Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Misogyny

An editor expanded the critiscm section with a brief sentance about the SPLC covering misogynistic blogs. Another editor reverted [1] that edit with a summary of "need better sources". The two sources used seem reliable, especially reason.com which has been publishing for years. Whether the content belongs he is one thing, but I can't see excluding it based upon the sourcing used. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources are fine, but the criticism doesn't look notable - there's only one citation. St Anselm (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There looked like two citations, however ignoring critiscm of the newish SPLC group for the moment, shouldn't misogyny be discussed somewhere in the article? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my edit summary was "Better sources needed" not "sources aren't reliable." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason for removing content. Or did you mean something else? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. Please go pick a fight somewhere else. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, your rationale is a joke. Please scramble your password. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean there was the criticism, and one citation of the criticism. St Anselm (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Put the paragraph back in. It is useful to those who want to understand SPLC's views, and it is properly sourced. Roger (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph misinterpreted the SPLC position. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Leave it out. It doesn't rise to the level a controversy worthy of being included in this article. It seems more aimed at promoting Roosh. - Mr X 16:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MrX here. If the SPLC were to add the category of "misogynist hate groups" to its list which attracted significant reliably sourced criticism, then adding something like this might be justified. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But I think that's precisely what the SPLC has done, which is create a new category[2]. I'm more concerend about presenting this new category than I am about critical reaction to that category. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Really!? Do you mean that the five times married, four times divorced Morris Dees has the gonads to add a misogynist list to the SPLC's burgeoning collection of hate group categories? Still, I'd wait for a fuller demonstration that the SPLC plans to regularly inform its contributors about the dangers such groups pose to the republic. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the misogynists are being referred to as hate groups. I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am. - Mr X 18:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the SPLC, not Just SPLC designated hate groups. There is a narrative (synth/OR of course) that the SPLC creates these new listings in order to bolster their fundraising efforts. We can't include that without the sourcing. But it is noteworthy to mention to the reader areas that the SPLC is monitoring in their watchdog capacity. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd adopt a "wait and see" policy. The "Criticism" subsection here comes under the "Tracking of hate groups" section. If the SPLC clearly develops a misogynist category among their array of hate group categories, then reliably sourced criticism would be in order.Badmintonhist (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me reiterate, I'm not advocating addition to a "critiscm" section, but discussing the possibility of adding these new "tracked" sites somewhere to the article. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem here? The SPLC is all about tracking and badmouthing other groups. This article needs to explain the wide variety of groups that the SPLC attacks. Roger (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, an encyclopedic article shouldn't include mention of every kind of group that the SPLC has, at one time or another, made negative comments about. If a pattern develops where the SPLC makes (what they see as) misogynist groups a staple target then, of course, it should be mentioned in our article. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be new and it's possible that it will just be a one-off. If that's the case, unless it's picked up and discussed in reliable sources I'm not sure it belongs here. And by reliable sources I mean those independent of SPLC and those that it monitors and exposes (obviously hate groups will see any SPLC monitoring as an attack, but that's their problem). Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In general, a group attacked by an organization is not a reliable source about that organization, even if reliable about other things; however, in the case of SPLC, there are only two types of groups; those which they have declared as a "hate group" and those which they haven't yet declared as a "hate group". As it stands, no reason has yet been presented here for removal. "Undue weight" is a possible reason, but it requires discussion, which hasn't yet occured. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I gather the weight is what MrX, Badminton and Doug are pointing too. Considering the SPLC only has one article about this from last year, I'm ok with leaving it out. If they update the list, it can be included, as RS have reported on this list. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The IP who added this just vandalised the article, see [3]. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DENY. All done for now. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the paragraph was restored, I flagged it for using primary sources. Honestly, if this kerfuffle is important enough to mention in an encyclopedia article, there should be secondary sources reporting it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want, you can simply move the sentence to the next section (on Intelligence Report). The main point is not that there is controversy or criticism. The point is that SPLC had expanded its list of domestic threats to a new area, and that others found this expansion notable. Roger (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence about including this material in the first place, however if it is included, I don't see why the current version needs a tag for a primary source. This information is confirmed by a secondary source, though for the life of me I can't see why some think reason.com is not "appropriate". Is this because this info is in a controversey section? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The primary sources tag probably belongs at the top of the article. I'm relatively new to this page, and looking over the sources, I'm surprised to see the extent to which this article is sourced to the SPLC itself.

Looking more closely at the sources for this paragraph, I see that the Business Insider article is secondary coverage of the reason.com column, so I will edit the paragraph accordingly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome. Yes, the SPLC is used extensively as a source in this article. Some editors confuse the fact though the SPLC is a RS for their reporting, it doesn't make them a RS for many some coverage about their organization. I'd encourage you to raise any issues you find in a new section. Be forewarned about concerns about dead horses. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 06:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you go back in the article's history it was a even worse until about two years ago. Large sections of it were pretty much cut and pasted from SPLC articles; an especially bad practice in writing an article about an organization known for self promotion. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Reason.com as a source

This is an example of the sort of source I had in mind that I don't think we should be using. Of course they are going to be critical of the SPLC. Do we then use them every time they mention the SPLC? If this site, why not another similar site? I also note that they were basically used twice as a source, once directly, once quoted. I agree that the material doesn't belong in the article - we need independent sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How is reason.com not reliable? They have been publishing since the 1970's. How are they not independent from the SPLC? Does the SPLC list reason.com as a an anti-whatever hate group? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that reason.com is neutral in its attitude towards the SPLC?. Or is it notable enough so that that doesn't matter? I still think we'd need more than this one source. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? All we should care about is whether the source is reliable in context. I've already agreed that the information may be unweighty, but you can't prejudice a source just because you may not happen to like it. In context this is hardly an extraordinary claim, so the call for more or "better" sources is baseless. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It has to be an end to the disparaging of all sources that are critical of SPLC. You don't own the article. If you are not able to edit without foisting your POV on it, please work with other articles. --Jonund (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reason.com blog post is not reliable in this context. It is merely a superficial commentary about a single issue of an SPLC publication. They didn't quote any other sources; they didn't interview anyone from the SPLC; and they didn't cover any other view points. It's a blog post by a minor "libertarian monthly print magazine covering politics, culture, and ideas through a provocative mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews." It's not really journalism, and Mike Riggs' viewpoint doesn't really merit inclusion in Wikipedia. - Mr X 18:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Mike Riggs has no credentials.[4] If this weren't a moot issue then RSN would chime in. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And it's moot because? Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Because apparent consensus is that this "manosphere" infomation is undue, as the SPLC has only made one such list. A consensus I'm not trying to buck btw. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I misunderstood what you were referring to. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"The SPLC was criticized for including him and other alleged "misogynists" on a list of extremist threats simply for "being jerks to women."" Please see WP:WEASEL. The text implies that criticism was made by mainstream sources. Also, see WP:WEIGHT. Normally we should exclude fringe views. If people want to read about them, they can go to the articles about them rather than having them appear across every possible subject. TFD (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If the SPLC did what the sources said they did, they are WP:FRINGE, and shouldn't have an article. Be real. If Reason.com is not a reliable source, then neither is SPLC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm definitely not saying it is not a reliable source for some things (and as you know, something may be a reliable source in some contexts and not in others). I'm saying it isn't an appropriate source here. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

About 70% of this SPLC article is devoted to various legal and name-calling campaigns against other groups. That is what the SPLC is all about. It is entirely appropriate to include a Reason comment on some of these attacks. Roger (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes Roger, those who believe only 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestants' are true Americans are just misunderstood victims of PC liberals. Not promoting hate. Of course, 'name-calling' of 'other groups' like the KKK and neo-nazis should be met with swift responses in this article from those poor misunderstood 'other groups'. In other words, your opinion is noted and dismissed. Dave Dial (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhmm . . . I think it's time for WP:SOAP to be invoked. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dave Dial, if you are trying to argue that the SPLC only attacks groups like the KKK or the neo-nazis, or that there is no controversy about the SPLC, then you illustrate the need for the paragraph that was deleted. Roger (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems With the List and POV of the Article

Wow. A lot of reliable material on the SPLC that is not favorable to it has been suppressed. Some POV-pushing here?

The SPLC's listing of hate groups has been a source of some controversy.[89][90][91] Critics including Ken Silverstein and Laird Wilcox have accused the SPLC of an incautious approach to assigning the label.[92][93] Laird Wilcox, claims to have provided SPLC with some of the information initially used to compile their list of "hate groups". He "concluded that a lot of [the SPLC's hate groups] were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC." Some of the "hate groups" were creations of SPLC informants, rather than legitimate groups. And with the advent of the internet, some of them exist "nowhere except in cyberspace." Wilcox concludes, "The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors."[94] In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group. Dana Milbank, of the Washington Post, wrote that the SPLC was "reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions." [95][96] Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council,” said, after the attack, “I believe [the gunman Floyd Corkins] was given a license to do that by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.”[97] Capital Research Center states that the SPLC "deliberately mischaracterizes conservatives and tea partiers as “extremists”."[98] Yeoberry (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted this editor's edits at List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups which were similar. Two reasons -- the stuff about the shootiing doesn't belong on a list article - list articles are lists. And some of it was sourced by one of the groups involved. If it's significant it should be able to be sourced from independent sources. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing, If a list provoked a terrorist attack, as is alleged, then that fact should be noted. If the veracity of that list is undermined by scholars, including ones that started them, that fact should be noted. If some of the groups on the list protest them, those protests should be noted. Yeoberry (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point: Dougweller didn't say it shouldn't be referred, but rather that it should be referred in the right place, in the main article. You're not going to use this article to debate the pros and cons of open source software, would you? As for veracity and criticism - it's the issue of your source that was the point. If you want to note the rather obvious fact that people resent being criticised (ie labelled as "hate groups") you're welcome to do so, but a third, notable party giving the same criticism would often have more weight, and in either case it should be clear who made the criticism (ie cannot use "the list was criticised" or "some criticised the list" when it's the listed). François Robere (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A source used in this edit (http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_3/tsc_20_3_wilcox_interview.shtml ) is from The Social Contract Press (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/the-social-contract-press )--В и к и T 17:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reported Yeoberry at WP:3RRN. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Did you even look at his limited contribution history before reporitng him? Not that I agreed with his edit and we can all see where this was leading too, but the guy may not have even known about 3RR. A clean block log before now, and you probably just pissed him off so he won't come back. And to those of you who say to yourself "good riddance", have a squat on a cosmic utensil. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this isn't really the place to discuss it, but yes he was warned (and he removed the warning). He's also been warring over at FRI. El duderino ^(abides) 18:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC) amended 00:21, 9 March 2013

My apologies, carry on. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the apoogy. I looked at his talk page history before my report. He was warned lsst night - another article, but he should have known the warning was a general one. He was warned this afternoon and kept reverting. which led to my report (he deletes warnings). He was warned by several editors in December for personal attacks and BLP violations - after BLP violations at one article he created a fork, now deleted, to attack the subject. He was warned for edit warring in August. Frankly I don't think anything but a block was going to stop him. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have looked more closely before flying off the handle. Seeing such a small edit history, it didn't even cross my mind he would clear warnings from his talk page. I'll try harder next time. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism is not added for its own sake but because it is significant. None of these criticisms have received attention in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Source tag

I see that it's been up for at least a month. It should be discussed and addressed, or removed now. El duderino ^(abides) 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources are not measures by their quantity, but rather by their quality and relevance. That being said, having 125 different sources, many of whom from well-known media outlets, a count can give information on the use of primary vs. secondary sources etc. A very rudimentary count of listed references follows:

SPLC: 21 NYT: 19 CNN: 5 USA Today: 4 Other notable news and media sources (Partial): 8 Various books (Partial): 6 Legal and scientific databases (Partial): 3

These are about half the sources. The rest are various books (lacking an ISBN, by the way) and articles and news articles in various papers. All in all the SPLC has around 21 references out of 121. Whether it's good or bad is a matter of discussion, and worthy of comparison with other articles (for example, the NYT article references the NYT in about 27 out of 132 references) Do what you may with that. François Robere (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as this article continues to read like an ad for the SPLC and alternative information, with good sources, is suppressed, this should stay up, as should the POV tag.Yeoberry (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you be specific about what these "good sources" are, with links please? Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see excessive use of primary sourcing and in any case the SPLC is a reliable source. TFD (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I added the tag in January, and I've removed it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I find the ease with which criticism of this organiztion is brushed aside to be indicative of extreme POV bias. I added one minor comment, of two sentences, to the critique area, and it was removed in less than an hour. The point I stressed was that the SPLC's definition of "hate groups" goes far beyond those that either commit, or advocate, criminal violence. I also pointed out that "most law enforcement agencies reserve such definitions for groups that commit or advocate violence". I admit that I supplied no source or data for the last comment. I took it to be a reasonably clear "truism" that "law enforcement" authorities would confine their concerns to violations of the law. Defenders of the SPLC may argue that it is not a law enforcement agency, but they are routinely consulted by law enforcement authorities on the subject of "hate groups". The other rationalization on the part of the SPLC (which the article allows to be given as the last word on the subject) is that such groups publish statements in defiance of "known scientific authority". In any subject as vauge and debatable as human psychology or sociology, it is very easy to cite those who say what you want to hear as "authorities". Both positions (Left-Secular / Right-Religious) are thoroughly capable of dragging any number of "authorities" in by the heels, clutching their "objective studies" to cite as "proof". What was being attacked by the SPLC is not some statistic claiming that children raised by same-sex parents suffered "harm". Rather, it was the value system itself that was being attacked. (After all, how can any sociologist, regardless of his or her perspective, study the question of children being "harmed" unless they define "harm" in advance?) The SPLC identified FRC and similar groups as "hate groups" for the simple reason that the people who run the SPLC don't agree with their opinions. It is bad enough that the SPLC should get away with this at all. That an objective source of information such as wikipedia should facilitate it is much worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.144.250.237 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is a function of Wikipedia's policy. Essentially mainstream media and academia are positive towards them, while groups like the FRC are not. But since those groups are outside the mainstream and their views on the SPLC are ignored by the mainstream, we do not include them. Similar arguments come up on a range of articles. If you disagree with the policy, then you should raise your objections at the policy talk pages. TFD (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What change did you (the IP) make? I can't find any history of that IP at this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&diff=547076860&oldid=545968234 — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

To the above IP User: Critical comments about the SPLC are mentioned in the Hate group tracking, Academic assessments, and Finances sections of the article. This Wikipedia article is actually substantially better than it was about three years ago when much of it was taken almost word for word from SPLC publications. That's not to say, however, that it can't be improved and that more neutral third party sourcing shouldn't be used. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

SPLC and the FRC shooter Floyd Corkins

May I suggest people consider editing the article (not me, I'm too new and only became aware of this page by randomly editing a related article) to include information regarding SPLC and the FRC shooter Floyd Corkins. My only contribution will be to seed this idea with varied sources and quote the major ones:

ABC7: Floyd Corkins Pleads Guilty to Family Research Council Shooting "In his plea agreement, Corkins acknowledged he identified the Council as 'an anti-gay organization' by visiting Southern Poverty's website. The head of the Council, Tony Perkins, called on the group to stop labeling his organization and others hate groups because of their stance on gay issues. A spokeswoman for the Alabama-based Law Center did not immediately return a telephone message."
Washington Examiner: Guilty Plea in Family Research Council Shooting "UPDATE: SPLC Spokeswoman Rebecca Sturtevant emailed the following link to a September, 2012, press release by the group stating that FRC deserves to be labeled a 'hate group'. 'We have no further comment at this time,' she said."
The Washington Post: Family Research Council Shooter Pleads Guilty to Three Felonies "A detail sure to reignite the culture wars that erupted around the shooting is the fact that Corkins told FBI agents that he identified the Family Research Council as anti-gay on the Web site of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The day after the shooting, Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, suggested that the center’s labeling of the organization as a hate group had given Corkins a 'license to perpetrate this act of violence.' On Wednesday, Perkins said the revelation had validated his earlier comments. A spokeswoman for the center said the group never listed the address for the Family Research Council on its Web site. The law center has said that Perkins’s group deserves the label because of its claim, for instance, that pedophilia is a 'homosexual problem.'"
Minot Daily News: Does Coverage of Family Research Council Shooting Show Media Bias?
ThinkProgress: Tony Perkins Still Believes SPLC Motivated Shooter At Family Research Council
Queerty: FRC Shooter Pleasds Guilty, Intended To 'Smother' Victims' Faces With Chick-Fil-A"
OneNewsNow: FRC SHOOTER WANTED TO ‘KILL AS MANY AS POSSIBLE’
NOM: The National Organization for Marriage Decries Continued Use of Terms "Hate Group" And "Anti Gay" Against Those who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
SPLC: 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda
SPLC: Family Research Council
SPLC: FRC Deserves 'Hate Group' Label
WorldNetDaily: [http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/family-research-council-attacker-pleads-guilty/ FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL ATTACKER PLEADS GUILTY; He ID'd Christian Group as Target Through Southern Poverty Website]
WorldNetDaily: [http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/bloody-hands-the-southern-poverty-law-center/ BLOODY HANDS: THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER; Exclusive: Matt Barber Asks If SPLC Isn't Intentionally Inciting Anti-Christian Violence]
Family Resource Council: Shooter Used Southern Poverty Law Center's Website to Identify FRC as Target
NewsBusters: Networks Ignore FRC Shooter’s Use of SPLC ‘Hate Map’

Thanks. I'll be watching how it develops. I hope it is built collaboratively by all. Literally, I'll be watching/learning how Wikipedia works so I hope it's a positive experience. Lawfare (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

First I'd suggest reading WP:RS, as only two of the above sources would be considered reliable for general content (with some exceptions). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that someone gets information from a organization's website does not make it relevant for the article about that organization. If we would consider that a relevant fact about that organization, we probably should have long lists of cases based on crimes in which criminals get their information, like the New York Times, the IRS, etc. Ergo, this is not relevant for this article.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. The FRC shooting incident is already mentioned in this article however. I'm not sure if we need more, but there is no reason to shut down possible improvements. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, we are not going to mention in the US army article that Wade Michael Page radicalized got his ideas when he was in the army. [5]. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But he didn't get his ideas from the army. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The link between page and the Army is as solid as the link between the FRC shooter and the SPLC.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. There are RS reporting that the FRC shooter used the SPLC website to identify a target for the perp to attack. Where are the sources saying Page got radicalized by the Army? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

So? Anything going on here? Lawfare (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Anything? Lawfare (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing support for expanding the content for this one incident.The article already cover the topic in a concise way.I think it would be WP:UNDUE to use this article as a soapbox for the shooter, a single, troubled criminal acting on his own, or the FRC, a conservative Christian group and lobbying organization that actively opposes equal rights for gay people, and associates them with pedophiles. - Mr X 13:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Where someone gets their information is important to the article about the subject, not the source of their information. TFD (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, TFD. Where someone gets their information [at/from] can be relevant, depending on the significance of the link to the subject itself, or to culture and society. Examples:

- Relevant: A work of art or philosophy that gave inspiration to certain other works or acts of significance (eg J. R. R. Tolkien inspiring fantasy fiction) (Subject and culture relevance)

- Relevant: A media outlet spreading misinformation that caused widespread hysteria (Subject relevance - credibility of media outlet; social relevance)

- Relevant: Dual use information promulgated by a legitimate organisation, used in an illegitimate way ("How to build your own fireworks" manual used to build a bomb) (Social relevance)

- Irrelevant: Some kind of truthful knowledge promulgated by a legitimate organisation, used for an illegitimate purpose (Terrorist using widely availably public transport schedules to choose a bus or an airplane target)

I am not familiar with the case in question, but it seems to be of the latter kind. François Robere (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Lawfare, if you hoped you will have a positive experience, you will be disappointed. People here are driven by SPLC:s agenda, they think they own the article and they won't allow truth to be told in any meaningful way. Hope you are not scared away from WP. --Jonund (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's all relative. Look at the current state of the article now compared to a year ago. That being said, I concur with MrX. The article mentions the shooting, not much more needs to be said. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

[cough] don't care about SPLC agenda [cough] not even American [cough] ahm. hmm... François Robere (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Jonund, that is sad. Coincidentally, right now editors appear to be protecting another SPLC page: Mission: America. (Sorry, but they are reverting to quotes that don't even exist, etc.) Please look at Talk there and see if you or anyone else can help out. Thanks. Lawfare (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

IP comment

This article is clearly an ad for the SPLC and is favorably edited. Is that even a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.160.122 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see previous discussion including archives. Editorial treatment includes criticism in proportion to overall coverage in reliable sources. As an aside, I would note that this IP's objection seems to come up occasionally such that a small explanatory note in the talk page header may be in order -- i.e. perhaps the { Controversial } tag isn't quite enough. El duderino ^(abides) 17:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism in lead

Proposed changes to the lead (emphasis in bold) have been rejected by two editors:

The SPLC does not accept government funds, nor does it charge its clients legal fees or share in their court-awarded judgments. Its programs are supported by successful fundraising efforts, which have helped it to build substantial monetary reserves. Its fundraising appeals and accumulation of reserves have been the subject of some criticism, as have its hate group listings.

The fact that the SPLC's hate group listings have received some critiscm is discussed in the body, in fact there is a subsection devoted to this. This brief phrase in the lead accurately summarizes this point per WP:LEAD and the weight is appropriate. I see no reasonable rationale so far not to include this. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is weasel-wording. Who criticizes their hate group listings? Supporters of hate groups. We could say that the a jury was criticized for its decision, because the defendant disagreed with the result. Otherwise the criticism of the SPLC is miniscule. TFD (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been an exhaustive discussion on these talk pages about criticism of the hate tags, as the archives can verify. The consensus for quite some time has been to include that criticism in the section for the hate group tag. The most recent discussion has to do with having a dedicated criticism section of the SPLC overall, which so far has been rejected. Your red herring aside, this doesn't change the fact that the critiscm is in discussed in enough detail in the body that it merits a mention in the lead. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with having that clause in the lead. Whether or not the critics are supporters of hate groups they do get in the newspaper. There's a section about it in the article, and half a sentence in the lead doesn't seem like too much to reflect that section.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The New Black Panther Party and the Westboro Baptist Church, both listed by the SPLC as hate groups, are in the news a lot. So why don't we add their criticisms to articles about race and the U.S. military? Why just include criticism from hate groups in the article about the SPLC? TFD (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you didn't misstate the facts of the situation, TFD. WE are not, as a matter of policy here, including mention of criticisms of the SPLC coming from "hate groups" simply because these criticisms have been reported in reliable sources. We are including mention of criticisms made by notable observers (such as Ken Silverstein, for example) which may be similar to ones made by representatives of certain "hate groups." Badmintonhist (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Half the highlighted paragraph below is devoted to describing an ad placed by the FRC, which the SPLC calls a hate group. And you would be the first to object to presenting Silverman's views in any other article. Can you point to any other articles where you add left-wing analysis? TFD (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the NBBP and WBC objecting to the label would not be interesting. Perhaps if you re-read the text in question little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC's listing of hate groups has been a source of some controversy. The designation of "hate groups" has inspired criticism from conservative elected officials and non-profits. In 2010 it was reported that "22 Republican lawmakers, among them Speaker Boehner and Representative Bachmann, three governors, and a number of conservative organizations took out full-page ads in two Washington papers castigating the SPLC for “character assassination” by listing the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group." [89][90][91][dead link][92] Critics including Ken Silverstein and Laird Wilcox have accused the SPLC of an incautious approach to assigning the label.[93][94] In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group while others defended the categorization.[95][dead link][96] The SPLC has defended its listing of anti-gay hate groups, stating that groups were selected not because of their stances on political issues such as gay marriage, but rather on their "propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people . . . that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." [97]

I think that the paragraph on criticism should probably be rewritten, but as long as it's in there as it stands I see no reason not to have something in the lead about it. Perhaps as a compromise we could say "as has its classification of some anti-gay organizations as hate groups." That's what the paragraph's actually about. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that that formulation works. The Family Research Council isn't a single issue (anti-gay) organization. Characterizing it as an anti-gay organization is less than accurate and not described so in the refs. They use conservative. I think the current paragraph is adequate. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As to the lead, yes. Since there is a well refernced section in the body of the article adding six words to the lead makes some sense. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the SPLC listed it as a hate group because it is anti-gay. I'm not claiming that the FRC is solely an anti-gay group. It's a conservative group that is also anti-gay and was listed as a hate group by the SPLC for that reason and then the SPLC was criticized for listing it. That's the subject of the paragraph in the body of the article that we're trying to summarize in the lead. TFD thinks that the current clause "as have its hate group listings." is not desirable. I'm proposing a compromise. Do you not think that "as has its classification of some anti-gay organizations as hate groups." is a summary? The FRC is, among other things, anti-gay. The SPLC classified it as a hate group on that basis. They got criticized for it. There's a paragraph in the article explaining that. No? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How about saying in articles about terrorism experts that they have been criticized for including al Qaeda? (Some supporters of al Qaeda and left-wing sources say that.) We would not do that because it would provide parity of mainstream and fringe sources. TFD (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I do see your point. I wouldn't mind seeing the whole paragraph deleted since it seems to me to give undue weight to a narrow line of criticism, but as long as we have it in there I don't see what objection there is to putting half a sentence about it in the lead. That's all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that the criticism we cite here comes from people external to the organizations in question. We aren't citing complaints from the KKK that they are being picked on. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

{{ec}

That still won't work because the "anti-gay organizations" isn't correct. Maybe if it were formualted around their positions. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it not correct? The FRC is pro-gay?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Because their raison d'etre is not focused on bashing gays. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Who said it was? Like, e.g., would you agree that the Democratic Party is a pro-gay group? It seems fair to me to say that it is even though it's not their only reason for being. The FRC opposes homosexuality in almost every way it's possible to oppose it. How are they then not anti-gay? There are only three kinds of groups in the world: pro-gay, anti-gay, and neutral-with-respect-to-gay. Which one of those is the FRC?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we just go with what the sources say, though the succinct text used above is probably enough as Capitalismojo pointed aout above. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Except there isn't consensus for the succinct text used above. That's a problem, isn't it? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is. You yourself said you don't see a problem with the text. TFD is the only one objecting at this point using the Chewbacca defense. I'm still thinking about your suggested improvements. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I objected by reverting the addition. Per BRD guideline, you really should not have restored it until this discussion unfolded. Bad form. El duderino ^(abides) 01:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your rationale was that "the lede is result of extended collaboration" which frankly is no rationale at all. Wikiwind said "see talk" but I fail to see where this has been addressed. The logical assumption is that he thinks this is part of the critiscm section discussion above. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not all I said in the edit summary and I think you should know better than to so blithely dismiss other regulars here with whom you hope to work. You're also conflating Wikiwind's edit, he removed the 'unbalanced' tag. El duderino ^(abides) 02:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed my mind. Now I don't have a problem putting my suggested clause in the lead, but TFD has convinced me that it's better to be specific about what kinds of hate group listings have attracted criticism, even if TFD doesn't like the specific wording I suggested.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We should follow the guideline at WP:LEAD and say a few words in summary, relative to article body weight of the issue. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I suppose you are entitled, but you should be explicit and say so (like you just did) or strike. Also, I wouldn't say he convinced you of anything, because he isn't making your argument. I understand your position, but all of these organizations are not soley anti-gay, which is what your text implies. Indeed, the SPLC is not tagging the FRC for their support of HPV vaccinations, but on their stances towards homosexuality. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean. Do you deny that the SPLC lists the FRC because the FRC is anti-gay? What does HPV have to do with anything?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(Just to keep you from repeating the same mistake, you should know the SPLC lists the FRC as a hate group because they use demonizing hate speech against gays and they push falsehoods about gays such as there being a significant connection to pedophilia. The simple fact of being against gay rights is not enough to trigger the listing as a hate group. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC) )

What mistake am I making? I don't understand. I know why the SPLC lists the FRC. The question is whether the FRC can fairly be described as anti-gay. I think they can, evidently LGR thinks it's not fair to describe them like that. I'm proposing that we put in the lead that the SPLC has been criticized for its listing of anti-gay groups. LGR and others want to say they've been criticized for their listings without qualifying. TFD doesn't want the clause in the lead. You want a mention in the lead but you haven't said which one you support. Isn't that what's going on? Maybe I should have said that the SPLC lists the FRC because of the aggressively hateful way in which the FRC is anti-gay but that I think it's reasonable to summarize the criticism in the lead with the more neutral "anti-gay"? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What TFD wants is against consensus; everyone else has stated they do want to follow WP:LEAD. Bink is correct about why the FRC, amongst others, are tagged as hate groups. So not only are the groups not necessarily anti-gay (we rely on RS to make these claims), the reasoning presented in your proposed version is incorrect. Expanding the appropriate rationale would probably require us to include why some object to the tag in the first place. I don't think we should blow up the lead with such an expansion, but that's just me. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, LGR please stop mischaracterizing this dispute. You started this thread noting two editors who objected, then it got reduced to just TFD against "everybody else"? I only count a handful of editors weighing in so far, and the discussion is not even a day old. On such a contentious article any addition to the lead which is reverted should be discussed and collaborated on, hopefully reaching compromise if necessary. You seem to be going about this the wrong way, and it's bordering on tendentiousness now. El duderino ^(abides) 01:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Mischaracterizing what? The "dispute" isn't really one at all. There is no serious objection to following WP:LEAD, only the execution. I'm not the one throwing around red herrings and IDONTLIKEIT arguments. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The groups aren't anti-gay? The paragraph that we're summarizing says they are anti-gay, doesn't it? It says in Wikipedia's voice that "The SPLC has defended its listing of anti-gay hate groups". Why doesn't WP:LEAD say that we *should* say anti-gay in the lead? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Groups and individuals that publish the same types of claims as the FRC, many of whom are supported by them, are regularly convicted under hate speech laws in other countries. TFD (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what Binkstrenet states "the SPLC lists the FRC as a hate group because they use demonizing hate speech against gays and they push falsehoods about gays such as there being a significant connection to pedophilia. The simple fact of being against gay rights is not enough to trigger the listing as a hate group". And that is definitely sourced and stated by the SPLC. I was going to reword the sentence that is in the lead, or remove it. It's not cut and dry to keep it in, so let's not get carried away and claim consensus. Although if we reword to state:

"Its fundraising appeals, accumulation of reserves and hate group designations have been the subject of some criticism. (And perhaps add)Most of which comes from the designees and their supporters.

Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

BRD

I don't think the criticism of the SPLC's hate group listings, which as Dave points out, comes mostly from the groups themselves and their political supporters, rises to the level of due weight required by WP:LEAD. And especially not in such a blanket statement as was added 4 days ago, which is why I reverted it when I saw it yesterday. So this dispute got off to a bad start when LGR restored it before discussing, against WP:BRD (which is a guideline, yes, but an important one for collaboration especially on contentious articles). To make matters worse, LGR has dismissed objections here and claimed consensus when we've barely begun to discuss. So I ask LGR to self-revert until we can hash this out. I appreciate Alf's effort at compromise wording, yet I also agree that saying "anti-gay organizations" is not accurate because orgs like the FRC are not just anti-gay -- so the usage there is ambiguous at best and generally misleading. To put a finer point on the issue: the distinction here is between using 'anti-gay' as a descriptive adjective versus its connotation as a definitive one in this context. "El duderino ^(abides) 02:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, I mean it descriptively. If it somehow connotes definitivity I can see that it's a bad idea to use it, although it does not have that connotation for me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The critiscm is not "mostly" from the groups and their political supporters. Pundits and academics have sounded off as well. At least thats how it reads in the body. There is consensus to include mention in the lead at the moment. How that is crafted is still under discussion. I'm not sure what you are asking me to self revert however. At the moment there is no mention in the lead. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be good to revert this while we're discussing it. The paragraph that we're trying to reflect in the lead consists entirely, although this isn't clear from reading it unless you look at the sources, of the FRC and its political supporters except for one vague anti-SPLC comment by Ken Silverstein, who's not, just by himself, "pundits and academics". The more I think about it the more I think that that paragraph is written in a quite misleading manner.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought Wikiwind reverted me earlier. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If a statement must be placed in the lead, and if that statement must be qualified as to which designations are criticized (neither of which points I feel strongly about either way), couldn't the suggested phrasing be modified slightly to "as has its classification of some organizations as hate groups because of anti-gay positions [activities?] and rhetoric", which does not imply the groups' raison d'être is to oppose gays but they still do so in what the SPLC considers a hateful manner? Fat&Happy (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems a thoughtful approach. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That is along the lines of what I suggested earlier. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that there's only one group mentioned in the article whose inclusion due to anti-gayness has been criticized; the FRC. Using the plural "groups" in the lead therefore doesn't accurately summarize the content of the paragraph.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If we mention the FRC's criticism, we should also mention that the FRC opposes hate crime legislation in the U.S. (which they call "thought crime") and hate speech laws in other countries, is critical of the European Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court of Canada and supports people convicted of hate speech crimes. Otherwise it presents the false view that the SPLC's characterization of them was unreasonable. TFD (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That would belong in the FRC article, not this one. And even if it did, it doesn't belong in the lead. WP:NOTAFORUM little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the FRC's criticism belongs in their article not here. But if we do mention it here, then we need to represent it fairly. TFD (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A possible way out

The paragraph on the criticism of the SPLC's listings of hate groups is entirely about the FRC except for one vague statement by Ken Silverstein and general criticisms, barely mentioned in our paragraph, by Laird Wilcox. Wilcox's material is self-published and arguably isn't notable. However, the paragraph's first two sentences:

The SPLC's listing of hate groups has been a source of some controversy. The designation of "hate groups" has inspired criticism from conservative elected officials and non-profits.

make it sound like there's much more general controversy about it than there seems to be. In particular there's no evidence from the sources that "conservative elected officials and non-profits" have criticized the listings except for the FRC listing. What if we delete the first sentence in the paragraph and change the second slightly, leaving the rest of the paragraph alone, as so:

~~The SPLC's listing of hate groups has been a source of some controversy.~~ The SPLC's designation of the conservative Family Research Council as a "hate group" has inspired criticism from conservative elected officials and non-profits.

Then we could change the lead sentence in question to say

The SPLC does not accept government funds, nor does it charge its clients legal fees or share in their court-awarded judgments. Its programs are supported by successful fundraising efforts, which have helped it to build substantial monetary reserves. Its fundraising appeals and accumulation of reserves have been the subject of some criticism, as has its listing of the conservative Family Research Council as a "hate group."

Just a thought. It would make the criticism paragraph more accurate also. If we do this it may be desirable to put the sentence about Silverstein and Wilcox at the end of the paragraph in order to group information more logically. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That probably won't work. There was extensive discussion formulating that section and IIRC there were more groups than the FRC, and more critics than those listed here. I believe that was due to a weight issue with respect to the rest of the article. I think Fat & Happy has suggested the best way forward. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But if it was already decided that other anti-gay groups, if indeed there were any, shouldn't be discussed in the body of the article, then what's the justification for hinting at their existence in the lead. They're not actually mentioned in the article, so why should they be in the lead? If the lead is to reflect what the paragraph says, which it should, I don't see how it's possible to mention more than just the FRC in the lead. My suggestion for the lead is not contingent on changing the paragraph, either. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the body isn't specifically singling out the the FRC. Neither should the lead. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What other anti-gay groups besides the FRC are discussed in the body of the article?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The body need not mention other groups (like CIS) because the sources do. Frankly I don't understand your constantly changing position. The edit I added was essentially one you suggested at the beginning of this. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But CIS isn't anti-gay. My position is evolving. I'm in favor of mentioning the criticism in the lead. It's just that it's not clear to me what that mention should consist of.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Since CIS isn't anti gay, the is no need to include the rationale. Therefore I suggest we just go with [6], which is where we started in the first place. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But there's clearly no consensus for that change, which is why you reverted yourself on it. Why don't we just wait a while and see what TFD and Duderino and others think about my proposal here and the other issues?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is a sense that LGR has a very reasonable solution to this. Her formulation is the minimalist approach that works well in the lead. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

When we say has been the subject of controversy, has been criticized, etc., we need to say by whom and for what. The criticism has come from hate groups and their supporters, and the two founders of CounterPunch. CounterPunch ironically has come under criticism by the extreme right for alleged anti-Semitism. People who oppose hate crime and hate speech laws oppose the SPLC. No criticism claims that the SPLC's definition of hate differs in any way from what it is legally understood to mean. TFD (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No, I reverted myself out of consideration that asked me too. TFD's argument has no merit whatsoever. I have no idea what Duderino's opinion is because he has failed to state one. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you reverted yourself because you'd changed your mind. I understand that you reverted out of consideration. I assumed it was out of consideration for the (seems to me to be a) fact that there's no consensus for the edit. Duderino says that he reverted because he didn't agree with the edit, so that's at least saying that there's no consensus.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason for duderino's revert as explained in his edit summary is cryptic, and unfortunately he has failed to expand here. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Patience is called for. Not everyone has as much spare time as you and I evidently do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing issues of wp:IDHT and possibly even incompetence in LGR's comments here. I have stated my opinion in the previous thread [7] as well as in a few replies inserted above it. To say that I have "failed to state" my opinion, or "failed to expand" on such, is grossly and even offensively misrepresentative -- yet I can't quite tell if it is deliberate. Besides, how exactly is my edit summary cryptic? Is LGR unfamiliar with what 'collaboration' means? I still think that the criticism of hate group listings does not satisfy due weight for inclusion in the lead, especially now that Alf has sufficiently shown the body paragraph to be only about the FRC and not other groups, despite LGR's claim about the sources saying differently, and it is therefore more misleading to include mention of it in the lead. I believe any contested verbiage should gain consensus or be subject to compromise, neither of which I see LGR working towards despite claiming the former and dismissing the latter. I agree with TFD for the most part and I think LGR saying that his argument "has no merit whatsoever" is another example of poor collaboration. Perhaps we should wait for other editors to weigh in before pushing ahead. I would certainly like to hear from others besides LGR now. Alf is right, there is no hurry. El duderino ^(abides) 20:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Anybody besides El duderino who objects to my edit in the lead? The paragraph in the body of our article which includes criticisms of the SPLC's hate list is not "only about the FRC." Ken Silverstein and Laird Wilcox's criticisms are about the hate group list in general and were made prior to the shooting incident at the FRC. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I object to it on the grounds that this phrase: "This listing has been somewhat controversial." is vague to the point of being meaningless, that the referent of the noun "listing" is impossible to discern from the context and thus the sentence is ambiguous, and that it does not reflect the material it purports to summarize in the body of the article because "this [process] of listing [hate groups in general]" isn't shown in the body to have been controversial or even discussed, only "this [particular] listing [of the FRC]" is shown to be controversial and discussed in the body.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It takes some serious chutzpah for duderino's to question others behavior when he focuses on, well, others behavior. As has been stated here multiple times the critiscm directed towards the SPLC is not soley coming from those targeted and their allies. Therefore that argument presented by TFD and duderino is a non starter. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm questioning your contributions to this talkpage discussion because Yes, they are questionable. And your latest attempt at deflection is transparent. We're certainly allowed to disagree as a matter of opinion, but not to distort facts or claim things that simply aren't true. I'm sure others are beginning to wonder why you're pushing so hard for undue criticism. El duderino ^(abides) 02:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue critiscm? You and TFD are either having a case of IDHT or haven't read the sources in question. Your point that critiscm of the hate tag from groups like the FRC and their political allies might be undue has not been unnoticed by myself and others. What you haven't acknowledged is that there is critiscm from outside these quarters such as researchers and social commentators. If it weren't for that commentary we wouldn't have a critiscm graph in the first place. Now short of me peeing on your rug, I'd appreaciate it if you addressed the content then to speculate about my motives. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning Laird Wilcox at all is undue weight

Why does Laird Wilcox even warrant a mention here? His writings are all self-published. Why should anyone care that he criticizes the SPLC? It seems to me that if we're going to quote self-published authors on their own views about third parties we ought to have some reliable sources telling us that those views are significant. I think this clause should be struck along with the citation to Wilcox's self-published book should be stricken:

~~Critics including~~ Ken Silverstein ~~and Laird Wilcox have~~ has accused the SPLC of an incautious approach to assigning the label.

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

He is considered a researcher by reliable sources in the field of political fringe movements, groups of which the SPLC often cover. His opinion in this topic area is worthy of mention. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:SPS "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Wilcox, whose works are not "all self published," would seeem to meet that qualification. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Wilcox is an expert on extremism and has never published works about watchdog groups. In any case, the issue is weight, not reliable sources. Criticism by its nature is opinion and you need to show that his criticisms have attracted attention. TFD (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If your statement is correct (Wilcox is a recognized expert on extremism), then he is an expert on the subjects of SPLC, even if not an expert on the SPLC. Your statement supports inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not his writings pass the threshold for being a reliable source, they do not meet standards for weight, which says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." We cannot claim that opinions expressed in self-published books are prominent in "published, reliable sources", particularly since no one has paid any attention to them. Wilcox himself says in an interview with The Social Contract Press, which the SPLC describes as a hate group, that his views have failed to attract attention. "The media just rolls over for them. Anti-racism is a major industry today and to question the Southern Poverty Law Center is viewed as unsympathetic or even racist...."[8] TFD (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wilcox is currently being used in our article, of course, as a mere example of observers who have criticized the SPLC's hate group list. He is mentioned in passing and it isn't as if his specific criticisms of the hate list are being given any special weight. Other critics, more prominent than Wilcox (though not extremist group specialists) could also be mentioned such as the late Alexander Cockburn. By the way, the notion that the fairly large number columnists who criticized the SPLC after FRC shooting incident were ONLY talking about the SPLC's inclusion of the FRC on its hate group list is incorrect. Badmintonhist (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC) PS: Criticism by Wilcox and others of the SPLC's hate group list is included in a recent article on the SPLC in the Weekly Standard: [9]. Badmintonhist (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Year in Hate and Extremism & Men's Movement

If people are going remove entirely pertinent and well sourced material about the SPLC commentary on the Mens Movement, then please explain yourselves here. Just because the SPLC now probably regrets publishing that material does not mean it can be banished from History. Attempting to dismiss the material as 'trivial' or 'biased' or 'undue' are canards. The SPLC articles are significant because of their nature, the response and the fact they had to clarify/withdraw. The material is:-

In the 2011 issue they published a number of articles on the Men's Movement. They claim the “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists and women in general, almost all thick with misogynistic attacks. They stated the men’s movement includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women. Also that some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. [10]>[11]

A later article was published to address the tremendous response to these articles and clarified that the SPLC does not consider Men's Rights Activists as members of a hate movement.[12]

This material is entirely accurate and entirely representative of the tone of the articles. Read the articles before simply dismissing this content. CSDarrow (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Has this issue been significantly commented on in third-party sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The web exploded with fury with many others then claiming the "Men Rights Movement" has been declared a hate group the SPLC. The left wing press attempted to bury this issue as best they could. The 3rd reference is in a sense a 3rd party source as they are commenting on their own articles; it was an attempt at damage control because of the "tremendous" response. Wikepedia does not require 3rd party sources but clearly adding such commentary would enhance the entry. This material is significant partly due to its utterly noxious nature and the response it garnered. It should not be removed because of procedural niceties and can be worked on. CSDarrow (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I 2nd Andy's question. Can you provide some examples of this "fury"? The SPLC is considered a RS for their hate group list on Wikipedia, so their retraction mentioned in the text you tried to add (if it could be called that) might not need a secondary source. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not mentioned the "fury" in the entry merely that the SPLC reported a "tremendous" response, I am not your research assistant use google. The material stands on its own and is clearly significant. At a bare minimum, structurally we have a set of articles with self evidently controversial material that the SPLC itself felt fit to publish a clarifying article on, due to the "significant" response. With all of this verifiable from a reliable source, ie the SPLC itself. This is by any measure is an acceptable encyclopedic entry. Removing an entry of this nature because of trivial objections makes no sense to me. The more constructive course of action would surely to be to try to improve it. CSDarrow (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also want to see additional sources before this content is re-introduced. If there really was a significant response, it should not be difficult to add a couple of good sources that have taken note. In any case, the content should be worded in a concise and neutral fashion. - Mr X 15:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote is from the SPLC itself, ie "The article, entitled 'Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement,' provoked a tremendous response...." [13], (I used 'tremendous' not 'significant' in the entry). The content is precise and neutral as it uses mostly the wording of the SPLC, apart form minor changes in tense and grammar. I have been very careful not to misrepresent the tone or content of the articles. Having said that I agree additional sources would be desirable. CSDarrow (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, I'm sure that you are aware that according to Wikipedia guidelines and policy, the burden of proof rests on those who wish to include material to provide the necessary references. Please do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I am very well aware of the Wikipedia guidelines and policy, it would seems so more than you. Atm you have given no meaningful response to my points. Your response is patronizing and has no place on a talk page. CSDarrow (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If you wish the material to be included, provide the necessary references. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We went through attempts to add this before, and there was no consensus to include a mention because of undue weight. Among other things. Your most recent attempt put a mention in this article has other major problems. Including not being written in a neutral manner, and an addition that does not reflect what the sources provided state(original research, synthesis). So I don't believe this should be included, undue weight, POV and synthesis. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If you look at the history of this article/talkpage, you should be able to tell that I am one of those editors who think that reliable sources have been sometimes critical of the SPLC and that commentary deserves some mention. If not, look at the RfC just above. IIRC the "men's rights" issue was discussed here in the past, but nearly to level of dialogue as other issues. From past experience I can assure you that ATG and MrX are both eminently reasonable and if you present the sources then a fruitful discussion can occur about the merits. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Atm we have a reliable and significant source reporting on articles that garnered, in their own words, 'a tremendous response', with them responding to that response. The articles are self evidently controversial both in their tone and content. As such the SPLC commentary on these articles in of itself renders this material of encyclopedic worth. I agree the entry would benefit greatly from additional sources, my guess is more can be found if required. But I would baulk at the fact they are a necessity.

I too attempt to be reasonable, I find it better for my health and ultimately more productive and satisfying. However if I am dismissed, browbeaten or WikiLawyered then I can be formidable. If people wish to progress in the manner you are suggest then you will find me a willing participant. In any disagreement the first steps are to identify the points disagreement then progress form there. My argument is outlined in the preceding paragraph.

CSDarrow (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to rely on guesswork, or on your opinions regarding what is 'self evidently controversial'. If the sources you have repeatedly been requested to provide exist, why not provide them, and avoid the need for further discord? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I gather you don't have a meaningful response to the argument I have outlined above. It addresses the point you have raised. Argument by repetition is never convincing. CSDarrow (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a violation of weight to provide coverage of a issue that bothers the patrons of mens rights blogs but has received little or no coverage in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you weren't listed in a post above as one of the editors who are "both eminently reasonable". I understand why. CSDarrow (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't think that my lack of mention of TFD or anyone else for that matter is a basis for any blanket statements. TFD is passionate, no doubt, but I woudnt say he is unreasonable. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Passionate" is a very kind adjective for the commentary I received. I can think of others. I think my response was measured. I will not be allowing unnecessary or intentionally provocative posts to let me lose focus here. Be assured of that. CSDarrow (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please focus on the issue of contention here - which is whether the dispute concerning SPLC's coverage of the Men's movement attracted the necessary coverage to merit inclusion in the article. The general feeling seems to be that without evidence that it attracted significant external coverage, it doesn't merit inclusion. You seem (so far at least) to be alone in suggesting that external coverage isn't necessary. If that is your final position, and you aren't going to offer any evidence that significant external coverage exists, it seems to me that there is nothing more to discuss, as consensus is against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, now we are close to the source of the disagreement. My point is that because of the significance and reliability of the SPLC, their commentary alone on these articles makes this of encyclopedic note. It is they who, for want of a better word, declared a controversy because in their words the article(s) "provoked a tremendous response". The SPLC declaring a group a hate group is considered significant by Wikipedia. I would also argue the SPLC declaring a group not to be a hate group, especially under controversial circumstances, also to be significant and in fact strange and unusual. As such, I claim further 3rd party commentary is technically unnecessary.

This is my main point and I am assuming the main point of disagreement atm. I feel this should be argued out first. The existence or non existence of other sources is moot for the time being. I am sure his entry can be improved with input from others. However the reflexive deletion and unsupported quoting of rules and regulations is not going to resolve this, of that I am sure.

CSDarrow (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If we were to adopt as general practice the principle that self-published assertions regarding whether something was controversial or not were sufficient evidence to determine the matter, we'd be in deep trouble - this entails effectively handing over editorial control to the subject of the article. But we don't work that way - instead, we determine such matters by looking for evidence that it was controversial. The existence of such evidence is not 'moot' - instead it goes to the heart of the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the use of the SPLC as a RS is severely limited to their research on extremism. We can't use them to gauge the temperature of the response to their criticism. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC is a good source for minor groups that receive little media attention and current academic writing is not available. But notice that in the article Family Research Council, they are hardly used. Even the SPLC calling them a hate group is sourced to third parties. The FRC is so high profile that information about them that only appears in SPLC publications is too insignificant for inclusion. TFD (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, 'controversial' is my wording the term they used is "provoked a tremendous response". I have used the this in the proposed entry. If the SPLC is considered trustworthy on the declaration of hate groups, I would have thought their opinions on obvious and mundane semantic matters would also be trustworthy. I don't think the SPLC stating they got "a tremendous response" is surrendering editorial control, I doubt they are in the habit of lying about such matters and are reasonable skilled at evaluating as to whether something is a tremendous response or not.

Again I feel the SPLC commenting on the fact that articles of theirs provoked a tremendous response, and that they do not consider Men Rights Groups hate movements, very significant. This is independent of if others commented on this. CSDarrow (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

ATG is correct that we shouldn't use a primary source to gauge the "tremendous response". And even if the SPLC weren't a primary source, their opinion on this matter has no weight as they are not a reliable source except in a very limited area as highlted by myself and expanded upon by TFD. Like several of us have said, if the response was tremendous, we would expect to see that noted in inherently reliable sources. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If that is the substance of your argument then looks like we might end up in RSN CSDarrow (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC).

Please note the context of the 'tremendous response' phrase: 'The article, entitled “Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement,” provoked a tremendous response among men’s rights activists (MRAs) and their sympathizers' (my emphasis). Not a 'tremendous response' by anyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you only just the article!? CSDarrow (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Read it, you mean? No. I was pointing out the context of the phrase you used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I was clearly close to speechless. CSDarrow (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not reliability but weight. These are two separate policies. TFD (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The following cases under litigation have no 3rd party sources.

Church of the Creator
Ranch rescue

As such they should be removed by the logic used here. CSDarrow (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Edit: Correction Ranch Rescue does CSDarrow (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. First we look to see if 3rd party sources can be found. Regarding the 'Church of the Creator' issue, I'd have thought that a court case resulting in a a judgement of $1 million against the 'church' would be easy enough to source. As for the 'ranch rescue' issue, look again - the article already cites the NYT: [14]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple of possible sources for the 'Church of the Creator' section:

Hal Marcovitz Extremist Groups (Google eBook) p. 38.

Deborah Able Hate Groups Enslow Publishers, 2000. p 49.

I'm relying on a Google search here, and I'm not sure how much they have to say - but they might be of use. Contemporary newspapers etc will also be relevant, I'm sure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RE "Um, no. First we look to see if 3rd party sources can be found."

The Mens Rights Entry was simply and summarily deleted with a cry of "no 3rd party sources". I smell something beginning with 'h'. Find your sources else the entries are to be deleted.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And who exactly appointed you judge, jury and executioner? This is an article talk page, and matters relating to content are discussed here - no single individual can dictate content in the manner you seem to be proposing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

These also have no 3rd party sources.

Opposition to Arizona illegal immigration measure (in Advocacy section), SPLC not mentioned in the Main article linked.

Tolerance.org (in Education section)

There are also problems with many of the '3rd Party' sources as the SPLC is not mentioned in them.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried looking for sources yourself? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you for the Men Rights entry? NO you did not, you simply REMOVED it.

CSDarrow (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's right - and the consensus on this talk page has been that I was right to do so. As The Four Deuces writes above, the question was one of weight - and you have failed to show that the Men's Movement issue was anything but a spat between the SPLC and Men's Movement activists. Most if not all of the material you have subsequently brought up is clearly of greater significance - and in any case, it deserves to be discussed on its own merits. If you wish to argue that material should be deleted, I suggest that you start a new section, and make out a clear case for it - at the moment, it would be easy to get the impression that your proposals are intended as some sort of negotiating strategy, which isn't the way Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

So you didn't try to find 3rd party references, just confirming that. Yep, that's called something or another. A consensus on faulty grounds is also not a good thing. And please remember to assume good faith, pejorative suggestions as to my motivations are hurtful. CSDarrow (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Did SPLC delist Patriot Groups as hate groups?

The article still claims patriot groups are hate groups (see Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Hate_group_listings) this needs major editing. Mrdthree (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the SPLC consider sovereign citizens a 'hate group'? because the list says so. Mrdthree (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be reasonable, but I don't know if they actually do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed them and patriot groups from the hate groups lists. Mrdthree (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

They are not a group and therefore cannot be listed. Also believing in sovereign citizenship is not an expression of hate. I do not believe SPLC ever listed patriot groups as hate groups. TFD (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User keeps reverting my edits when I try to eliminate the patriot groups from the hate groups part of the article. He refuses to discuss-- could you correct the page by eliminating the mention of patriot groups from the article? thanks Mrdthree (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC says that "truly stunning growth" in conspiracy-minded "Patriot" groups is what fueled an increase in the number of groups on their hate map.[15] Huffington Post reports that "The number of anti-government 'patriot' groups, including paramilitary hate organizations, reached an all-time high in 2012", according to the SPLC hate map.[16] It's a big deal and we should not hide it from our readers. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC does not say that the growth in patriot groups fueled the number of hate groups. It said that both groups increased. I could not find any group that is listed as both a hate group and a patriot group. TFD (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

I tried to incorporate multiple sources into a criticism section, but it was removed. Substantial criticism has been levied at the SPLC for decades, and this article is unbalanced without mention of it. Instaurare (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read the article in full and see that there is criticism mixed into other sections. Having a separate section for criticism is sloppy editing. El duderino ^(abides) 13:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea of a criticism section has been rejected in the past for this article (for example, see Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 11#Addressing the original reason for the POV tag). Separate criticism sections are generally discouraged throughout Wikipedia (see WP:CRIT). You're welcome to make an argument for adding a criticism section to this article, but you should expect substantial push back. Most of the criticism and sources that you added have been discussed at length in the recent past, and consensus has leaned toward omitting it. You may want to read some of the talk page archives to better understand why. - Mr X 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add a couple of short note of my own: 1) The Weekly Standard might be a reliable and thought-provoking publication, which I haven't read, but when its Wiki article says something like an American neoconservative opinion magazine... the Weekly Standard has never been profitable, and has remained in business through subsidies from wealthy conservative benefactors (and these claims are grounded and unchallenged) - it hardly sounds like an objective source for correct, factual information on the subject of this article. 2) No need to defer to outside sources for the SPLCs financial reports - these are publicly available through their site. On the face of things I find nothing objectionable of the sort that you were implying in their latest financial statement (see p. 17 of their 2011 annual report). François Robere (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the implication that there's something wrong with their spending seems entirely unfounded. Of course the majority of the organization's spending would be on salaries, travel and similar "administrative expenses," as their work is people-heavy and spending-light. Retaining a staff of lawyers, paralegals, etc. may only show up as an "administrative expense," but it is necessary for one of the core functions of the organization: providing legal services. They are not primarily a grant-making charity. polarscribe (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

We do not add criticism to articles just for balance, we need to establish that they are significant. We do not add for example the views of Ken Silverstein to articles about the Iraq War, the Bush administration, etc. TFD (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

For a group as widely criticized by multiple sources as this one, surely we must make room for that criticism, regardless of if it's a full section or not. I will do some research and read through the archives. In the meantime, I would appreciate if we leave the tag on the article for the time being, short-term. Instaurare (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem leaving the tag on as long as you're discussing it, but you should try to read the sources more carefully. Your last edit, discussing the $52,000 from the sale of the headquarters, completely misrepresented what the source you left it cited to said about it. It looks an awful lot like POV pushing when you do that. Andy the Grump reverted you before I had a chance to. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The tag in question regards being "unbalanced towards certain viewpoints". It would help if you could specify exactly what the "certain viewpoints" are, to justify the tag's retention and for helping editors here zero in on the issues the tag represents. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid this article, but commentary from marginal groups in favor of the SPLC is much more prevelent than commentry from marginal groups opposed to the SPLC (for varying definitions of "marginal"). That is wrong. Claims that groups criticized by the SPLC are unreliable (if they have separate indicia of reliablity) are wrong, although statements of opinion by such groups may be questionable. Statements by a group attacked by the SPLC noting that the attacks are unfounded are generally as reliable as the attacks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to some examples of "commentary from marginal groups in favor of the SPLC" in this article?--В и к и T 20:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Instaurare, your comment that the SPLC is "widely criticized by multiple sources" is wrong. Your sources are a 1994 (!) series which has received nil attention, articles by the publishers of CounterPunch. The Charity Navigator does not even criticize the SPLC. It even provides it with a better overall rating than the Heritage Foundation.[17][18] It there were criticism in multiple sources, one would expect the media to comment on this. The most that can be said is that hate groups and their sympathizers dislike the SPLC, and the overwhelming amount of times the SPLC is mentioned is when the media obtain information from them. TFD (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'll have to withdraw that. I can't find anything obviously from a marginal group, aside from statements from the group itself which may be "unduely self-serving". I remember seeing them, but perhaps that problem has been resolved. There are still a number of sources which are not accurately quoted (I think, both criticism and praise), but that would be a different issue.

@TFD: That is inaccurate. The SPLC has received criticism from multiple sources, primarily for their definition and selection of "hate" groups, not all among groups the SPLC has attacked (and even there, some of the attacks came after the criticism), and it would not be reasonable for the news media to fail to cover it, as they would be perceived as supporting the KKK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to show that the media has covered it. The groups of course complained and we can find their complaints on their websites, but unless it has been picked up it lacks weight. TFD (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This [article] from the Christian Science Monitor contains criticism from the Republicans in the House of Representatives. There is also responsible criticsm available from Reason Magazine and the Daily Beast, among others. How much criticsm do we want and is appropriate?Capitalismojo (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

From the CS Monitor Article: "December, 22 Republican lawmakers, among them Speaker Boehner and Representative Bachmann, three governors, and a number of conservative organizations took out full-page ads in two Washington papers castigating the SPLC for “character assassination” by listing the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group." This seems noteworthy. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That article came up before. The ad was actually taken out by the FRC and while it listed 22 congressmen, the statement they signed did not mention the SPLC. BTW, theEconomist, which is hardly an ultraleft publication, has a chart of militia groups in this week's magazine, credited to SPLC information. TFD (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The CS Monitor specifically says the ad was "castigating" the SPLC by the Republican legislators. I can only go by what is reported. (I don't understand your second bit about the Economist. That doesn't seem like criticism, nor fit in this section's discussion.)Capitalismojo (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to a copy of the ad mentioned in the CSM article. Notice that the ad was placed by the FRC, not the congressmen, and also that the petition signed by the congressmen did not mention the SPLC. When a secondary source is incorrect, we should not use it. TFD (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So, rather than go off the RS you do some original research and discover the primary source which you believe proves that the secondary source is wrong. Sorry, thats not how Wikipedia works. Your research and analysis of the primary source is not valid and does not trump RS. You may know the Truth, we have to rely on the reliable sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The reliable source is manifestly wrong. Using the ad as a primary source for what the ad says is perfectly well within policy:" A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." (WP:PSTS). WP:V is not a suicide pact. For God's sake. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about an ad. This is an article about criticism of SPLC. The CS Monitor is reliable. Your personal assesment that the newspaper is wrong is interesting, but unhelpful. Did any legislator, Governor, or conservative leader try to distance themselves from this "wrong" characterization by CSM or other media organizations? No, they did not. Your attempt to define away this criticsm holds no validity. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with both of you: a) The ad is the source of itself, and there's really no point arguing about it. If it was published in mainstream media and available for all to see, as long as we can reproduce a copy of the ad that proves that it was published so (that is - as long as the ad as a source is still available) - then there's no problem using it. If it wasn't available in such a manner than we would've had to resort to using secondary sources that state that such an ad was published. This isn't original research. b) As for the nature of the ad - I find it hard to believe that the signers were not aware of what they're signing (ie in the context of the SPLC). Sometimes it IS the case, but in this case I find it hardly plausible. Hence, if no new information is found that clearly states that they were not fully-aware of the context of the ad, than it is usable for a criticism section in the article. Note that the CSM still appears to be wrong. François Robere (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect. A variety of sources (also including CNN) also characterized this story in the same way as CSM. They ran this as top Republican and conservative leadership blasting the SLPC and joining a campaign of criticism against SPLC. The only one we have saying otherwise is TFD saying the media is wrong. Well, maybe they are, its has been known to happen. However, it seems a pretty straightforward news analysis to say the lawmakers knew what they were signing. Ordinarily if a legislator was improperly quoted or disagreed with the charaterization they would publicly withdraw or "clarify" their support. There is no indication of such. They haven't backed off from the criticism. TFD's assertion that the media is wrong is not backed up. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the CS Monitor article is not only about the ad, it is a three page story with a variety of criticsm about SPLC. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismo, I suggest you read the advertisement. It certainly provides the impression, that the undersigned were aware of the criticism of the SPLC, but that is speculation. They absolutely did not sign anything that mentioned the SPLC. TFD (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read the articles. I have read the ad. The source is reliable. I think their analysis is reasonable. Your analysis, barring RS supporting your research, is not. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the complete statement signed by the congressmen: "We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans."

There is nothing about the SPLC or being called a hate group.

TFD (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice research. That doesn't really affect the article. The news reports talk about conservative criticism of SPLC. Your analysis that says they weren't really criticising SPLC because an one part of an ad doesn't mention SPLC doesn't matter. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that there are quotes from SPLC that talk about this matter and characterize this precisely as CS Monitor does? You are arguing against both the RS, and against the SPLC in this. Give it up. Stick to WP:RS. No original research. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR does not mean that we entrained to blindly report falsehoods. If the statement does not in fact mention the SPLC, we cannot and should not state that it does. siafu (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a mischaraterization of the article. The CS Monitor, CNN, Fox, and the SPLC itself all agree. The OR disagrees. Lets stick with RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion thread at WP:RSN#Conflict between secondary source and primary source it reports. TFD (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As others have commented here, it is unlikley that we will have a criticism section in this article anytime soon. If anyone finds sourced criticism, put it in an existing section or create a new section germane to that topic. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ken Silverstein was mentioned above and his group's newsletter CounterPunch ran an open letter critical of the SLPC from a progressive viewpoint and it's not mentioned in the article either. What was the rational there? (I searched the archives and find no mention of Felice Pace or CounterPunch) 97.85.168.22 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Silverstein's comments lack significance. While you call him "progressive", you need to show that he is representative of "progressive" views of the SPLC and that the "progressive" opinion is significant. Incidentally, what do you mean by "progressive"? Do you think that Silverstein's views should be presented in all political articles in Wikipedia? Why? TFD (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

CounterPunch is a heavily left leaning source. Since it played a heavy role in the Wikileaks incident in 2010 and 20011 and has contributors of this list of notables: Robert Fisk,[39] Edward Said,[40] Tim Wise,[41] Ralph Nader,[42] M. Shahid Alam,[43] Tariq Ali,[44] Ward Churchill,[45] Lila Rajiva,[46] Peter Linebaugh,[47] Tanya Reinhart,[48] Noam Chomsky,[49] Frank "Chuck" Spinney,[50] Diana Johnstone,[51] Boris Kagarlitsky, Franklin Lamb,[52] and Alexander Cockburn's two brothers: Andrew[53] and Patrick,[54] CounterPunch notability is not in dispute.

The particular open letter that was run is directed straight at SLPC and what CounterPunch sees as a conflation of anti-antisemitism and anti-Zionism over a particular incident. Who is correct on the issue is not important. What is important is that a notable political news magazine on the far left which has a focused on racism has criticized SLPC in this matter. I understand that CounterPunch itself has some serious detractors and that these criticisms are ideological warfare probably mirrored by the belief systems of editors here. I'm bringing it up after looking at the source and it's notability and the topic is not mentioned. The entire article does not mention anitsemitism until the last external link and that is one of SLPC's prime domains. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

@Anon #97: the 'open letter' link does not support what you're claiming. It's not Counterpunch who is criticizing the SPLC, but rather presenting Pace's opinion in what looks to be a sort of letter to the editor. (They even give a separate [gmail] contact for him.) How notable is he? By the way, Alexander Cockburn was the more prominent co-founder of CounterPunch, so if you're searching archive discussions you should look for his name, too. El duderino ^(abides) 03:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

'unbalanced' tag

Once again the article is tagged yet discussion has stopped. As far as I can tell, the OP has not justified the tag staying up, and I would like to remind folks that these tags are not to be used as bargaining chips or 'badges of shame'... By the way, it seems like the 'POV' tag is more in line with what Instaurare and others are arguing, as TFD points out. El duderino ^(abides)

Agree. I reread that whole mess up above and saw no concrete problems whose repair would satisfy OP. It seems to me that the tag should come off unless they can get specific. If the addition of a "criticism" section was the whole issue then the tag should definitely come off. If anything there seems to be consensus that there's not going to be a "criticism" section. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. François Robere (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we need a new section on the monitoring of militias and right wing extremists?

Since all mention of the SPLC's substantial work monitoring the Patriot Movement and sovereign citizens has been eliminated and it is inappropriate to discuss in the hate groups section, should there be a new section about monitoring extremists? Mrdthree (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-This thread and the one above. The SPLC monitors militias and right-wing extremists, but doesn't classify them as "racist/hate groups".

Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist..

Thanks Dave Dial (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

So you dont think it needs a separate mention? or you think that patriot groups should be discussed in the hate groups section? Mrdthree (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well we certainly don't want to add confusion. We could change the name of the Tracking of Hate groups section to "Tracking of Extremist Groups" and then draw a clear distinction between "hate groups" and "other extremist groups" in the subsections that we include under that heading. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the SPLC make that distinction? From what has been said here, it doesn't appear so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the single heading with subheading ideas is ok. But I am pretty sure the only category other than hate groups that the SPLC monitors is militia/patriot groups . Mrdthree (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the only heading that makes sense is Tracking of Hate Groups and Extremists. Then subheadings Hate groups and right wing extremists or Patriot groups and militias 222.164.9.157 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Tracking of hate groups and extremists would be a good section title. Subheadings could be Hate groups, Extremists and Anti-government groups and militias. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Under "Home » What We Do » Hate and Extremism", they say they " monitor[] hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States."[19] For 2012, they provide listings for 1,007 "hate groups", 1,360 "active 'patriot' groups", and 38 "'nativist extremist' groups", as well as a list of major right-wing terrorist incidents since the Oklahoma bombing. The nativist extremist groups were in serious decline since 2010.[20] Within the hate groups they distinguish between different types, according to what they oppose. TFD (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How about Tracking of hate groups and extremists then subheadings of (1) hate groups, (2) nativist extremist groups, and (3) militias and patriot groups? Mrdthree (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I would have just one section and list them in the order the SPLC uses: hate, patriot, nativist. I have never liked the idea of providing extensive information sourced directly to a subject's website, since it is a primary source. TFD (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I updated the page. Hope its ok. Mrdthree (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The opening Paragraph is not true

The SPLC classifies Patriot groups as hate groups. However, he last line of the opening paragraph states The SPLC classifies and lists as hate groups organizations that in its opinion denigrate or assault entire groups of people, typically for attributes that are beyond their control. Can anyone offer a defense of this statement in regard to what the SPLC calls the Patriot Movement? Mrdthree (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC does not classify patriot groups as hate groups, although some groups could be classified as both. The John Birch Society for example is classified as a patriot group but not a hate group. TFD (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

that is not what the List_of_hate_groups classified by SPLC claims. If it is your opinion, please provide citation Mrdthree (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The article you link to says the SPLC lists 159 patriot groups as hate groups. However they list a total of 1274 patriot groups.[21] I do not know where that article gets its information, because the page it links to and you provided as a source in your edit does not appear to list any patriot groups.[22] TFD (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So are you still disagreeing that the SPLC lists patriot groups as hate groups? Or do you have a problem with the citation? Mrdthree (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

They do not list patriot groups as hate groups and your citation does not support it. TFD (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think u are right (no Michigan militia on hate map) however they do make it easy to confuse. I think the list if SPLC hate groups needs to be edited as well.Mrdthree (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the opening paragraph is "true". Let's examine that statement again (emphasis added)
The SPLC classifies and lists as hate groups organizations that in its opinion denigrate or assault entire groups of people, typically for attributes that are beyond their control.[5]

The article is not saying the groups flagged by the SPLC are indeed hate groups, but rather that is the SPLC's position. Most reliable sources that refer to individual groups that are on the SPLC list don't say "such and such is a hate group", but rather "the SPLC has identified such and such as a hate group". There are exceptions for those groups which are universally accepted as a hate group, such as the KKK. What is important about this article and this bit of lead is that the reader should understand that SPLC exercises editorial judgment, which I think it currently does. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, the lead states that the SPLC's hate group designations have been subject to criticism and the body of the article further brings out that point. Wikipedia telling the reader that the SPLC considers certain groups to be "hate groups" is plainly different from Wikipedia using its own voice to say that certain groups are "hate groups." Badmintonhist (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. My complaint was I thought the SPLC classified the so called Patriot Movement as hate groups. I see this as exceptional because it includes groups whose aims are exclusively political. Although the SPLC characterizes them as driven by hatred of government. Even if that were true (which its not--they are always pro constitution in at least a minarchist sense) it is difficult to see how the SPLC definition would still have useful meaning if it extended to groups who are defined by their opposition to policy and politics; that is not beyond ones control.Mrdthree (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Exclusively political" aims do not exempt a 'Patriot' group from being classified a hate group by the SPLC. What triggers it is the use of demonizing hate speech, the fostering of hate. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Although you are mistaken, it seems like its rare, given all those awards. Who are the people with award granting power? Mrdthree (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's your best argument then it looks like the matter is settled. Binksternet (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Does SPLC monitor radical right hate groups and extremists or hate groups and radical right extremists?

It seems to me its coverage of hate groups is pretty fair-- black separatists and white racists. While its coverage of extremists is biased (Michigan Militia, Tea Party junk, but no Black Flag, Occupy or Anarchist groups). So is it more accurate to say that the SPLC monitors hate groups and radical right extremists? (text currently says radical right hate groups and extremists). Mrdthree (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition to "hate groups", they monitor "patriot groups". They do not btw monitor Tea Party groups, except for those they consider to be hate or patriot groups. While left-wing extremists have also been violent, the SPLC's focus is on discrimination against minorities, which is unusual for these groups. TFD (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the focus of the SPLC is shifting to political issues from discrimination issues. They are interested in patriot groups whether they might be motivated by racism or not, because in general they track the "radical right". But the article represents this as fairly as might be expected for that kind of controversial stuff. Although most patriot groups like the US constitution so calling them 'anti-government' is a bit of a misnomer. Mrdthree (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a common term. While they say they support the constitution, they read it much differently from how legal experts do and how it is understood by the Supreme Court. Hence they may see the government as illegitimate. Even though patriot groups do not engage in hate, they attract a lot of people who do. TFD (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to quote the SPLC's website on "who we are" and "what we do" in the lead, letting the reader know, of course, that this is a self description. This would allow the reader to judge for himself/herself how well or poorly the SPLC adheres to its stated mission. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead include mention of the Hate group listings controversy?

This discussion centered around two key arguments based in policy. On the side of include, the main point made was that the lead should include the verbiage as a summary of article content. Those arguing to omit mainly assert that the criticism was based largely upon a single incident, and that to include it in the lead as a blanket statement is undue weight. Both positions have merit under policy, the question here is which controls. On that question, this discussion did not reach a consensus. The technical result of that lack of consensus is that the status quo ante, with the text being excluded as prior to the debate, is restored. There were suggestions in the discussion that either additional reliable sourcing indicating more widespread criticism other than from classified groups, or a more nuanced or attributed statement in the lead, could address the concerns expressed by some of the editors who object to this addition. Those are beyond the scope of this discussion, but may give a way forward following it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The body of the article has a section about the SPLC's Hate group listings that describes some controversy with how the SPLC designates some groups as hate groups. The body text is well sourced and the the majority of authors of the referenced sources are independent of either the SPLC or the groups being labeled.

Should the last paragraph of the lead be modified as follows (emphasis added for proposed text)

The SPLC does not accept government funds, nor does it charge its clients legal fees or share in their court-awarded judgments. Its programs are supported by successful fundraising efforts, which have helped it to build substantial monetary reserves. Its fundraising appeals and accumulation of reserves have been the subject of some criticism, as have its hate group listings.

Omit See WP:WEASEL: If you are going to say that they have been criticized then you need to be clear by whom. By groups they call hate groups and people who do not think that there is anything wrong with expressing racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views in public. TFD (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Include. TfD's statement is incomplete; those groups do criticize SPLC's selection of hate groups, as do some journalists who do not fall into those categories. The sentence, as extended, is supported in the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Include per WP:LEAD. Despite the somewhat WP:NOTAFORUM !vote above claims, the range of criticism mentioned in the body comes from journalists, researchers, educators and columnists who are not only the sort of reliable sources we prefer, but also are unaffiliated with the groups being labled by the SPLC. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Include at least this much in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Include Though I would prefer that it be placed in the paragraph that talks about the hate group classification and listing. No, Arthur, TFD's statement isn't incomplete, at least not by HIS lights. Pretty much everything that he has said on this talk page indicates that he thinks that ANYONE who criticizes, or who even supports including criticism of, the SPLC in this article is a bigot. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is possible to believe in untrammeled free speech without being racist. And I have objected to editors keen on adding charges of hate speech to articles about Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and CounterPunch (the magazine founded by two of the authors of criticism mentioned here.) TFD (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  - In THIS article, however, The Four Deuces has consistently maintained that the critics of the SPLC that we cite (for who else could he be talking about since it is ONLY THEIR contributions that we are assessing for inclusion in the article) are "hate groups and people who do not think that there is anything wrong with expressing racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic views in public." Badmintonhist (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    - The main criticism you offered is an advertisement posted by the Family Research Council, which has been listed as a hate group by the SPLC. I do not think that your Trotskyist sources are "hate groups", but they are not mainstream either. Is your intention to provide Trotskyist criticisms to every political article? BTW if you are a Trotskyist, I have nothing against your holding that viewpoint, only think that it is a minority view and rarely relevant to articles. TFD (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
      - Ummmmh . . . There are no "Trotskyist" sources here (whatever that term means in 2013). Surely you don't refer to Ken Silverstein at Harper's because he once edited at Counterpunch along with gadfly leftist Alexander Cockburn? "Guilt" by association, anyone? Charlotte Allen at the Weekly Standard?? Laird Wilcox?? The FRC advertisement is only the "main criticism" here because you've chosen to call it the "main criticism." Skepticism over the SPLC's long list of "hate groups," even for someone who is not a free speech absolutist, doesn't mean thinking that there is nothing "wrong with expressing racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic views." Badmintonhist (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
      - LOL "Trotskyist". Did you just latch onto a word and decide it would mean anything you want? 23:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)149.31.142.25 (talk)
Comment The sentence (if included) should read "...supported by fundraising efforts..." not "...supported by successful fundraising efforts..." to remove a superfluous redundancy of words. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Include as blatantly obvious fact. The suggestion that a group "listed as a hate group" is estopped from criticising that listing is nicely Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning. It is akin to saying that a group described as "Gnarphist" can not criticise a group so labelling them -- we include opinions properly cited as opinions, and do not say "but that group's opinions are not allowed because they were the ones criticised by the other group first." Collect (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Include - It is a bit weaselly, but the basic fact is that the SPLC's hate group list has garnered criticism from the mainstream right wing. That's explained in the subsection and per WP:LEAD can be summarized in the lead. I think the wording is probably fine as proposed by the RfC, but we might consider a rewording to something like "....reserves have been the subject of some criticism. Additionally, its hate group listings have been criticized by some on the political right as being incautious about designating entities as "hate groups"." NickCT (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Include It is a modest lead into the information later in the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Omit as undue criticism. When the clause was first added I was initially against inclusion because of its vague & misleading wording and, more importantly, it had not been brought up here in the talkpage, as any addition to this article's lead should be because of its controversial history. As discussion has progressed (in two previous threads above), I have noticed the body paragraph is weaker than I'd remembered and seemed to focus primarily on one group's reaction to being listed as a hate group and one reliable journalist's vague opinion. I don't think that's enough to warrant mention in the article's introduction, given the SPLC's long history and overall coverage in other reliable sources. Just because the one group (FRC) is politically well-connected doesn't mean the criticism automatically has more weight. I also think it's fair to note that several of the editors voting for inclusion of criticism here have a double standard when it comes to articles on subjects which they favor. El duderino ^(abides) 19:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Include It is an understatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlafly (talk • contribs) 14:54, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
Include as it summarizes that part of the article per WP:LEAD, the brief wording does not give it undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Omit the criticism seems to mostly be about listing the Family Research Council, while the other criticism in the article is lightly sourced and there is no indication of the prevalence of non-FRC criticism. I'm not sold on criticism of listing FRC being a key aspect of this article, and the rest of the criticism even less. If the decision is to include, the criticism should be attributed like NickCT suggests. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Include Pretty clearly mandated by WP:LEAD. Instaurare (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Omit. Sounds like WP:FRINGE to me. Bigots got offended that someone called them bigots, then rallied other bigots. Who cares? I think it's understood that hate groups (and their apologists) will protest at being labeled as such. However, if it does get included, then it should be significantly less weaselly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No, criticism of the SPLC's hate group listings coming from respected authors in respected opinion periodicals as different as Harper's and the Weekly Standard don't constitute WP:Fringe nor are such sources "apologists" for hate groups. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Omit. Pretty small potatoes compared to their long history. POV to give this more significance than it merits. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Omit per DailyCare. This is weaselly addition, and should at the very least be properly attributed so as not to give an undue impression. If it's only about the FRC, it should be omitted entirely from the lead, though included in the body. siafu (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Omit. Undue weight to a single incident involving the FRC, which has a major political ax to grind, itself being one of the hate groups listed. Well, it's no surpise and hardly noteworthy that they are ticked off. Overall, a minor point in the long history of the SPLC. Significant only in the minds of the FRC and it's fringe sypathizers. Other criticism of the SPLC has been much more mild, and is not noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the lede. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Omit. Those who advocate including this phrase need to take a deep breath, read carefully WP:Lead, and reconsider whether their advocacy best serves Wikipedia.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Of course, the very same advice could be given to those who advocate excluding "this phrase." Badmintonhist (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Include For reasons stated above by the others voting to include. Plus there's that guy who entered FRC based on the SPLC list planning to kill people then smear Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in their faces. It should be expanded in the lead, not trimmed out. But if the question is just that phrase, then Include. If I had a choice, it would be Expand to match the facts such as the FRC killer case. Lawfare (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- He actually carried out the crime because of their stance on gay rights and opposition to gay marriage. TFD (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  - Agreed. But he learned of FRC through the SPLC list. How do we know? He stated that's how he learned of FRC. You can see and hear him stating that. You can use those stories as reliable sources. He went there to kill because of SPLC and only because of SPLC having put FRC on the SPLC hate list. Had SPLC listed, say, PETA, in the manner in which FRC was listed, the guy might have gone to PETA to kill people then shove roadkill squirrels in their faces. Or if PETA produced a list of the top haters and listed SPLC, he might have gone to SPLC and killed Morris Dees and shoved something in his face, perhaps a large, stuffed, fuzzy dollar bill doll. It is remarkable to see people bending over backwards to make believe the facts are not the facts. TFD stating, "He actually carried out the crime because of their stance on gay rights and opposition to gay marriage" makes it appear FRC was rightful targeted due to their heinous support of marriage as we have known it since history has been known, rather than as a result of the SPLC listing it as a hate group for opposing gay marriage. What would really help the article is to get encyclopedic proof, if indeed it exists, that the SPLC intentionally targets groups precisely to cause them to become targets similar to the manner in which certain groups are now being targeted for substantially similar political reasons. That would make this article more balanced and otherwise compliant with the goals of an encyclopedia. Lawfare (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Include It actually seems a little light. I'd suggest that per WP:LEAD it might be expanded into a full sentence. It is a minimum dscription of material in the body of the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Include It is fair and true but I would change it to hate and extremist group.Mrdthree (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Include This is most definitely the case. SPLC has been known to have made some politically-motivated listings in the past, and many of their inclusions of "hate groups" (such as "voice for men" or "register-her", despite analogs on the feminist side for the same) are simply ludicrous. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Include There's no question it should be included. If every group SPLC calls a "hate group" (and most of them indeed are) gets that fact plastered in the lead of its Wikipedia page, then the fact that some of these designations are controversial should certainly be mentioned in SPLC's lead. DanSSwing (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Include Attempts to omit it are blatant examples of whitewashing a controversial organization. --Jonund (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Omit As the article stands, the section on controversy related to the hate list is too small to justify mention in the first paragraph. If there are good RSes out there that can be used and cited in that section to expand the section beyond the FRC, I'd be fine with adding this mention in the lede. I came here to close this but felt numeric consensus was wrong and so I'm !voting instead. Hobit (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Omit WP:UNDUE ... drawing excessive attention to the media surrounding the listing of anti-gay Family Research Council. Where is the balance in saying "as has its hate group listings" when there is little or no evidence that a significant portion of the hate groups listed has garnered criticism in the same manner as this one case? I sense bias. Teammm ^talk
_email 04:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken Silverstein and Laird Wilcox, cited in the body of the article, criticized the SPLC's hate group listings before the SPLC placed the Family Research Council on its list and, of course, before the shooting incident at the FRC headquarters. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, where is the widespread criticism and justification for such criticism...to support a change in my views? Laird Wilcox? Please. Hardly persuasive. Teammm ^talk
_email 02:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Even before the SPLC named the FRC a hate group, the SPLC's hate group listing had some fairly prominent critics; the well-known lefty journalist Alexander Cockburn writing in The Nation and CounterPunch and Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Jerry Kammer in addition to Silverstein writing in Harper's and the independent extremist group researcher Wilcox. The list picked up more public critics when the FRC was added to it and still more, of course, after the shooting incident at the FRC. Moreover, controversy involving the list now forms a significant part of our article as it stands. Why would we omit the mere mention of it in our lead? Badmintonhist (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

J.M.Berger

After thoroughly reviewing the list of annotations to a "J.M.Berger", I find that he's not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and he writes mostly for political websites if it's the same J.M.Berger each time. Is giving him as much space as he has been given not a violation of WP:UNDUE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomermike (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why I thought it may be creating questionable WP:BALANCE for the controversy over the Hate Group Listings to be mentioned in the lede, then at the start of the section on those lists and again in its own subsection. Surely bringing it up three times is excessive? Djapa Owen (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Family Research Council

Please see http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

I really think if we are going to talk about how controversial it is that it was labeled as a hate group we must examine why it was labeled as a hate group. The article talks about the controversy but doesn't discuss why the SPLC has labeled it as an anti-gay organization. If the quotes the site has are true. I can clearly see why they would get that impression. Maybe while we are analyzing in the article the event that happened we should put in the SPLC's side of the story and why they legitimately think its a hate group.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The kind of detail that you are looking for, I think, is already found in the article on the Family Research Council. It's listing as a hate group by the SPLC and the subsequent shooting where the perpetrator mentioned the listing were, its seems to me, bigger events in the history of the FRC than they were in the history of the SPLC so the relative detail is probably about right. Moreover, the "Controversy" subsection in this article is not merely about the FRC listing but about the listing in general. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fully disagreeing with you. I think though that if we are going to mention the controversy to maintain neutrality we should discuss why. The SPLC didn't just choose a random organization and say "hey you're anti-gay" they spent time, money and research and they used information mostly provided by the organizations labeled hate organizations to show why they are labeled as such. If we are going to talk about the FRC event we should talk about the SPLC's stance.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I would fully agree with this. Teammm ^talk
_email 01:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could take some info from the "Listing as a hate group by the SPLC" section of the Family Research Council article (concisely describing the SPLC's rationale) and place it in the first paragraph of the "Controversy" subsection in this article. Give it a try. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Alleged hate groups

Whatever we think about it, the SPLC is an authority on hate groups, so we can't just say "alleged hate groups" without a reliable source to back it up. This means you, Arzel. MilesMoney (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The SPLC is a self-proclaimed authority on hate groups. "Alleged" may be weasely, but some comment is required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It is similar to saying Webster's is a self-proclaimed authority on language, Moody's is a self-proclaimed authority on credit rating, CNN is a self-proclaimed authority on current events. All of them are authorities because the mainstream look to them as reliable sources. The SPLC is an authority on these groups. Whether or not you wish to call them hate groups is another matter. Certainly no one questions the factual information they present. TFD (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's not actually the case. We have a variety of people questioning the information SPLC presents. The refs are in the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Name one. MilesMoney (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, here are some of the refs from the article with those questioning the SPLC info."Annual report cites rise in hate groups, but some ask: What is hate? Christian Science Monitor. CNN"Heated Battle on Hate Group Listing"- The Hill Hate', Immigration, and the Southern Poverty Law Center" Harper's Magazine."Fearmongers"- Weekly Standard Capitalismojo (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The people sourced are not questioning the facts presented by the SPLC, merely their opinion that they are hate groups. For example no one questions that the FRC exists, that it opposes same sex marriage, or any other statement of fact SPLC has made about it. They question whether it should be called hate. TFD (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Some consider that SPLC (as an authority on hate groups) is presenting groups as "hate groups" as a fact, when it is clearly their considered opinion. Therefore SPLC is "alleging" groups are hate groups. FWIW. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

AFA. If the SPLC were not so one-sided in their approach they probably would not be so disregarded. The openly acknowledge that they only consider right-wing groups to be possible of hate. Arzel (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, your opinion about their approach is irrelevant. The SPLC is deferred to by the media, the government, courts, and educational institutions as experts on hate groups on a daily basis. There is no need for Wikipedia to equivocate on such a trivial point, especially when the same group of editors has been trying this for the better part of a decade... Time to move along, maybe? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there really any such sources that accept SPLC as an authority in the same way as people accept Webster's, Moody's, and CNN? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the typical reference is something like "SPLC considers X a hate group". In other words, SPLC is recognized as an organization with opinions about hate groups, but that's all. Roger (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream media always mention the SPLC, which is why hate groups and their supporters complain about them. TFD (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but there is no need for WP to take sides in a difference of opinion. SPLC opinion is just SPLC opinion. Roger (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

SPLC's decision to call groups hate groups is of course its opinion, but one that receives attention in mainstream media and academic writing. Their reporting of these groups - what they believe, what they do, who their members are, where they are located - is not a matter of opinion, but are statements that can be verified (or disproved). So while it would be wrong for us to call these groups hate groups, it is not incorrect to say that the SPLC is an authority on them. TFD (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Good to see that my old pal Blaxthos has weighed in here. I would simplify the wording to something like "its monitoring of extreme political groups (or 'extremist groups')," rather than naming each category here. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, the SPLC is cited by numerous scholars who accept SPLC's research as fact. Take a peek at Google Scholar which reports 36 papers citing The Year in Hate, 52 papers citing Close to slavery: Guestworker programs in the United States, 29 papers citing False patriots: The threat of antigovernment extremists, and so on. The "self-proclaimed authority" is also lauded and laureled by scholars—in other words, a true authority. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And your point regarding the main issue here is what, Binksternet?? I happen to think the opening statement in the lead is too "busy," but if we are going to keep its current structure then "what it classifies as hate groups" is fine. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to Arthur Rubin rather than making a statement about the main issue. The original question posed by MilesMoney is one of whether "alleged" is appropriate. I assume we are all talking about this edit by some new account, the edit changing "alleged hate groups" to "groups it considers hate groups". I agree with MilesMoney that the "alleged" bit is not optimal. The "groups it considers hate groups" solution is somewhat better but the word "groups" should not be repeated. I think the best solution will dump "alleged" but will not have repetition. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could eliminate one of the "groups" by saying that the SPLC represents the "victims of hate "crimes" rather than "hate groups" assuming that it doesn't only represent hate crime victims when the perpetrators are members of one of its hate groups. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Alleged" is a bit weaselly. The SPLC, which I deem to be a liberal front group, is allowed the same rights to deem or classify me in a negative light. I cannot prove my assertions and neither can they. But alleged is contentious when not being used in some legal, "I can't be sued" sense. Let the reader decide. †TE†Talk 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We gotta say "hate group" because that's exactly what SPLC calls them and it's what they're known for. MilesMoney (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about the lead, right? Instead of "... its monitoring what it classifies as hate groups" (which is clearly a weasel phrase, and awkward anyway), why not just describe it functionally as "... its classification of hate groups, as well as militias..."??? This is accurate, concise, and effectively eliminates the problem of POV - the SPLC's primary activity is classifying hate groups (the "monitoring" or intelligence gathering activity is secondary to the activity of classification and validating those classifications), it's a fact, and phrasing it this way says nothing about whether or not anyone supports or denies the validity of their clasification. (formerly DigitalHoodoo, retired editor) 2001:C08:1:164:21D:D9FF:FE35:E752 (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The above suggested change is fine by me. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

SPLC Supporters Doing What They Do Best

As it is clear that SPLC supporters will constantly impose their POV by removing the following section from the article, I am posting it here. If the same supporters further vandalize it here, in an additional violation of [WP] rules, I will restore it. I realize that that if you make it your mission, you can send this down the memory hole, but note that this page is closely watched, and such additional vandalism and censorship will result in Wikipedia and yourselves becoming even bigger laughingstocks than you already are.

Race Hoax Allegations

On August 24, 2013, the SPLC allegedly staged a race hoax. An individual named Keegan Hawkes attended a demonstration by the Southern Nationalist group the League of the South, in Uvalda, Georgia. Hawkes reported at the SPLC website that he had heard “racial slurs” in the crowd.

"But barely whispered racial slurs were heard frequently by this reporter, and concealed firearms weren’t concealed very well."Georgia Police Chief Accepts Award from Extremists During Rally Against Latino Immigrants

Other people who said they had attended the demonstration adamantly contended that the only person uttering racial slurs was Hawkes.

The SPLC reportedly responded to the allegations by removing Hawkes’ name from the report, and replacing it with “Hatewatch Staff.”SPLC Escalates—Uses Agent Provocateur Against Southern Nationalists 24.90.190.96 (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Another complaint from a group that the SPLC calls a hate group - you need reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct his sources are weak. Blogs and a questionable dot com are not reliable. If he can come up with reliable sources I would support inclusion but not at the beginning of the article. That would show POV and push. If it does have legs there are going to be those who do not want it included for the same reason. I do however doubt it has legs. 172.56.11.174 (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you examine the contributions from 24.90.190.96 you'll see a lot of promotion of VDARE and edits that suggest he is closely involved with VDARE. The article itself needs work. Although it doesn't leave out criticism, it seems to be written from VDARE's pov. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there some sort of rule against editing pages that you've got a secret stake in? MilesMoney (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI but it doesn't exactly prohibit and I'm only speculating anwya. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the policy link. Guess the most we can do is ask 'em to declare any conflicts. MilesMoney (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I misspelled the name. It is Keegan Hankes, not Hawkes.24.90.190.96 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And you seem to have made up the other people in the crowd, or found that on some forum. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyediting lead

I've made a change to improve the lead, since the first paragraph mentioned the classification of hate groups twice (my emphasis in bold):

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization noted for its legal victories against white supremacist groups; its legal representation for victims of hate groups; its classification of hate groups, as well as militias and extremist organizations; and its educational programs that promote tolerance. The SPLC also classifies and lists hate groups, organizations that in its opinion denigrate or assault entire groups of people, typically for attributes that are beyond their control.

I think the "also" phrasing at the beginning of the second sentence was redundant/awkward, though of course the rest of that sentence provides important details about the classifications. My simple fix has removed "hate groups, as well as" from the first sentence. If anyone wants to revert and discuss why, please do so. Thanks. El duderino ^(abides) 10:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems a very good edit to me. Alfietucker (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good edit. I think there is a colon (or semicolon?) needed in the last sentence of the first paragraph, after the words "hate groups". - Mr X 13:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The label "anti-government" should be in quotation marks...

The label "anti-government" should be in quotation marks and it should be made clear who is applying that label, the Intelligence Report. The current version of the article has a biased point of view because it implies that the groups are against U.S. Constitutional government. However, some, if not all, are explicitly for the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion. We are reporting what the SPLC says, not what others thinks. Also see WP:NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-government without quotes seems fine. I think that when groups say the hate the government, or they intend to overthrow it, or that it is a puppet of the New World Order, it is reasonable to say they are anti-government. TFD (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so too, but on what basis do you know that all or even most of the 1,360 groups listed "say that they hate the government, or they intend to overthrow it, or that it is a puppet of the New World Order?" No, I think Perustelu has a point here. What would be the harm in something like The Intelligence Project identified as "anti-government" 1360 active "patriot" groups in 2012? Badmintonhist (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that they are anti-government groups - the SPLC. WP:RS does not require us to double source reliable sources. Of course, even the most reliable sources may contain errors, and if you find examples that are not anti-government, we can consider them on a case-by-case basis. TFD (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"We have a reliable source that they are anti-government groups - the SPLC." And this is why Wikipedia is itself not considered a reliable source, instead requiring one to cite what Wikipedia cited... so you can easily see whether the thing they thought was reliable really was. Since SPLC, for one, isn't. -- Glynth (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but since the whole article is about the SPLC, it takes on much of the nature of a primary source rather than a secondary source here. Thus when the source of a particular phrase is the SPLC itself it's good to let the reader clearly know this. Wording the sentence as I propose tells the reader that "anti-government" is the designation that the subject of our article, not Wikipedia editors, is giving these groups. BTW this article has a history, going back a few years ago of being virtually copied without sufficient attribution from SPLC literature; in other words plagiarized. Casual reliance on what the SPLC says about SPLC activities should be avoided. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether a source is primary or secondary is irrelevant to whether or not it is reliable. And if a news source reports. Besides the SPLC is a reliable secondary sources that lists anti-government groups, in the same way that CNN is a reliable secondary source that reports the news. News sources, police, social scientists and the government rely on their reporting of these groups. Notice that in the recent decision to exclude Pamela Geller from the UK, extensive use was made of SPLC sources. TFD (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The SPLC seems to be stepping outside of its area of expertise. It might be a reliable source about some matters, but not about applying the label "anti-government." The SPLC seems to have confused the adjective anti-government with limited-government in some, if not all, cases. (Consider that a similar confusion would deem weight-loss organizations as anti-person instead of healthy-person.) For an example of a mislabeling, the SPLC mislabeled as "anti-government" a Taxed Enough Already group in Mississippi, "[w]here Mississippians can uphold the United States Constitution and fight for American freedom."^[1] Upholding the Constitution is upholding the government by definition. The Constitution provides for a limited government objectively. For example, it prevents the Congress from establishing a religion. No doubt, upholding the Constitution and fighting for American freedom is what the SPLC itself argued it was doing when it opposed a Ten Commandments monument.^[2] Thus, technically, the SPLC should label itself as "anti-government" to be consistent. We know that the SPLC is not anti-government. It is limited-government. Let's improve this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs) 09:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::No, we discourage the use of Scare quotes - see WP:BADEMPHASIS. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

An organisation can claim to uphold the Constitution and be anti-government. How is that a contradiction? See Militia movement - terrorist groups can claim to uphold the constitution. The Sovereign citizen movement claims to uphold the constitution. See the SPLC's comments on the Montana Freemen (who claim to uphold the constitution).[23]. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller on your earlier point. These would not be scare quotes, they would be quotes indicating the exact words used by the source. As for TFD's point we would still be using the SPLC as our source for this information, just using it in a way that more clearly connects that source to that information. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No need for "scare quotes". The article simply describes what SPLC is and does. If we are going to put "anti-government" in quotes, why not go further and put "racist" in quotes for the KKK or "Nazi" in quotes for Neo-Nazi groups? No. Dave Dial (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Except, again, they are not "scare quotes." You are choosing to interpret them that way. Nazi groups self-identify as Nazi. The KKK or, more precisely, the many KKK's have a long history of explicit racism. That's not the same as picking out 1360 various and sundry "patriot" groups in the calendar year 2012 and labeling them all as anti-government. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Name of them that is not anti-government. TFD (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, don't see your point. Mine is not to explicitly challenge the SPLC's designation but simply to clearly alert the reader that it is their designation not anyone else's.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC) PS: But just to humor you on "name of them that is not anti-government" does this particular group that I picked out at random seem to saying that it wants to overthrow the government or that the government is a tool of the New World Order? [24]

You seem to be confusing facts and opinions. That they are anti-government is a fact. TFD (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Come again? Wanting different folks to hold office than those that now hold those offices is not "anti-government" in any of the senses that you previously mentioned. If someone forms the "Moderate party" in Connecticut (one already exists in Rhode Island but, BTW, I don't see it on the SPLC's list) and fields a full slate of candidates for office, he presumably wants ALL the current officeholders replaced but this does not make his party "anti-government" in the sense that you previously mentioned.Badmintonhist (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right that a party that wants to replace current government officials is not "anti-government", which is why the Moderate Party of Rhode Island is not listed by the SPLC. Neither for that matter is the Republican Party, although it is not currently in control of the White House. TFD (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So what makes this GOOOH group which tries to field a slate of candidates for office "anti-government" while the Moderate party is not "anti-government" would be . . . would be . . . Badmintonhist (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a different argument. You are now saying that "anti-government" can mean more than one thing, although I have never seen that description used for anything other than what the SPLC's usage. Even in parliamentary countries, where the political administration is often referred to as "the government", and opposition parties try to "defeat the government", opponents of the administration are not referred to as "anti-government." The term "American" may also mean different things, for example it could be used to refer to the continent(s), but I doubt you are going to put the term in scare quotes in all the articles about the United States. Some of the groups you defend are listed as hate groups by the SPLC, you don't like it, you don't like the SPLC, I get it, but let's approach the article in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Duh??!! NO. I am NOT saying that the Moderate Party of Rhode Island and Republican Party of the United States are "anti-government" . I am saying that you have not shown us in what way GOOOH is anti-government. Saying that they want to throw the present bums out of office, which all out of government parties do, obviously isn't enough. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, by padding its list of "anti-government 'patriot'" groups with likes of harmless, quasi-eccentrics such as the folks of GOOOH (pronounced "go," apparently) in Middletown, RI about 20 minutes from where I live but which I had never heard of until today, the SPLC manages to come up with the figure 1360 "anti-government" groups across the nation. Indeed! Badmintonhist (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize GOOOH was a group. Since the SPLC provides no information, I do not know why they list them. I looked at some of their websites and other right-wing websites that link to them and there appears to be an overlap between them and other patriot groups. Otherwise I could find no reliable sources about them. But we are not here to reinvent the wheel and conduct our own original research but to rely on reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we are not here to "conduct our own original research" but YOU basically asked me to do that when you said "Name of them that are not anti-government." I picked out one randomly and you are hard pressed to tell me why it would be considered "anti-government" except in the mundane sense of not liking the present office-holders, which every out-of-power political group uses as its mantra. Getting back to the original dispute, I would say that it is far better, to let the reader know that the SPLC's list of anti-government groups is, indeed, a list of groups that in its opinion fall into the category of being "anti-government." Badmintonhist (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing two things. One is that "anti-government" could mean opposition to the administration. But that is not the meaning here, and notice that the FBI also uses the term to refer to extreme positions.[25] The other is that you question whether the SPLC was correct in grouping GOOOH in this second category. Neither has anything to do with opinions, but whether the SPLC accurately described GOOOH. If I were to say the Republican Party was anti-government in the first sense, I would be correct and if I said it was anti-government in the second sense I would be wrong. TFD (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I am confusing nothing but you certainly are. I've already made it abundantly clear that mere electoral opposition to existing office-holders isn't what I base meaningful "anti-government" status on. Nor, would I think, does the SPLC; or at least they would probably not claim to. This invites the question, however, of why they choose to place an organization such as GOOOH on their "anti-government" extremist list. More to the original point of our discussion, if I can get through the rhetorical smokescreen here, it invites us to consider whether Wikipedia should create some distance between what Wikipedia certifies as "anti-government" and what the SPLC certifies as "anti-government." Badmintonhist (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not know why they list the group. Also, I do not know why Europe and Asia are considered two separate continents. That does not mean that I want to warn readers that geographers may not know what they are talking about. That is why we use reliable sources, so we do not have to reinvent the wheel and conduct our own original research. TFD (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

GOOOH describe themselves as a 'Patriot group', and are most assuredly anti-government. I don't know why SPLC lists them, and I've not researched the reason/s. This article doesn't seem to mention them by name, so I think the 'smokescreen' is self-made. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD Please!! This is embarrassing if not nauseating! Such spaniel-like devotion to a money-making machine. I'm going to have to bow-out at least temporarily here. But before I do I'll just note that placing ANTI-GOVERNMENT in quotation marks, not as scare quotes but simply to indicate the SPLC's precise designation of these groups, does not mean that the SPLC is not being used as a source. It means that it is being used as a source with due editorial caution and due weight. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN and most other major news media are "money-making machines." If you think Wikipedia should be anti-capitalist, then work to change the policy. TFD (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ummh . . . none of those others operate as non-profit charities. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My God! What hath TEAMMM just done??!! I actually agree with his hot-off-the-press edit but doesn't he know the drill. We put scare quotes around PATRIOT to indicate that these groups are only patriots in their own minds. But we DON'T put quotation marks around ANTI-GOVERNMENT because that might indicate that we don't fully accept as gospel the SPLC's designation of these groups as anti-government. Well, he seems to be something of a newbie. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how any reader would have known that was meant to be a quotation as opposed to scare quotes. So, I've changed it to an actual quotation. Badmintonhist, these accusations that it is a money-making machine are boring at best. It's a charity and if you think that its enemies wouldn't be able to take away that status is it wasn't following the rules then you are naive. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What we have now in the "Anti-government patriot groups" subsection is fine by me. The rest of the stuff here is basically a forum and I apologize for kicking it off. A reflexive response, I guess. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the only problem is that "anti-government" can be confused for anarchist. Few or none of these groups are for anarchy. Mrdthree (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

SPLC as a Hate Group?

Just wondering how widespread the notion that the SPLC is itself a hate group? They certainly seem to have a tendency to deem groups that conflict with their own ideological viewpoint as hate groups. In some cases this is definitely not universally accepted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.25.165 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The viewpoint that "the SPLC is a hate group" can really only be considered widespread among groups like Stormfront, WAR, Christian Identity, etc. - that is, openly racialist groups that the SPLC targets for lawsuits. As an anglo parent in a mixed-race family, I actively seek out information from activist groups that I consider a threat to my children, and I do encounter this characterization of the SPLC in racist hate literature. --Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Look for reliable, third-party sources supporting your opinion. That will answer your question. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Our article doesn't say or imply that the SPLC's listing of hate groups is "universally accepted." Criticisms of it are found in the "Controversy" subsection and (at least indirectly) the "Academic assessment" subsection of the article. As for the SPLC itself being considered a hate group, you would have to find that opinion expressed in a couple of reliable sources before expecting it to find a place in our article. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

Why is the sub-section Controversy under "tracking of hate groups and extremists". It should have its own section and the section needs referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatach (talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Criticism - Integrated throughout the article. That Controversy sub-section is specific to SPLC's hate group listings. Other criticisms and controversies are included in other sections, as appropriate. El duderino ^(abides) 08:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

^ http://msteaparty.ning.com
^ http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments

[1] ttp://msteaparty.ning.com

[2] ttp://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments

[1]

[2]