Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 2

Periodically
Tom / North Shoreman - I've repeatedly asked; will you please either address the mistaken assumption that led you to revert out "periodically" or concede the point? Addition or removal of "periodically" into Perhaps in part due to its successes, the SPLC has been periodically criticized by detractors for its financial practices. does not support Smith in any way - it only identifies the fact that the allegations from Harper's, the Advertiser, and Smith are non-contemporaneous. Every time I try to address the real purpose behind the edit "periodically" doesn't support Smith in any way. Its addition was to correct the fact that it's misleading to present three sources spaced apart by 14 years as if they were contemporaneous to each other; it gives the false impression that they're stronger because they describe alleged misbehavior occurring at the same time. If Harper's uses a six-year-old article to support itself, that strengthens my point - that these allegations are being recycled across years, not in a timely fashion, you say "No, stop trying to support Smith." Your words: You claim that “1994, 2000, and 2008 are too far apart in time to support each other directly, and the article shouldn't lead the reader to think they do” is mere speculation on your part with respect to Smith. He cites no sources at all to back up his “scam” claim -- instead he urges readers to “spend some time on the Internet and assess it for yourself.” and Your claim that “1994, 2000, and 2008 are too far apart in time to support each other directly” is directly refuted by the fact that the Harpers article specifically cites the Advertiser article. Smith refers strictly to the internet as his source -- for all we know his actual source may simply have been this very article we are discussing. The two aren't even the same subject. arimareiji (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point there are two articles (it's pretty clear that the consensus to exclude Smith is overwhelming) cited in the Fundraising section. One article is a 14 year old investigative report and the other is an 8 year old opinion piece that relies heavily on the first report. Two old articles do not justify claiming that the financing argument reoccurs "periodically".  In fact, any claims or conclusions about its frequency is Original Research.  I look forward to a dozen or so paragraphs from you setting me straight on WP:OR. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing the actual point, at long last. I disagree with your conclusion that you've proven your point by excluding the recent article; to me it seems somewhat less than intellectually-honest to argue "my removal of your evidence proves me right." But that will have to wait for another day. arimareiji (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess one point that is being side-stepped in this discussion is the question whether 8 and 14 year old articles accurately describe the situation today? If they do not, perhaps they should both be excluded? There is more recent information from a RS disinterested third party that rates SPLC financial affairs rather highly ("three of four stars"). Isn't that a more appropriate description of the current situation? Isn't that enough? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for illustrating one of my points from earlier - when one sets oneself up as Holy Arbiter of Trustworthiness, any opinion one doesn't like becomes suspect and can be removed because it's "not trustworthy." While we're at it, let's just remove all sources that ever say anything negative about the SPLC, because we've established precedent for 1) making it up as we go ("trustworthiness" isn't policy-defined, but we know it when we see it) and 2) using one standard for disliked sources and another for any other source. Never mind that there's no move to exclude other sources older than five years (most of them), it only applies here because this one's "not trustworthy." arimareiji (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism muffled?
Is it just me or has this article become a little unbalanced in favour of the SPLC? I'm sure I remember it having some mention of the court cases they have lost, some notes on troubles due to essentially illegal spying, and the problems of the links with FBI? Perhaps I'm confusing it with one of the other groups of this nature?

Also perhaps some mention of the leftist leanings of the SPLC? or the oft noted criticism due to the fact they concentrate on some groups more than others, even though government statistics show that around 7 in 10,000 asian/white people are subject to hate crimes, and only 5 in 10,000 black people are, and that black racists were more often commissioners of these crimes than other types of racists?

I believe the article gets into this a little with the mention of how the groups that funding comes from determines the targets in many ways, but I think it could be better.

As much as I applaude the SPLC for their work against white racists, I do wish they would put the same pressure on the black/hispanic/etc nationalists/racists, who are just as big in number and danger, and are growing much faster than the white groups right now. Fsdetrsetregsdgdsg (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The internet is a very big place, and you can easily find your own space to decry the SPLC's "leftist leanings." Political blogs (whether you create your own, or comment on someone else's) provide just such a creative outlet to do so. Wikipedia is not the place to do so. arimareiji (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fsdetrsetregsdgdsg, its just you. Some unsourced allegations were removed by other editors some time ago. SPLC is evenhanded in condemning racism whereever they find it. They have condemned black nationalist groups and others, and they have defended individuals of many ethnic backgrounds. Perhaps if you were more familiar with their publications, you would be aware of this fact. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just you. See the discussions above. PS (Groups such as the Jewish Defense League and black nationalists appear on the SPLC Hate Map-take a look at it and read their website. They are critical of those groups.)Dooteeyr (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the criticism balanced compared to their criticism of groups that might reflect the bias of major contributors? (Say of Irv Rubin's planned terrorist attack vs. some other groups 2 or 3 incidents of questionable speech or questionable association?) Is every criticism as well sourced as wikipedia's are supposed to be. I found an incredible number of accusations based on nothing more than "a news article said" or "a book named Something said" or "an eavesdropper on a private email list discovered."  Just because some groups that want to attack other groups as racists for their political incorrectness or immature recidivism by saying how great SPLC is, doesn't make it true. We need more real researcher's and scholars opinions. Now that books.google.com has put so much good stuff up, it might be helpful. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, it is not "just you" - just looking at the sentiments on this Talk page clearly shows this - But just looking at the article itself (especially when compared to the past versions), shows how slanted this article has become, in favor of the SPLC.
 * The issue of domestic surveillance and domestic spying, done by, or in collaboration with, federal and state governmental agencies, has become very-relevant in recent years, and continues to be. I will follow this up, in a post below, where this very issue - of the bias in this article - is being addressed (once again!). Pacificus (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have come up against the issue of how fair and balanced the SPLC is with regards to the article about the Oath Keepers. They are supposedly being smeared by the SPLC. Is that a usual tactic of the SPLC... to smear what they fear? I'm not taking sides. If this article is unbalanced then we should attempt to rectify this failing. Varks Spira (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Westboro
Ramdrake - please refrain from claiming in Mainspace that the SPLC has created the new hate-group category of "Westboro Baptist Church" until you have a source that says so. That's not the same thing as "the SPLC says they are a hate group." arimareiji (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I can't fathom the singular agreement to controvert policy that has already marked this page, I really can't fathom how three different people could all independently come to the conclusion that being a hate group is the same as being a new category of hate group. Please be advised that this is now up for discussion here as well. arimareiji (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Spotfixer, please stop blindly reverting editors you don't like without looking at the edits. Whether or not you agree with Lobot's third edit (removing an unsourced "Intelligence Report is a reliable source" addendum someone made), do you seriously want to re-include the typo I fixed and the lack of film italics he fixed? That's what your edit just did. arimareiji (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see. First, he calls the SPLC "commies", explicitly declaring his overwhelming bias.  Then, on his user page, he brags that that he "will tenaciously defend the honor of his Confederate ancestors!".  And as to the actual content, he's trying to hide the fact that the SPLC's reports are considered reliable, which is both informative about the SPLC and useful for editors.  So, the way I count it, I can look at his edit all day long and I won't find anything good about it.  If you lost a typo correction in the process, then by all means put it right back I restored your typo fix, but please don't defend this blatant POV warrior. Spotfixer (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't put words in my mouth, I'm not defending him. I'm saying that because you personally dislike him (and apparently me), you reverted unquestionably-correct edits without even looking at them (to remove an extra comma, and to put films in italics). The same as you just did with respect to asserting Westboro is the newest category of hate group. "I can look at his edit all day long and I won't find anything good about it" speaks volumes about your attitude to any editor you don't like, and puts you dangerously close to WP:UNCIVIL. arimareiji (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care one way or another about either of you, but I do care about bias. I try to AGF but that's just an initial assumption, not a suicide pact.  With this particular son of the confederacy, good faith went out the window the moment he starts with blatantly uncivil edit comments, calling the SPLC "commies" because they're not conservative like him. He wears his political bias publicly on his talk page and swears to "defend" the justly bad reputation of his ancestors.  So, all told, I think that I'm entirely justified in rejecting his "no naval gazing" excuse and restoring what he deleted.  As for your minor edits, they're minor, easy to fix, and relatively unimportant.  What makes articles low quality isn't bad punctuation, it's overwhelming bias. Spotfixer (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In short, "No harm done if I revert anyone I don't like without even looking at what I'm reverting." If you're saying it's not based on blind dislike, you're saying it's okay to knowingly revert constructive edits - which is vandalism. Neither of those is particularly flattering. arimareiji (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Little harm done if, in the process of correcting POV, a typo gets added or subtracted. Spotfixer (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Just curious, do you see any irony in saying "I know nothing XYZ says can be a constructive edit, because he's prejudiced"? arimareiji (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for inviting me to the party guys. Spotfixer, you are wildly off base in your conclusion jumping and knee-jerk reverting. My edits were to fix the italics on the film titles, fix a typo that I made in the process and delete a navel gazing claim that is utterly impossible to source. The claim that the SPLC is a reliable source not only uses article space to discuss something that belongs on a discussion page but the only possible source for the claim would be a talkpage discussion over at WP:RS and the Wiki can not be cited as a source. As for my bias, yes I do wear my bias proudly and you are more than welcome to disagree with my opinions. I do not think, however, that my bias against the SPLC translates into the edits I made to this article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your change again, armoring it with enough relevant citations to make further attempts qualify as vandalism. The South will not rise again, so don't bother vandalizing, ok? Spotfixer (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I might have to ask for an RfC on this one; your utter refusal to assume good faith and your your baseless taunts and accusations are unwarranted. My edit conforms to both the spirit and the letter of our policies on both self-reference and self-published sources.  Your arguments are nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT or I don't like one of this editor's userboxes so I will revert his edits on sight then insult his family and bandy about baseless and demonstrably false accusations of vandalism.  Seriously Spotfixer, I invite you to have a nice spot of tea.  Also, other editors please weigh in.  I believe the article has no place for the unreferenced claim that the SPLC is a reliable source.  Please note, I am in no way trying to argue that the SPLC is not a reliable source, that has been decided by consensus at RS discussion page and is not in dispute.  My only concern is that to claim so in article space violates our policies against self-reference and that the only possible source to cite for such a claim would be a discussion on Wikipedia itself and that violates our policy on verifiability, to whit, the section on self-published sources.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You do whatever you think you have to, and I'll just point out that you didn't read the article you tried to censor. The part you cut was not about the SPLC's status as a Wikipedia reliable source, but specifically about whether it's considered a reliable source by reporters and academia.  I'll also point out your red-baiting accusation of communism, your oath to defend the bad name of the confederacy and all the other ways you've spat full in the face of AGF.  I officially call your bluff. Spotfixer (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. That takes amazing chutzpah, to claim one is the victim of ABF... right after asserting the right to revert constructive edits based only on who made them, because you know they're prejudiced (POV) and have nothing useful to contribute. ("Little harm done if, in the process of correcting POV, a typo gets added or subtracted" in reference to reverting three good edits - two of them previous to it - to get rid of a disputed fourth edit, and "I can look at his edit all day long and I won't find anything good about it" in reference to one edit you disputed and two unquestionably-constructive ones with no apparent basis for reversion other than being by the same editor.) Personally, I find that assertion quite ironic.
 * Finally, your entire basis for reverting his edits on sight was his single use of the word "commies." What does that say about your subsequently calling him a "son of the Confederacy," a vandal, a red-baiter, and taunting him with "the South will not rise again"? Are your insults are "justified" and his aren't? arimareiji (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Call away. What are these other ways you speak of? Did you actually read the userbox or did you just get all hot and bothered when you saw the battle flag? There is no "oath to defend the bad name of the confederacy", rather a vow to defend the honor of my ancestors. Thank you for clarifying the claim in the article, I've excised the cited sources that do not back up the claim and not all of those sources pass muster with WP:RS anyway. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The ancestors who enslaved black men, women and children? Those ancestors?  There is no honor in owning people. Spotfixer (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the ancestors that were poor share-croppers; toiling and scratching an existence from the soil without the help of the wealthy planter's slaves. Crack a book chum, not all Southerners were slave holders nor were all Yankees in favor of abolishing slavery.  The US Civil War was far more nuanced (all wars are) than just Confederates hate African-Americans and Yankees are diverse, multi-cultural, angels.  If you would like to have a serious, civil discussion on matters of history, the gradual shift of slave sources from Eastern Europe to Africa,  or even my belief that race is nothing but a social construct with no real basis in biology (a userbox you seem to have disregarded) I would be happy to do so on my talk page.  If you feel there is  editorial bias on my part, if you think I am allowing my POV to intrude into my edits, I am happy to discuss that as well.  All I ask is that you keep it civil, assume good faith,  and focus on edits not on editors.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Get real. Everybody who has ever lived in the South, white, black or purple, understands what it means when you fly a confederate flag. It's pretty clear what it stands for, still, today. There is no ambiguity in it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey gang, remember that we're just here to discuss improvements to the article, not to refight the Civil War. Let's try to keep on-topic.   Will Beback    talk    20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Article is a Propaganda Atrocity
Honestly, I have been reading wikipedia for many years, and this is possibly the absolute worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. The hyper-neurotic efforts at minimizing to nothingness all possible sources critical of the SPLC are truly astonishing. I once thought that Wikipedia was a neutral medium, but partisan propaganda jobs like the current farce really undermine Wikipedia's credibility... For God's sake, the corrupt financial practices of the SPLC and their anti-conservative, extreme leftist politics are known the world over...but barely a word is said of these controversies in the article as if they never existed... What is wikipedia coming to? I see above that Ron Smith of the Baltimore Sun is considered a Klansman for even opposing the SPLC--what insanity!! Where is the scholarly objectivity by the editors of this page? Someone please re-balance this propagandistic monstrosity.
 * What's stopping you from doing the work? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What is preventing me? Well, (1), I am not a computer expert and more importantly--(2) if Ron Smith of the Baltimore Sun is blackened by the dominant established editors as a "fringe minority element" and virtual "Klansman" and KKK-sympathizer for opposing the SPLC in a widely read mainstream newspaper, then clearly the problem with this article is not whether non-idolatrous source material exists, but the problem is editorial power-politics and unfair editorial practices. I could cite a million sources by even the most mainstream commentators, but the establishment editors would unleash the same "Ron Smith" treatment as above: marginalization, minimization and eventual suppression. I am probably under suspicion already as a KKK-agent for simply bringing up the obvious fact that this article ridiculously tries to pretend there are no controversies with the organization (I am not, I am an anti-racist Catholic of Irish descent--Klansmen hated the immigrant Catholic Irish). I am no Wikipedia or even computer expert and am not good at online textual editing and social disputes, but is there some higher "Wikipedian" authority one can go to when the editors of an article are very evidently conspiring to forcefully suppress any outside or critical sources? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.131.179 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, nobody but nobody has compared Ron Smith to the KKK. Second if ths edit of yours is representative of your idea of NPOV, I would strongly suggest that you first re-read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV to start. It doesn't matter who you are: here, we are all equals, and we must all work within the confines of Wikipedia policy. If you have verifiable, reliable sources knowledgeable on the subject matter that have criticized the SPLC, please by all means add the criticism. However blanket accusations of bias without an iota of proof just won't fly.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Under the Notable Cases principle heading, can someone make subheadings?
I'm not sure of the wikiformat, I think it is 3 = signs

subprinciple heading
Right now that section is too long without the use of subprinciple headings. I tried to do it once before but it got reverted. 198.70.210.143 (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Better? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Without. I think it looks better without. Since they are only paragraphs they don't need subheadings. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Date founded?
The lead says the SPLC was founded in 1971, but the section on the YMCA refers to a case from 1969. When was it actually founded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.187.193 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The case was actually filed by Dees and Levin in 1969, and SPLC was formally incorporated in 1971 while the case was pending. The case was not decided until 1972, after SPLC was "founded." I've adjusted the text of the article accordingly. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hate group" listings
Twice a deleted sentence has been restored. The sentence is from the following paragraph located here. The following is the complete paragraph:

''Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.''

The first bold-faced section is NOT quoted while the second is. Taken in full context, it is clear that organizations listed may or may not engage in criminal activity -- by including only the latter part, the implication is made that none of the hate groups engage in criminal activity. Since this section does not attempt to discuss criminal activity, I suggest both be left out. However if the sentence in question is included then so should the first sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think they should both be included to give a more balanced and/or neutral point of view. Sf46 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, include the whole thing for the sake of accuracy.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally bogus information
1. The article fails to mention that the SPLC's "Hate Map" is grossly padded with alleged "groups" that are associated with no locale, and are therefore, unverifiable, not that the SPLC bothers to verify any of its rhetoric.

The map for California, the state with the most "hate groups" according to SPLC accounting, has 14 phantom "groups" that are not affiliated with any locale. This is 17% of the alleged total. For states like Wyoming, New Mexico, and Maine, 100% of their alleged totals are unafilliated, serving only to pad the numbers.

In all, 127 of the "hate groups" on the SPLC's hate map are unafilliated with any locale and are therefore inadmissable. They only exist in the mind of SPLC PR man, Mark Potok, for the purposes of fund raising. (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp)

2. No mention of Morris Dees' career as a Klan lawyer. In his own autobiography, "A Season for Justice," which is selectively quoted as a source for this article, Mr. Dees brags of receiving $5,000, (roughly the annual income for the average American household at that time), for representing self-avowed Ku Klux Klansman, Claude V. Henley, in Federal court regarding charges that he attacked a busload of Freedom Riders on May 14, 1961, in Birmingham, Alabama. See UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION, 194 F. Supp. 897; 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3305, June 2, 1961.

Mr. Dees was successful in protecting his client from prosecution, despite photos of Mr. Henley, in mid-rampage, being published in Life magazine.Richardkeefe57 (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Dees describes his experience defending Claude V. Henley in his biography as one of the formative moments in his career that turned him towards civil rights activism. See Morris Dees, A Season for Justice (New York: Touchstone), pp. 77, 84-85. He defended Henley as an individual, but was not a "Klan lawyer."


 * The information posted above appears to be from a blog posted by the Council of Conservative Citizens, one of the hate groups previously identified by SPLC. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and some hate groups identified by SPLC are considered to be "statewide," and some don't publish their addresses, just their activities. Apparently they are afraid to operate completely in the light of day. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The full citation for the Henley case is:

"UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. U. S. KLANS, KNIGHTS OF KU KLUX KLAN, INC., a corporation; Alabama Knights, Knights of Ku Klux Klan, Inc., a corporation; Alvin Horn; Robert M. Shelton; Thurman E. Ouzts; Claude V. Henley; Lester B. Sullivan, Commissioner of Public Affairs of Montgomery; and Goodwin J. Ruppenthal, Chief of Police of Montgomery, Defendants

Civ. A. No. 1718-N

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

194 F. Supp. 897; 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3305

June 2, 1961"

Sure looks like Dees was representing the Klan to me. And what would Mark Potok label anyone besides his boss who had defended a Klan member, neo-nazi or skinhead? Potok excels at "guilt by association". Dees meets 100% of his own definition of a Klan lawyer.

The Montgomery Advertiser ran an article on January 31, 1996 (http://www.majorcox.com/columns/mann-f.htm), that describes Henley as a "Montgomery Klansman" who "led" twenty followers in an attack on a bus load of Freedom Riders. Henley was representing the Knights of the KKK just as much as those two idiots in Kentucky were representing the Imperial Klans in the SPLC's most recent lawsuit. Or do they become "individuals" only when Dees is "representing" them?

Dees was paid $5,000, roughly $34,000 in today's dollars (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/) to represent Henley. Where did a thug like Henley come up with that kind of money? Dees might have had a "defining moment" but he pocketed the cash.

"Oh, and some hate groups identified by SPLC are considered to be "statewide," and some don't publish their addresses, just their activities." If the SPLC cannot positively identify the "groups" they have no business alleging their existence. All we have is Potok's word that these alleged "groups" really do exist. All the SPLC has to do is cite their sources along with their methodology, just as any legitimate law enforcement group would be required to do, and all doubt would be removed. Why would you settle for anything less? I won't.

Potok and Dees can make up as many alleged "groups" as they want and they never have to prove a single accusation. No peer review, no external oversight. All we know for fact is that they are both pulling down six-digit salaries from the donor pot for their efforts. See pages 11 and 40 of the SPLC's most recent IRS Form 990 (http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLC990_2007.pdf)

As for your smear regarding the CofCC, prove it or retract it. "...Appears to be from a blog..." doesn't cut it. The data is cited. Anyone can look at the "Hate Map" and see the bloated, padded numbers for themselves. These are Mo Dees' own numbers, generated by his own Public Relations man, Mark Potok. SPLC donors shelled out nearly half a million dollars in compensation for these two paragons last year, the least you can do is look at the numbers they came up with for yourself.Richardkeefe57 (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe one of Mervyn's points was that using CofCC for a source was using both a source of dubious reliability and one which has a clear conflict of interests in this situation. Both factors are grounds for dismissing the source under Wikipedia rules (and under most rules which concern themselves with objectivity).--Ramdrake (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder how one can get so offended by one who fights hate? Near as I can tell, the worst criticisms one can make of Dees are (1) he's a very effective fund raiser, and (2) he puts bigots out of business. I'd send him money for that. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, this is classic. First of all, the info came directly from Morris Dees' own SPLC web site, but Mervyn tried to link it to the CofCC to smear the message and the messenger. I asked Mervyn to either prove his allegations or retract them; he chose to do neither. I've cited all sources and they all belong to the SPLC. If you want to disregard the "Hate Map" as having a conflict of interest and lack of objectivity, brother, sign me up. I'm with you 100%.

In fact, the entire point of my post was to point out that the numbers on the Hate Map are unverified and bloated. Not only did I cite the map, I also cited the SPLC's own IRS Form 990, ALSO, from the SPLC website, that verifies that Mr. Dees and Mr. Potok split just under a half million donor dollars between them last year, (not 50/50 by any means), but I suppose that represents no financial interest in keeping the numbers high.

As for Mr. Dees "fighting hate" well that's admirable, except that he is the sole arbiter of the definition of "hate" and not subject to any review. Anyone who believes that a sovereign nation has a right to regulate immigration into its territory is a "hater" according to Dees and Co.

The Boy Scouts of America were recently in the news for offering President Obama the traditional ceremonial presidency of that group. Gay rights activists protested vehemently because the BSA refuses to allow "avowed homosexuals" to be Scout Leaders due to a lack of "traditional moral values." That's not "hate"? Where's Mr. Dees on that issue? Certainly, Mr. Potok must be aware of such blatant discriminatory practices. (http://www.scouting.org/media/pressreleases/2002/020206.aspx)

Well, I've cited my sources and it's pretty obvious that you two are more interested in defending the SPLC than in taking five minutes to see the facts for yourselves. Hopefully others will be less bigoted.Richardkeefe57 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dees' role in the 1961 case is important to his biography, but I don't see much relevance to this article. I don't think there's any disagreement that the "hate map" makes use the SPLC's own research, making it hard to verify. We can certainly plainly state that here. If we want to more strongly condemn the publication, we'll need something more than your own original research or tirades from the aggrieved parties. If a reliable source has questioned the validity of the map, we can cite it. Otherwise we, as WP editors, are in no position to evaluate your primary "evidence". --Dystopos (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the fact that 127 of the 926 "groups" listed on the "Hate Map" are unverifiable evidence isn't valid by your reckoning, what source would you deem reliable?Richardkeefe57 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that we need to cite a published source for the claim that groups not associated with a particular locale should be considered "inadmissable". --Dystopos (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look at the orignial article in Intelligence Report, I think you will find they already were dealt with in an appropriate manner there. Events reported there were based on published newspaper and media reports about them and their sponsors. And please note that information reported there was reported BY Intelligence Report, an acknowledged reliable source about the activities of hate groups (see section above). It was not a report about SPLC. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, White Aryan Resistance founder Tom Metzger is described as far right when in fact he ran unsuccessfully as a Democrat for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1980 and in 1982 for the U.S. Senate for California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.201.162 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

American Institute of Philanthropy is NOT WP:RS
Studies of AIP's methods raise major concerns about the validity of the conclusions reached, and indicate it cannot be considered a reliable source. For one, AIP reviews only 500 charities, where Charity Navigator reviews over 5,400. How does AIP select the charities it reviews? Does it have a particular bias? There appear to be a large number of liberal groups on the AIP review list, along with a small number of pro-military groups.

Groups have been improperly categorized by AIP. For example, the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Fund was improperly categorized as a veterans service organization, despite the fact it is incorporated as an educatonal foundation whose purpose is to build and maintain the Veitnam Veteran’s Memorial in Washington, DC. VVMF was not organized to provide any services to veterans, is not a service organization, has never considered itself a service organization and, perhaps most importantly, it has never promoted itself as a service organization.<ref: Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. A Response to the American Institute of Philanthropy's Evaluation Of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. Washington, DC: Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. p. 1. Accessed 4-12-09. AIP has been criticized by philanthropy experts for the validity of its evaluation methods and its conclusions. A study reported in the Stanford Social Innovation Review-an award--winning magazine covering successful strategies of nonprofits, foundations and socially responsible businesses--found that AIP and other questionable watchdog groups: This study's authors concluded that, as donors make important decisions using potentially misleading data and analyses, the potential of groups such as AIP to do harm may outweigh their ability to inform.<ref: Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. A Response to the American Institute of Philanthropy's Evaluation Of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. Washington, DC: Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, p. 2. Accessed 4-12-09.
 * Rely too heavily on simple analyses and ratios derived from poor-quality financial data;
 * Overemphasize financial efficiency while ignoring program effectiveness; and
 * Do a poor job of conducting analyses in important qualitative areas, such as management strength, governance quality and organizational transparency.

A second study, Rating the Raters: An Assessment of Organizations and Publications that Rank/Rate Charitable Nonprofit Organizations, provides a separate, critical assessment of AIP and its counterparts. The major findings are:
 * Approaches and criteria are not the same. The methodologies and criteria used vary significantly among the various rating and ranking organizations.
 * Evaluation criteria may not be readily apparent. Not all nonprofit rating and ranking groups make it easy for the donor to determine the evaluation method and criteria used.
 * Evaluators may use criteria that are overly simplistic. Simple financial ratios and/or measurements that apply in some circumstances may not apply in others.
 * Evaluators focus on financial measurements and overlook program effectiveness. *Financial "efficiency" is assessed by AIP and most third-party ratings groups as a percentage of contributions received. This tends to be their primary focus.
 * Competence of the evaluator is critical and difficult to determine. It is virtually impossible for donors to determine the relevant credentials, expertise and experience of the rating organization's staff. At AIP, a small staff size and below-par salaries suggest that it does not employ enough individuals with the necessary credentials to provide quality, in-depth assessments.
 * Evaluators often derive revenue as a result of their rating reports, creating an obvious conflict of interest and questioning whether these groups are motivated by the desire to inform potential donors or by the media attention that improves their revenue stream. AIP, for instance, charges a fee for a sample copy and requires membership as a condition for receiving its annual rating reports.
 * AIP blatantly and egregiously ignores Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP), established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. These set stringent criteria for the treatment of fundraising and program education expenses. This deliberate disregard results in financial ratings by AIP that greatly vary from those issued by the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, which follows GAAP, and other groups like Charity Navigator, presenting an erroneous picture of a nonprofit organization's financial practices, especially its fundraising activities. <ref: Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. A Response to the American Institute of Philanthropy's Evaluation Of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. Washington, DC: Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, p. 2-3. Accessed 4-12-09.

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


 * I agree the American Institute of Philanthropy's purpose as well as leadership is dubious and its categorizations of groups seems to be not unbiasly done. However, it does seem like it has merit for inclusion considering the Advertiser and other publications source to it. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, is "garbage in, garbage out" the new quality slogan for Wikipedia articles? If its not a credible source, why use it at all? In fact, if its not a credible source, why include statements that refer to it as authority? Perhaps all the related trash talk should all be removed? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be at all conclusive that AIP is not a RS. The primary source of complaint seems to be that it has had negative things to say about SPLC. that obviously should not be a basis for deeming it a reliable source or not. There may be some issues with how AIP does its review, but considering one of two sources for complaint comes from a group having recieved a negative review trying to defend itself

It was also pointed out that it examines a large number of liberal groups, implying it has a conservative bias. However it lists several liberal groups amongst its top rated charities. It has also been a witness to congress on the effectivness of charities. Ucscottb4u (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund is not the same at SPLC, and their criticism, if accurate is damning. How can an organization rate another organization's financial affairs without looking at their posted financial accountant's report, as AIP appears to do? Makes no sense at all. Ask any accountant. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the VVMF report is in response to criticism from AIP. that is what i was talking about. and that is why i am hesitant to accept there version of events or accept them as a reliable source in a claim against AIP. They gain incasting the AIP in a negative light.Ucscottb4u (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * thats not to say there claim is not accurate. but i would prefer more independent evidenceUcscottb4u (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Other groups criticized by AIP, such as Paralyzed Veterans of America, have pointed out that they meet "all 20 criteria that the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance establishes for charities, including that a charity's fundraising costs not exceed 35 percent of contributions, a common standard." See: Howell, Deborah. “A Veteran’s Charity Cries Foul.” Washington Post, February 24, 2008, p. B06.
 * Are groups criticized by AIP guilty until proven innocent? Or are they entitled to credibility at least equal to AIP? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * of course groups criticized by AIP arent guilty until proven innocent, but how is there response supposed to be used as reliable soruce. what i am looking for is independent critics of AIP, someone not so invested in proving AIP unreliable. you showed one source, if you want to cite them in the article i wouldnt object to that. I read the VVMF report, but i wish we could access the original report from the Stanford review. Ucscottb4u (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too, but haven't found time enough to dig it out yet. Working on it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it. See new section below. Removed some ref code from section above because it was interfering with reference list in new section, but preserved info that was in refs. Lets editors compare if they wish. Debugging this was fun... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One-sided and partisan hack job
I don't know if paid agents of the SPLC have created this article, but they might as well have. Where is the objectivity in this overglossified, whitewashed stuff? Why is there no mention of the severe and longstanding controversies with this group (its pro-socialistic, anti-traditionalist ideology and corrupt finances, etc.) Why the attempt to pretend there are no controversies with the SPLC? Is this what Wikipedia is supposed to be, just a vehicle for leftwing ideological activism instead of scholarship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.153.139 (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You can view the page's editing history by looking at "history," and see your conspiracy melt away. If you have WP:RS, which are not being included, post them here and well talk about adding them. It's simple add the material and discuss. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

American Institute of Philanthropy is NOT WP:RS Redux
Found additional reference and updated material previously posted above here, in bold face font:

Studies of AIP's methods raise major concerns about the validity of the conclusions reached, and indicate it cannot be considered a reliable source. For one, AIP reviews only 500 charities, where Charity Navigator reviews over 5,400. How does AIP select the charities it reviews? Does it have a particular bias? There appear to be a large number of liberal groups on the AIP review list, along with a small number of pro-military groups.

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

Specifically, this study found that a "gotcha" mentality and lack of transparency were AIP's biggest shortcomings, saying it was "difficult to understand what specific adjustments AIP made to a given nonprofit's ratings and why." This study's authors concluded that, as donors make important decisions using potentially misleading data and analyses, the potential of groups such as AIP to do harm may outweigh their ability to inform. They suggested:
 * A more effective nonprofit rating system should have at least four main components: improved financial data that is reviewed over three to five years and put in the context of narrowly defined peer cohorts; qualitative evaluation of the organization's intangibles in areas like brand, management quality, governance, and trnasparency; some review of the organization's program effectiveness, including both qualitative critique by objective experts in the field, and, where appropriate, "customer" feedback from either the donor or the aid recipient's perspective; and an opportunity for comment or response by the organization being rated. 

Please note the last two items in the above list. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Consequently, AIP cannot be considered WP:RS for purposes of the charity ratings in this article, which should be removed. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

NPoV
First off, I actually am not a SPLC hater or anything; I think they are generally a very positive force. Nevertheless this article is a flipping press release. Probably most of the cases section can simply be removed with links to article. Details about the specific legal cases should be in their own article and a lot of the PR-friendly material can simply be removed if unnecessary or unsourced.

Factually this article is fine overall (to my knowledge); and generally well sourced but it needs to be re-written in a more neutral tone as it is positively glowing about the SPLC right now. Kittensof1984 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This is a widely respected organization that has won awards for its good works on civil rights. The article has been edited by a large number of editors over a long period and is constantly under attack by a few who display little regard for civil rights, disagree with the values of the organization, and who try to make it look bad on every point. The cases are illustrations of the innovative strategy described in the article and also display the range of groups SPLC had opposed as racist or hate groups. Some of the material in the article (the Harper's article coverage, for example) is irrelevant to the article but is constantly being reinserted when deleted. Better the article should be semi-protected than rewritten just to make the organization look bad a please its opponents. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. This article really is very little more then a press release. Its not a issue of making SPLC look bad, but this article should be rewritten to much more neutral then it is. ofcoruse SPLC does some great work. but they arent saints. I also think removing that tagging was irresponsible. it, along with your defense above, show that perhaps Mervyn you are too invested in the image of the SPLC, which questions your ability to be neutral in editing this article. this isnt about smearing SPLC, its about keeping this page neutral, thas all.Ucscottb4u (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree There appears to be very little substance in your brief POV claim -- perhaps you can flesh it out a little for us. For example, you talk about eliminating specific accomplishments of the SPLC (covering a period from 1969 through 2008) from the article and creating separate articles for each, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with POV or NPOV. All of the incidents are properly sourced.  Are you aware of some information regarding any of these incidents that are inaccurate or slanted?  Please provide specifics.


 * The article is well within readable prose guidelines -- I calculate the size at about 31,000 KB. What exact policy can you point us to that suggests that accurate details are a violation of NPOV? What policy at all suggests that listing these major and significant accomplishments with a paragraph or two on each is excessive?


 * “PR-friendly” is a nice term, but how does it relate, in this particular article with respect to POV? To use one example, “fighting racial harassment and intimidation against Vietnamese fisherman” by the KKK probably is good PR (at least among folks like you who are not a “SPLC hater”).  Are you suggesting that accurate descriptions of good deeds violate NPOV?  Or are you suggesting that there is a KKK perspective that needs to be added?


 * As far as the language being “positively glowing”, I don’t see it. Why don’t you provide actual examples of the language that offends you so that corrections can be made.  Avoid peacock terms is a good place to start.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree - "Press Release" it is. How about the text: "On March 18, 2003, a group of Salvadoran immigrants were traveling on foot through a Texas ranch owned by Joseph Sutton when they were accosted by a group of vigilantes known as Ranch Rescue, who had been recruited by Sutton to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border region nearby. The immigrants were captured and held at gunpoint by their assailants, during which one Salvadoran was struck on the back of the head with a handgun, and a rottweiler was allowed to attack him. The Salvadorans were threatened with death and otherwise terrorized before being released."


 * First of all, since words have meaning and the usage of a word conveys an image to the reader... clearly we are left with the image that the innocent victims here were helpless Salvadorans who were attacked, no, rather, "terrorized" by out-of-control "vigilantes", "assailants", my god, must have been some sort of terrorists, wouldn't you think so?  The article glosses over the likely scenario:  criminals were trespassing on the private property of a ranch owner who had called on people, i.e. either paid employees or volunteers, but never-the-less security guards, to patrol and protect his property.  The criminals had committed at least two crimes before the encounter: 1) Federal immigration law violations; and 2) criminal trespass.  The "heroes" of the SPLC succeeded in turning the situation around so that the criminals somehow became victims and the security guards became "assailants".  Somebody please give me a freaking break!  Now would someone please explain why the glowing "press release" is quoted as fact?  It is quoted from a single source as factual without any input from the opposing view, and is considered "balanced"?  WP will never be accepted as reference in serious research, and rightly so!

98.64.108.66 (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the overall sentiment in this Talk-page section, which has also been expressed before - that the current revision (more like current redacting!) of this article is in violation of WP:NPOV. In the past, this article was more fair, with both positive and negative information on the subject. Almost all of the critical information was removed. Some of that has been subsequently restored (though even that was a struggle, as POV-pushing has been attempted).
 * The issue of domestic surveillance and domestic spying, done by, or in collaboration with, federal and state governmental agencies, has become very-relevant in recent years, and continues to be. The ACLU has addressed this problem, in connection with "fusion centers" - and private groups' involvement with them:
 * http://blog.aclu.org/2009/04/30/mass-con-fusion
 * http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/39226prs20090401.html


 * The SPLC's involvement, in the MIAC scandal, was just in the news within this past week, and it was prominently featured in a news report from the very-prominent Khaleej Times newspaper. As that article shows, Missouri Lt. Governor Peter Kinder has apologized for this, has taken punitive action against those government officials responsible, and has also "taken seriously" the directive issued against the SPLC.


 * Material also needs to be added, addressing the SPLC's attacks on anti-war activists and involvement in foreign policy, insofar as the Kosovo War and the Armenian genocide, and the allegedly unlawful eavesdropping on Muslim clerics, as well as on animal rights activists. It is interesting that the recent lawsuit filed against the SPLC by the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund is not even mentioned.


 * Another problem with this article is that the "Fundraising" section is the only one that deals with the major criticism that this organization has received, in the media. While the Montgomery Advertiser's expose series is mentioned, this article only refers to its addressing of the fundraising aspect of the SPLC. One of the most troubling parts of that series however, was the reporting on the SPLC's alleged treatment of African-American employees. Pacificus (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My problem is that the slpc will categorize tax revolts as race events. Mrdthree (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a few minor edits to the "Fundraising" section without realizing there is some ongoing "dispute" about this article. As it stands, it's a whitewash piece, plain and simple. I don't have the time or the interest to dig up the information on this organization which would be required to give a fair and balanced presentation, but I suspect SPLC members are here polishing this thing as an extension of their own PR department. The "Fundraising" section deserves to be titled "Fundraising controversies" as I just did, as that is really what the section is about. Cheers, -- Aryaman (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello: What is all the edit warring about? Should we begin a dispute resolution to solve this matter? Varks Spira (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the edits by user:75.52.186.148? He appears to have been a random vandal and is now blocked. If he returns with a fresh IP we'll have to protect the article for a while. It doesn't appear to be an actual content dispute.   Will Beback    talk    05:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he only got blocked for a day, so we'll see. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Article under attack
This article seems constantly to be under attack by vandals and by persons who don't like SPLC or the successes it has had. It might be appropriate to protect or semi-protect it for awhile. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Except people here are already complaining that this reads like a pamphlet for the group. This article should be unbiased and have a criticism section. Thats typical. So don't assume its vandalism if its simply negative information. I think the best way to decide is if the information is sourced(no matter what you personally think of the source) its Ok info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-semitism and Islamophobia
Does the SPLC criticize Islamophobia to the extent that it monitors Anti-semitism ? The rumour mills and conspiracy blogs will argue that the SPLC is a bit pro-Israel and that it just doesn't care about Islamophobia. ADM (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have heard the opposite. So there you go. I think in general they do neither. they concentrate on white supremacy groups to the exclusion of other things, but I think they tend to be rather pro Muslim. Of course who knows.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not here to discuss the subject, only improvements to the article. If there are reliable sources on this issue one way or another then we can add something to the article. Blogs and rumor mills aren't encyclopedic sources.   Will Beback    talk    19:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

VDARE isn't a WP:RS
Why is Patrick Cleburne's online post at VDARE.com being used a WP:RS. It should be removed immediately. Criticisms and positive mentions should come only from WP:RS. VDARE clearly fails as a RSMac6698A (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Every single propagator of fascist reaction and anti-progressivism should be excluded, a priori. Our ideological enemies should be given no voice whatsoever. Long Live Socialism! Long Live the Revolution! Fuck White Christo-Fascist Scum! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs)


 * You seem confused about the objection, I'll explain it again. All wikipedia articles are built from secondary sources. Those secondary sources must come from reliable sources (WP:RS) (click on this link and see how this is defined). If material comes from a non-reliable source, it must be removed. VDARE fails as a RS for several reasons: 1) It is not a journalist source, 2) it is not scholarly source, 3) The author (which is probably pseudonym) isn't known in the field, 4) it is not peer-reviewed, and 5) it is a questionable source, see: RS.


 * I hope you aren't implying that I have a political agenda or this is a ideological battle. If you are, you are mistaken. Additionally, you should not view this or any article as that either. This is about sourcing. If you have sources that complies with WP:RS (ie opinion pieces aren't RS nor are blogs from agenda driven websites) then they can be added. Until then the sourcing must comply with policy. Mac6698A (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth taking 75.52.186.148 seriously. I don't believe anyone claiming to be simultaneously pro-pedophilia, pro-incest, pro-genocide, and pro-SPLC.   -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure that it warrants a special "fundraising controversies" section. They have never been convicted of any financial wrongdoing. The p[iece is a bit too positive. But lets not go overboard. they are basically legit and pretty much OK. That doesn't mean there are no controversies. there are always controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Two academic sources question SPLC reliability
(As mentioned in this WP:RSN discussion of SPLC.)

This source was removed from the article, though it specifically mentions SPLC’s Klanwatch Intelligence reports:
 * Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), authors of The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride” wrote about SPLC and several other “watchdog” groups: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on SPLC and ADL reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies.  For instance, events were sometimes portrayed in Klanwatch Intelligence Reports as more militant and dangerous with higher turnouts than we observed.”REF:Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 1-3.

This is a new source of criticism I just found: Searching for a demon: the media construction of the militia movement by Steven M. Chermak (an Assoc Prof of Criminology) UPNE, 2002 which has a number of pages referring to SPLC’s methods. Of particular interest: p. 104: SPLC claimed a militia group was racist but the group eader told a reporter this was false and that they worked with a black militia group that visited his home; p. 124-126: Questions about whether statistics trumped up;  p. 126-127: SPLC claimed a Utah Mormon historical preservation group is an active right wing militia group; Militia informant comments on sloppy scholarship by SPLC; p. 135: SPLC/ADL use the “racist” and "growing threat" frames to demonize groups.

I believe this info belongs in criticism of the Intelligence Report. It also should be mentioned in that section that it used to be called the Klanwatch Intelligence Report per SPLC website since one or both of the above sources still refer to it in part by that name. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Dobratz section is still in the article at Southern Poverty Law Center. As far as the Chermak stuff, are you intending to use it for anecdotal purposes or provide Chermak's professional analysis and conclusions (both positive and negative)? It seems to me like the latter would be appropriate while the former would not. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I misspelled Dobratz and missed it first time around; have corrected my WP:RSN comment and above. As for Chermak stuff, I don't really understand your point. Please explain in more detail. He obviously writes a lot on the subject, but that doesn't mean we can't accurately summarize what he says. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * SPLC claimed a militia group was racist but the group eader told a reporter this was false and that they worked with a black militia group that visited his home
 * That's some extremely weak gruel. A white militia claims that they are not racist, therefore the SPLC is unreliable? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Carol -- Chermak's book is about primarily the media's treatment of militias based on events around the Oklahoma City bombing. The only relevance to this article would be what he says in general about the SPLC's methods rather than a listing of specific instances in which an error may have been made or in which Chermak may reach a different conclusion.  A review of Chermak's book by Chip Berlet (Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 5 (Sep., 2004), pp. 514-521 ) explains both the limitations of Chermak's methodology and his tendency (as suggested by the edit above mine) to take disavowals of racism at face value. I'm not sure, from the review, whether Chermak has much that is relevant about the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that you clearly explain what you meant, I can take that into consideration at whatever point I decide to include the material. But I think you'll agree in general that more reliable sources ask those accused of anything - be it murder, child abuse, bank robbery, ID theft, or not trying hard enough to integrate African Americans into their militia group - just what they have to say about it. And less reliable sources don't bother. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A common criticism of mainstream journalism is its habit of always finding an oppising view, no matter how fringe the issue. If a swastika is spray-painted on a synogogue, the archetypal reporter first interviews the rabbi or other representative and then finds someone to give the pro-swastika side. Does that make the report more accurate and more reliable? Not necessarily. I don't think that giving "both sides" of a dispute is a requirement for reliability. It may be a requirement for neutrality, but neutrality and reliability are two separate characteristics.   Will Beback    talk    23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget by the way that Chermak pretty much equates PRA and Chip Berlet as one of the three "expert" groups that lazy reporters would consult and quote if newsworthy, to save having to do their own research. So he certainly has a strong personal interest in cutting down Chermak. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't have a problem with there being such groups tracking down real bigots, especially those who engage in violence and financial fraud. It's just when they use sloppy scholarship and smear innocent people, esp. with guilt by the most tangential of association (like editing certain wikipedia articles??). And if they do it merely because they are trying to frighten people to beef up their fundraising, then their flaws as described by WP:RS need to be encylopedia-zed.

Of course, something very good SPLC did was to point out NeoNazis inflitrating the US military, covered by various WP:RS like Washington Post. (Again assuming it was accurate material, which has to be checked out and opposing voices given, esp. if per BLP.) And I believe they did some exposes on bigots against Muslims. Hopefully they've gone after some of those pro-war anti-Muslim Crusader Christian Zionists too. So how about I look for some such good things they've done and add that too ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment yet on the current sources under discussion, however, we serve our readers so using strong reliable sourcing is the best bet. If whatever the wobbly sourcing was going to assert is notable enough it's probably best just to get a more reliable source that explicitly states the same thing. That way we don't have to run through the whole issue again but simply insist on the best sourcing and compare and contrast what they state rather than how can we work with multiple wobbly ones. And although it's good to provide a balanced NPOV article it really doesn't help to insert some wobbly content alleging "violence and financial fraud", etc and "balancing it" with some good stuff they actually do. Let reliable sources make the case - good, bad, and otherwise. -- Banj e  b oi   00:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with that last comment. But obviously I think an academic like Chermak is a reliable source, his only critic being Chip Berlet whose employer PRA Chermak criticizes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So where did you come up with the conclusion that Berlet is "his only critic"? What I can say is that in the scholarly journals covered by JSTOR, Berlet is the only person who bothered to review Chermak's book and that was only as part of a review of several related books.  i did, by using a wider search come up with only one other scholarly review in Political Communication (Volume 23, Issue 2 July 2006, pages 232 - 234) by Regina Lawrence. In a mixed review she says the following:
 * Yet oddly enough, a central weakness of Searching for a Demon is that no clear picture of the militia movement emerges in its pages. Generalizing about the members and motives of this elusive movement is admittedly difficult. Indeed, a key contention of the book is that the movement is more diverse in terms of membership, activities, and beliefs than most media coverage would lead us to believe, and it is this contrast between a scattered, decentralized, and relatively diverse movement and the more sharply focused— and exaggerated—picture that emerged in the media that implicitly drives the book's argument.


 * Yet the book never presents a clear picture of who the militia "really are," and so that contrast fundamentally lacks traction. For example, Chermak critiques the media for elevating certain movement spokespersons because they "considered these celebrity figures to be perfect, credible representatives of militias" (p. 100), but he provides no clear sense of who would have been a more "typical" spokesperson. Moreover, the quotations Chermak provides from his interviews often seem to verify media portrayals of the movement as extremist and kooky (my personal favorites include the leader of one local group who asserts that the International Monetary Fund "existed [in] 540 BC"). Equally frustrating is the book's assertion that the media fabricated a link between Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement. Chermak offers no evidence that McVeigh was in fact a "lone wolf other than the fact that many of his informants claimed not to have supported McVeigh's actions. Thus, more analytical traction is lost, and one is left wondering to what degree the media "demonized" the movement.
 * I'm still not clear as to exactly what, if any, relevant analysis Chermak does of the SPLC's information gathering. As both Lawrence and Berlet point out, Chermak's two main sources are (1) news articles writen by the media and (2) his own interviews with militia groups (since you question Berlet's motives might you not also have some doubts about what militia groups say about themselves?).  If anything Chermak seems to prove that the SPLC is widely viewed by the media and law enforcement as a reliable source -- a positive, I would think, for the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not wait til someone offers material using Chermak as a source for something? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement??
An IP planted a curious tag on the article -- another user reverted it just a second or two before I did. I invite the IP to make his/her case here. In fact, the article does include APPROPRIATE criticism of the SPLC although it obviously falls short of the types of criticism typical of extreme right websites that DO NOT qualify as reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * SPLC negative criticism is in articles about most of their political opponents. Wikipedia should be politically neutral and unbiased. See articles about Council of Conservative Citizens, National Policy Institute, David Duke, VDARE, American Renaissance (magazine), Ludwig von Mises Institute... in fact SPLC, ADL (and sometimes Chip Berlet) almost everywhere. These right wing groups and indiviuals also made political criticism of SPLC. The same case. But politically biased editors enforced that liberal/left wing political criticism of conservatives is promoted but conservative critism of liberals/left-wingers is inadmissible. That's all. --83.240.87.194 (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your case should be made on each of those articles. On all articles - generally - criticism sections should be upmerged and content integrated into the main text. So if they are criticized for fundraising practices, and that is sourced reliably, then put that where the article addresses their fundraising practices rather than in a separate section. Well sourced and NPOV criticism should be in each article with due weight. Wikipedia strives for neutrality and people with opposing views from yours have expressed similar concerns. We don't aim to make both conservatives and liberals happy - we aim to present factual information dispassionately and with due weight. A politely worded statement on those other article talkpages may inspire someone to address the concerns if you are unable or unwilling. -- Banj e  b oi   08:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"See also http://www.exposethesplc.blogspot.com/ HatewatchWatch by Scott Lively.
has been adding the following line to the article at the bottom of the "Hate group listings" section: See also HatewatchWatch by Scott Lively. Aside from the fact that we don't have these kinds of "See alsos" to outside websites at the bottom of sections, it's quite obvious that the link itself fails both WP:SPS and WP:UNDUE. WP:SPS is very clear that we may use blogs as a source if and only if the author is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Lively, a Christian minister, does not clearly have an expertise in the SPLC, nor is there any evidence he has been published on the topic by reliable third-party publications. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is misleading. The section is entitled, "Objections to hate group listings," not "Hate group listings."  The blog is itself an objection to being listed as a hate group.  Scott Lively has been listed as being involved with a "hate group."  He reacted by writing the blog HatewatchWatch.  That blog is itself the story--it is not being used as a reliable source to support the truth of any matter asserted.


 * Here we have a Wiki page having a section called "Objections to hate group listings," and here we have a blog that was created precisely as a response to being listed by the SPLC as a "hate group." It is newsworthy/wikiworthy for that purpose.  It is not being asserted to prove anything at all about SPLC.


 * The blog is written by one of the targets of SPLC's "hate group" claims. SPLC's targeting the group makes it wikiworthy on this SPLC page, and especially in a section called, "Objections to hate group listings."


 * The removal of the link seems to me to have POV motivations, especially in light of the history comment noting one reason for removal was that sections do not contain only one paragraph when in truth many do on this SPLC. I saw that as using an untruthful excuse to remove material.  It was untruthful, and material was removed.  Instead of attempting to improve it, it was simply removed.  Well, at least the editor has opened with discussion on Talk, even if he continues to be misleading, hopefully only due to inadvertance.


 * I would like to see the HatewatchWatch blog added for the reasons I stated, and for the reasons that its removal appears to have been motivated by POV and enforced with misdirection.


 * And one six-word sentence in this giant SPLC article is hardly WP:UNDUE. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To begin with, I removed the section heading because sub-sections shouldn't be one paragraph, per Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and Illustrating Articles/Article Sections and Tables of Contents, and I removed the blog link because it failed WP:SPS. The edit summary was quite clear, and in no way misleading. I strongly suggest you make more accurate Talk: page comments in the future, per Civility 2 c).
 * Now, did you review the comments made above? Did you read WP:SPS? Please respond in terms of the requirements laid out there, specifically that to be included as a source here the author must be "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Is Lively an "established expert" on the SPLC who has been published by reliable third-party publications"? I had no objection to your inserting Lively's response to the SPLC in the Lively article, since that is the one place it might be used, albeit with caution. But you have not made any argument why we should suspend WP:V in order to allow the link to be used in this article. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The blog does not fail WP:SPS. I read it.  The blog is not being used to support anything whatsoever.  Its presence is there because it itself represents an example of what the subsection is discussing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In articles we only link to and/or cite Reliable Sources, per WP:V. This blog does not qualify. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * U r missing the point. The blog is not being used as a RS.  It is being used as an example of the very thing being discussed in the subsection. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which reliable source cites Lively's blog as "an example of the very thing being discussed in the subsection"? Please review WP:NOR, WP:SPS, and WP:UNDUE before replying. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, Scott Lively is the target of SPLC's pronouncements. It is the SPLC itself that elevates him to the level where is now "relevant" and "expert" in a subsection on those who oppose the SPLC.  He is not expert on anything else regarding this wiki page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS is quite clear on what constitutes an "established expert": someone whose "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Please give examples of Lively's "work in the relevant field" being published by "reliable third-party publications". Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * U r missing the point. The blog is not being used as a RS.  It is being used as an example of the very thing being discussed in the subsection. The issue of the reliability of a reliable source is not reached where the source is not being used as a reliable source. Further, the SPLC named Scott Lively or his group, so the SPLC itself made Scott Lively relevant to the provision of an example of what the subsection is discussing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which reliable source cites Lively's blog as "an example of the very thing being discussed in the subsection"? Please review WP:NOR, WP:SPS, and WP:UNDUE before replying. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will give Jayjg the benefit of the doubt for not realizing how he has mislead people since the subsection name and the section name contain similar elements. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't misled people at all, and I again strongly urge you to abide by item 2.c) of the Civility policy. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am being civil. So civil that I will say this is a minor point not directly related to the topic so I'll just drop it.  Maybe you can join me in dropping it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll drop it so long as you make only truthful Talk: page statements going forward. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else wish to comment? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Blogs are usually used only on the page of the blogger. I don't see any problem with linking to that blog from Lively's biography. OTOH, I don't see why we'd link to it from here. Lively is not a recognized expert on the topic of identifying hate groups. As such, the blog does not qualify under either guideline: WP:RS or WP:EL.    Will Beback    talk    02:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Will Beback, let me see if I can explain this better.


 * It is clear that blogs are questionable sources for reliable information. It is clear that blogs may not be used as reliable sources on Wikipedia except for certain limited cases.  It is clear that Scott Lively's blog must not be used as a reliable source for, say, proving the SPLC is a hate group itself.  Clearly, that it his opinion.  Clearly, that is inappropriate to use as a reliable source to state that the SPLC is a hate group.  Granted.  Let's set that aside.


 * The subsection entitled, currently, "5.1 Objections to hate group listings" contains, not coincidentally, objections to hate group listings. "Some organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object to this characterization," opens the first paragraph.  Then it goes on to provide examples. "The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) argue that the SPLC's claim that the CofCC is tied to white supremacists is inaccurate.[86] The SPLC labels the immigration reform website VDARE a hate group, and VDARE's editor-publisher Peter Brimelow has responded: 'We've named them [the SPLC] a treason group.'[87]"


 * It then gives another example, this one involving "the Illinois Family Institute (IFI)."


 * A third example is Scott Lively. The SPLC labeled him along with the other two groups.  And so you could say, understandably, who cares, we already have 2 examples.  We do not need a third.  And guess what, I agree with that.


 * However, Scott Lively as a third example adds something of significance to the article. What he adds is that not only has he "objected to the hate group listing," as the subtitle states, but he has gone further--he has created an entire blog devoted to objecting to the hate group listing.  It is that blog that is directly relevant to the subject of the subsection.  That blog is not being used to support an assertion that, say, SPLC is itself a hate group.  That blog represents an "objection to a hate group listing" that is significantly different than the mere statements made by the other two examples, CofCC and IFI.


 * Therefore, in an honest good faith belief that I was merely contributing a significantly different example to the two already given in the subsection, and not for use as a reliable source, I included Scott Lively's blog. His blog, being a direct result of SPLC's listing him as a hate group, adds a significant and qualitatively different example of what is discussed in the subsection--it is not being used as a reliable source.


 * Have I explained that well enough? If you are still unclear, let me know and I will rephrase. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The subject here isn't Lively, it's the SPLC. I don't remember ever seeing an exemption to the WP:RS guideline that covered people who disagree with something said about them. Are there other articles where blogs are used that way? If Lively's objection is notable then I'd assume it would have been reported in a secondary source.   Will Beback    talk    03:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have missed my point. You keep talking about WP:RS and I keep stating explicitly that WP:RS does not apply since the Scott Lively blog is not being used as a reliable source.  Similarly, rules about template usage do not apply since we are not talking about template usage.  Given your view, neither the CofCC nor the IFI example would be in the article either.  Yet there they are.  Scott Lively's blog should be in as well, for the reasons I have stated. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that the "see also" sentence could be just as inappropriate as Jayjg says it is, but the concept could be written better and included, again for the reasons I have stated, again for reasons that have nothing to do with WP:RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure it's being used as a source- it's the source for the assertion that Lively objects. Do we have any other way of knowing that he objects? If the CofCC or IFI sources don't meet standards then they should be removed as well.   Will Beback    talk    04:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my. No, it is not the source for the assertion that Lively objects.  Lively objecting is irrelevant.  We could care less if Lively objects or why.  But he has, and he has done so in a substantially and qualitatively different way than the other two parties who have objected.  The way is noteworthy in a section entitled what it is entitled.  It does not matter who made the objection.  Scott Lively is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that someone did more than just make statements as discussed, namely, a blog was created as discussed and as noted in the subsection heading.


 * The suggestion of removing CofCC and IFI is hopefully tongue in check. If it is removed, it essentially removes any whiff of any reaction whatsoever from being labeled as a hate group.  Such removal would evidence POV edits.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We use reliable secondary sources on Wikipedia. We don't bend the rule to allow POVs that only appear in unreliable sources. I'm sure if we look we'll be able to find criticisms of the HateWatch material in reliable sources. As for the CofCC and IFI sources, they vary. The Washington Post is obviously a reliable source. VDARE is dubious and probably doesn't qualify. I don't know about "Opposing Views", but it appears to qualify as a reliable source. There are reliable sources available for this section, so we should just use those. As for Lively, why don't we just link to the Wikipedia article?   Will Beback    talk    11:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not clear what you are suggesting. May I suggest you make the changes as you see fit and maybe that'll fix things. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting anything in particular, just evaluating sources. I did spend a moment looking for a replacement source for VDARE, and this National Review blog is slightly better. I'm afraid I don't have time to re-research and re-write the section - I'm just here because I saw you asking for more input.   Will Beback    talk    20:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you now and for any future assistance.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, in consideration of the above I am adding an new paragraph that should be more acceptable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to get it. Don't link to blogs. They cannot be used as links in Wikipedia articles. Not as "examples", nor as anything else. Don't link to blogs, and don't base any material in articles on blogs. You can link to Lively's blog only in Lively's article, not here. Is that clear enough? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure Jayjg is stepping out of bounds. Would someone please help here?  Will Beback, perhaps? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just find a reliable secondary source instead of the blog, how hard could that be? If you find it hard that is a pretty good indicator that the blog is an outlier.  If it is solid, it would be confirmed in reliable sourcing, probably multiple places.   If you looked and couldn't find confirmation, the blog is likely too flaky to qualify as SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr, the blog is not being used as a reliable source. Reliable sourcing is not the issue.  The blog is part of the story itself--it is not being used as a reliable source.


 * Look, here it is in context:


 * Some objections have engendered entire web sites. For example, Scott Lively's Abiding Truth Ministries has been named by SPLC. Lively has responded with HatewatchWatch which discusses SPLC's "hypocrisy and anti-Christian extremism."


 * Do you see? The blog is the story.  It is an example of the very "objections" being discussed in the subsection, even the subsection's title.  It is not being used as a reliable source that objections exist, rather it is being used as an example of such objections.  There were other examples, until Jayjg removed them leaving only one consisting of a few words, as opposed to the entire web site that HatewatchWatch represents and thus should be included since it is significantly and qualitatively different that just a few words. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Any time I hear "it is an example" that is a red flag of original research. And, WP:OR is not allowed here unless confirmed in secondary reliable sourcing.  Go find some a secondary source that says that says "it is an example".  Don't go around doing your own original research searching out examples of objections.  Fine someone else reliable who has done that research already.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not OR. This is directly from the HatewatchWatch right on the home page. Quoting now Scott Lively word for word from HatewatchWatch, this is Scott Lively now, not me or my alleged OR, here it comes, quote from Scott Lively: "I have created this blog to provide a forum for people who have likewise been defamed or misrepresented as 'haters' by the SPLC to tell their side of the story...."


 * So what I have done is not OR.


 * Perhaps I will restore the paragraph and add in this quote from Scott Lively.


 * At least someone finally got that RS is not involved in this case. Oh well, a switch was made to OR, but that is not applicable either. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I mentioned WP:NOR a long time ago, and SaltyBoar agrees that it's not a reliable source. Again, it cannot be added because of WP:NOR, WP:SPS, and WP:UNDUE. Please refer back to my comment of 00:53, 1 March 2010. Oh, and make damn sure you don't re-add the paragraph, quoting from Lively's blog. Because blogs cannot be used as links in Wikipedia articles. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not being used as a link or as a reliable source. It is being used as an example of the topic of the subsection, not a reliable source supporting a statement relevant to the topic.  It is a perfect example of the topic of the subsection.  He is an SPLC target, and he reacted as he did.  It perfectly illustrates what was being claimed and exemplified in the article before I ever came along.  I am not adding it for any reason other than it is a perfect example of exactly what was already in the subsection.  And it was not a repetitive example because it was substantially and qualitatively different than the existing examples, possibly even the best example.  And claiming it has undue weight in that particularly huge article is silly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me try to explain this one more time.
 * If you link to this blog, then it's a link. All links in articles must be to reliable sources. If any link is not a reliable source, then it is a violation of WP:V and WP:RS.
 * If you use this unreliable source as an example, then you need a reliable secondary source indicating that it is a notable example. Otherwise including it is a violation of WP:UNDUE.
 * If you use it as a "perfect example", then you need a reliable secondary source that indicates it is a perfect example. Otherwise is it a violation of WP:NOR.
 * Any further replies of yours that ignore these facts will simply be referred back to this post. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is highly disruptive, and you need to stop doing it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you have repeatedly violated wiki policy in the manner in which you have conducted yourself here. I might think about bringing this matter to the appropriate review panel or panels, but at this point it might be better to just wait for more voices to get involved.  My comment about a "perfect example" was just talk on this Talk page, besides I just said "possibly," so possibly not.  I am aware of the blog rules and how and why they are not to be used on Wikipedia.  The use of the Lively blog here is not applicable to those rules since the blog is being used for a different purpose and falls under other rules that would allow such use.  I am aware of the undue rules and they are satisfied here as well for similar reasons.  The RS rules do not apply as the blog is not being used as a source. Your use of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is an example of projection. It involves "refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error," yet I have acknowledged and addressed all input.  "Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not." I have not tripped that line, hence I am still talking and seeking input.  Instead, you have tripped the line, for example when you said, "Oh, and make damn sure you don't re-add the paragraph, quoting from Lively's blog. Because blogs cannot be used as links in Wikipedia articles." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The RS rules do not apply as the blog is not being used as a source. If not, then which rules do apply? I'm only aware of three exceptions to the "no blogs rule": bloggers writing about themselves in their biography, in cases where bloggers are recognized, published, and notable experts on a topic, and when they are writing for a blog that belongs to a newspaper, magazine or other business with editorial review. None of those exceptions would seem to apply to this case.   Will Beback    talk    06:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I may give a more detailed answer later, but as a quickie for now, look at "cases where bloggers are recognized, published, and notable experts on a topic." That is the exception that applies here.  Scott Lively's Abiding Truth Ministries has indeed been recognized, published, and found to be notable expert on a topic.  The topic? Being anti-gay, according to the source. By whom?  Who recognizes him and finds him notable enough to publish something about him?  An impeccable source beyond reproach on this wiki page.  The source?  The SPLC itself.  The SPLC itself has recognized him and found him notable enough to publish something about him.  It would be more than appropriate that, on the SPLC's page, the SPLC itself is viewed as the organization that has recognized, noted, and published info about Scott Lively.  Not only does SPLC have that rating, but it has pages of text specifically addressing Scott Lively.  It would be surprising that the SPLC can treat Scott Lively as it has (and I'm not taking positions on whether it is good or bad) yet Scott Lively's response is somehow deemed not notable after the SPLC recognized it, noted it, then published it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just find a secondary source and everyone will be satisfied.   Will Beback    talk    10:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If your idea is WP:Verified finding it confirmed in secondary sources should be easy.  If finding secondary sources is difficult, that raises a red flag.  Find a secondary source please.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A secondary source is needed to support the assertion of something. Nothing is being asserted.  We are merely showing what exists in the real world.  In the real world, the subsection is evidenced by an SPLC target reacting by saying, "I have created this blog to provide a forum for people who have likewise been defamed or misrepresented as 'haters' by the SPLC to tell their side of the story."  You will never find a secondary source since the thing is what it is and it exists in the real world and it is there as an example of that which is discussed in the subsection and it is not being used to support an assertion.


 * I find the requirement to find a secondary source in this very narrow situation where a secondary source requirement is not applicable is being used as the means to keep the SPLC page written in accordance with someone's POV. The White House is in the real world, it's in Washington, DC, it is evidence that the US has a significant governmental office building, it is in a subsection on architecture, there is no need to find a secondary source to prove that it is there.  Yet, when it comes to SPLC, suddenly the rules change, the SPLC gets to finger organizations, the organizations react, a subsection is written about the reaction of the organization, reference is made to examples of those reactions, but suddenly a secondary source rule pops up in an inapplicable spot to block the inclusion of material that people oppose for POV reasons.


 * And I say for POV reasons because that's what it is and was right from the start. Look at the first instance of opposition to including the information.  The history comment says, "one paragraph does not need its own heading, and we don't link to blogs."  So the reason to exclude the information was originally cast as "one paragraph does not need its own heading."  Yet at the time the article had 21 substantive sections, yet 12 of them, that's more than half, were one paragraph sections.  And the comment was that one paragraph sections were not appropriate.  Yet the majority of paragraphs had their own headings.  Do you see why I started to think there was a POV motivation behind the excuse to remove the insertion?


 * "And we don't link to blogs." Such a hard and fast statement.  A bright line never to be crossed.  That is simply not true, and we all know it.  Yes, blog usage is very limited, but "we don't link to blogs" is false.  So again I suspect another reason why POV is involved.


 * Yet another reason is the total take down of what I added with the false history comment, and no effort to attempt in the slightest to improve the addition. People working in a community work together to improve things.  Etiquette is that attempting to improve the addition is the way to go.  Just blanking it out with a false history comment is evidence, at least to me, of POV.


 * We will simply have to disagree on this. I will simply have to bring this to a forum where the first revision and the Talk section was not the creation of the person having the apparent POV as evidenced as explained above.  I am not driven by any personal view one way or another on either SPLC or its target.  Actually, I have a favorable opinion of the SPLC and no opinion of the other.  I just saw an existing section in an existing wiki page having existing examples and I inserted another example that was substantially and qualitatively different than the other examples.  I am 100% certain the material should be included in that particular subsection, but I am also 100% certain that I have been unable to articulate properly the reasons why that is so, and that should not be the basis for excluding information from Wikipedia.  The guy with the POV who started all this, he has 10 times as many edits as me and has all sorts of Wiki accolades for working on special Wiki pages, so really I am no match for someone like that.  Hence I will have to take this matter to the appropriate forum, one that will take a fresh look and rely on their own thinking instead of mine or of the guy with the POV.


 * No rush, I'll get around to it soonish. Can anyone suggest the correct forum in which this matter belongs? Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Take a look at WP:DR for a good outline of the sequence of steps to resolve disputes like this. Reconsider your premise though, when you wrote above: "A secondary source is needed to support the assertion of something. Nothing is being asserted. We are merely showing what exists in the real world." You don't seem to realize that "merely showing" is identical to "asserting". SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll kept looking into your point in the meantime.  It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)