at the very least defensible, expressions of truth — whereas, to the SPLC, they were expressions of hate." If the claims of what the SPLC describe as hate groups were true, then they would not be hate groups. TFD (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your last sentence means, TFD, but practically every hate group denies that it is a hate group. They are "white pride" or "black nationalist" or "white nationalist" or whatever, but to hear them tell it, they don't bear hate in their hearts. If you buy that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If it were true that the Muslims are planning to overthrown western civilization, force us all to convert and turn the world into a caliphate, then it would not be hateful to say that, it would be true. Of course it is not true and no reasonable person would believe it. And the reason people believe such things is that they are hateful and allow hate to overcome their reasoning. Of course a lot of hate comes from people who critical skills, but it is interesting how many otherwise intelligent people hold these views. TFD (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this has to do with anything, besides which...but this is largely irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that the article says that the disagreement between the SPLC and what they call hate groups is not, according to the article, about how the SPLC describes their positions, but whether those positions should be described as hate. For example the SPLC statement that the FRC claims there is a homosexual agenda to turn children gay is an accurate description of the FRC's position. Where they disagree is that the FRC says their claim is true. TFD (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * But the SPLC doesn't just label you a hate group if you claim that there is a homosexual agenda to turn children gay. They label you a hate group if you have a religious belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Now that is a rather silly and stupid opinion to hold, and I personally strongly support the right for gays to marry (they should suffer along with the rest of us) but it is no more silly and stupid than having a religious belief that dancing leads inevitably to eternal torment or having a religious belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Really enjoy how the SPLC is cited in its own page to defend itself in multiple instances. Another fantastic job by Wikipedia's brave, unbiased editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.227.150 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Amusing isn't it. This is why Wikipedia will never be a scholarly source of information. If people wanted to read lefty propaganda they would grab a copy of Pravda, they shouldn't expect to find it on a website that claims to be a encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.Nuvolari (talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Some diffs might be nice, where do wee use them as a source?Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just went through it. There's very little self-sourcing...other than a reference to the splc's training manuals? Not sure what is being referenced here.Alison Alice (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

practically every hate group denies that it is a hate group. They are "white pride" or "black nationalist" or "white nationalist" or whatever"

I don't know if things are different in the United States, but practically every far-right party and organization in Greece claims to be Patriotic, "Piously" Christian Orthodox, and speaking on behalf of true/genuine Greeks agains race-traitors.

Golden Dawn (political party) for example has staged protests and riots against theatrical plays, songs, or artworks who dare to criticize Christianism or satirize Panagia and various saints. See this article for example:https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/08/golden-dawn-the-open-question-of-greek-politics/:
 * "It’s been argued that the fascism emerging today is the result of long-term political and social trends. Right wing populists, far rightists and independent extremists all share – more or less – a common principal: They see immigration, ethnic diversity and religious freedoms as a threat to national cohesion."
 * “There is a common ideological reservoir whereby far-right MPs and proponents of right-wing extremism express their political views and plan their political actions. For them national identity comes first. There is no room for individual rights. Nobody is entitled to any other belief than the nation and the race”."
 * "Golden Dawn has also fostered relationships with some orthodox religious groups and bishops belonging to the Greek Orthodox Church. At the same time, the party has targeted performers and topics that it does not agree with. In March 2013, journalist Matthaios Tsimitakis reported for Index on Censhorship what happened when the controversial theatrical play “Corpus Christi” went on stage: “For about a month, the actors and other workers at the Hitirion Theatre had to take precautions to protect themselves from threats against their lives and violent attacks by Orthodox religious groups and Golden Dawn”. "
 * Golden Dawn has made its position on the arts that don’t fit with the party’s philosophy clear. “Abolition of state subsidies and the marginalization of the ‘artists’ that offend ethnic, religious and historical symbols”. – from a Golden Dawn political leaflet (p. 22)"
 * "Greek Orthodox clerics like Bishop Amvrosios of Kalavryta and Bishop Seraphim of Piraeus have openly expressed their support of Golden Dawn. Both of them have often spoken out against Jews and homosexuals, though their viewpoints are at odds with other members of the church hierarchy. On 15 July, Amvrosios wrote on his blog that “we have to rise up” because “we have been sold out a long ago. We are Jewish occupied”. In an older post he writes about the “imminent threat” of Islam saying, “Islam does not play around”. In much the same spirit, Golden Dawn’s rhetoric contains islamophobic and anti-semetic propaganda. “1400 year old tradition of Jihad has reached Europe, as well as Greece, and is ready to conquer the continent and our country”, says a recent article on Golden Dawn’s official website entitled “Enemy at The Gates: Islam as a Trojan Horse of New Order”.
 * "In June, the Muslim Association of Greece received a threatening note with the emblem of Golden Dawn printed on it. All Muslims, Greeks and foreigners, were given one month’s time (until 30 June) to leave the country otherwise they would be “slaughtered like chickens”. Golden Dawn denied any connection with the note, calling it a provocation to the party."

The moto of Greek military junta of 1967–1974 was "Ελλάς Ελλήνων Χριστιανών" ("Hellas Hellenon Christianon", Greece of Greek Christians) and still gets repeated verbatim by the Greek far-right activists, politicians, and MPs. It is used as a threat against all religious minorities and the irreligious. Does the United States have similar problems? Dimadick (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Addition of "Left-Wing" to description
In all fairness, this group is an advocacy group that has definite left-ward tilt which is at odds with a huge proportion of the American populaces views. I think it would be more accurate to say "a 'liberal', 'left-leaning' or 'leftist' legal advocacy non-profit."

This is what y'all did to The Heritage Foundation:

"The Heritage Foundation (abbreviated to Heritage)[1][2] is an American conservative public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[4] Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerightstuff (talk • contribs)
 * You will need reliable secondary sources stating that SPLC is left-wing/left-leaning to add it to this article. NZFC  (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * why do you think it's odd that the Heritage Foundation is called conservative when on its website it says "The mission of The Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote conservative public policies"? There are times when reliable sources don't agree with the way an organisation described itself, but so far as I know, not in this case. Your argument seems pretty flawed. Doug Weller  talk 13:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In the minds of right-wing (often far-right) POV warriors, every organisation vocally opposed to far-right hate groups must consist of "loony left" extremists. They just can't imagine anyone who isn't their mirror image to oppose them; they simply can't envision the existence of moderates who have zero sympathies for right-wing radicals and don't secretly agree with them. And they evidently consider "liberals" to be a small radical minority or elite among Americans, when easily about half the population identify as broadly liberal or leftist, or at least not conservative or right-wing. That's evidently why they're so eager to brand the SPLC as left-wing or liberal, as if liberalism was an extremist ideology itself. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for politics, it is for discussing the article. Attacks about the motives of individual editors are not appropriate and should be saved for your own personal blog.  While on wikipedia, please assume good faith on the behalf of those who edit and comment.Natt the Hatt (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. If they specifically track "far-right" hate groups, not just all hate groups, then aren't they by definition a liberally-biased organization? 2. How does the fact that liberal/left constitutes roughly half of the population mean that the SPLC isn't a liberally biased organization? It's not like the SPLC represent the entire left or all liberals, anyway. There are many liberals who disagree with them and some of them are even on the SPLC's hate lists; Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz famously sued them for defamation and won.108.41.8.142 (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC is a far left organisation. This is clear as day to most people, save for a biased few on here. If conservative organisations get a conservative tag then so should left wing organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.Nuvolari (talk • contribs)


 * You would need to provide a reliable source to support your description of far left. TFD (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There clearly left of center(of course left of center would still need a source) but I doubt you'll find RS to describe it as far left. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
I think the image of the HQ should be added to the infobox and the logo design included below it in the same infobox as a logo. I believ this is how it's done in other articles. Julian Bond's name should be added along with the other two. he's credited in the cited source as a cofounder as well as noted as sich in his article woth citations. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

SPLC and the Women's March
The SPLC have cut ties with the women's march, source here. --2001:8003:4085:FB00:BC5C:987B:E3A:D334 (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A better source []. Not sure what you want to add to the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Specific objections to ModerateMike's edit
I have reverted an edit by ModerateMike729, on the grounds that the proposed changes don't have consensus here, particularly the lede edits. The lede of this article has been hotly contested and is the result of extensive discussion, compromise and consensus.

Specifically, adding a laundry list of types of people to those who have criticized the SPLC unbalances the sentence, as we do not present a similar laundry list of types of people who have supported the SPLC. This is likely because such wording is unnecessary and overly detailed for the lede.

Saying that "Republican lawmakers were alarmed" at something is not particularly of interest, and given its brief treatment in the article, doesn't appear to have sufficient weight to belong in the lede.

I invite other commentary and consensus development; if there's consensus that these changes are appropriate, they should of course be implemented. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly disagree with the "laundry list" characterization--it's important and WP:DUE to clarify that the criticism of their hotly disputed "hate list" comes from both the political realm and the media. As for prominent members of the GOP criticizing the SPLC, it's quite well sourced and there are certainly more RS I could add if I haven't already, such as this and this and this. If their hate list has taken on a partisan tone, that's quite notable and belongs in the lede, which should reflect the body. ModerateMike729 (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then we would need to say equally that the group is supported by or endorsed by a similar laundry list of lawmakers, journalists, academics, etc. — because it is. I'm not sure what this sort of dueling "endorsers" lists is supposed to add to the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Moreover we do list criticisms of them, we just do not need every one by any and all members of the legislature.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the body, it's appropriate to mention prominent legislators who have objected to the SPLC's methodology and tactics, in the Criticism section where it belongs. I'm not proposing a "laundry list" in the lede, and I'd be amenable to excluding the portion of my edit that NorthBySouthBaranof characterized as such. However, an additional sentence noting the disapproval of GOP legislators regarding the SPLC's partnership with the FBI is certainly WP:DUE in the lede and reflects the content of the body. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, It is indeed appropriate to mention legislators and conservative organizations that have a problem with the SPLC forging a partnership with the FBI. When it was just the SPLC focusing in on conservative groups and turning a blind eye to the kind of liberal groups favored by their donor base, it was just one more biased organization -- and there are plenty of conservative biased organizations out there. Once the SPLC's views are given weight by a government agency, that is a real concern that we need to cover in this article. I also see no good reason to replace the well sourced "criticized by journalists, lawmakers, analysts, and conservative organizations" with the passive voice weasel words "the subject of criticism from others". I think that a lot of us have an unconscious bias towards whitewashing this page because we really like some of what the SPLC does. For example, I personally really like what the SPLC did about Mississippi correctional institutions, and have to fight my bias to give them a free pass on other issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mentioning them in the article body is appropriate, but putting the list in the lead section is not. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not? Saying "others" seems pretty clearly to be an example of WP:WEASEL. The lede already notes that they have faced charges that their designations are biased, so why shouldn't we clarify that those charges come from conservatives--particularly in light of the FBI partnership? That seems quite notable for a reader, and it's backed up by reliable sources. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The two sources I could access refer to only one lawmaker, Congressman Matt Gaetz who, among other things, invited a holocaust denier to the Trump inauguration. TFD (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet /. See. —  Newslinger  talk   12:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RICO charges against SPLC
A user keeps reverting changes to the Controversies section on the basis it is based on news. An organization being charged with RICO violations is indeed a controversy. The blurb was written completely in NPOV. The text (without the two citations) is:


 * In January 2019, the Center for Immigration Studies filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging the SPLC is in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO, with SPLC’s list of known hate groups. RICO is a federal law originally written to target organized crime but is increasingly being used to sue businesses over false statements transmitted through the mail or electronically.

Please provide comment. --BobiusPrime (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The SPLC wasn't "charged" with anything. This isn't a RICO prosecution; it's a civil RICO claim filed by CIS, which is disgruntled over the SPLC's categorization of it as a hate group. The mere filing of a lawsuit is not inherently newsworthy absent substantial coverage. Maybe this can be included once there is actual coverage of it in reliable source (which will probably come once the inevitable motion to dismiss is decided). Neutralitytalk 01:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, but being "charged" does not necessarily mean a criminal offense. It is a complaint, allegation, etc.  The sources provided are considered "reliable" and tend to point in both political directions, Washington Times and Daily Beast.  Anything else?  --BobiusPrime (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The second sentence is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of "...a federal law originally written to target organized crime but now most frequently used to sue businesses over false statements transmitted through the mail or electronically." from the Daily Beast source, so at a bare, bare minimum, it would have to be rephrased or placed in quotation marks with direct attribution. I don't think including this is necessary at all, however.
 * The Washington Times is weak as a reliable source, to put it mildly. The Daily Beast is more reliable, but does also tend to fail WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS. We are not trying to balance out two sources with opposing ideologies, since this is false balance, we are concerned with reliability and due weight. Further, the Daily Beast article doesn't seem to take the complaint seriously, as they cite a racketeering expert as describing it as "kinda goofy" among other similar comments.
 * My take would be to wait and see how this develops. We would then explain based on any enduring coverage which explains why this is of lasting, encyclopedic significance. If these sources don't materialize, it was never meant to be. If they do, we would also probably want to indicate why the CIS is labeled a hate group in the first place, since both sources already provide the context that it is anti-immigration and has, according to the SPLC promoted "white nationalist and antisemitic writers". Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we cannot omit things because it doesn't fit a particular ideological view. I am not debating the merits of the allegation, but rather the fact that it occurred and is indeed a controversy.  It may be dismissed like other cases that are included in this section, but still relevant.  WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS is a weak and inapplicable justification. --BobiusPrime (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Verifiability. Neutralitytalk 02:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This incident is unlikely to go anywhere according to reliable sources. We can, and should, omit things which are trivial or irreverent. If and when additional sources show up, we can reevaluate. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weight says that insignificant information should be excluded. Significance is determined by the degree of attention the topic receives in reliable sources. If the CIS wants attention paid to their suit, then they need to get major cable news and print media to cover it, at which point inclusion would be justified. TFD (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we use this standard moving forward? That sounds very subjective, much as the "trivial or irreverent" claim.  --BobiusPrime (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is already the existing standard as far as I can tell. Consensus is against the specific edit you have made for various reasons. Wikipedia doesn't deal well with abstract precedents, so you'll need to be specific. Propose specific changes based on specific sources, and understand that these changes will be assessed from that context. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Any standard would be subjective, including one where we included anything that you or I considered important. It is however the standard required by policy. If you disagree with it, you need to get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some time ago I proposed adding information about a lawsuit against Liberty University. I was given the same advice - it had received very little attention in reliable sources and wasn't significant enough to be included. I checked again, found that indeed it had received very little publicity, and agreed. Doug Weller  talk 06:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just woke. Wot they say above. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 07:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have said it elsewhere and will say it here, we should not have every complaint about someone (in this case something) made in the hope of winning. When (and if) they lose then we can include this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like a clear case of WP:RECENTISM to me. As of yet there's no evidence to support that this is notable. Let's wait and see if anything happens before racing to describe it.Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

lawsuit
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-splc-lawsuit-789888/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.106.207 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Already discussed above. TFD (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that what was discussed above is another lawsuit. This one was filed on February 4th. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, and my response is the same. lets wait and see if this goes anywhere.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Second that. Like many organizations, the SPLC gets sued a lot, and many of the lawsuits get dismissed or withdrawn soon after. I am no fan of the SPLC and I am of the opinion that our article isn't NPOV, but adding in every lawsuit before seeing if anything comes of it would be an NPOV violation in the other direction. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Guy, who as he says isn't a fan, so if he agrees with me that this is undue, we must be right! :) Doug Weller  talk 19:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

relevant reference
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/11/08/feature/is-the-southern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/?utm_term=.5e7bead55b4f — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.106.126 (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC) For what?Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some random American guy's opinion on the "fairness" of the SPLC apparently. It's an opinion piece. It's not useful as a source for anything other than a non-notable journalist's personal opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019
The Southern Poverty Law Center fired their organization's co-founder and former chief litigator Morris Dees on Wednesday March 13, 2019. SPLC declined to comment on the reason.

Dgreatone2019 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is already mentioned in the article. Grayfell (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Casa D'Ice Signs
In 2016 The SPLC listed a plastic sign in front of a bar in Versailles, Pennsylvania as an "active hate group". They dropped the listing later when the bar closed down. The SPLC listing is here: (just search for the word "signs")

The plastic sign did contain some extremely unpopular political speech, You can see a sample by googling "Casa D'Ice Signs" and clicking on the "Images link.

I disagree with the views expressed on most of those signs, but I rather liked the "Millions, Billions, Trillions. Let's hope they fix it soon; we only have 23 letters remaining in the alphabet." one.

I eagerly await the inevitable response defending the SPLC and claiming that plastic signs can indeed be active hate groups. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop clogging up the talk page with these rants? This is silly. The SPLC is a reliable source. If you disagree, take it to WP:RS/N. It's been litigated dozens of times, but you're welcome to start another discussion. I've been more critical of the SPLC than most editors here, but you're barking up the wrong tree. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum to rant about the SPLC in 2016 but to talk about how to improve the article now. Surely you know that by now, Guy. There are innumerable right-wing discussion boards where you can talk about how you don't like the SPLC and the anti-racism they stand for. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I can find no mention of this case in any third party reliable sources, although I found your narrative on a number of far right websites. Therefore I have no idea whether your narrative is accurate. Responsible journalists normally would ask the SPLC for their explanation before running with a story and carry out fact-checking. Since you were so emphatic in having the Daily Mail banned as a reliable source, I should be confident you would not use these. Can you provide a reliable source for your interpretation? TFD (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Enough to meet the requirements for article inclusion? Probably not, based upon your search. Enough to decide that the SPLC is not the reliable source that it once was? Yes. That's because we don't prohibit original research or primary sources in such discussions. For the purpose of determining how reliable the source is, the link above to a SPLC web page is more than enough to establish that the SPLC once listed "Casa D'Ice Signs" as an active hate group, and the google search above is more than enough to establish that "Casa D'Ice Signs" was a plastic sign with some unpopular political speech on it. If you are a reasonable person this will be more than enough to convince you that some of the "active hate groups" listed by the SPLC are not. You defended the alleged existence of a hate group called The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub despite it being blindingly obvious that it never existed so I thought it would be fun to ask you if the plastic sign was an active hate group. You cannot seriously dispute that the SPLC listed it as an active hate group. You cannot seriously dispute that it was a plastic sign. And you cannot bring yourself to ever admit that the SPLC was wrong, so as a red herring you pretend that the rules for inclusion in a Wikipedia article apply to talk page discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It could be that the owner of the restaurant met with friends and called themselves the Casa D'Ice Signs group. You would need to contact the SPLC and ask. However, I think that what reliable sources say is preferable to whatever you or I may find blindingly obvious. It's literally blindingly obvious to me that the Sun rises every morning but I accept the scientists' explanation that the world is spinning at 1,000 miles per hour. TFD (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Two sources
Two sources:


 * The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center --The New Yorker
 * The Southern Poverty Law Center Is Everything That’s Wrong With Liberalism: The SPLC’s deceptive and hypocritical approach to anti-racism... --Current Affairs

I will not be commenting further due to previous personal attacks. I will just say that in my opinion these are sources that should be used in this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The second publication bills itself as ""The only sensible anarchist thinking coming out of contemporary print media." Why are you presenting it? The author says he hates liberalism and the bourgeoisie, which are represented by the SPLC. If you go to the World Socialist Web Site, type in the name of any American institution, or politician from across the political spectrum and you will find that that they are all running dogs of American imperialism. I'm not saying they are always wrong, but I don't see per weight any reason to add these views to every single article. I don't see you asking for these views to be added either, except in this one article. TFD (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See: Current Affairs (magazine) – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The New Yorker article is already, appropriately, used as a source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/twitter-drops-far-left-splc-as-safety-partner 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "Better source: --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Senator Tom Cotton

 * Washington, D.C. - Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) sent a letter today to Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service Charles Rettig urging an investigation into whether the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) should retain its classification as a 501(c)(3). A copy of the letter may be found here.


 * An excerpt from the letter is below:


 * "Recent news reports have confirmed the long-established fact that the SPLC regularly engages in defamation of its political opponents. In fact, the SPLC's defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation.


 * This business model has paid well. The SPLC has accrued more than $500 million in assets. According to the group's most recent financial statement, it holds $121 million offshore in non-U.S. equity funds. The SPLC uses these assets to pay its executives lavish salaries far higher than the comparable household average.


 * Further, CNN reported that the organization ‘suffers from a pervasive racist culture,' and the SPLC's leader has ‘been disciplined after a prior investigation into inappropriate conduct.' The New York Times has charitably described the organization as ‘in turmoil' and cited employees' claims that SPLC leadership is ‘complicit in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.'


 * Based on these reports, and in the interest of protecting taxpayer dollars from a racist and sexist slush fund devoted to defamation, I believe that the SPLC's conduct warrants a serious and thorough investigation."

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If this goes anywhere maybe include it, but not at this time.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a particularly big deal and most of the coverage was contained to unreliable right wing sources, but it did get some reliable media coverage (AP, Fox). Perhaps it's worth a mention in the controversies section, as long as it's tight. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet /. See . —  Newslinger  talk   12:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I agree with Slatersteven. It is too soon to tell whether this is just typical politician bloviating or whether it is a serious challenge to the SPLC's 501(c)(3) status. It it goes anywhere we will have a large number of sources to choose from. Let's look into this again, say, 90 days from now. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * While it got picked up by AP, the link posted is from the Washington Times. According to [[WP:RSP|Perennial sources], "There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations." The link to Fox is actually to Fox News insider: "the official blog of Fox News Channel" - it reports what right wing personalities are saying.
 * I don't see that at this point it meets weight. And if and when mainstream news sources pick it up, they will explain who Cotton is, how credible his claims are, and the SPLC's response.
 * TFD (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * We get it. Senator Tom Cotton and the Washington Times as reported by the AP: "unreliable". Huffington Post (totally non-partision, ask anyone in Perennial Sources) running cover for an obviously partisan left wing slander machine posing as a 501c with a shakeup in the C-Suite for some sort of serious transgressions and a hundred mill stashed in the Camen's: "Reliable". It should be interesting to see who they tell the IRS they're giving that $120Mill to come year end, since 501c's aren't allowed to retain profits. What a sham NPV, RS is in this place. 72.185.247.207 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree regarding weight (see above) but in this case the Washington Times and AP are reliable. What they report matches the primary source at [ https://www.cotton.senate.gov/files/documents/2019%20SPLC%20Cotton%20Letter%20VF.pdf ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are reliable, and the letter is also reliably sourced to Cotton's Senate website. But together they cannot be considered to be the "body of reliable, published material," which is why it fails weight. TFD (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)