Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

I was recently asked to comment on the draft at Draft:United States v. Southern Poverty Law Center Inc.; per my comment there, I do not believe case itself is independently notable, but I do think that either the 2026 investigation and indictment specifically, or the section on criticism of the SPLC in general, could be split out into a separate article. Are there any thoughts on this, and any objection to my refactoring the identified draft along these lines? BD2412 T 02:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it WP:DUE compared to what we have now or just adding fodder from the latest lawsuit in which... "Legal experts described the charges in the case as legally weak and unlikely to result in sanctions against the SPLC."? DN (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't that be a WP:POVFORK? DN (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This page doesn't seem large enough to require a split. At least in my view. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Length is not the only consideration. The current investigation and indictment is clearly a notable incident, but as that case develops, there will inevitably be more developments in the case and reporting on these developments, such that the case could eventually come to overwhelm the article itself. BD2412 T 18:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Less likely to be a problem if we stick to WP:NOTNEWS and avoid inserting a bunch of talking-head nonsense of no real consequence. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems like the indictment should just be a paragraph or two in this article? Disagree that it's independently notable yet, but worth mentioning. Also disagree that the criticism section is so unwieldy as to need to be split out. By wikitext words it's about a fifth of the total. Seems like if article size was the concern, it would be the list of notable cases, no? But I'm not sure that's needed either, at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The case continues to receive regular coverage more than a month on. WP:NOTNEWS hardly seems an accurate objection at this point. @BD2412 could you clarify what you mean with your comment? I'm not well-versed in notability nuances but it seems to plainly fit everything in WP:GNG. Are there subject-specific guidelines about court cases? (I did look but couldn't find any).

I also don't think a standalone "Criticism of the SPLC" article would make sense. What makes the most sense to me is to have an article about US v. SPLC to avoid bloating this article about a 60+50+ year old organization with WP:RECENTISM Placeholderer (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Have there been any developments or is just more news cycle on Trump regime statements on the matter? Because random stuff that comes out of the white house is almost definitionally WP:NOTNEWS until it actually encounters some sort of reality. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You can have a look at the draft Placeholderer (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, having reviewed the draft it's nothing. Two deeply Trumpist state administrations making similarly empty statements about investigations and the draft is frankly not really that long even with that very small recent development. I remain entirely unconvinced this split is necessary or even a positive. It seems like a way of getting around restrictions on giving undue attention to this media circus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The SPLC moving to dismiss the case for being retaliatory isn't a significant development? Placeholderer (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be if the case is dismissed. That the SPLC moved such is kind of WP:MANDY. Like of course they would move to say the case should be dismissed as retaliatory. Because that's the MO of the Trump regime's use of the DoJ. It's common for them to do these politicized lawfare antics. It's the obvious way for any org to try and move forward. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand WP:MANDY to have had its issues.

If the article were, like, "Federal Housing Administration investigation into Letitia James" I might understand a "this is just media circus" objection better. This case against one of the most high-profile NGOs in the country is surely more notable than that. Except, wait, we have an article on the James thing. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but can you be clearer what part of WP:GNG/etc does US v. SPLC not make sense under? Placeholderer (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

(I'll be clear—I sincerely want to understand the issue for the sake of understanding notability better. I haven't really got experience with notability edge cases. I just, sincerely, don't understand why this would e.g be a case of NOTNEWS. If this reads as bludgeoning just let me know and I'll tap out and I can focus on making the draft as good as it can be) Placeholderer (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

GNG does not require that an event have a unique page rather than being addressed within the scope of a parent page. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

But having details at the parent page is constrained by RECENTISM issues. The current section here shouldn't be expanded further, but as it is it doesn't give a reader any fuller understanding of the situation than "SPLC indicted, something something informants. SPLC denies wrongdoing. Some legal experts say questionable." Placeholderer (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

And that's fine until something substantial actually happens. SPLC moving for dismissal is just "SPLC denies wrongdoing" again. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the large amount of coverage and detailed analysis with big features (as opposed to routine news coverage) in reputable national news shows that something substantial has in fact happened. One Atlantic writer "previously a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and a senior editor at Lawfare" says the SPLC case "heralded [a] new era" of lawfare. But repeating my opinion further on that probably isn't helpful Placeholderer (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The Brookings Institution will handle out a senior fellowship to any conservative who can type. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If this is an example of lawfare, it reflects more upon and is relevant to the perpetrator, not the target. We should see if the courts throw this out, like so many other such recent attempts, before declaring that this is DUE for this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Huh? What? How is having an article during the ongoing case supposed to imply the SPLC is in the wrong, if I understand you correctly? Why should we arbitrarily decide to wait to see if a court throws this out before we have an article? Should go and delete Arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu because only convictions or toss-outs matter?

And The Brookings Institution will handle out a senior fellowship to any conservative who can type what the heck? I don't see how this is relevant. I was attributing to the particular author because that's my habit with the Atlantic for opinion judgments. And entirely ignores the point I was making—independent sources see the case as significant Placeholderer (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Upon re-reading, are you still saying we shouldn't even mention there's a case going on in this article? Placeholderer (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

No. I'm saying we don't need to devote a whole article to this one piece of empty spectacle until it is demonstrated it is more than a piece of empty spectacle. Our coverage, as it stands, in the SPLC article, is quite sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to We should see if the courts throw this out, like so many other such recent attempts, before declaring that this is DUE for this article. But regarding empty spectacle, I think it's dangerous and wrong to think of Trumpist political prosecutions as entirely unremarkable and encyclopedically unworthy. And plenty of independent sources—i.e not editors—think this is very significant, as said. Placeholderer (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

We have a whole other article for that already at Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration. We don't need to fork off a third just to point out that these poorly conceived lawfare attacks on the SLPC are an example of more of the same. In general we should not make the mistake of assuming every awful thing this regime does is noteworthy. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The mention there is all of two sentences. Half of it is Todd Blanche. It's not a useful explanation, nor can it be, because the article is too cluttered to elaborate on anything Placeholderer (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That's an argument to improve that article rather than to create a new one that gives undue focus to a single instance of such. Frankly, at the end of the day, this is mostly notable in the context of being yet another example of the Trump regime attacking ideological enemies. The story of the indictment of the SPLC is a story about the Trump regime, not a story about the SPLC. By including it in the targeting political opponents article this can be situated properly as being part of an effort to assuage a divided far-right, who are split between those who support Trump in whatever he does and those who are uncomfortable with Trump's pro-Israel stance. After all, one thing both of those groups agree on is that they don't like the SPLC. But all that context is way outside the remit of the SPLC page as it ultimately has almost nothing to do with the SPLC. They're just a convenient target. And this is the problem with this whole incident in a nutshell: despite being centered around an indictment of the SPLC, it's not really about the SPLC. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also fall under the purview of WP:CRYSTAL? Without casting any aspersions here, it's funny, because the political rags are really freaking out at us because they want Wikipedia to amplify their HEADLINES for them. They don't care WP isn't WP:NEWS. DN (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 the problem isn't such that we can just go add all the relevant details to the Targeting article. As I said, it's too cluttered. It turns into "Why do we have four paragraphs about the SPLC when ActBlue doesn't have a paragraph on its own?" And it's just not feasible to cut down the number of examples in the Targeting article in some big restructuring to make sensible proportions. I'll also note that the Targeting article has truckloads of breakout articles that go along with the examples. I can make an arbitrarily long list of them, but suffice it to say all the apparently (to me) arbitrary standards here—waiting for the case to be dismissed? Why?—haven't applied elsewhere.

@Darknipples I don't see how WP:CRYSTAL is at all related. Independent sources have found the case significant. And is there some place where people go to get the idea that having articles to describe and contextualize political topics is somehow amplifying political rags? I'm just continually baffled by the idea here that having a breakout article to help with summary style could be POV-pushing. Whose POV would be pushed? If the draft looks like a POVFORK then just tell me why it does! Placeholderer (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what this becomes notable for. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of wait-and-see.Two observations that I'll make in the spirit of "explaining notability" are that I agree with earlier comments that, simply because something passes WP:GNG means that we can have a page about it, but not that we must – and the fact that there are problems at other pages falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF, and doesn't necessarily mean that we have to correct for it at this page or a potential spin-off. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what checkpoint is to be waited for. The case is in court. The reason it's notable is because it's been seen as a very high-profile example of lawfare; its notability is unrelated to whatever the verdict might be, dismissal or otherwise. If the case is meritless, as appears the forecast, then there will be no "bombshell" revelations mid-trial.

I don't see having a separate article as coming with certain values attached. It's, plainly and simply, because more details—which are useful for a reader wanting to know more about this case in the public discourse—to include those details at the SPLC article would be undue/recentism, and expanding at Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration beyond what's at the SPLC article would be just undue.

Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but WP:Some stuff exists for a reason: arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong – it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that the precedent should be followed elsewhere.

Consensus is clearly against me here. I just honestly don't understand why. Placeholderer (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Source that it has actually gone to court? Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Look at the draft. Placeholderer (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Not seeing any mention that the trial has begun. Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

My mistake. I wrongly thought that motions being filed meant the case was in court; there's actually a tentative (as of May) date for early October. So that's one arbitrary checkpoint that can filibuster this for a few more months sans P&G Placeholderer (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe "in court" isn't a synonym for "at trial", I don't know. Placeholderer (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Pre-trial motions are definitely a thing in US courts. And a motion to dismiss is an example of something that would very likely be a pre-trial motion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding "donor grant recommendations", this seems a bit superfluous. DN (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's a core detail to mention in such a short summary. If only we had a better spot to put it! Placeholderer (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the placement is fine, it just seems a bit overdetailed. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh—I misunderstood.

Here's what I could come up with to trim without losing information:

−

In response to the indictment, some large [[Donor-advised fund|donor-advised funds]], including [[Fidelity Charitable]], [[Vanguard Charitable]], and DAFgiving360 (which is affiliated with [[Charles Schwab Corporation|Charles Schwab]]), announced that they would not longer honor donor grant recommendations to the organization. The move prompted backlash from Fidelity and Vanguard customers.

+

In response to the indictment, large [[Donor-advised fund|donor-advised funds]] ([[Fidelity Charitable]], [[Vanguard Charitable]], and [[Charles Schwab Corporation|Charles Schwab]]-affiliate DAFgiving360) announced that they would stop donations to the SPLC, prompting backlash from Fidelity and Vanguard customers.

While at it I guess I'm not too happy with the sourcing for the backlash. It seems to be from the second NYT piece, which does say And many Fidelity and Vanguard customers are furious about the move against the S.P.L.C. but the link goes to the first NYT piece's comments section, which I find rather dodgy WP:WEASEL-wise, so IMO it'd be safe to cut that. To be really minimal we could do something like "The indictment led some large institutional donors to stop donations to the SPLC."

(There's some other interesting commentary in the pieces about the donations situation in but if it should go anywhere it's probably the draft, unless it's useful context here—as it is, the section just ends with "And these organizations found the SPLC to be bad", which I think might be problematic, partly hence why I still lean towards cutting the whole paragraph, but it is significant information, but this article should cover half a century... argh) Placeholderer (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That's better, I'd support that change. DN (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, too. But just as a matter of sentence structure, I added a pair of parentheses to the new version, because "including" was deleted and it's unclear what the list is without that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fdr2001 have you reviewed WP:POLITICO? Simonm223 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)