Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 4

Typo
Just wanted to point out that there is a misplaced "]" in the section "Notable cases: Imperial Klans of America":

... "to hand out business cards and flyers advertising a 'white-only' IKA function."[65] ] Two members of the Klan started ... - Matt (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of the clearly extranious close bracket listed above, near the middle of the first paragraph of []. -- j &#9883; e deckertalk 05:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for spotting it. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Mysteriously Disappeared
One kind of obvious criticism here..they seem to only observe white hate groups. I sort of doubt that caucasians are the only people that organize to further race agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not such an obvious criticism, when one considers their hate map includes an entire section of black separatists.--97.112.60.202 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is article is a joke. The criticism of the SPLC is widespread on both fundraising and other grounds. This article has clearly been hijacked by the organization. Look at this article: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.160.255 (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * USA Today is hardly a credible source for anything. On what is your opposition to SPLC based, really? The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation consults regularly with SPLC when investigating hate crimes, apparently believing it is a credible source of information. Is that what disturbs you? Please sign your posts. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely you know that Mark Potok - director of publications and information for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) - is described in his article as "an award-winning reporter at newspapers including USA Today." If the excuses for deleting this section are that weak we need a trip to WP:NPOVN or whereever it takes us. Today is first time I noticed the criticism section missing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd this article dosen't have a criticism section. Dosen't seem in line with a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.28.133 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Criticism is can be and usually should be integrated into the article (as is the case here), not separated out into its own section. See WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CRIT (an essay, not a guideline). Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I mispoke. I didn't know section meant seperate page. I've reread the article there is no criticism whatsoever. I find this very strange, browsing over wikipedia organisations from the Chatolic Church to Greenpeace have criticism sections. There is even has some criticism disperesed in the page on Democracy! How does one go about taging an article as having disputed neutrality? This one seems to deserve it. I find this kind of scary since I've come to rely on wikipedia for much of my information.

I read this entire article and I can't see where there is any critism ANYWHERE!!! It's not in its own catagory and it is not dispersed within the article. It seems that the SPLC is NOT TOLERANT of anyone that doesn't agree with them 100%. I encourage anyone reading this to see for themselves who the people are who hijacked this website! I know who they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.202.237 (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is very biased. It has been locked for "excessive vandalism", and while some of the edits could be characterized as such, most are legitimate criticisms, which should be included to produce an unbiased description. The organization has targeted groups with legitimate political concerns, such as the John Birch Society and "Oath Keepers" [], and listed sitting congressmen, presidential candidates, and even entire political parties as dangerous, associated with violent militias, and spreading false conspiracy theories (see []). Squ1rr3l (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article is biased. The SPLC is often presented as an objective, unbiased resource (by liberal media, go figure), yet in truth it is a radical, fringe, far left wing group masquerading as mainstream, as radical left wing groups often try to do. Jkhamlin (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone else notice the irony there? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted. 67.187.26.116 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly radical left-wing if they criticize environmentalists and animal rights activists, which are both stereotyped as left-wing. SPLC goes off on it's own little fringe of radicalism that defines everything else as radicalism. 71.61.250.93 (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets get back to reality. The SPLC engages in partisanship. All it takes is a visit to Hatewatch to see that when they starting running out of klansmen to attack they turned their eye on the 'radical right'. As a libertarian I really see them becoming more and more suspicious as they use the reputation they built fighting racism to bully right wing personalities with ad hominem attacks. E.g. Alex Jones, anyone trying to organize a tax revolt. If you are serious about making this article fair you must incorporate the criticism that comes from groups that legitimately disagree with their label of 'radical right'. Allow me to illustrate the sloppy SPLC methodology (with different content): HEADLINE 1: Supporters of the communist government in North Korea starved ten people in three prison camps last month. HEADLINE 2: Radio personality Alex Jones was attacked by communist sympathizers at the Southern Law Poverty center.Mrdthree (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at NOR
Besides the RSN discussion, there is now one at WP:NOR/N started by Mrdthree. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Include mention of Hatewatch blog
The blog, "Hatewatch" and its subtitle, "Keeping an eye on the radical right" are relevant to understanding the products SPLC produces and SPLC missions. It is a self-description of the blogs purpose and is important for the article because it indicates to readers that the SPLC uses political orientation as a determining factor for what it publishes on the blog. Mrdthree (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is simply your Original Research that concludes that the subtitle on one of many SPLC publications represents some sort of mission statement. In fact the SPLC does have an ACTUAL mission statement that is available at http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do . Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no statement about the blog on that page. The blog is located here. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/. The blog states what its purpose is. TO suppose or argue that the purpose of the blog is otherwise is original research. I reiterate. My edit has two points to it (1) it is noteworthy that the SPLC has a blog; (2) it is noteworthy that the blog states its role is keeping an eye on the radical right. Mrdthree (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I miss the part that says "The purpose of this blog is ... ." In fact, it appears that the blog is simply A PART of the overall STATED mission of "seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education and other forms of advocacy, we work toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality."  Your agenda appears to be to misrepresent one aspect of the mission as being the most significant.  Once again, why should this one out of context factoid be emphasized in the article lede? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My mission is to include the name of the blog with its subtitle, as intended by the subject group and let it speak for itself.Mrdthree (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And why does this belong in the article lede? Why emphasize this?  Wouldn't it provide better information for the reader if we brought the specifics of the types of groups that the SPLC monitors?  Why not go to the body of the article and elevate a more meaningful categorization than the vague term "radical right" --separate Ku Klux Klan (KKK) groups, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, racist skinhead, Christian Identity, neo-Confederate, black separatist, and general hate groups subdivided into anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Holocaust denial, racist music, radical traditionalist Catholic groups, and others espousing a variety of hateful doctrines? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * PS BTW Hatewatch DOES discuss more than simply the radical right. This is one example.  When it states, "The New Black Panther Party — which despite its name has no connection with the original Black Panther Party — is a black supremacist organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, based on the anti-white and anti-Semitic views its leaders and members have repeatedly expressed." this does not seem to me to be about the radical right. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad example. That article is exonerating the NBPP and is criticizing extremist republican (radical right?) bloggers for trying to gain political position by prosecuting the NBPP. Mrdthree (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a great example. Just because the conclusions are that of the Justice Department(that there is insufficient evidence to tie the national party to that particular case) does not negate the fact that the SPLC deems the NBPP a hate group. As they also do the NoI and JDL. Dave Dial (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well whatever, I still say let the title speak for itself. Then I think the article has to include criticism of what 'radical right' means, because its either radical right=hate group, which carries a criticism of slander. Or radical right is some overset that ranges from KKK to Laura Ingraham, or its unclear, and in either case it can be criticized as having arbitary borders and consequently mission creep away from hate groups into political advocacy. Mrdthree (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article, as it currently exists, does not contain the phrase "radical right" except in two footnotes. The section of the article where Laura Ingraham could have been referenced refers only to rhetoric and makes a clear distinction between hate groups and the "overheated speech of pundits and politicians" that the SPLC feels inflames those groups.  The title of the section is "Criticism of right wing rhetoric" not "Criticism of radical right wing rhetoric".  You seem to want to introduce a new term to the article simply so you can shoot it down. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be a mention of the Hatewatch blog, a major activity of the SPLC, along with the self-description "keeping an eye on the radical right" in the main body of the article. The description, along with the content of hundreds and hundreds of entries make it abundantly clear that the purpose of this major activity is criticism of the right--not just the true hate groups but also the mainstream right.  As far as criticism of the left, there is only a handful of examples of criticism of hate groups on the left, and no examples of criticism of those in the mainstream left in those hundreds and hundreds of entries. Drrll (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It still all comes back to reliable sources. Other than blanket accusations by opinon writers, where are the reliable sources that claim  there are "hundreds of entries" on Hatewatch that address the mainstream right.  How does the SPLC define it?  How do reliable sources define it?  The last 10 weekly issues of Hatewatch are here .  Which ones of those 10 represent the views of the "mainstream right?" Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The SPLC website certainly is a reliable source about the SPLC. I wasn't saying that there are hundreds of entries on Hatewatch that target the mainstream right (most of them do target the radical right)--I was referring to the hundreds of entries in total on the Hatewatch blog.  The self-description of this blog is "keeping an eye on the radical right" and then within that blog are multiple entries criticizing the mainstream right in regards to conservative organizations, news outlets, and specific individuals.  I looked over the entries for 2010 and could find no similar criticism of the mainstream left's organizations, news outlets, or individuals (and just barely any criticism of the radical left).  Drrll (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't tell us exactly which Hatewatch articles you feel are directed at "mainstream right" political positions? I assume you found nothing in the last 10 issues that I asked to be checked.  How about going back twenty more and telling me which positions being described are part of the "mainstream right." I've checked myself and don't find very much that a conservative runnng for public office would even attempt to defend. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One example is http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/03/24/calling-all-thugs-gas-line-cut-after-tea-party-leader-posts-enemys-address/. Other organizations and individuals mentioned in 2010 on Hatewatch include Fox News, World Net Daily, Michelle Bachman, Glenn Beck, the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian, and The Washington Times. Drrll (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is clear about what it is criticizing. It states "The latest news from the opponents of health care reform who like to suggest that supporters should suffer for their transgressions: A day after two Virginia Tea Party activists posted the address of the brother of a congressman who voted for the bill, authorities discovered that someone had severed a gas line at the man’s home.  Surely you're not saying that these were the actions of the "mainstream right"?  As far as the other names, show me where they are identified as being part of the "radical right".  The claim you're making is that mainstream people or positions are being misidentified as radicals.  In order to do that, you have to show that the person or individual is actually called a radical by the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The SPLC should either change the description of the Hatewatch blog from "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right" or it should include only entries about the radical right in the blog. Presently it is certainly implying by the description that all its entries are about the radical right, even if they don't specifically call individuals/organizations by that name in the particular article (I haven't seen instances of them calling mainstream individuals/organizations "radical right", although they do disparage them with such names as "far right" and "hard right"). Drrll (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are exactly right that the phrase "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right" is not an accurate summary of the contents of Hatewatch. Attempting to read into the phrase, as another editor is doing, that it is some sort of political mission statement is Original (and Faulty) Research. Hatewatch is tied closely to the monitoring of hate groups and, IMO, focuses on hate speech and actions regardless of whether it involves an actual hate group. For example, the Tea Party is not classified as a hate group, although the activities described in the articles by individuals associated with the group certainly appear to be well beyond normal and acceptable political activity. The articles do not target activities of a political nature, whether by the right or the left, that are unrelated to the general theme of hate groups or hate speech. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you said about construing this phrase as a SPLC mission statement (that would require use of the phrase in the SPLC mission statement or by a reliable source). I also agree with your characterization that Hatewatch focuses on hate speech and actions outside proper bounds.  I believe, however, that the SPLC sometimes classifies legitimate political speech that simply differs from their policy views as hate speech--especially on the immigration front and on race.  I do think that there should be a mention of the phrase in the article, as it is their own description of one of SPLC's major activities.  Drrll (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can read a discussion about the meaning and use of the term "radical right" here. it does range from the KKK to Laura Ingraham.  TFD (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually all this does is, without any reference to the SPLC, provide a definition used by one author with no relationship to the SPLC. How is that relevant to this discussion? If anything, it seems to criticize the position that the SPLC takes by making a distinction between "right" and "radical right". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone like Laura Ingraham hardly qualifies as "radical right," both in terms of her viewpoints and how those viewpoints track with the general population of the US. Drrll (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have an SPLC quote that says she is part of the "radical right"? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was responding to TFD's characterization of Ingraham as part of the radical right. Actually the SPLC did classify her as part of the radical right by including an entry about her in their Hatewatch blog, along with Sean Hannity thrown in:  http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/06/10/laura-ingraham-right-wing-radios-high-priestess-of-hate/ Drrll (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not true. The article DOES NOT use the term "radical right", does it?  We've already established that Hatewatch includes articles about folks (like black separatists) who are not even anywhere on the right.  The fact that she is mentioned on the blog proves nothing -- except possibly that the blog is about more than simply the "radical right". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is not a definition used by one writer, but if you would actually go to the link, it is a description of how other writers use the term. The writer objects to the term partly because it means grouping far right groups with the mainstream conservatives.  TFD (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At the bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 the author describes how she uses the term "right wing movement." Part of this definition involves the preservation of "traditional morality and supreme status for native-born white male Americans".  What the SPLC does, with its classification of specific groups as hate groups, is place extreme racism outside of the main "right wing movement".  Perhaps the main theme of this discussion is how well the SPLC makes this distinction. Are you saying that your source is suggesting that making the distinction is not an effort worth making?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an editor with a political mission. We don't do missions; for why, see WP:TIGERS. People with missions should write blogs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between her description of how other writers use the term "radical right" and her own use of the term "right-wing movement". Why are you bringing up her use of terminology?  TFD (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The section I quoted came from the part where the author was describing how she would use the term throughout the rest of the book. You are the one that introduced this source to a discussion of terminology.  I am still trying to figure out what relevance in has to this discussion and this article. What text are you suggesting should be added to the article that is based on this source? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The relevance is that you asked me what the term "radical right" meant and I provided you with a reliable source than explains how the term is used in academic literature. The author of that book criticized the use of the term and then explained the terminology that she would use in her book.  But why are you talking about her use of terminology?  If you do not want your questions answered then do not ask them.  TFD (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Gottcha. So the dominant view (at least in 1995 when the book was written) is that "radical" implied groups or tactics that operated "outside the democratic process".  She claims that in many cases groups labelled as radical were in fact operating within the democratic process by their use of voting, lobbying, media campaigns, and the establishment of links with the established political eltes.  I think the applicable point here, given the SPLC's focus, is whether using extremes of hate speech or non democratic actions (i.e. violence and/or intimidation), while otherwise adhering to the other democratic conventions mentioned, justifies using the classification of "radical". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Listen, lets let the title speak for itself, since some editors are profoundly interested (employees?) in protecting the marketing value of this wiki site for the SPLC, I will settle for a mention of Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right in the body. Perhaps in the section on right wing rhetoric, alongside the criticism sentence I offered above. Sound fair?Mrdthree (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Better yet, let's not. Your proposed sentence is not based on reliable sources regarding the operations of the SPLC.  "Hatewatch" is often referred to in the reliable media and elsewhere.  I have never seen it referred to in any sources as  Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right.  Wikipedia is not the place to be blazing new ground or promoting tired agendas. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If understand you correctly, you are claiming that the title of the SPLC blog should be redacted because other media usually do so. Are any of these other media you cite encyclopedias? Why do you think that this encyclopedia should redact the words of the subject of the article? It seems to me you are trying to present an image of the subject that does not exist-- you are trying to dampen criticism and controversy, not report facts. Let the subject speak for itself. Mrdthree (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the title of the blog is "Hatewatch". I've never seen anybody, let alone reliable sources, question that it has any other name.  I don't know what editorial decisions were made in adding the phrase on the page that you place such significance in, but then neither do you.  If you don't have any source, reliable or otherwise to say that the title is different, then we follow all the other sources -- that's wikipedia 101, first two minutes of class. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats disingenuous. You have seen someone who says "Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right". In fact you have seen it multiple times by now. I will give you the website go there again, read it-- the SPLC says it. Find a secondary source that says ignore it. Saving space makes sense in a newspaper but not necessary here. Again, its relevant because it is the words of the subject and it demonstrates that political orientation is viewed by the subject as being important for the blog. Your asserting the opposite or some other motivation to the SPLC must be proven to very high standards. If you were right, the SPLC would redact it.Mrdthree (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And yet we have seen very clearly that Hatewatch contains articles on both the right and the left, haven't we? This shows that it focuses on more than the radical right, doesn't it?  Your claim is not backed up by the facts and it would be intentionally misleading to include language that suggests otherwise, wouldn't it? You've been directed to the SPLC's mission statement but you reject that because you have determined that the SPLC really decided to just list it instead, without any other explanation, at the top of a newsletter. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Full stop -- there is a tiger loose in the museum; continuing to argue with it only damages the rest of the museum. Mrdthree, you should leave your advocacy to the blogosphere; Tom, while I admire your patience, it's probably time to stop feeding the tiger. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its easy to lay out an ad hominem argument. How about organizing a vote instead of personal attacks? Mrdthree (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It does seem that this particular issue, as well as the one above, are dead issues until someone starts to agree with you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is my proposal: The History section should include the sentence 'The SPLC maintains a blog entitled Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right.' The reason being (1) the blog is notable (2) the fact that the blog is directed towards a particular political orientation is notable. Please vote below to establish consensus.Mrdthree (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Mrdthree (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Sounds reasonable. LionelT (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree Besides, the issue is improperly and misleadingly phrased.  The section already contains the statement "In 1981 the Center began its "Klanwatch" (now "Hatewatch") project to monitor and track the activities of the KKK, which has been expanded to include seven other types of hate organizations."  Simply adding the additional statement would be redundant and replacing it with the proposed statement  eliminates significant material.  A discussion in its own section with a more specific proposal, rather than a vote, is the appropriate next action.  This current discussion started with the effort to add material to the article lede -- a proposal that is apparently dead.  The apparent proposal to remove material has never been discussed in this section or elsewhere.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Please see the section below about adding a new section to the article titled "Hatewatch". Drrll (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree per lack of WP:RS for (1) or (2), and per Tom it is already adequately covered. Until these policy issues are addressed it should not be added, and WP does not go on votes. Verbal chat  07:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will post your issue on the reliable sources board. will you be comfortable with the determination made there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_Blog_Reliability Mrdthree (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree (at this time) The link does not work, and the archive source is two yerars old. As such I have not seen any thin backing to the claimj they maintain this blog. If this changes and the SPLC website (and this blog) I would reconsoder.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You raise, at least in my mind, a different point that I hadn't thought about. The blog, when it comes up, will show that each article added contains at its home site here  the following statement, "Hatewatch is written by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center." This obviously suggests that the title is "Hatewatch".  However whether saying that a blog is maintained by the writers is the same thing as saying that the SPLC "maintains" the blog is a different question.  Generally if I were citing the SPLC as a reliable source on another article, I would look to the Intelligence Report or an official SPLC news release since the style of writing is more formal and less "blog-like". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be better to say that SPLC hosts the blog rather then maintains it.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * so you would find it agreeable with that word change? ( blog up http://www.splcenter.org/blog) Mrdthree (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the sentance "SPLC hosts a blog called Hatewatch" would be supported by the source. What the relvevance of that is is anotehr matter.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity how would you characterize the phrase "keeping an eye on the radical right". Would you call it a subtitle, a motto, a headline or something else? Mrdthree (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The relevance is that Klanwatch became a blog. That is different from what is currently claimed on the website in the history section. This point must be clarified. So a rewrite would be: In 1981 the Center began its "Klanwatch" project to monitor and track the activities of the KKK, Klanwatch has since been renamed "Hatewatch" and been expanded to include seven other types of hate organizations.  "Hatewatch" is currently a blog hosted by the SPLC whose motto is "Keeping an eye on the radical right".[] Mrdthree (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a source that Hatewatch is a blog that monitors hate groups from a particular political orientation. The source of the mission statement is the SPLC blog supported by a second source, a news article. This is the only sourced statement about the blog that I have seen.  The sentence I wish to include to do that is "The SPLC maintains a blog called Hatewatch whose mission is 'Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right'." Mrdthree (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition of a new section: Hatewatch
I agree with Mrdthree that there should be some mention of Hatewatch within the body of the article. The SPLC's Hatewatch seems to me to be a major activity of the SPLC. I propose that we add a new section titled "Hatewatch," similar to the existing "Tolerance.org" section title. Some of what could be included would be the origin of Hatewatch (as an outgrowth/replacement for KlanWatch), the SPLC's own description of the blog, "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right", examples with links of what the blog reports on (examples reporting on the radical right, the radical left, and on conservatives outside the radical right), and criticism and praise for Hatewatch. Drrll (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any WP:RS discussing Hatewatch? Verbal chat  07:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would question whether their are reliable sources that specifically address Hatewatch either positively or negatively -- most sources I've seen either refer to the SPLC in general or to the Intelligence Report. Providing examples opens a large can of worms.  To this point, the article has refrained from discussing specific hate groups and the rationale behind their listing.  I'm not saying I'm against this but I do think people should seriously consider whether that is the direction to take.  For example, their is a proposal elsewhere to include material criticizing the SPLC's treatment of FAIR despite the fact that the article currently says nothing about FAIR.  If that material is added, then balance requires that we mention the SPLC side which is:


 * FAIR has long been marked by anti-Latino and anti-Catholic attitudes. It has mixed this bigotry with a fondness for eugenics, the idea of breeding better humans discredited by its Nazi associations. It has accepted $1.2 million from an infamous, racist eugenics foundation. It has employed officials in key positions who are also members of white supremacist groups. Recently, it has promoted racist conspiracy theories about Mexico's secret designs on the American Southwest and an alternative theory alleging secret plans to merge the United States, Mexico and Canada. Just last February [2007], a senior FAIR official sought "advice" from the leaders of a racist Belgian political party.


 * I would be interested in pursuing part of the proposal. The phrase "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right" might be added, but not represented as the title, as long as their is an indication that it also discusses the radical left.  The problem with differentiating between "radical" and "conservatives outside the radical right" remains.  We need to start talking about specific language. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * After looking for reliable sources that speak positively or negatively about Hatewatch, I see that there aren't that many (even in ideological magazines like Mother Jones and National Review)--except for some opinion pieces, which makes sense. WP:RS allows opinion pieces within reliable sources, as long as there is proper attribution to the author of the opinion.  When I have more time I will work on finding additional sources and coming up with some draft wording.  You're right that criticism of the SPLC with regard to specific organizations would necessitate putting in the SPLC's side.  The listing of examples I was thinking of including would be free of characterizations like "radical right" and "conservative"--just the individual/organization between criticized and the link to that criticism at the Hatewatch blog (leaving any characterizations to the opinion authors outside of the example listing).  I don't know how clear I've been--what's needed is additional specific language, as you said. Drrll (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is Hatewatch A major activity of the SPLC? It seems that whilst they host it they specificaly distance themselves from it. For example they actualy host two blogs, only one of which actualy has a kind of caveat saying this is not writen by us. The other blog in fact actualy says it is a project of SPLC, something the Hatewatch blog dose not say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It may not be a major activity of the SPLC, as Tom has said below. The blog is, however, definitely a project of the SPLC and they take credit for it:  "Hatewatch is written by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center" (http://splcenter.org/get-informed/blogs).  The caveat probably refers to blog entries they include that aren't written by their staff--ones that link to other sites. Drrll (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that they do not say its a project of SPLC, they say its a project of staff of Intelligence Report, the caveat probobly serves the same function as those on DVD's that say we take no responsibilty for what is said here, I.e. don't sue us we do not endorse it. We cannot say what sources do not say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) It appears that everybody, myself included, has been working on the false assumption (which has been in the article at least as far back as January 2008) that Klanwatch was the predecessor of Hatewatch. This is not the case.

In fact, as this SPLC article from 1998 states:

''“Also last year, we changed our name. Klanwatch was created in 1981 to monitor the Ku Klux Klan and related white supremacist groups. In 1994, the Center established the Militia Task Force to monitor the emerging antigovernment Patriot Movement.''

Now, the Center has established its Intelligence Project as an umbrella for both Klanwatch and the Militia Task Force and to address radical right groups that may not fit neatly into either category.”

The SPLC identifying the “radical right” rather than just the KKK goes back to at least this article. However at the same time the article focuses on “Louis Farrakhan and Race-Based Hate” and states “If we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.”  I think the general perception is that Farrakhan et al represent left extremism rather than right extremism.

The SPLC makes it even clearer in this Winter 2000 article titled 'Neither Left Nor Right' that the extremism of the 21st Century does not fit tightly into the two dimensional left-right continuum. The article states, "More and more, people on both ends of the traditional political spectrum — particularly those who are young — are finding that their world views overlap. They are opposed to what are seen as the homogenizing forces of globalism."

The blog Hatewatch was not created until July 2007. As this initial bog entry states, the purpose of the blog is to “share tantalizing tidbits and serious commentary about the world of hate.”  Whatever somebody wants to read into the slogan “Keeping an eye on the radical right”, both the blog and the SPLC are in fact focusing on something diferent than the “radical right”.

To answer Slatersteven’s question, it does not appear to me that Hatewatch is a “major activity of the SPLC”. In fact, it is simply a small adjunct of one of its major projects, Intelligence Report. As such, it appears that the current single sentence reference in the “Intelligence Report” section of the article needs to be corrected (with a footnote to its first blog that would contain the quote from it that I referenced above) and the erroneous reference to it in the “History” section needs to be removed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work on your research. As it appears to be a subproject of Intelligence Report, the Hatewatch material should probably go into the "Intelligence Report" section instead of its own section. Drrll (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It also is important that the article mention hatewatch is a blog maintained by the SPLC. It is not clear from the current text that it is a blog. Plus since its mission has expanded to include seven new 'hate' groups since klanwatch, the nature of the blog should be clarified by addition information provided by the subject "keeping an eye on the radical right" is how the subject chose to summarize the aim of the blog. Mrdthree (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not true. If you had read the post above you would know that the very first edition of the blog stated that its purpose was to “share tantalizing tidbits and serious commentary about the world of hate.”  Can't be any clearer than that. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be mentioned that the SPLC maintains the blog, although we might want to use the word "publish" instead since that's the word they use. I also agree that "keeping an eye on the radical right" should be included when mentioning Hatewatch (perhaps after a semicolon--which they used up to apparently a few hours ago--or parentheses).  Despite what the article currently says, Hatewatch didn't originate from Klanwatch--see what Tom said above. Drrll (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent)FWIW, I liked Mrdthree's addition that Tom just reverted. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a long discussion of this above at Claim of controversial sources. No consensus has been reached. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom, please recall from the discussion at the OR wiki the location and the nature of the content was your suggestion. Now if you have problems with the particulars lets work out that. Mrdthree (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not even close to true. My proposal was to start with these existing sentence, "Some organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object to this characterization. The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) argue that the SPLC's claim that the CofCC is tied to white supremacists is inaccurate. From there we could add a "For example" to the second sentence and possibly expand the footnotes.  Later it was suggested that FAIR might be used in place of the CCC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the Nation of Islam is considered right-wing (see e.g., Laird Wilcox). Its leaders have met with George Lincoln Rockwell, Tom Metzger and other right wing leaders.  As far as I know the SPLC does not monitor left-wing groups.  TFD (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the SPLC articles I provided links to shows that the SPLC recognizes that the right- left continuum is not adequate for the analysis of hate groups. We should probable summarize that very nuanced article rather than settling for simply using a short phrase as if it fully addresses the issue (not that I think you are suggesting that). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like WP:RS, WP:NOR WP:NPOV to me.Mrdthree (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be an RS, but it isn't OR as t's in the RS. Verbal chat  07:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the end of the Intelligence Report section
The staff of Intelligence Report also publish the blog Hatewatch: Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right. Examples of whom the blog reports include VDARE, the New Black Panther Party, the American Enterprise Institute, Mark Krikorian, and Fox News. Drrll (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a cherry-picked list is at all encyclopedic or neutral... what's the value to such an addition from an encyclopedic perspective? What criteria and motivation did you use to pick those examples?  What does it add?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is considerable visibility and activity in the Hatewatch blog on their website. Unless we include the hundreds of examples of entries in Hatewatch, in order to give the reader an idea of the types of targets of the blog, specific examples are needed.  I wanted to avoid my own characterizations of these targets with such labels as "radical right," "radical left," and "conservative," but I've included examples of each.  Do you have suggestions on improving the list of examples? Drrll (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You assume I agree there is some value in picking and listing specific examples... I do not. :)  I believe there is little actual value in picking some to list, and a great opportunity to (unintentionally) color perceptions by cherry picking a few.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no agreement that the title of the blog is anything but Hatewatch. This is the way the SPLC refers to it and this is the way outside sources refer to it.  There is already a long discussion of this above.


 * As to Blaxthos' point, this is also an issue in an above discussion regarding efforts to specifically discuss FAIR. My preference is to keep the article as it is, but if people are going to insist on naming names, then we should go in all guns blazing -- name LOTS of names and explain in detail why the groups have been identified.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Up until last week, on the SPLC website at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/blogs, the SPLC themselves used "Hatewatch: Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right."   An alternative is to put "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right" in parentheses and quotes.
 * For the purpose of this particular addition (based on what you said above), do you suggest we add additional blog examples? Do you suggest that we briefly describe the reasons these examples are mentioned in the blog? Drrll (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the version of the page that you refer to, but the bottom line is that it doesn't say that now. However, I don't see why the statement on the blog needs to go beyond how the SPLC describes it on the page.  It says, "Published by the staff of the Intelligence Report investigative magazine, Hatewatch features the latest information on hate and extremist movements." If we want to discuss specific groups, then I suggest we discuss my last proposal above at the section, "Claim of controversial sources."  The section of the article involving the Intelligence Report is the place where specifics would be better discussed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But it does describe Hatewatch as "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right" prominently on the blog's home page and every other page of the blog. I see it as more of a tagline ("a memorable phrase that will sum up the tone and premise of a brand or product") than a subtitle. The tagline suggests that the primary emphasis of the blog will be on the radical right.  I believe that mentioning it in parentheses or between commas would be a good way of including it.  The parent project of Hatewatch, Intelligence Report, describes itself similarly: "It is the nation's preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S."
 * I like your proposal that we list the categories of hate groups, along with their descriptions and examples. We could include a brief reason why the group is included, and if available, a reliably-sourced response from the group. --Drrll (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a source for the title of Hatewatch: keeping an eye on the radical right http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/15/town-wary-polygamists/ I would also say, oddly enough the SPLC blog hatewatch is the first hit for a google search on "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right" (although it could just be my computer?) Mrdthree (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The common name used in 99% of all the sources we have is "HateWatch" -- we're not going to change it because you scraped up one singular source that uses a tagline as well. In both your points you've got the cart before the horse... you're starting with an assumption, and then hunting sources that support what you want to want to find -- that's exactly backwards from how Wikipedia works.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct on one count and incorrect on the other. You are correct in saying that none of the articles you have cited mention the mission statement of the blog. However you are incorrect in the belief that this allows you to say something about the mission statement of the blog. In other words you have no evidence as to your opinion. However, there are now two sources that explain the meaning of 'Keeping an eye on the radical right'--one is the SPLC itself (plain english should speak for itself) and second the article cited above provides evidence that the plain meaning of the phrase is indeed the meaning-- 'Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right' is the mission statement of the blog. If you wish to do original research and show how they have strayed from that mission by presenting examples not easily applied to that mission statement or if you claim that they have some other mission for the blog, provide a citation. Otherwise allow the reasonable inclusion of the subjects description of the blogs mission. Mrdthree (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense (neither logically, nor when evaluated against policy). The original research statement is a classic strawman -- where did I say anything approaching that? The multitude of independent sources do not include that description (so far, you've found one out of dozens), adding it violates the undue weight restriction (and your justifications venture into synthesis of thought). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we dont have an argument then. The article is unclear on the purpose of Hatewatch. Hatewatch is a blog that monitors hate groups from a particular political orientation. The sentence I wish to include to do that is "The SPLC maintains a blog called Hatewatch whose mission is 'Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right'." The source of the mission statement is the SPLC blog supported by a second source, a news article. This is the only sourced statement about the blog that I have seen. When I said 'OR' I guess I wasnt referring necessarily to your comment but to previous comments by editors who had analyzed the content of the blog to criticize the mission statement of Hatewatch rather than providing specific citations about the mission of Hatewatch. Mrdthree (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the SPLC, not any particular blog. One source doesn't constitute due weight -- at this point I think you're becoming tendentious, and I won't continue to repeat myself.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Becoming tendentious? We passed that point a long time ago. Verbal chat  21:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree the article should not be about the blog. I am not proposing to introduce a paragraph, merely one sourced sentence: "the SPLC maintains a blog whose mission statement is 'Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right". Step back for a minute and look at this page, reconsider your accusation of tendentious. I am not the only person arguing for this position. I did not even start this particular discussion. I am starting to question whether your interest is to whitewash any mention of the political orientation of the SPLC. The fact that political orientation is important to the SPLC is notable. An encyclopedia should document notable things about the SPLC. The SPLC documents this about itself. The question is why do you keep trying to block statements about the SPLC by the SPLC? Do you believe the SPLC is swayed by poltical orientation?Mrdthree (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * However, there is one item in the tendentious list (cuts both ways): "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." The main issue with this article is that it omits Hatewatch and the fact that the SPLC considers political orientation important. How can we work to incorporate this notable and omitted aspect of the SPLC? Mrdthree (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guy, but I don't think you're here neutrally presenting appropriately weighted issues. Taking the macro view, seems to me like you're here to push an agenda and Right Great Wrongs.  Neither the sources, nor your fellow editors, support this obsessive fixation with the Hatewatch blog.  Time to let it go.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you are going to assume bad faith I cant help you. Here are the facts. Any attempt to mention political orientation, which is a prominent part of subjects blog and website triggers edit wars by a small cabal of article protectors. Meanwhile every mention to Hatewatch is improperly sourced and the current mission of the SPLC is ignored in the header and body http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do. Mrdthree (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's be fair, here -- I and others have engaged all of your arguments, responding with policy and logic in good faith. However, you've demonstrated that you're willing to start with your conclusions, search for evidence that you believe supports your bias, and then repeatedly ignore objections based on policy.  Since you've continue to try and find ways to insert a particular slanted point-of-view, whilst ignoring or lawyering against arguments based in policy, I no longer believe you're here in good faith.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have posted maybe 6 comments to address me. The first two are ad hominem. The last two are ad hominem. You are not a serious editor. Mrdthree (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Claim of controversial sources
It is plain from the record that there is right wing criticism of SPLC. If you disagree with current citations, please provide an example of acceptable source for demonstrating right wing discontent. Here is my proposed lede to help readers understand political opposition to the SPLC. Please identify issues of facts you feel are controversial. The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'. Mrdthree (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will continue to included references here that speak to these issues while debate (which I hope will be quick) decides on the manner in which the fact of criticism should be included. Please address three issues to help me complete my research: (1) do you disagree as to the existence of right wing criticism of the SPLC? (2) Do you disagree as to the validity of the source? (3) do you disagree that the mission of hatewatch is to monitor the radical right? thanks. Mrdthree (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ken Silverstein article November 2000 Harpers Magazine . summary of activities and criticism, David horowitz related group ,Sourcewatch says SPLC goes after mainstream conservatives , Huffingtonpost: SLPC tars people unfairly . Mrdthree (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the first place, the article lede IS NOT the place to introduce new material which is not addressed in the body of the article. In the second place, the fact that the groups criticized by the SPLC may disagree with that criticism is pretty much a no-brainer -- hardly worth noting at all in the article, let alone in the lede.  Finally, you need a much clearer source to support your allegation that the SPLC has made exposing the radical right as its main goal.  There is a section in the article already titled "Criticism of right wing rhetoric" -- probably expanding this section BY CONSENSUS should be the appropriate area to go.  BTW, I don'tbelieve Townhall.com qualifies as a reliable source.  Nor do political opinion writers.  Whatever you say about the SPLC and the right wing needs to either come from clear SPLC statements about itself or from reliable, third party sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Townhall.com is not a RS. Verbal chat  17:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a Necessary feature of wikipedia policy see below-- meant majority rule . Truth is. An article can be protected by a majority of partisans. To North Shoreman: My point is simple and you have already agreed with it: the SPLC monitors the 'radical right'. Now we can ask what to do about it. It appears your claim is that an article can only have two valid sources" (1) a statement by the subject party of the article (2) a third party source. To Verbal: I will raise your claim at the references noticeboard. I will let the editors decide whether an opinion piece proves criticism, whether its inclusion is original research or whether it is otherwise unreliable. My instinct tells me it is reliable evidence as to the existence of right wing criticism. What does yours say? Mrdthree (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a big difference between monitoring the radical right, as a PART of what it does, and your claim that "it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'." We worked out a broad consensus on how to describe in the lede what the SPLC does -- we need the same broad consensus if you want to change that.


 * If you are going to stick to your belief that "Consensus is not a Necessary feature of wikipedia policy", then I'm not sure how you can be considered a serious editor -- what with it being a key part of the Five Pillars of Wikpedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I will rephrase it. I mean 'majority rule' is not a necessary feature of wikipedia policy. Community consensus in some broad sense is. Hence I think if there is a consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard, that the aforementioned article is suitable as evidence of crtiicism, then it should be included. The reliable sources debate is posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Townhall.com_a_reliable_source_for_proving_opposing_opinions.3F Mrdthree (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase 'unmasking the radical right' and 'keeping an eye on the radical right' meet your standard of being statements made by the subject party. Mrdthree (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You avoid the issue I raised. It does not support your claim that "it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'."  The SPLC STILL monitors hate groups and its primary publication is still its Intelligence Report, not Hatewatch.  And it still runs all its education programs and still initiates legal actions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this post from WP:RSN puts it well: I would have to say its RS for his opinions, then it just becomes a matter of determining if his opinions matter. Does anybody off Townhall care about his opinion of SPLC? Is it mentioned in independent journalism? If not, why should we include this anywhere?


 * And even if it is, we usually mention X's opinion of Y under X, not Y; we are not an indiscriminate collection of material, and there are more bloviators in the world than we have articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on now. Are we going to include the Daily Kos as a reliable source for articles? Or perhaps the Free Republic or Canada Free Press? For self published material dealing with their own articles, sure. But not for opinions on other articles. Dave Dial (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I listed multiple sources, even if you dont think Townhall.com is mainstream, there is an article in Harpers Weekly. However, Matt Barber is a regular columnist at townhall, has a television resume as well as activist []. I think inclusion of criticism is important not simply because the SPLC has broadened its mission since klanwatch, but because 'hatewatch' uses the vague term radical right and it is important to have multiple opinions on vague and misleading terms like that. Mrdthree (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop the train -- we need to address something said a little further back. If Mrdthree believes that "Consensus is not a Necessary feature of wikipedia policy. Truth is.", then we need to correct that misinformation before getting entangled in a POV debate.  Mrdthree, I have no idea where you got those ideas, but you need to review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TRUTH before continuing further discussion -- one can't credibly argue when one doesn't understand the rules of the discussion.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I misspoke. I meant majority rule isnt necessary. A broad consensus notion is, and by that I mean consensus as ultimately as determined by an administrator.Mrdthree (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not really correct either. In any case, I saw the statement earlier and the claim that "Truth" was the goal, also struck me as you not knowing the rules here. See Verifiability, not truth Dave Dial (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To meet criticism, I have a new version, with particulars. Some right-wing commentators, activists, and scholars, including Ken Silverstein , Matt Barber , and Carol Swain have criticized the Southern Poverty Law Center for attacking mainstream right-wing individuals while 'unmasking' and 'keeping an eye on the radical right' Mrdthree (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No -- the opinions of "some" commentators does not belong in the article lede. What reliable sources conclude that these three are representative of "right-wing commentators, activists, and scholars."?  How is it balanced to criticize the SPLC position regarding the "radical right" without first describing exactly what the SPLC position is and how the "radical right" is defined?   After all, we probably should have a pretty complete list of who the SPLC classifies as hate groups from the radical right if we are going to add criticism of those classifications.  As I've said, first you need to reach a consensus to even have the material added to the MAIN BODY of the article -- in a balanced manner rather than just your POV -- before you attempt to add a summary of that material to the lede.  See Manual of Style (lead section).  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tom. Please stop trying to force this into the article, and discuss the edits here first to ry and find consensus (and some RS might help). See WP:UNDUE and the other policies you've been pointed to. Verbal chat  19:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input. I will work hard to put together the kind of research we need to improve this article. Mrdthree (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And what Prof. Swain says in her Huffington op-ed is "No, really, I'm not racist." Is this notable? Is it even surprising? Doubtless the same thing was said by the Montgomery YMCA; true or false - and I make no implication which - it will be said by everyone they comment on. Does anybody care? Has it been reported by a source independent of the speaker? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Swain is african american she said it as a joke.Mrdthree (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A joke? Being African American does not exclude oneself from being a racist. Dave Dial (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed not; but this is why we are extremely careful not to use primary sources, such as her op-ed, for any but the most obvious and plainly stated assertions; others may read them differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the SPLC tars some groups and individuals who simply disagree with their left-wing policy views and that, unlike the Anti-Defamatation League, they almost exclusively target those on the political right to the exclusion of those on the left. I also believe that this organization deserves more criticism in its article.  That said, Mrdthree, the criticism needs to stay out of the lead until it is developed in the main body of the article, its language needs to be more supported by sourcing (for example, what evidence do you have that Ken Silverstein is "right wing"?), and it needs better sourcing.  A townhall.com columnist does not seem like a good source, as it probably lacks editorial oversight.  The piece in the Huffington Post by Prof. Swain appears much stronger, as do the articles by Silverstein in Harpers. Drrll (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you name any left-wing groups they fail to target? TFD (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I dont think its essential. I just want to say that the SPLC has become a political advocacy organization, advocating for more than just civil rights. That said, here is the example you seek: the SPLC does not criticize or examine the leaders of anarchist groups (these are the equivalent of some right-wing militias and extremists). As far as I know they said nothing about the property destruction at the G20 when the anarchists riot. They do not criticize Michael Moore (I would say equivalent to Sean Hannity) for encouraging said left-wing extremists. Now you could say this is not a hate crime, but my point is they no longer criticize people just for hate crimes, they criticize them for politics (e.g. Alex Jones).Mrdthree (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which group that Hannity belongs to is on the SPLC's list and which group that Moore belongs to should be on their list? Which anarchist organizations do they fail to list?  TFD (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hannity belongs to no group. That is my point. Yet the SPLC criticizes them. Why? for his politics. If you like read Anarchism in the United States for details or maybe you could start some investigations into who made the black bloc in Seattle because you wont find any details with SPLC. Mrdthree (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me which country the Black Bloc is based in and name its leaders and ideology? So far the police cannot do this, so it is asking too much for SPLC to do this.  By the way, if you read anything from the radical left, they are not fans of Michael Moore, whom they accuse of being a "liberal".  And can you name even one left-wing hate group that is not listed by the SPLC?  TFD (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think I have much of an issue with the SPLC and its work on hate groups. My issue is with 'extremists','right-wing radicals', and 'mainstream' figures that 'encourage extremists'. I did some googling and I am able to endulge you so here, I found this: "Anarchist extremist groups include entities within Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society ,and Recreate 68." . I wonder how the SPLC will decide whether they are extremist, militant or radical enough? or if they are encouraged by Bernie Sanders and vermont secessionists? Mrdthree (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The black bloc is a tactic not a group. If the SPLC was truly interested in investigating all extremist militias, it would identify who organized it, what newsletters they used, etc. However they are not interested in left-wing extremist militias. Second, the SPLC says it is interested in mainstream media figures that make false propaganda that encourages extremists by legitimizing their paranoid conspiracy theories. By those standards the Michael Moore should be investigated for encouraging left-wing extremists (there are media pages documenting his incorrect statements). Mrdthree (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe sticking this in teh right wing rhetoric section would be just as good: The SPLC's current mission of identifying "mainstream media figures and politicians who use their platform to legitimize false propaganda about immigrants and other minorities and spread the kind of paranoid conspiracy theories on which militia groups thrive" has been criticized as arbitrary, slander , and mission creep by members of the right-wing and mainstream media, including Ken Silverstein , Michael Vadum, Matt Barber , and Carol Swain Mrdthree (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are still pushing your Original Research claim that somehow "the SPLC's current mission" is really only about criticizing the radical right wing. You still have failed to establish, from a reliable source, that the political opinions of the writers you cite represent "members of the right-wing and mainstream media."  I think using your anecdotal methods, it would be just as easy to claim that "members of the right-wing and mainstream media" accept SPLC classifications without qualifications.
 * Also, once you start defending the groups who spread "false propaganda about immigrants and other minorities and spread the kind of paranoid conspiracy theories on which militia groups thrive", then balance requires that the article discuss the specific groups the SPLC identifies and their justifications for those classifications. This is certainly doable, but we need a consensus that this is the direction we need to go. I notice that you continue to add material to the article without regard to these ongoing discussions.  You really ought to show some good faith and stop that. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * PS I offer this as an example of the road you are proposing we take. Since Carol Swain is attacking the SPLC's criticism of her support for a film, then what the SPLC actually said about the film needs to be addressed. The SPLC article starts:


 * A new DVD is a hit among white supremacists looking for a smart-sounding defense of their beliefs.
 * Contrary to its title, A Conversation about Race isn’t really a conversation about race at all, but a slick 58-minute documentary devoted to proving the thesis that racism is a bogus concept invented to oppress whites. Debut filmmaker Craig Bodeker — who appears in his documentary with a surfer-style blond ’do, collared shirt and jeans — is upfront about his project:


 * “I … can’t think of another issue that is more artificial, manufactured and manipulated than this whole construct called racism,” he says in a voice-over as the documentary begins.


 * Later, on camera, he continues: “This construct of racism is not an objective term. It has no concise definition. In fact, it’s used too often as a tool of intimidation, like a hammer, against Caucasian whites.”


 * This effort to deny racism out of existence doesn't really seem to me be something that represents main stream or even non-radical right wing beliefs. In fact, it appears that Swain, after the SPLC contacted her, has actually backed down from her previous total support for the film. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think its important for the article you should make the edit. I am just trying to include published criticism of SPLC tactics. Mrdthree (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well where in the article do you think we should mention that the SPLC maintains a blog called Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right? I think it helps clarify the mission of the SPLC-- and its not something I wrote, its the statement of the subject organization and it would help to clarify to readers what the political orientation of the group is. Mrdthree (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If a rebuttle of the criticism is necessary for the article then we should probably include a lengthy discussion of criticisms. I personally lean towards a statement that criticism exists and then provide a list of references.Mrdthree (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is possible that the current sentence is written so as to draw a conclusion, but I think given the references and their topics, a sentence could easily be constructed in the form of "XYZ are members of class B and with regard to policy A, X says this, Y says this,and Z says this." would this still be OR or SYN? I dont see the conclusion (the ergo for synth) and I dont see the references serving as evidence for anything other than what is said in the article and by whom, which are responsible uses of a primary source. Mrdthree (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are being disingenuous when you state you only want a "statement that criticism exists." Your proposed language makes specific charges of "arbitrary, slander, and mission creep."  You also misrepresent what I am proposing.  I am not proposing rebuttals, but a discussion of the actual examples that your sources label as "arbitrary, slander, and mission creep." Shouldn't the reader know, for example, that Carol Swain's definition of mission creep involves the criticism of a DVD that denies the legitimacy of the very concept of racism?  What your sources do not provide is anything beyond unsupported blanket accusations -- accusations that do not meet the criteria for reliable sources.


 * You meet OR and SYN problems when you claim "XYZ are members of class B".  I can look at the same parties that you do and conclude that they actually belong to class C.  We need a reliable source to resolve the differences.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK can we agree a fair structure, with primary sources, is Group B has policy A. XYZ criticize policy A. X says this, Y says this, Z says this. Then I can construct something and you can argue noitability? Mrdthree (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You lose me at "primary sources". You need to justify why the primary source (I'm assuming the sources you refer to are the opinion pieces) has a purpose for being introduced into the article.  From  WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.  So what are the reliable secondary sources you intend to introduce to explain the significance of the primary sources? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in the RS discussion it was determined that the primary sources are RS for identifying the person who is criticizing and the topic of criticism. I will not make any synthetic statements, e.g. a b and c are true THEREFORE z. It is simply XYZ crticize policy ABC and say DEF. Mrdthree (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true. Bottom line is still that the isolated info provided by XYZ is relevant only to what XYZ think. It is still not a reliable source for this article which is about the SPLC, not XYZ.  You're playing a game that nobody else, certainly not a consensus, is buying. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep an open mind. Take and evaluate the evidence as it is presented. See if it meets the highest standards of research, if not criticize for its weakness, but please, do not prejudge issues you are unwilling to research and that I am working hard to document to your (and Verbals) satisfaction. New version: SPLC has been criticized for labeling the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) a 'hate group' and, by extension, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and NumbersUSA. Ken Silverstein of Harpers Magazine while rejecting the views of the CIS defended the organizaiton and stated the SPLC "has a habit of casually labeling organizations as hate groups." Carol M. Swain stated the SPLC suffers from "mission creep" and that it "has spent far more resources hounding conservative organizations, such as the Center for Immigration Studies... than it has protecting the civil rights of American voters" Mrdthree (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It still comes down to the sources and all you are using is the opinion of a few political writers. Why is any of these writers a reliable source for their claims? You try to sneak in blanket, general critcisms while pretending that you're only talking about FAIR. FAIR is not discussed at all in the article as it exists, so why should we introduce only criticism of it?  Why discuss only one of 800-900 hate groups?  Why are these three isolated individuals you cite relevant, especially since the SPLC's classification of hate groups is so widely accepted by the reliable media and academics?  It seems like the opinions represent a fringe opinion.  Why don't you stop with the blogs and opnions and look for some actual reliable, secondary sources that back you up?  You know -- peer reviewed books and journals. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have pushed me to do good research. Now I have. You should be happy, not upset. When you are upset it makes me think you are taking sides. Now if you are going to criticize, you cant simultaneously complain that I am making too specific a criticism and that I am making too general a criticism. Pick one, whichever you think is stronger. The author of the report, Jerry Kammer is a Pulitzer Prize winner. Ken Silverstein is an investigative reporter for Harpers. Carol Swain is a professor at Vanderbilt, author and columnist at the Huff post. Pick which source is unreliable. If you think its original research, I can take it to the OR wiki and ask.Mrdthree (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's see. Swain, whatever her credentials, wrote an unresearched opinion piece in which she doesn't even mention FAIR.  Silverstein may write investigative articles, but the one you cite isn't one of them.  He refers to a article he wrote himself in 2000 (based, if I recollect correctly, largely on the Montgomery Advertiser research rather than his own), well before FAIR was listed as a hate group, and states, with no facts or indications that he conducted an investigation, that the SPLC is still doing bad things.  Kammer is a research fellow at CIS, an organization that he feels is also a target of the SPLC -- can you say "conflict of interest". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are claiming they are not reliable sources. Ill see what they say at RS again. Well I will do OR first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Criticism_of_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center Mrdthree (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to post comments on the OR and RS pages that attempt to discredit me for seeking dispute mediation, when we disagree about the reliability of sources, then please suggest an alternative process by which we can resolve whether a source is reliable. Mrdthree (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of my actions is false. As another editor wrote, it appears that all you are doing is forum shopping.  When you shift the debate to another board less than 24 hours after making a proposal I have to question how serious you are about actually working with anybody. My suggestion is work for consensus here (a process that takes time) and use dispute resolution only after that fails. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK well, we have had multiple parties weigh in on the subject. Many of them more expert than I and possibly you. In addition more than 24 hours have passed. Has your position changed at all? do you still believe the three sources for that sentence are unreliable? If, so would you recommend some kind of mediation or compromise? Mrdthree (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) The issue goes well beyond the issue that the sources are not reliable. In no particular order here are some of the problems that have been identified: "FAIR has long been marked by anti-Latino and anti-Catholic attitudes. It has mixed this bigotry with a fondness for eugenics, the idea of breeding better humans discredited by its Nazi associations. It has accepted $1.2 million from an infamous, racist eugenics foundation. It has employed officials in key positions who are also members of white supremacist groups. Recently, it has promoted racist conspiracy theories about Mexico's secret designs on the American Southwest and an alternative theory alleging secret plans to merge the United States, Mexico and Canada. Just last February [2007], a senior FAIR official sought "advice" from the leaders of a racist Belgian political party."
 * 1) The Swain source is an unresearched opinion piece in which she doesn't even mention FAIR. It was written by her to defend her own praise for a DVD produced by a white supremacist.
 * 2) The Silverstein source does not criticize the SPLC with respect to its classification of FAIR.
 * 3) The Kammer source is written by a research fellow at CIS which has close relations with FAIR -- an obvious conflict of interest.
 * 4) The extreme language used by the sources (i.e."has a habit of casually labeling organizations as hate groups," "mission creep," "has spent far more resources hounding conservative organizations, such as the Center for Immigration Studies... than it has protecting the civil rights of American voters") is an attempt to give undue weight to the entire section on hate groups.  The clear implication, and your apparent intent, is to question ALL SPLC classifications despite the fact that the vast majority are not controversial at all.  If these clams were added, then to achieve the proper balance to these extremely small radical expressions we would need to discuss in detail the specific types of charges that the SPLC finds against various groups and show that skinheads, the KKK, anti-gay groups, Holocaust Denial, etc have not been "casually" labeled or are a result of "mission creep."
 * 5) None of the opinions are backed by research and including their generalizations would be misleading. Neither Swain no Silverstein have published scholarly works discussing the 900 some hate groups classified by the SPLC or how those groups were classified. Their unsupported political opinions are not notable enough to be used to queston the vast amount of work reflected in the SPLC's classification of hate groups.
 * 6) The article already contains the fact that groups identified as hate groups often dispute the charge. Why should FAIR be given special attention?
 * 7) The current article does not list specific hate groups. We need consensus to start doing that and if we do then, in order to provide balance we need to start discussing the specifics of why each mentioned group was selected.  For FAIR, we should note that the SPLC says:

All of these have been expressed by either me or somebody else and most of them have not been responded to. If we move into dispute resolution, then we at least need to know what issues are in dispute and what the position is on both sides. I still am not even clear on the basic threshold issue -- why out of the 900 hate groups should we focus on FAIR. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a problem vis-a-vis FAIR. It may be that the addition needs to be rewritten. Or the added sentence should directly address the smearing of CIS. As for the critique there is a factual error, Swain wrote the article that mentions CIS in August of 2009, before she was named in Hatewatch. As for Kammer, the conclusion of the RS discussion was that a group that is maligned can post a response. And your opinion of how rigorous Silverstein is irrelevant for the statement being attributed to him. As for mentioning all hate groups, I would say only those classifications that have generated mainstream controversy are notable. Mrdthree (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The gist of the sentence seems to lean towards a statement like the classification of FAIR as a hate group has been contentious and has drawn criticism. Building list of pertinent references here, , , , response of FAIR . Mrdthree (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All these articles do is report that FAIR denies being a hate group. The article already states that some hate groups deny that they are hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You continue to be non-responsive to nearly all the points I raised, especially the threshold question. To repeat myself, “why out of the 900 hate groups should we focus on FAIR.” You want to give undue weight to one alleged dispute which creates a POV impression that it is somehow typical. WP:UNDUE is clear when it says, “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.”

While Silverstein’s lack of rigor is a problem, the bigger problem, that you keep ignoring, is that he does not say that he disagrees with classifying FAIR as a hate group -- that is your OR that suggests his general criticism applies to FAIR. And my opinion of the relevance of Silverstein to this article certainly is relevant as we weigh all opinions in attempting to reach consensus for inclusion or exclusion. The problem with Swain (yes I did not get the timing right) is that her support for a white supremacist DVD that denies racism is even a valid concept (“This construct of racism is not an objective term. It has no concise definition. In fact, it’s used too often as a tool of intimidation, like a hammer, against Caucasian whites.”) Her view is not mainstream on this and raises a question as to whether this is typical of her extremism.

The problem with both of them, which I raised and you have not addressed, is that the extremism of their language is well outside the bounds of any type of mainstream criticism. Both suggest that either most (Swain) or almost all (Silverstein) of the SPLC’s efforts are worthless. WP:UNDUE is clear -- ''“Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” ''

It also says, “If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.” Your continuing difficulty to find support from reliable sources demonstrates just how much of a minority opinion you POV is outside of the extreme right fringe. I have no such difficulty finding a couple of mainstream new entries every day that treat the SPLC as a reliable source.

As far as Kammer is concerned, a denial by FAIR is only relevant to a statement which says, “FAIR denies it is a hate group.” Your language goes way beyond that.

Your claim that only classifications that have generate “mainstream controversy” are notable is wrong on several levels. In the first place, it is only your extreme minority POV that this is a mainstream controversy. The SPLC POV is that FAIR is not part of the mainstream -- it is a hate group just like the other 900. You have failed to show that there is a mainstream consensus that FAIR is not a hate group. You have provided no reliable sources that shows there is significant mainstream support for FAIR.

In the second place, examples that reflect all of the categories of hate groups are notable. While the article gives a general definition and a listing of categories, it does not give the reader an opportunity to show specific examples of how the SPLC applied its criteria. I suggest that we add to the article the names of several groups in each of the categories listed here and provide descriptions for each category such as this one for anti-immigrant groups here :

"Anti-immigrant hate groups are the most extreme of the hundreds of nativist and vigilante groups that have proliferated since the late 1990s, when anti-immigration xenophobia began to rise to levels not seen in the United States since the 1920s. Although many groups criticize high levels of immigration and some (categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “nativist extremist” groups) typically confront or harass individual immigrants and their supporters, anti-immigrant hate groups generally go further by pushing racist propaganda.

Most also subscribe to one of two conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact: the idea that Mexico has a secret “Plan de Aztlán” to “reconquer” the American Southwest, and another theory alleging that the leaders of Mexico, Canada and the United States are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the “North American Union."Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I recognize one point as valid here--FAIR needs to be the topic of the quote; I am doing research to address that. The rest of your statement seems to address your opinions of published sources (NPOV, OR). FAIR is a mainstream group, many mainstream newsgroups cite its report, published after the SPLC declared it a hate group . I think I am settled as to that fact. Now constructing a NPOV, non SYN, non OR sentence to support that is a little tough. In fact its so hard for FAIR I am all but certain it couldn be done for more than a handful of the other 900 groups. Mrdthree (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I am not sure the FAIR enterprise is worth pursuing compared to other things-- I think everything I would like to see included in this article is already on the SPLC website and just needs to be brought into the article (i.e. documenting their mission extends beyond Hate group identification). I think you pointed this out a couple times but I guess I only read their 'what we do' website properly recently. Mrdthree (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)