Wikiwand AI

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

SPLC focus is on 'Right Wing' hate groups

The current news is full of 'left wing' hate groups, militias and anti-government groups that promote violence. The SPLC has refused to pull these anti-government groups into their analysis; this is because their explicit purpose is to monitor Right Wing groups. This distinction and SPLC policy is current, significant, and notable and needs to be incorporated into the article. 68.14.248.5 (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless you get your news from InfoWars or Breitbart, I can't imagine how it's "full" of left-wing hate groups, militias, and anti-government groups. The SPLC has reported on black nationalist groups and antisemitic African Americans, such as the New Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and Louis Farrakhan, but its focus is generally on white supremacists and right-wing hate groups. It's hard for them to analyze figments of your imagination, though. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I have't heard of any, can you name any of them? TFD (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
If you read the SPLC mission statement you'll see that their focus is on groups they identify as right wing. Left wing hate groups don't fall within SPLC's purview, and definitely aren't of interest to their donor class.
TFD, you wanted left-wing hate groups. How about Antifa, JVP, or perhaps Hizb ut-Tahrir? Can't say I've looked for hate groups in the past, and most of the quick hate group searches I ran returned things like the SPLC, or the ACLU. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Is Islam left wing?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Um, an anti-fascist group is a hate group? The Jewish Voice for Peace is a hate group? H.T., not sure, but his past membership seems to have something to do with the SPLC's perception of Nawaz, didn't it? Doug Weller talk 11:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
No third party reliable sources would describe those groups as "hate groups" and there is no group called Antifa in the U.S. as far as I know. TFD (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Jewish Voice for Peace is a far-left, anti-Semitic hate group comprised exclusively of communists that advocate for the genocide against Israelis and engage in constant lies about Jews, Judaism, and Israel. Communism is an anti-Semitic ideology, just as much as Nazism. JVP proudly boasts that they stand in solidarity with terrorists who murder Jews: Sources for it being far-left: , , . Far-left hate group: , . Hate group: , , , , , , , ,

SPLC itself is also openly anti-Semitic and far-left because it slanders Jewish groups like the Jewish Defense League and many Jewish pro-Israel and anti-terrorist groups as "hate groups." SPLC has also failed to include Black Lives Matter as an anti-Semitic hate group, despite it actively promoting blood libel, as well as Chicago Dyke March. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.123.18.185 (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Associated with does not mean is. Nor does "we would call them a hate group" means they are being called one. Care to actually provide a quote here they are actually called a hate group?Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant. JVP promotes genocide and sides with Islamic terrorists. They are a hate group. The left-wing media often fails to directly call anti-Semitic hate groups hate groups because the media itself has an anti-Jewish bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.123.18.185 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
No is is not irrelevant, If you make a claim you have to back it up...with evidence that supports it. If you back up a c,laim with evidacne thjat does not say what you says it does then that raises doubts about what you are trying to prove (to illustrate "the SPLC is a small hamster called Gerald ", this does not prove that SPLC is a small hamster called Gerald). What we do not do here is Wikipedia is engage in OR . Nor do we allowing soapboxing , now do you actually have an RS that actually draws attention to the fact they only target right wing groups?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I think he was talking about JVP? Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Then he is correct, talking about what JVP is is irrelevant as this page is not about JVP. What is relevant is whether or not this issue (does SPLC target "right wing groups" only) has RS supporting that, and not anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources don't consider the JVC a hate group, as the IP concedes, then it's irrelevant to the topic. TFD (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD, Antifa is under consideration as a terrorist group not merely a hate group. As for it being active in the US, consider: https://heatst.com/culture-wars/portland-police-confiscate-weapons-from-antifa-make-arrests-during-free-speech-rally/. Antifa brought weapons to a US protest. As for JVP being a hate group, per the Wikipedia article - ... a United States left-wing activist organization ... they do not support Israel's character as Jewish and democratic. Jewish groups consider them anti-Semitic. Further in the article it notes that JVP exists largely to declare anyone accused of anti-Semitism as not guilty. An NGO Monitor report said that ... the organization supports or has partnered with groups [that] support violence against Israelis. As for Hizb ut-Tahrir and Nawaz, it was his departure and subsequent opposition to groups such as HT that saw SPLC declare Nawaz a hater. Unlike Nawaz HT is not deemed a hate group by SPLC, but is deemed anti-Semitic and dangerous by other organisations\countries. It is banned in something like 30 nations around the world. 人族 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@人族: As I'm sure someone has told you already, talk pages are not a forum. There are many venues in which you can talk about your personal feelings, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article based on the views expressed in reliable sources. Everyone else: Can we just stop wasting our time by engaging this person? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD asked a question hence my answer. Was I supposed to ignore it? Wait was it TFD or Doug that raised the initial question? Meh no matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人族 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Critical Op-Ed from the National Review – and beyond

Here is another critical opinion from a WP-notable writer (David A. French) which is WP:NOTEWORTHY and which might/should be included in this article. See: "Media Beware: The Southern Poverty Law Center Has Become a Dangerous Joke". I will add – IMO – French's criticisms ought to be considered in those articles where WP uses the SPLC categorization to describe various main-stream and non-main-stream groups as hate-groups. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Being notable does not make every view you hold as noteworthy. Why is his view on this subject notewothy?Slatersteven (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Two issues: Is French a WP:NOTABLE person? (Clearly yes – he has a WP article on him.) Once this is established, we must ask whether or not his Op-Ed is noteworthy. Pro-SPLC editors will say NO! and con-SPLC editors will say YES!. Well, this leads to the next editing question: given the disparate opinions about SPLC as WP:RS for the classifications about this-or-that organization/person is "hateful", should we be presenting SPLC's opinion as truth? – S. Rich (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
One issue, weight. Why do we need his opinion, what is it addressing (as a counter point) to something we already have in the article? Do we (in this article) say anything about him or his organisation that needs counter weight?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In this case, French describes his affiliation with the Alliance Defending Freedom, and denies that the group is a hate group.: "In fact, throughout the summit, the speakers and attendees advocated basic Christian principles. Bless those who persecute you. Love your ideological foes. Fight for the rights of others that you’d like to exercise yourself." Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The op-ed clearly acknowledges that the SPLC's categorizations are accepted by the mainstream and the author identifies himself as a "hater." I have always thought the article should say that groups described by the SPLC as hate groups and people who defend them resent the categorization. At the same time, we should acknowledge that they are representing a minority or fringe view. French actually provides a defense of the SPLC: "the ultimate moral responsibility for violence rests with the criminal. But we all know that speech has power. It can influence men to do great good or inflict great harm." Hate speech inspires people to attack minorities and bomb abortion clinics.
However, it would be misleading to pretend that French and others have no connection with hate groups and merely represent informed opinion.
TFD (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The bigger issue for WP is NPOV. French is correct when he scolds the media for using SPLC as a source to describe various organizations as hate groups. And WP is part of the media which follows the SPLC line. (In fact, we often do so in the lede.) We can't even be honest with ourselves and describe SPLC as being "left" on the political spectrum. And we even mirror the SPLC by listing all of the labeled groups in the list article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Then we can have his rebuttal there, in that list.Slatersteven (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says, "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It does not mean correcting the views published by reliable sources. Anyway, if we do mention French's opinion, we would have to mention that it runs entirely against the mainstream view. TFD (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Noting that French is one of those "significant views", he ought to be included. NPOV is not limited to "mainstream views", and we are exercising editorial bias when we say "s/he is outside the mainstream" or, worse yet, "s/he is fringe". – S. Rich (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Even if his view were significant, we would still have to present it as a minority view. But it is insignificant because it has not been published or reported in a reliable source. Compare for example his essay with "The Paranoid Style in American Politics", which is cited in many articles. It is significant not because of who wrote it, where it was published or because of the validity of its opinions, but because it has received extensive coverage in reliable sources. When we quote it, we can mention its degree of acceptance, what experts found right and wrong about it, note that other interpretations are available etc. TFD (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The National Review isn't reliable? Please. – S. Rich (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"the author identifies himself as a "hater." The following is really, really, really obvious to every not irony-resistent person who has read the article: French does not "identify himself as a hater". He states that according to the SPLC, he is a hater. He himself thinks this label is so absurd he does not need to mention explicitly that it is absurd.
I think French's position on any number of subjects is backwards, silly, out of touch with reality, and detrimental to society, but:
  • by misrepresenting people like him, the SPLC does itself a disservice,
  • by misrepresenting people like him, Wikipedia users (you know who I mean) do themselves a disservice,
  • the WP article should quote the article.
It is well-documented that the SPLC routinely, casually and carelessly pidgeonholes people in one broad villain category, regardless of the extent to which they really belong there, and that naive folks out there still trust them enough to sometimes violently attack those people (and those around them) because of that. This is an important point that has drawn comment in the media, the SPLC's credibility is going down the drain, and the article should give enough space for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
If we quote the article we must have a section on this "controversy", and that means inclusion of SPLS's version. As this was not deemed worthy of inclusion before it became "criticism of SPLC" why is it now worthy of inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Also I see nothing about what SPLC has said about him, only about groups.Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether French uses the term "hater" ironically, he is clearly saying as you admit that the SPLC considers him a hater. To his credit, French does not conceal that information from readers and neither should we if we use French's comments. The American Center for Law and Justice for which French was senior counsel lobbies for the criminalization of homosexuality overseas, as mentioned by the SPLC, The Human Rights Campaign has an extensive dossier about efforts by French and the ACLJ against LGBT rights, including sending people to meet with Robert Mugabe to encourage his crackdown. French was also a vocal opponent of the "Ground Zero Mosque." TFD (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Lets not turn this into a forum about gay rights or the American Center for Law and Justice, it does not matter what they (or Mr French) say or do about gays or Muslims or cheese burgers. This page is about SPLC and only comments related to that are relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It is relevant. Groups identified as anti-LGBT groups claim they are listed because of their opposition to same sex marriage, while the SPLC says it is because they wish to denigrate and criminalize LGBT people. TFD (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: TFD, you are conflating (above) WP policy about using sources for factual material with using sources for restating noteworthy viewpoints. And, more importantly, WP does the same when we say "according to the SPLC, the XYZ Organization is a hate group." That is, we are restating SPLC's opinion about XYZ as if the opinion were a fact. With this in mind, I repeat my contentions that French should be mentioned in the article and that WP restrain itself from repeating the viewpoints of the SPLC. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
SPLC are recognized experts on the subject of hate groups regularly quoted in RS, is French a notable expert on SPLC?Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
French is an expert on his own organizations, thus his dispute with the SPLC about the "hate group" designation is pertinent. One organization mentioned in his op-ed is Alliance Defending Freedom which has advocated numerous cases before the US Supreme Court. And note that ADF has "special advisory status" at the UN, EU, and OAS. Thus ADF is very upset about ABC News using the SPLC as a source for its reporting. – S. Rich (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read the neutrality policy with the same diligence you would if it were a law and you were writing a brief. Despite the name, it clearly says that opinions should be provided the same weight they have in reliable sources (i.e., sources that are reliable for facts, not the opinions of their authors). No reasonable interpretation of the policy would require that we provide the same weight to an opinion piece by a lawyer for a group described as a hate group by the SPLC and a major news network (ABC). Now that may not be fair, but it is the rule. If you don't like the rule, get it changed. But please don't provide arguments your view is consistent with the rule, when we clearly know it is not. TFD (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The guideline recognizes that opinions are different than factual statements. See, WP:RSOPINION. In the case of French, we have a WP:NOTEWORTHY opinion which should be posted in this article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The comparison of French and ABC News as to weight isn't valid here. A news network such as ABC quotes an organization such as the SPLC not necessarily because they find the SPLC especially reliable, but rather because the SPLC is the biggest (and nearly the only) game in town when it comes to categorizing groups that oppose LGBT rights. Moreover, the fact that an organization may be widely considered a reliable source for a specific kind of information, as the SPLC is, or for information in general, as The New York Times is, doesn't exempt it from notable criticism of its function as an information source. For example, we wouldn't bury a spate of prominent editorials and columns denouncing The NY Times's handling of specific news story on the basis of its general reliability far outweighing these criticisms.
On another matter, I think one of the problems with the article's Controversy section is that it is too much listing of separate new items. Those items should be integrated into topical paragraphs dealing with controversies over SPLC's various hate group categories, along with its general approach to hate group and extremist listings. 68.0.204.180 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
According to an opinion piece in Fox News, ABC, NBC and CNN called the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) a hate group. Generally however they just quote the SPLC and as you say it does not mean agreement but does acknowledge that it is the major opinion. TFD (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
And this suggestion is just another example of a bullet point criticism without context or prose. This is why (and I am now coming round to that view) Wikipedia frowns upon such sections. Of course organisations and people who have been criticized by SPLC will complains. What we do is to include notable examples of controversy, such as court cases (if Mr French is so sure of this is fake let him win a defamation of character case, that we could include). What this should not be is a page where every pseudo-fascist can come and say "but SPLC are telling lies".Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Please don't use words like "defamatory". And please don't edit other people's comments. Please read WP:PA. Please use {{rpa}} only in cases of a personal attack. Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think (due to a poor choice of words on my part) a misunderstanding has occurred). What I mean to say way that even people who are pseudo-fascist are going to say "but SPLC" are telling lies. We cannot therefore include every denial of what SPLC has said. What we should do is only include these disputes when (and if) they become major controversies. Also only when and if RS cover it in a significant way.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Lets try to avoid these misunderstandings from now on. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why this discussion should become heated. There are groups who believe that the islamic belief system threatens Western civilization, that homosexuals have an agenda which will destroy the family or that African Americans are less intelligent, industrious and law-abiding than people from other races. The SPLC believe that these opinions are wrong and expressing them is hate. According to policy we cannot choose between sides but must explain which view is more widely accepted. And I think we must avoid polemicism, for example, the SPLC supports gay marriage and labels anyone opposing it as a hater. Now they are thoroughly discredited and no one listens to them any more. TFD (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
TFD your upthread reference was an interesting find but please quote all the relevant parts, For instance the article noted that "SPLC is best known for being the left-wing group that targets other groups and individuals in the public eye for 'hate speech' -- especially conservatives and Christian groups" and that POLITCO is even starting to reconsider their value with writer Ben Schreckinger going so far as to call "... the founder of the SPLC 'a little Trumpian,' the ultimate liberal insult". While it doesn't explicitly say SPLC are a hate group it does make clear they're a politically active group that wields that hate label against ideological enemies. 人族 (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
And since defamation and bias came up I ran a quick search:

The Southern Poverty Law Center Is A Defamatory Hate Organization - http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/08/17/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-a-defamatory-hate-organization/
ABC and NBC Help SPLC Smear Successful Religious Liberty Law Organization as “Hate” Group - http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/07/abc-and-nbc-help-splc-smear-successful-religious-liberty-law-organization-as-hate-group/
Southern Poverty Law Center “extremist” lists used “to silence speech and speakers” - http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/southern-poverty-law-center-extremist-lists-used-to-silence-speech-and-speakers/
ABC, NBC hit with backlash after pinning ‘hate group’ label on Alliance Defending Freedom - ADF blasts ‘defamatory’ Southern Poverty Law Center designation - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/16/alliance-defending-freedom-blasts-defamatory-south/

I'd suggest things aren't quite as black and white as some suggest.人族 (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem you face is policy. It may be your sources are right but your sources present a minority fringe opinion. If someone tells me the moon is made from green cheese, I don't argue about the physics but ask for proof that mainstream scientists support that view. Maybe the moon is made out of green cheese, I don't know, but until you provide a mainstream opinion saying that I will oppose it. TFD (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
And therein lies the fundamental problem. What counts as a mainstream source, what counts as a minority fringe opinion? Legal Insurrection is a highly respected law blog by lawyer and professor William A. Jacobson. Yes I'm aware blogs are usually a grey area at best but Wikipedia notes that those authored by well-known professionals writing in their field may be acceptable. I can't comment about the Red State source - not especially familiar with it, but have encountered the Times source before. And Fox has articles about SPLC smearing conservative, traditional-value organization as hate groups. I'm assuming you're thinking NYT etc, except those have demonstrable bias so I prefer other sources. 人族 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
And is professor William A. Jacobson a noted expert in the field of civil rights or securities arbitration?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding SPLC at the RSN

See: this thread. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of "Ku"

@Slatersteven: Could you explain your revert, please? The article is Ku Klux Klan, not "Klu", and the book cover can be seen at Google Books with the correct spelling. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It was the fact it was an alteration to something we had for a long time. Also it is sometimes called that , .Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
it is correctly spelled 'Ku'. Variations are not correct. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but I can only go with what I have seen. But as I have not altered it back again this discussion can be ended.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Antifa

More information not productive ...
Close

Another hate group that, according to the SPLC, does not exist.

More information WP:NOTFORUM, nothing here relates to improving the article based on policy and reliable sources. ...
Close

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

More information WP:NOTFORUM, nothing here relates to improving the article based on policy and reliable sources. ...
Close

Laird Wilcox & Washington Times

Seems some editors do not like the citations to Laird Wilcox and the Washington Times in this article. Interestingly Wilcox is mentioned very little on the WP:RSN and the RSN does not conclude that the Times is non-RS. I submit that the WP:BURDEN is on those editors who want to exclude such citations because each source is, per se, notable and because the info from them is WP:NOTEWORTHY. (Also, where do we see in the Talk page archives any consensus to the contrary?) – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times is not RS. It's a moonie newspaper. It's conspiracy crap. I believe it is on RSN a bunch, you just haven't looked carefully enough. With Wilcox, the problem is that all his stuff is self published. So basically, who cares? It's not notable. It's not "noteworthy". And if you don't see it on talk then you shouldn't add it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Sound's a lot like "I don't like it". They have a professional journalist team with editorial oversight, 35 years in the business, and I don't see any consensus of it being unreliable or not noteworthy. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and saying that the response to Wilcox is RS (which it is, because it's the SPLC responding) in no way justifies including the non-RS crap to begin with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Marek, the reference is to Wilcox's contributed chapter in the volume The Cultic Milieu, which was edited by Jeffrey Kaplan and sv:Heléne Lööw, both notable academics. Iif you look through this talk page's archives you previously admitted the K&L cite was ok. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection to the inclusion of Wilcox's opinion; it's properly balanced by SPLC's response, reliably-sourced and addresses a substantively-disputed argument about the SPLC's work rather than being another random "they're commie pinko jerks" blather. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The WT is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The WT is not RS. Check archives of RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to censor valid references solely on an ideologically driven "I disagree with their position" basis. The Washington Times is not considered as unreliable by Wikipedia as far as I am aware. David A (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
We are not, why do we need to mention this twice?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I was not aware that it was mentioned elsewhere in the page. David A (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I shall reply on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Any opinions mentioned in articles should explain their degree of acceptance, which is best done by using secondary sources. While the Washington Times probably meets Wikipedia's low threshold for reliable sources, it does not provide weight. Reasonable and informed people will totally discount anything it publishes. TFD (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, check RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk)
"Explain their degree of acceptance"!? No, that is asking too much and simply it isn't done throughout Wikipedia. Give an indication of where the opinion is coming from . . sure, that's quite reasonable and often required per WP:Attribute. By the way, Laird Wilcox's "incautious approach" criticism of the SPLC is also found in the The Weekly Standard. See . 68.0.204.180 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
"Due and undue weight", which is a policy, says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." My question to you is, what is the prominence of Laird Wilcox's criticism? You mention it is supported in a U.S. "conservative" publication, but on the other hand, the SPLC is routinely quoted without qualification in mainstream media, including Fox News. Didn't the Weekly Standard tell us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda? We should not provide a false equivalency between fringe views and those generally accepted. Sometimes the fringe is right, but policy requires us to stick to mainstream views. I suggest you stop reading the Washington Times. TFD (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The Laird Wilcox citation dates to 2000, which to me seems hopelessly out of date when discussing issues of the rise of hate groups and neo-Nazis in the wake of the Trump campaign and election. Seventeen years later we now have neo-Nazis staging mass rallies which have lead to deaths and injuries, so Wilcox's statement that anti-hate groups "exaggerate the dangers" is almost quaint in 2017. I really does not belong in the article. TheValeyard (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Valid point. I think in light of recent events it does seem outdated.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The Wilcox essay was cited in 2016 in this RS by Jeffrey Kaplan https://books.google.com/books?id=DoD4CgAAQBAJ The in-depth article few months ago from Politico makes similar criticisms. It's not outdated. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It's discussed on p. 111. Note that Kaplan sees it as a minority view. So it's fine to mention it, sourcing it to Kaplan and not presenting it as a major view. Laird Wilcox's opinion of other researchers in right-wing politics is occasionally mentioned in mainstream sources, but given no support. On the other hand, right-wing sources always mention it since it lends credibility to their views. TFD (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Valeyard: Regarding "Neo-Nazis staging mass rallies . . ", I hardly think that gathering a few hundred "Unite the Right" enthusiasts in a nation of over three hundred million constitutes a mass rally. A "renegade" member of this brigade was responsible for the death of one counter-protester and injury to others. As for the police deaths, they could just as logically be pinned on the other side. It takes more than one side to fight. @TFD: The specific accusation that Laird Wilcox makes is that the SPLC pads it's hate group numbers. It is that issue, and not whether whether lots of news outlets routinely quote the SPLC, that is being discussed here. Regarding that issue, where are the reliable sources coming to the SPLC's defense? They don't seem to include J. M. Berger, or even Dobratz and Shanks-Meile, a couple of generally sympathetic academics who, nonetheless, note the SPLC tended to exaggerate in its descriptions of right-wing gatherings. Merely telling us that many generally reliable news sources use the SPLC as a reliable source really isn't pertinent here, any more than telling us that a specific criticism of CBS News is outweighed by the fact that lots of organizations find CBS to be reliable. Incidentally, from a quick Google search it would seem that when Fox News quotes the SPLC it usually to poke fun at the organization. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The "he's not one of us" defense doesn't work, sorry. TheValeyard (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The source used for Laird Wilcox makes clear that he holds a minority position and he has been criticized by experts on the radical right. That someone says something and is ignored does not mean what they say is accepted. Some speaker at Unite the Right today on Meet the Press criticized Trump for allowing his daughter to marry a Jew. Does that mean we can add that criticism to the Trump article? Does the likelihood that no one will take the bait and explain why his comments are wrong mean that they have mainstream support? Your reply to Valeyard shows a unique view on the world. However according to policy we cannot slant articles to meet our personal beliefs. It doesn't matter whether your views are right or wrong even if you could persuade us to support them. Readers expect that articles will provide the same weight to opinions as they would find in the New York Times. TFD (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I have tried finding in the RSN archives clear consensus saying the WT is not RS, and I have not found it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Valeyard: I think you meant to say the "he's not one of them" defense doesn't work. Fair enough. My main points were [A] that Charlottsville was no "mass rally"; it might have tried to be one but it failed, as the few hundred (at most) demonstrators were far outnumbered by counter-protesters and curious onlookers; and [B] that according to reporters, responsibility for the outbreaks of violence were unclear but probably shared.
@TFD: Comparing some fool's remark at the Unite to Rally with Laird Wilcox's criticism of the SPLC is silly. Many prominent commentators, left right and center, have made similar criticisms; for example Ken Silverstein, Alexander Cockburn, Stephen Bright, Dana Milbank, Millard Farmer, and Pulitzer prize winning reporter Jerry Kammer. I would suggest that academic and journalistic fans of the SPLC often don't "take the bait" because they really have little of substance to offer in response. In truth, the folks who really like the SPLC tend to like it precisely because it does exaggerate threats from the far right, just as those who liked, say, the old John Birch Society, liked it precisely because it exaggerated the Communist threat. Of course, the criticisms of the aforementioned folks don't all have to be included in Wiki's article, but a representative sample of them should be, and Wilcox, as someone who specializes in the same general area as the SPLC, is a good one to include. I actually think that the amount of criticism currently in the article is about right, but I also know that left in the hands of certain editors it would be denuded.
As for my earlier response to Valeyard, no, I don't see it as showing a "unique view of world." The Charlottesville right-wing gathering was no "mass rally" by any stretch. The Fields idiot apparently wasn't "following orders" (and might even have been disobeying orders) when he rammed his car into the group of counterprotesters, and yes, responsibility for the violence seems to lay on both sides. All reasonable conclusions and hardly "unique". 131.109.225.34 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
There are a handful of people who have no connection with hate groups who nonetheless are critical of the SPLC. (Jerry Kramer by the way is a Senior Research Fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies.) Their names are mentioned over and over again on hate websites but the mainstream pays no attention. Who cares that 20 years ago two editors of CounterPunch attacked the SPLC? You're not going to tell me you are a regular readers are you? I bet you would never argue for the inclusion of their opinions anywhere else except here where they happen to coincide with your own. Wilcox btw has not published anything for decades but now self-publishes and despite his early success is not part of the discussion today. TFD (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
There are far more than a handful. If older critical comments about a 46 year old organization bother you there are plenty of newer critics. Journalist Carl Cannon wrote a scathing recent piece about the SPLC regarding the Middlebury College melee in RealClearPolitics. Allison Stanger, one of the melee's victims, twitted the SPLC in a New York Times column. Both The Atlantic and Politico have recently run well balanced but critically probing articles about the organization. Regarding its damning of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a large secularist and atheist contingent including Sam Harris, Seth Andrews, and Hemant Mehta have weighed in quite negatively toward the SPLC. So there is no shortage of current and prominent critics. BTW I'm not aware of any Wikipedia rule which states one must be a regular reader of a periodical to use it as a source, nor a rule that states one must use a particular source both when it agrees and when it disagrees with one's opinions. Do you know of any editors here who voluntarily follow such "rules"? 131.109.225.34 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
We are talking about one criticism, not many. Also we are talking about a specific type of criticism, not many types.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A Christian Ministry Labeled a "Hate Group" Sues the SPLC

In the "Controversies" section, I have noted that a conservative group decided in the summer of 2017 that it had had enough and that it was going to "punch back twice as hard" and file a lawsuit against the SPLC:

In August 2017, an evangelical ministry filed a federal lawsuit against the SPLC, saying it defamed the Christian organization as an “active hate group” because it endorses the biblical view of homosexuality. “It’s ridiculous for the SPLC to falsely tag evangelical Christian ministries as ‘hate groups’ simply for upholding the 2,000-year-old Christian consensus on marriage and sexuality,” said D. James Kennedy Ministries spokesman John Rabe. Elizabeth Llorente of Fox News writes that "increasingly … both liberals and conservatives say that SPLC has grown overzealous — bringing down its huge and very high-profile 'hate-group' hammer on not just people and organizations that actually encourage hate and violence against certain groups, but also on those who simply don’t fall in line with liberal positions on hot-button social issues."

(Southern Poverty Law Center ‘hate group’ label hit in evangelicals’ lawsuit by Elizabeth Llorente, Fox News, August 24, 2017) Asteriks (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the lengthy editorializing and included the SPLC's rationale for inclusion — that D. James Kennedy was notorious for spreading homophobic propaganda and outright lies about the LGBT community as a preacher, and that apparently the ministry organization he founded continues to traffic in homophobia. The lawsuit is certainly fit for inclusion in the controversy section, but that makes the SPLC's arguments necessary to include as well. Once the lawsuit sees its day in court, it can be updated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Conciseness is fine but is it appropriate to quote the SPLC view in the Controversies section? Note too that the SPLC attack piece contains a mass of unreferenced claims, and false logic\unfounded smears e.g. Rushdoony is essential reading, Rushdoony contains anti-homosexual vitriol, therefore anti-homosexual vitriol is essential reading. Is it possible the claims are true? Sure, but without proof they're purely allegations and the controversy section is for allegations about SPLC, not allegations about critics of SPLC. I'd recommend the addition be deleted. 人族 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes we should include SPLC view, as we put both sides of any dispute. No (by the way) the controversy section is not for "allegations about SPLC" (read criticism) it is for controversies (which always have two sides). Neutrality means we gives both sides a voice.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Your argument is ridiculous and removing the SPLC's response would violate the NPOV policy. The church has every right to make unproven allegations (which is what a lawsuit is), but making those allegations means it is entirely relevant to discuss why those allegations have been made. The ministry believes it has wrongfully been labeled a hate group by the SPLC; discussing the reasons the SPLC has labeled it a hate group is entirely and directly relevant to those allegations and to the SPLC's defense against those allegations. They will, no doubt, be vigorously contested in court and, as I said, we'll see what happens with the lawsuit. We aren't in the business of providing only one side of the story, which is what you propose to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the section heading was as far as I got. Inherent bias fobbed off as "reasonable" -- really, Propaganda 1-01. It'd be exactly as factual to have titled it Hate Group Self-Described as "Christian Ministry" Sues SPLC.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

LI Article on SPLC

This may be worth a read: []. While it may not be suitable for quoting, the links should be useful. Consider for instance this article's current Finance section. It states that "Charity Navigator rated the SPLC three out of four stars" and yet Charity Watch has consistently given SPLC an F for stockpiling assets rather than advancing its purported charitable cause(s). Such a radical discrepancy should be noted! 人族 (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Well here is the Charity Navigator assessment for SPLC [], and I see no mention of "stockpiling assets" (or rating anything by lettering), which says a lot about the usefulness of your new source for providing information for us to look for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
https://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/the-southern-poverty-business-model/ --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
How does this addesss my point?Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The Lead

A recent change to the lead replaced "The SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups . . and its labeling of certain people as extremists have been the source of some controversy" with "The SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups . . . have been the subject of criticism from conservatives for giving groups which oppose gay rights a hate group label . . . " The problem with this change is that the criticism found in this article of the SPLC's hate group and extremist listings is not at all limited to, or even mainly those of, conservatives protesting the hate group and extremist labeling of anti-gay rights groups and individuals. The critics are far more varied than that and so is their criticism. In the article's body. Note the criticism by folks such as Maajid Nawaz, Ken Silverstein, Laird Wilcox, and the Lantos Foundation, none of which is about conservatives criticizing the SPLC for labeling anti-gay rights groups as haters. Also, let's not have responses which deprecate their criticisms. It's not relevant here because their criticisms are now in the body of the article and the point is to now make the lead match the body. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, please read the forum.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Except it is not really being discussed above. It has instead broken down into a forum on the SPLC. The point of the new heading was to get the discussion back on track. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
OK then provide a source for Maajid Nawaz, Ken Silverstein, Laird Wilcox, and the Lantos Foundation not being conservative.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
How about how you provide us with some secondary sources that would mention your collection of opinion pieces if they had any weight, as required by policy. TFD (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's somewhat awkward, but it arose from an attempt at a compromise. This edit inserted the mention of groups which oppose gay rights. That section was duplicative — we already mentioned controversies about SPLC-named extremist groups in the lede. But not wanting to wholesale-revert the edit, I tried to fold it into the existing section. Perhaps it wasn't entirely successful. If we wanted to be more general, we could be less specific, but then we'd have to remove that specific reference to prevent it from being undue weight in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've written another compromise version which notes that the criticism comes from "conservatives and others" (acknowledging that while reliable sources specifically point out conservatives as critics, there are undoubtedly others as well), and removing the specific references to anti-gay groups (because sources specifically say that criticism of the anti-gay listings came from conservatives only). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Good. A big improvement over the previous version which would have it that only conservatives criticize the SPLC hate listings, and do so only over the listings anti-gay individuals and groups. However, I still don't see much in your sources or in the body of the article which convincingly says that the SPLC "is widely considered authoritative by academic and media sources. Is widely useful to academic and media sources, sure, but widely authoritative? Incidentally, one of your sources, David Neiwert, contributes articles to SPLC publications; i.e. he gets paid by them. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven It's a moot point now because of NorthBySouthBaranof's recent much improved edits to the lead, but under the previous lead you had it reversed. It would have been his obligation to demonstrate that Nawaz, Silverstein, and company were conservatives. By the way, Silverstein is actually a borderline left-wing radical. None of the others are described as conservatives in their Wikipedia articles. The Lantos Foundation is named after Tom Lantos a former progressive Democrat. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect, it is down to those who wish to include something to prove it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I am not incorrect. Yes it is up to people who want to change something to demonstrate it. NorthBySouthBaranof HAD CHANGED a long-standing part of the lead only a day or two earlier. He HAD NOT demonstrated that the critics were entirely conservatives and couldn't have even if had tried because they are not. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
He provided cites for the statement, so it was down to you to counter those soruces with sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Revert of Rickm7x

Amanas controversy

Authoritative?

Free Beacon article on SPLC assets & basically self-sourced article in the NYTimes

SPLC finances

Criticism coming from conservatives

Net assets and compensation of executive officers

SLPC and FBI

Proposed change to lede

Why is there no criticism section?

male-supremacy

SPLC is a left-leaning organization

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks