This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alabama B‑class This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Human rights B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The following needs removed:

according to Mark Krikorian, the SPLC lobbied against the Pulitzer

This should be removed because the material fails WP:RS on several accounts.

• 1) Mark Krikorian is not a journalist or an academic.
• 2) Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration group that is criticized by the SPLC.
• 3) Nowhere does Krikorian state how be came to this conclusion or his source about SPLC lobbying. In fact, the entire relevant part Krikorian wrote is in bold:

Exposés on the group have run in the Montgomery Advertiser (which probably would have won a Pulitzer but for the SPLC’s lobbying efforts against it), Harper’s, and The Nation

How does Krikorian know what the Pulitzer group was going to pick? Telepathy? Maybe its linked to the "leftist" conspiracy theory he describes in the article, again, without any evidence to support it?

• 4) The article, published by National Review, is about "The multiculturalist war on free speech takes different forms in different places." That is an editorial and fails WP:RS
• 5) The article is a hit piece in which he calls the SPLC "amateurish hackwork" and even criticizes the SPLC because it "didn’t even mention my book." This is not an academic, journalistic or any other type of WP:RS.
• 6) The claim appears no where else, but this source. That it is not attributed and comes from a target of the SPLC, that is a serious warning sign.

No attributed claim in editorial from an anti-immigration group should be used as a source. The claim is not backed by any other source. Thus, the claim isn't supported by WP:RS, doesn't warrant inclusion and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently does not state as a fact that the SPLC lobbied against the Pulitzer; it attributes that claim to Krikorian. His claim is found at the reliable source National Review. If you prefer, we can state this as a fact, attributed to a news story in the New York Times on April 13, 1998: "Perhaps the most vigorous challenge was filed three years ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center against a critical series by The Montgomery Advertiser in Alabama. The campaign included a letter to the board by George McGovern, the former Democratic presidential nominee. Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board." Drrll (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disjoint between what the NY Times and what Krikorian wrote. The NY Times article, which you left off the title, is "Press Critics Strike Early At Pulitzers" and is about groups, including the NY Times who "filed an unusual number of complaints to the Pulitzer Prize board, challenging the facts and context of articles and trying to knock them out of the running for the awards."

The sentence you quoted was about targeting that series before it became a finalist ("Despite these efforts..."). On the other hand, Krikorian asserts "which probably would have won a Pulitzer but for the SPLC’s lobbying efforts against it" (he supplies no evidence and there is no RS that states that).

Notice the difference? Krikorian, without evidence or attribution, implies that the article didn't win because of the "lobbying" efforts. The NY Times points out it became a finalist "despite" the efforts. My questions above, including "How does Krikorian know what the Pulitzer group was going to pick?," have not been answered.

Also are you arguing an editorial in the NR is a WP:RS? An editorial by an opponent of a group has no place is using his conspiracy (that "they would have won" except...) in the article.

Yes, feel free to point out that the SPLC, like other groups, disputed facts of a piece that was then nominated for Pulitzer, according to the NY Times. Let's not use Krikorian's misreporting and conspiracy ("they would have won") from an editorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what Krikorian (someone tarred by the SPLC who dares criticize it in a respectable source) says about the Montgomery Advertiser not winning the Pulitzer is speculative, even though it is plausible speculation, given the lengths the SPLC went to in lobbying against what could have been a PR and fundraising nightmare. But that speculation is not included in this article (though it could be--attributed to him as his opinion). What is included is backed up by the NYT source. Despite you saying "The claim appears no where else, but this source...The claim is not backed by any other source" above, you were awfully familiar with the NYT source--accessible only through paid databases--to point out its title and several details about the article.

Yes, the NYT articles states that other groups have lobbied Pulitzer like the SPLC did. But it singles out the SPLC as "perhaps the most vigorous challenge."

I see from your first post in this section that you think that the SPLC should be an arbiter of what is and what isn't a reliable source: "Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration group that is criticized by the SPLC." I know that the SPLC is accustomed to glowing coverage by the national media, but even that media has not granted the SPLC such a lofty position. Drrll (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you don't dispute that that it is (1) a singular (2) speculative criticism from (3) a person who has a personal motivation to criticize that (4) appears in only one source, then why the hell are you even bringing it up? It fails almost every major content guideline, most especially WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT, and is not suitable for inclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry00sher6 is one who originally brought up the speculation and kept repeating it, even though the speculation is not in the WP article. That the SPLC has criticized Krikorian and his organization does not disqualify him from discussing the SPLC in a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drrll, you haven't addressed any of my points. Krikorian is not a journalist nor an academic. He published an editorial to argue against the SPLC's "agenda". WP:RS is clear. Krikorian's editorial is not a WP:RS.

You write "even that media has not granted" the SPLC complete praise. Yes, which is why we should use journalism and academic sources. Not Krikorian's work, who has an obvious, agenda that drives what you call is his "speculation." (Driven in part by long-running criticism by SPLC for ideological differences.) Even if you want to ignore WP:RS, Blaxthos points out it fails WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. Do you have RSes to argue against that? If not I will be removing that sentence for the several reasons I gave and the four more reasons Blaxthos gave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I dug up the times article after you offered a quote. I did this to verify its accuracy and after reading it I see why you failed to mention the title of the article or details in the article. But you prove my point nonetheless. According to LexisNexis, there is ONE and ONLY ONE article that makes the claim the SPLC "lobbied" against the series' NOMINATION. (The wikipedia article is misleading now because it neglects to mention they lobby against it like other groups do before it get nominated). A search for Southern Poverty Law Center + Pulitzer (or plural) has 12 hits with only one, as cited above, mentioning anything related to this. Can you find any other sources besides ONE NY Times article? (Articles from blogs or partisan hacks have no place here.) Congrats on finding the one RS that mentions this, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that opinion pieces like Krikorian's should not be used in Wikipedia articles to state a fact as a fact. Wikipedia does allow opinion pieces to be used for stating an author's opinion. On the issue of who is and who isn't a journalist, what criteria do we use? A degree in journalism? Nina Totenberg and many other journalists would fail on that account. Lack of participation in advocacy? Again, I would suggest that Totenberg fails on that point, and certainly George Stephanopolous does. Krikorian used to be an editor at a newspaper, has had published hundreds of pieces in National Review, as well as pieces in less ideological sources.

When I discussed what the media has not done in regard to the SPLC, I meant granting them status as an arbiter of what is an acceptable source--as you suggested they should be. What I referring to as Krikorian's speculation was what you brought up, but is not included in the WP article: "which probably would have won a Pulitzer but for the SPLC’s lobbying efforts against it." Obviously, that the SPLC lobbied Pulitzer is not speculation.

I didn't mean anything by not including the title of the NYT's article or its details. I would have linked to the article if it were available for free online. I have not done extensive searching for other sources that mention the lobbying, but certainly the NYT citation is adequate. Drrll (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A journalist is someone employed by a news agency for journalistic purposes. That means there is oversight and fact-checking, and why we call it journalism (See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs: "as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"). Krikorian's is not a journalist (As is clear from the "speculation" or telepathy of who should have won the award.). He did not write the piece as a journalist. He is the head of a group that hopes to influence policy.

You are using Krikorian editorial to state a fact attributing it to him. That violates policy Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations per the section on opinion pieces:

When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others

As explained above: 1) you are alleging fact from an editorial. News story's establish fact, not opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are cited for opinion. 2) The writer is not an expert of non-profits, law or journalism. Krikorian fails. 3) I asked you for other sources proving WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. You have one source in the last 15 years that mentions this off-handily. Therefore, its not a "significant viewpoint."

Those are three specific reasons rebutting your claims by proving it fails WP:RS. If this is such a big issue you'd think several news organizations would have mentioned it. Rather, you are sourcing an editorial by the head of Center for Immigration Studies--who obviously has an agenda in slamming the SPLC and critized them for not mentioning his book! Give WP:RS about this event to prove it notable or it will be removed soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Henry, the source is biased and therefore should not be used for a potentially libelous claim. We need to see more reliable confirmation of this before it's included. I've removed the parenthetical line (which as of 2min ago did not include the attribution to Kirk.). -PrBeacon (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was sourced to a NYT news article and is not a "potentially libelous claim." Drrll (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point that "a journalist is someone employed by a news agency for journalistic purposes," although I don't think that WP policy requires that. "As the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"--he is a professional and the blog may be subject to National Review Online's full editorial control (certainly his articles for the magazine are subject to National Review's full editorial control). "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts"--he qualifies as both on the issue of immigration. So he "obviously has an agenda in slamming the SPLC," but the SPLC doesn't have an agenda in slamming Krikorian? All this is moot now since I replaced the Krikorian reference with the NYT reference. Drrll (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, an editorial can be used to explain the editor's opinion if its "significant." The citation isn't offering an opinion but a fact. (Please stop trying to use an editorial to offer facts. WP:RS does not allow it.) Since its been removed this is a not an issue. The issue now is WP:WEIGHT. Are there WP:RS that demonstrate this is notable outside the one NY Times article from more than a decade ago? If not then its not notable for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are contradicting your earlier statement about using the NYT reference: "Yes, feel free to point out that the SPLC, like other groups, disputed facts of a piece that was then nominated for Pulitzer, according to the NY Times." There is not an issue of weight, given that within the scope of reliable sources that discuss the Montgomery Advertiser's being in the running for a Pulitzer for their series on the SPLC (that is the scope being discussed in the WP article), all of the sources discuss the SPLC's lobbying. Of course a series that ran a decade and a half ago in the Montgomery paper would have been reported "more than a decade ago." Drrll (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving undue weight is the "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Unless you can demonstrate that this one NY Times piece is not undue weight, it will be left off.

Your belief that about contradicting statements doesn't remedy WP:DUE. Supply WP:RS and avoid polemics. Henry00sher6 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would have a point if the pool of reliable sources discussing the Montgomery Advertiser's bid for the Pulitzer for their articles on the SPLC were larger. Also, it's tough to argue that on an American topic like the SPLC that the NYT is insufficiently prominent as a reliable source. I can also source the statement to another source that's already used twice in the WP article. Drrll (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either you can list sources to demonstrate "overall significance" or you can't. If its not notable in the overall coverage of the SPLC then its not notable for an article on the SPLC. Henry00sher6 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given two sources that demonstrate "overall significance" to the SPLC. You keep moving the goalpost as to providing a source besides the Krikorian source, providing a source outside the NYT source, and now needing additional sources. How many sources are you up to now that would demonstrate its significance? Drrll (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not moving the "goal post." I didn't think there was one source on it, but you found one source. Congrats, you win the prize for finding one obscure mention in one article from more than a decade ago. However, one source (or two) does not prove that out of the thousands of articles about the SPLC that specific claim has "overall significance" for an article about the subject. (Mark Krikorian is a lobbist with an agenda, not a journalist or an academic. An article where he pathetically complains that the SPLC didn't cite his book and alleges a conspiracy about an award fails RS.)

Wikipedia does not have a number. You should let the sourcing do the talking. Provide what you have and we can talk about it. If you have sources that demonstrate its relevance for an article about the SPLC then offer them up. Henry00sher6 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you first said the material should be removed because the Krikorian source was not a reliable source, but that the NYT source would be adequate. When I replaced the Krikorian source with the NYT source, you then said that the NYT source was insufficient and that additional sources were needed. I added another source already used in the WP article, Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard to the article, but you now believe that those two are insufficient (sorry if I was unclear about my second source in the discussion above--I wasn't suggesting the Krikorian source as the second source). You are ignoring the specific language that you quoted above, "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." One short sentence about the SPLC's lobbying within a lengthy article is hardly disproportionate. Discussing the SPLC's lobbying within the context of an article series about the SPLC is significant. Drrll (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother reading anything I posted? Just repeating yourself doesn't prove WP:DUE. Right now, you have not demonstrated that this one source overcomes WP:UNDUE. If you want another pat on the back for finding one source when I thought there was none here: good job, Drrll.

Do you have any sources that show the the event is signififance enough for inclusion? Do you have anything other than one small paragraph from one article ten years ago? If not, then you should consider that unnotable, or WP:UNDUE. (Also I'll ask you kindly not to insert it until you have consensus.)

It's really simple: If you want it included supply sources to demonstrate its notable per policy. This is completely reasonable. All the arm waving doesn't change this. Henry00sher6 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for something being significant enough for inclusion is discussion by reliable sources, not the arbitrary declarations of a WP editor. It was significant enough that a NYT news story about Pulitzer lobbying singled out the SPLC as "perhaps the most vigorous challenge" three years after the fact. It was significant enough in a discussion at the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard about media coverage of nonprofits to be mentioned as noteworthy for push-back by a nonprofit. If you want a pat on the back for getting the Krikorian reference removed, then you can have that pat on the back. Drrll (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the threshold and (I think) you know it. WP:RS is only one of several considerations, including WP:Due. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess this conversation is done and we're leaving it out since you need to take up the issue at WP:DUE. This is not the forum to argue against policy. You don't include something just because there is a source (see: WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE). Henry00sher6 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read what I wrote? I demonstrated how it was a significant part of the NYT news story and how it was a significant in the Nieman source (which you still have yet to acknowledge exists). I would love for you to lay out your current criteria for how this issue could ever be significant enough in sources to include. Would there have to be entire stories in the NYT and/or the Wall Street Journal dedicated to discussing the SPLC's lobbying against the Pulitzer for the Montgomery Advertiser? In case you haven't noticed, WP:UNDUE has nothing in it about sources having to being fully devoted or mostly devoted to a topic for being worthy of inclusion, and if you look around WP a little, you'd be hard-pressed to find many examples of such sources being used in articles. Drrll (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth my time to respond to your misrepresentation/straw man of my points. You've been given many chances to demonstrate this claim meeting WP:DUE with relevant sourcing. But you've failed. Henry00sher6 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you really don't want to have to lay out your scenario for inclusion. I haven't failed--you have just refused to listen to clearly significant coverage by two strong sources. It's obvious from your constantly evolving standards of what's needed that you would never accept this inconvenient fact about the SPLC being included in the article. Drrll (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for proper sourcing

So far all I've seen for what Drrll is calling "the NYT source" is a reference to Barringer, Felicity (1998-04-13). "Press Critics Strike Early At Pulitzers". The New York Times." into which the burden is put upon others to check. He has misrepresented sources in the past (notably at theMedia Matters article), so I'd like to request a quote from this source and some sort of further verification. Also, since Drrll is fighting for the "vigorously" qualifier, I'd like to see support for this, which the Nieman page does not provide. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You better have solid proof that I "misrepresented sources in the past" if you are going to so easily throw around such charges. I have already quoted the relevant excerpt form the Times article earlier above in the discussion. And since the other editor has access to Lexis-Nexis, he would have pointed out if I misrepresented it. Here's the excerpt again, "Perhaps the most vigorous challenge was filed three years ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center against a critical series by The Montgomery Advertiser in Alabama. The campaign included a letter to the board by George McGovern, the former Democratic presidential nominee. Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board." Drrll (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the most blatant examples are when you leave out relevant bits of quotes or source background which would provide an important context. Even worse, trying to use sources like the Gerth anti-Clinton book for facts about Clinton and MMfA, not just opinion. See MMfA archive 5 and 6. Btw, you never acknowledged that the NYT was forced to print a retraction because of Gerth's inaccuracies in reporting. You have also attempted several times to misrepresent RS/N discussions at article talkpages like Fox News about sources which you don't like, as with MMfA. Given this history, I think we need more than your version of any quote. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I verify that what posted on 17:34, 8 December 2010 is part of the article, but it should be pointed out that is the entire mention about the SPLC in the article. Furthermore, the entire article explains how common and why groups "lobby" against the nomination criticizing errors in the reporting. In addition, there are no claims that the SPLC "would have won" (or such unfounded allegations that Mark Krikorian made). The article pointed out the SPLC and other groups criticize the accuracy of the material. Thus, even this one mention did not dwell or focus on the SPLC, which again is telling why it is not significant to include. Henry00sher6 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "relevant bits of quotes" did I leave out? Yes, I admit to using as a source the book of a respected NYT journalist, whose crime seems to be that he wasn't a full-bore Clinton apologist. A perfectly reliable source. So the Times had to print a correction for something Gerth wrote? How newsworthy is it when news sources print corrections? No, I reported on a RS/N discussion that had the widest community participation--one with an RfC. Suit yourself. Find a library with Lexis-Nexis access and see the source for yourself. Drrll (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction is a big deal in journalism, it was not just a correction. I assumed you knew the difference since you like to talk about "respected" journalists and all the (now dubious) Pulitzers they win. Yet again you're qualifying and even misrepresenting your own posts, as you attempted to frame the RS/N in more than one place. And now repeating the same tired tactic of your idealoques by putting words in my mouth -- Gerth's opinion may be reliable, he doesn't have to be an apologist to pass that muster, but his journalistic ethics are suspect. I guess you only like the NYT when it suits your purposes. And as Henry confirms, you've ommitted the context of the article in this case and the due weight consideration inherent to its use here. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source that the NYT had to publish a retraction of Gerth's work? A Lexis-Nexis search of "Major world publications" using "Gerth" and "retraction" (or "retract") found no references to such a retraction. It's hard to believe that Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz, for example, wouldn't have reported about such a major media event by the NYT. Do you think that a discredited reporter would have gotten a major book deal to report about Hillary Clinton? While I quoted the part of the NYT story that said "Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board," sorry I didn't quote the article in it's entirety (is that even allowable under copyright law?). Drrll (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] You didn't find it because the NYT didn't call it a retraction, but that's what it was. For the semantic nuances, see Safire's column from a few years ago. Of course you're free to continue equivocating, but my initial objection stands. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for wider discussion

I realize that the main discussion going on in this talk page is about the lead, but I would ask that others weigh in here on re-adding a short sentence about the SPLC lobbying against a Pulitzer for articles critical of them. There is strong sourcing detailing this lobbying in a New York Times article and at Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard. The editor who brought this issue up is strongly opposed to having this in the article at all despite the strong sourcing and despite having agreed earlier that the NYT source was adequate. Drrll (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might help encourage discussion if you: 1) lay out all the sources you have and 2) demonstrate the event meets WP:DUE-- after all those are the objections raised to adding it. Is all you have still one article from a decade ago briefly mentioning this? Henry00sher6 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have demonstrated above that the 2 sources meet WP:DUE and the sources speak for themselves as to the significance of the SPLC's lobbying. Yes the sources are over a decade old precisely because the series on the SPLC by the Montgomery Advertiser was written in 1994 and nominated for the Pulitzer in 1995 (the sources on the lobbying actually occur 3 and 4 years later, respectively, which also speaks to the significance of the lobbying). Here are the sources:

• Press Critics Strike Early At Pulitzers, by Felicity Barringer, April 13, 1998, The New York Times:

"It is unclear what effect challenges have had in the four years since their consideration was allowed. Perhaps the most vigorous challenge was filed three years ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center against a critical series by The Montgomery Advertiser in Alabama. The campaign included a letter to the board by George McGovern, the former Democratic presidential nominee. Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board."

• Panel Discussion: Nonprofit Organizations, moderated by Bill Kovach, May 1999, Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard:

"The other point is, when this was nominated for a Pulitzer, Morris Dees, who is one of the great fundraisers for a lot of political figures in the country, mobilized some of the best-known and probably most liberal politicians in the country for whom he had raised money and they lobbied the Pulitzer Board against this series, the first lobbying that I know of of that kind, and without knowing anything about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s activities they were lobbying the Pulitzer Board not to recognize this work."

Drrll (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If what Drrll said is true, I'll have to agree with him. Further, it appears to me what he said is true. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Your sources (all two of them) contradict each other. The NY Times reports, the SPLC "challenged" The Advertisers series before it was nominated ("despite these efforts" it was "nominated"). The Nieman conference article says the lobby happened "when" it "was nominated." Which one is correct? Did this "lobbying" happen before or during the nomination?

2) WP:DUE reports: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." You have two sources from a decade ago, which contradict one another. The NY Times mentions the case in passing, in one small paragraph. The second source is a quote from a conference in 1999. Do you have any proof that these contradicting reports represent a relevant view significant to include in an article? If this hasn't been discussed beyond two contradicting sources (a minor mention in a paper and a statement made by a person on a panel at a 1999 conference) in a decade how does this meet WP:DUE? The fact that these decade old sources contradict each other raise more questions about inclusion.

3) According to WP:UNDUE, giving undue weight is the "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Adding mention of something sourced to one paragraph and one speaker at a conference from a decade ago, is the very essence of giving undue weight. Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't contradict each other. Both sources make it clear that the SPLC lobbied the Pulitzer board, whose job it is to determine the Pulitzer winners from the finalists rather than determine the finalists. The "despite these efforts" wording in the NYT article hints at additional lobbying by the SPLC (of Pulitzer jurors) before it was a finalist as well as after.

If you read further at WP:UNDUE, you'll see that "the views of tiny minorities" refers to fringe viewpoints like those of flat-earth adherents or Holocaust deniers, rather than facts reported in major reliable sources like the NYT the Nieman Foundation at Harvard. Reporting on the Advertiser's bid for the Pulitzer is (fully?) unanimous that the SPLC lobbied against it. You can't point to any required threshold of coverage within sources at WP:UNDUE for the inclusion of facts. There's no requirement that a fact reported by reliable sources be proven significant (that would make for an awfully sparse WP); the sources speak for themselves as to the significance of the fact ("Perhaps the most vigorous challenge" in the NYT source; "the first lobbying that I know of of that kind" in the Nieman source). Drrll (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic"--note that it talks about proportion not a binary not include / include scenario.

Regarding UNDUE, this SPLC article is gigantic and is (or was) filled with statements direct from the SPLC, sometimes plagiarized. We all agree to that now. I think the UNDUE argument that SPLC's effort to lobby Pulitzer is undue when viewed in the context of this giant article that is filled with material directly taken from the SPLC is laughable. Not the editors claiming UNDUE, they are doing what Wikipedia wants us to do. Just the fact that a little fact that is not complementary of the SPLC could be UNDUE in a giant article filled with SPLC advertising direct from splcenter.org is laughable. I'll bet if it were complementary and on splcenter.org, it would no longer be UNDUE. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources contradict ("lobbying" 1) before or 2) during the nomination)-- the fact that you deny that is intellectually dishonest. You only have two sources: a quote from a 1999 conference and minor mention newspaper ten years ago.

WP:UNDUE SAYS: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The two contradicting news reports from a decade ago are "disproportionate" to "overall significance" in the article. Let me repeat, that is directly addressing news reports about an event that may be "verifiable and neutral," but are "disproportionate". You want to add in a view of the SPLC that is not worthy of inclusion because Bill Kovach's claims/view (which you want to add) are "disproportionate" to the overall article.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, as several editors pointed out, you don't speak for everyone so don't phrase things like that. Your perceived problems of other aspects of the article doesn't mean we add unnotable things from a decade ago to appease you. Henry00sher6 (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play games. My "perceived problems" have turned out to be actual problems that we are all now working to resolve, and even my detractors then and now refer to the plagiarism and copyright violations in this article and are working to remove them. I have another "perceived problem". It's that the SPLC trying to quash a Pulitzer award for reporting against the SPLC's interest is not undue. I am certain it can be written in a way that is not undue. And the refs may contradict on certain things, but not on the SPLC effort to quash the Pulitzer. If that was the FRC, it would be called censorship. For the SPLC, it's called undue. You really need to stick to the issues and stop maligning me with "perceived problems" or that I should not "phrase things like that" or that I seek to be "appeased". I tell you I have no issues at all with the SPLC--I'm only looking at Wiki policy. I think the constant effort to make false claims about me is a bit of psychological projection. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your fringe and conspiracy sources speak for themselves. Your antics reveal your motivations. But let me ask you this on what you want included: Did the SPLC "lobby" against it being nominated or did they "lobby" while it was being considered as a finalist? And was the lobby successful? Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ech, could you please post the sources gain? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BeCritical, was that a questions for me? Henry, I am asking you politely to stop make false claims about me and to stick to the issues. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, ok please answer the questions. I want to know what you want the article to say about this. BeCritical Drrll posted them above plus the Mark Krikorian at the top[2]. Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the article to say anything. I was merely generally supporting Drrll because I believe his arguments have more merit, and because the sources he cited are compelling. I'm leaving it up to others to do the actual drafting. If you can provide other sources to counter Drrll's, I would consider them as well. Right now, Drrll has the sources and the logically superior argument, in my opinion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the issue and why you might be having difficulty knowing what should be added. You can answer yes to each question or no to each question depending on the source. You see the 1998 NY Times article says the lobby happened before it was nominated ("Despite these efforts, that series was one of three finalists sent to the board.")-- the SPLC was a brief mention in the article. The Kovach statement at a 1999 conference was the lobby happened while it was nominated ("when this was nominated for a Pulitzer, Morris Dees ... mobilized some of the best-known"). And Mark Krikorian, a critic of the SPLC whose article started this discussed, claimed it would have won if not for the lobbying (without any evidence) [3]. So what do you want the article to say? There is no consistent story.

Also I have to ask if this concerns the 1995 Pulitzer Prize, why are there only two RSes and they come from a 1998 article and a 1999 conference statement, while no RSes have mentioned it since or before? Is it not notable enough? Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not sure I can judge the notability from the quotations given, because without the total article, how much weight did the original sources give them? And although the NYT is a very good source, is this all the press that the lobbying got? Oh well, maybe I should read this whole thread. Ah, here is one. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Topping said that the board had changed its rules in 1994, permitting jurors to see such challenges because it reduces drastically the likelihood that after the process is over we make discoveries about an entry that might affect the board. " So basically the board was supposed to see such challenges? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article you linked is where Drrll's NY Times quote is from. As you can tell, a very minor mention of the 1995 event from a 1998 article. Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, that's Seymour Topping. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Seymour Topping says they encourage criticism and challenges of the stories. The article is by Felicity Barringer and about how and why groups are allowed "strike" at people who are considered for the award. It points out cases where people and groups criticize reporting. One small paragraph on the last page mentions the SPLC. Henry00sher6 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT is "all the news that's fit to print". If it's in the NYT, it's newsworthy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, that's a kind of an advertisement line, I forget the word for those right now. But the question we have to answer is whether it's notable for an article in Wikipedia about the SPLC. and if they weren't doing anything shady then I say it's not notable. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm coming into this thread late, and haven't read all of it. If this isn't a legit question, please just tell me. But if they are supposed to have the opportunity to protest, and there is only one small paragraph on SPLC there, I don't think this source justifies mention. Is the other one a lot better? Is there a link to it? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent to answer question> I didn't think so, but here is Drrll's other source: statements at a conference in 1999 (see bottom of page). Does that statement at a conference make this event worthy of inclusion? 04:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry00sher6 (talk • contribs)

The SPLC's lobbying against the Pulitzer was noteworthy enough in the NYT story to be singled out 3 years after the fact as "Perhaps the most vigorous challenge" (the other examples in the story were much more recent examples) and to be mentioned 4 years after the fact as "the first lobbying that I know of of that kind" in the Nieman source. We're just talking about a single short sentence or parenthetical mention of this fact in the SPLC article. Drrll (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BeCritical you've highlighted part of the additional context I mentioned earlier which Drrll is leaving out. That and the fact the SPLC's challenges were based on factual errors in reporting. A better question is: why even mention the Pulitzer here? The newspaper didn't win and it's a second-rate award ever since the Janet Cooke fiasco in the early 80's (her story was fake, she had to give the Prize back). You might also want to read about scandals in the past decade when old awards were re-investigated, though the Pulitzer folks stopped admitting anything was wrong -- as I've pointed out to Drrll & others before. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drrll, if it was included do we also add a parenthetical mention that groups are supposed to make challenges? Or should that be left off? Henry00sher6 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem including that as well. Put in there that challenges are encouraged, along with the fact that (according to both sources) the SPLC's challenge was particularly noteworthy compared to other challenges. Drrll (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, since you knew it was in that article, then why didn't you add it to begin with? That the committee encourages challenges is relevant to the SPLC making a challenge, right? Henry00sher6 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't know of the NYT source until later--only the Krikorian source at first. Drrll (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why mention it if it they didn't win. And why does the parenthetical endorsed by drrll not mention that SPLC was within its rights to do such lobbying? [4]? I have no opinion on the rest of PrBeacon's post as I don't know the history for myself. And why is it notable for this article anyway? And we are considering taking that mention of the USA Today article out anyway, as it is redundant to the Harpers and Advertiser articles. I fail to see the need/weight/notability for mentioning it at all, regardless of whatever sordid history there may be surrounding Pulitzer. Let's say Pulitzer was stainless, it still wouldn't merit mention. That's because A) the article didn't win and B) SPLC was not doing anything shady by lobbying against it even if they were wrong about the substance of their complaint (is there a source saying they were lying in their complaint?). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to the possiblity of removing mention of the series being a finalist. I'd like to hear some arguments for keeping it. Henry00sher6 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because "despite these efforts" of a major campaign against the Pulitzer by a politically powerful group, including by the Presidential nominee George McGovern, the series ended up as one of three finalists in its Pulitizer category. Drrll (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Henry00sher6's explanation for me above, I read the second source (thanks (:). My take on it is, yes it sounds like a notable event, with politicians mobilized against the Pulitzer, but if this is all the sources we have on it I doubt it merits mention. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by more sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked for more sources above to demonstrate its significance, I got the brush off and hence this section ("Request for wider discussion") was created by Drrll. Henry00sher6 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in spite of the fact that the NYT source at least is good, the coverage within that source, and the coverage within the conference, seems too little to make this article. We need more sources with deeper coverage to include it. Given such sources, it would probably merit more mention than we're giving it now, but without them it is a passing thing in which no one knows of any wrongdoing. And without wrongdoing on the part of the SPLC -or some other significance-, there isn't any reason to include it here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're in agreement. Henry00sher6 (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "some other significance" is demonstrated by both sources pointing out how unique the lobbying was by the SPLC, as well as the lobbying including such political heavyweights as the Presidential nominee George McGovern. Those things put the lobbying by the SPLC in a class by itself. Drrll (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it was so significant as you say, "in a class by itself," then either you've uncovered a left-wing conspiracy of silence, or else the rest of the press didn't consider it so important. Either way, we need more sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the typical pattern of positive/noncritical coverage of the SPLC by most news outlets (e.g. from the former editor of The Montgomery Advertiser: "For many years after I first got to The Montgomery Advertiser, probably three or four, we were essentially boosters for the center. We parroted their press releases"), of which you are no doubt aware, I think it says a lot that two major sources have pointed to the unique level of lobbying by the SPLC ("perhaps the most vigorous challenge"; "the first lobbying that I know of of that kind""). How often is it that a detail is left out of a lengthy WP article because there are "only" two major sources that point to its significance? Drrll (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here is not the "majorness" of the sources- that's fine. What I have a problem with is that they both relegate this to the last one or two paragraphs of long articles. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why even mention the Pulitzer here?

So then, the question has come up in this discussion, perhaps re-phrased a bit more clumsily but generally: Is it undue weight to mention that the Montgomery Advertisers criticism of SPLC fundraising was a finalist for the Pulitzer prize? Here is the content in question:

The SPLC has received significant criticism for excessive fundraising and having excessive disproportionate reserves. ... In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser ran a series alleging the SPLC was financially mismanaged and employed misleading fundraising practices.^[1][2] In response Joe Levin stated: "The Advertiser's lack of interest in the center's programs and its obsessive interest in the center's financial affairs and Mr. Dees' personal life makes it obvious to me that the Advertiser simply wants to smear the center and Mr. Dees."^[3] The series was a finalist for but did not win a 1995 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism.^[4]

Above, Drrll characterized the SPLC's challenge as a 'major campaign' -- what is your source for this claim? Because using the given sources seems like a violation of WP:synthesis. And mentioning the Prize also reeks of a tit-for-tat response to the SPLC's counterclaim. How much back and forth should there be? -PrBeacon (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I think that it was a finalist for the Pulitzer should be removed from the SPLC page. That's more of a fact for Montgomery Advertiser's article. We don't know why it wasn't selected nor is this an important point for the SPLC. Was it factual errors? Henry00sher6 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the Pulitzer non-win is optional in my opinion. Do any of the other encyclopedia sources mention it? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the seriousness of the charges alleged by the Montgomery Advertiser, I think that mention of the series being a Pulitzer finalist adds important context to the credibility of such charges by such a small newspaper. PrBeacon, "major campaign" probably can't be sustained by the sources, but it certainly wasn't a minor effort by the SPLC given the description of the lobbying in the sources ("perhaps the most vigorous challenge"; "the first lobbying that I know of of that kind") and the utilization of a major party Presidential nominee to be part of the lobbying. Henry, do you think that if there were serious factual errors in the series, Levin wouldn't have mentioned it in his statement about the series? Drrll (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drrl, even as you back away from the hyperbolic "major campaign" (unsupported by sources), you still attempting to bootstrap legitimacy when it doesn't exist. You can't use the "seriousness of the allegation" to bypass our core criteria -- any way you slice it, a single unsubstantiated accusation from a single source 16 years ago flatly fails WP:UNDUE. Unless you can provide significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to demonstrate weight, the issue is moot. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Blaxthos, I can admit to the sources not supporting "major campaign." We all know how you're never given to flights of hyperbolic rhetoric. "Bootstrap legitimacy when it doesn't exist": A multi-part series of reporting by the local newspaper, supported by three years of research, a finalist for the Pulitzer, and cited by traditional encyclopedias, articles, and books lacks legitimacy?? Exactly what kind of sources would not lack legitimacy? Sorry, but unless you can show more recent reliable sources that contradict the Advertiser series, I don't see where you can point to policy that would diminish the value of such a significant source simply because it was published in the mid '90s. And, BTW, the quote you provided refers to a guideline on notability for the existence of WP articles, not to policy on undue weight. Drrll (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very much resist the continued bloating of a minor issue sourcable only with a single source of 16 years ago. That is not notable to add here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a single source does not constitute due weight. For the record, my quote was intended to concisely paraphrase the well-known standard by which we assign weight. If you're looking for the exact policy language as the nail in this issue's coffin (emphasis in original):

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

— WP:UNDUE

One source == no weight == no mention. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may just be being stupid and not know what's going on in this thread, but are you saying we need another source besides this to say that they almost won? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of mentioning the fact that the Montgomery Advertiser series was a Pulitzer finalist is that we quote the SPLC spokesman's accusation that the Advertiser has smeared the SPLC and its founder (as presented in our article, by the way, this retort is about double the length of our mention of the series). A southern newspaper being accused of smearing a well known civil rights organization is, for reasons that I think are obvious, a grave charge. The Pulitzer nomination casts some relevant light on the journalistic bona fides of the Advertiser's series and the SPLC's response. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that does put a bit of new light on the matter. There are certain aspects of wikipedia which have to do with editorial judgment, and this is one of them. I would say that 1) we do have good sourcing for saying they were finalists for Pulitzer; 2) I would say that we need a good reason to put that fact in, since otherwise it's just puffing up a source which already seems perfectly reliable. If you are saying there is reason that the reader would think of the source as unreliable when it is not, then that might be a reason to include the mention of the nomination. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, because it hinges on a single 16 year old source that mentions it in a byline. Typical case of undue. The Pulitzer price itself is far better documented. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that. Are you questioning the validity of the source? If not, then the Advertiser article's notability for this article lends notability to the Pulitzer, if there is an actual reason to include it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I question it under WP:UNDUE to add the lobbying source. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying? I thought we were talking the Pulitzer and the Advertiser? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's be clear exactly what we are talking about here. An editor has recommended that we drop the mention of the Pulitzer Prize nomination, not merely the assertion that the SPLC was lobbying against it. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, that issue... I think it's obvious we need better sources to discuss the lobbying case. But I was talking about the mention of the Pulitzer in the text relative to the Advertiser: "The series was a finalist for but did not win a 1995 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism.[108]" Being a finalist obviously has some significance to Pulitzer, or they wouldn't list it like this [5]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BeCritical, I understand your point about editorial judgement, but you seem to be responding to original research and synthesis. We shouldn't mention the Pulitzer finalism to "cast some relevant light on the journalistic bona fides" unless that is directly sourced, which I don't see. Henry was right before, this issue may be relevant to the article on Montgomery Advertiser, not here. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But exactly what kind of source would you need for that? Just an RS which makes that connection? Google has lots of results from RS and not-so-RS which make the connection inline, just as WP is doing now. Here are a couple: [6] [7] from the National Catholic Reporter. For the purposes here, it looks to me that RS do tend to make the connection when they write about the Advertiser article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources mention the Pulitzer nomination along with the article, but they don't make the specific connection we're talking about. With several editors objecting to its inclusion, I think we need more than that. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that because it seems such an extremely high standard to meat. Iinstead of saying

"They seem to consistently exaggerate conservative threats as a tool for publicity and fundraising – essentially, to scare up liberal dollars. Since 1994, when the Montgomery Advertiser ran a Pulitzer-nominated series “Charity of Riches,” exposing SPLC’s highly questionably practices, journalists have painstakingly reported exactly how the organization operates. "[8]

And

"..and to articles on Southern Poverty Law Center in The Progressive (July 1988) and The New York Times (Sept. 9, 1992), and to a Pulitzer Prize contender series on the center in the Montgomery Advertiser ..."[9]

The sources would have to say something like:

"Montgomery Advertiser ran a Pulitzer-nominated series “Charity of Riches,” (and FYI we mention that to cast some relevant light on the journalistic bona fides of the series) exposing SPLC’s highly questionably practices, journalists have painstakingly reported exactly how the organization operates."

Maybe that's not what you meant though. I originally agreed with you, but I considered Badmintonhist's point about a Southern publication not being taken seriously on these issues to be pretty compelling. But you said we shouldn't mention it unless such mention was directly sourced. So I went and found some RS which seem to directly source using that connection between the Advertiser series and the Pulitzer. But you seem to want the sources to not only demonstrate that it's valid to mention the Pulitzer, but to say directly that they are doing it to lend legitimacy to the source. Which of course is never going to happen and is an impossibly high standard. But I'm not sure I understood you right. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested line is deceptive through omission. The actual claim isn't "questionable practices", it's simply that the SPLC's estimates differ from the estimates of a critic. It's just as easy to say that the critic underestimated threats. Dylan Flaherty 01:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "misleading fundraising practices?" The current line is "In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser ran a series alleging the SPLC was financially mismanaged and employed misleading fundraising practices.[105][106]" BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. The above are quotes from the sources, not suggestions. They are a response to PrBeacon saying we need sources for mentioning the pulitzer in the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what Dylan's comment has to do with the issue here. The issue here is whether the Advertiser's Pulitzer Prize nomination should be mentioned in connection with the series it ran about the SPLC, particularly in light of the SPLC's claim that the Advertiser had smeared Dees and his organization. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have taken my quotes as suggested WP text. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the SPLC appears to be the most influential hate group watchdog in the United States, perhaps its listings should have a Wikipedia category? Something like Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center — similar to the function of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government and similar categories. I thought it would be best to float the idea first. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed. I think the category is a bad idea. Imagine having a category on every political organization by every non-profit that rates the organizations. Henry00sher6 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure this is the proper venue to discuss this proposal. I'm not well versed on the procedure to suggest a new category, but wouldn't this discussion be better placed on a Category talk page, or perhaps the pump? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Eh, I thought it might be a good idea. But whatever, I'm not really attached to it. I didn't even expect an actual vote — just a discussion. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Supported As Gilgamesh said, being on the SPLC's list of hate groups is notable and a good way to find others of its kind. Dylan Flaherty 05:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as nom Gilgamesh says, there are a bunch of similar categories at Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator. Roscelese (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - 3 to 1 seems like a small reaction overall...but I'd also not want to advertise reactions which could be slantedly for or against. I suppose the only way to know if such a category can succeed or fail is to measure the reaction to its being launched. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have to say...while I proposed the categorization and still think it's a good idea, I'm not entirely sure I want to start it myself. Such edits, while legitimate, may be a magnet for the worst kind of extremist online behavior. And, when it comes down to it, I am not actually interested in dwelling on the world of hate, or being called back into dwelling on it because of edits I already made. It's a social underbelly whose study can have taxing effects on an editor's sanity. Wikipedia needn't shy away from such notable content, but I'm only one user on Wikipedia who makes casual edits in my free time, and I don't particularly like being excessively reminded about the myriad ways human beings can treat one another other with inhuman contempt and cruelty. I still support, but I may just have to bail from involvement. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to WP:CAT. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what policy at WP:CAT you're referring to? I don't see anything that would preclude the formation of a category, though a list would also be an alternative. Roscelese (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OVERCAT. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what policy at WP:OVERCAT you're referring to? I don't see anything that would preclude the formation of a category, though a list would also be an alternative. Roscelese (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:

On April 20, 2007 a civil jury in Linden, Texas, [...] awarded [...] $9 million in damages to Billy Ray Johnson, a mentally disabled black man, who was beaten and dumped along a desolate road by four white men in September 2003. The lawsuit was brought on Johnson's behalf by the SPLC.[57] Four white males took Johnson to a party where he was knocked unconscious then dropped on his head, referred to as a nigger, and left in a ditch bleeding.[58] Due to the event, "Johnson, 46, who suffered serious, permanent brain injuries from the attack, will require care for the rest of his life."[59] At a criminal trial the four men received sentences of 30 to 60 days in county jail.[60] The jury hoped that the verdict would improve race relations in the community stemming from a United States Department of Education investigation and other controversial verdicts. During the trial one of the defendants, Cory Hicks, referred to Johnson as "it."

SPLC:

A civil jury in Linden, Texas, today awarded approximately $9 million in damages to Billy Ray Johnson, a mentally disabled black man who was taunted, knocked unconscious and dumped along a desolate road by four white men in September 2003.

The Center brought suit on his behalf in 2005 after the men responsible for the crime received only light jail sentences — 30 days for three of them and 60 days for one.

.... Johnson, 46, who suffered serious, permanent brain injuries from the attack, will require care for the rest of his life.

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and strengthened with additional references. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a separate thread for every one of these? It seems excessive and possibly disruptive, given the history of bias charges etc. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still more copyvio, in bold, and again an entire subsection.

Here:

Bearing guns and dressed in paramilitary uniforms, members of the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (a.k.a. Confederate Knights of the Ku Klux Klan) terrorized a black prison guard, his family and others in 1982. In 1984, Bobby Person, the prison guard, became the lead plaintiff in an SPLC lawsuit, Person v. Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. During the litigation, Klansmen continued harassing and threatening the plaintiffs, and the court issued an order prohibiting any person from interfering with other persons inside the federal courthouse. In January 1985, the Court issued a consent order that prohibited Glenn Miller, the group's Grand Dragon, and members of the group from training and operating a paramilitary organization; marching or parading in black neighborhoods; and harassing, intimidating, threatening or harming any black or white person who associates with black persons. The plaintiff's claims for damages were dismissed and the Consent Decree was made final in September 1985. After changing the group's name to the White Patriot Party, Miller resumed paramilitary operations and Klan business as usual. Less than a year later, Miller and others were found guilty of criminal contempt for violating the consent order. Miller was sentenced to 6 months in prison, six months suspended sentence and 3 years probation during which he could not associate with any members of the White Patriot Party or other racist groups. The contempt verdict was upheld by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 1988. Miller went underground, declared war on Jews and the federal government and was again arrested and served three years in federal prison on a weapons charge.

SPLC:

Bearing guns and dressed in paramilitary uniforms, members of the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (a.k.a. Confederate Knights of the Ku Klux Klan) terrorized a black prison guard and his family in 1982. They pointed guns and shouted racial slogans at a white woman who invited black friends to her home. A black woman was nearly run off the road. A man on his way to work was harassed on a dead-end road.

One African American man quit his job and left the state, but Bobby Person, the black prison guard, became the lead plaintiff in the Center's lawsuit against the Klan. Person's harassment began after he complained that whites were unfairly being promoted over him at his job.

During the litigation, the Klansmen continued harassing and threatening the plaintiffs, resulting in the court issuing an order prohibiting any person from blocking hallways and doorways or otherwise interfering with other persons inside the federal courthouse.

On January 18, 1985, the Court issued a consent order that prohibited Glenn Miller, the group's Grand Dragon, and members of the group from training and operating a paramilitary organization; marching or parading in black neighborhoods; and harassing, intimidating, threatening or harming any black person or white person who associates with black persons. The plaintiff's claims for damages were dismissed and the Consent Decree was made final in September.

Less than a year later, however, Miller and others were found guilty of criminal contempt for violating the consent order and North Carolina state law. Having changed the group's name to the White Patriot Party, Miller resumed paramilitary operations and Klan business as usual. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison, six months suspended sentence and 3 years probation during which he could not associate with any members of the White Patriot Party or other racist groups.

Refusing to accept the court-ordered exile from the white supremacist movement, Miller went underground, declared war on Jews and the federal government and was again arrested and served three years in federal prison on a weapons charge.

This is the third instance of this pattern of copyvio, and it appears this is the second serious incident. It's no wonder this page reads like an advertisement for the SPLC. It has now been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to have been directly copied from the SPLC web presence. If bias is the wrong word, there must be another word for what happens when Wikipedia is essentially hosting SPLC copy.

I rarely see plagiarism on Wikipedia. This SPLC page is filled with it. It's remarkable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP is fraught with plagiarism, and it isn't common for people to cut/paste from a source, and then make minor tweaks to try to avoid the copryight violation. Why don't you edit the text to resolve the issue? Westbender (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with what you just said. Be that as it may, Kim is doing an excellent job responding to what I'm uncovering. I am happy to let her continue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree that plagiarism is widespread on Wikipedia? Perhaps you should check out WP:CP and meet the good folks at WP:CCP. Westbender (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked an expert about this, and it appears Westbender is somewhat correct about this. It is surprising to me, but good call, Westbender. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate: It isn't just that there is lots of plagiarism in the article, it's that lots of plagiarism of the subject's publications. In effect, editors were pretty much allowing the SPLC to write the article about itself. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westbender is correct. The plagiarism is fixable by quoting, paraphrasing, or dropping, and it is not indicative of bias. Dylan Flaherty 08:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you still have the problem of numerous subsections that that are sourced entirely by SPCL publications WP:PRIMARY. However, I will say that this whole phenomenon is probably more indicative of bias and complacency on the part of editors than bias in the copy itself, though there is plenty of that too. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You need to re-read WP:AGF until it begins to penetrate. Dylan Flaherty 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remind yourself to reread that when addressing me, Dylan? I believe that you've been editing on this page longer than I have. About as clumsy with a computer as it gets, I nonetheless needed about 15 seconds to click a footnote and discover the (primary) source's words, which popped right up on the screen, were basically identical to those in the article. Lucky strike? I get the impression the amount of effort that some editors here devote to defending the integrity of the article is in roughly inverse proportion to the amount of effort they devote to ensuring its integrity. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And after you finish reading WP:AGF, read the rest of this talk page, where it's been explained repeatedly that COPYVIO is not BIAS. Enjoy! Dylan Flaherty 18:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LEAC, stop the BIAS charges. Plagiarism NEVER is bias by itself, regardless of how much there is. Bias is when certain aspects of the story are left out. But at that moment, we are talking about biased usage of the available reliable sources. The same source can be used to do that without plagiarism, and I could rewrite the above story without any new reference and it would not be plagiarism anymore, but still based on the same sources. I do agree that some of the stories coul;d use a few third party sources, but considering that these are finished litigated court cases, they are probably quite realistic to what you will find in other reliable sources. The ONLY way to show that is to show other reliable sources stating a different story. You haven't done that. So, because you keep bringing up the bias charges without proof, why are you here at this article? Are you basically against the SPLC? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you are referring to. You explained it to me recently and I understood it, even struck out some of my past comments. Besides, I just added below excellent advice from Moodriddengirl. So I've gotten off my bias horse a while back. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LEAC, you wrote: "If bias is the wrong word, there must be another word for what happens when Wikipedia is essentially hosting SPLC copy.", which is a indirect way is saying there is bias. I give you that you didn't way it directly and that I might have responded a bit strong.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah c'mon Kim. You're too intelligent to fully embrace what you are saying. True, plagiarism in the abstract doesn't necessarily mean bias, but you seem to forget that the plagiarism wasn't from, say, court records, it was from THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE WP:PRIMARY. Thus it wasn't simply "plagiarism . . . by itself." Basically editors were allowing the SPLC to fashion the article for them. The accounts of the cases weren't simply dry records, they were designed to dramatize the efforts of the SPLC and to enhance its reputation. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badmintonhist, you are in the right direction. Where I think you go wrong is that it is crucial to adequately keep two separate things separate: Plagiarism versus primary sources. I have not addressed your primary sources claim at all, although I suspect that they are easily addressed in this case and actually did not introduce any substantial bias. As for the plagiarism, I just edited this section and removed the plagiarism but not the primary source issue, showing that the two are separate issues. Yes, you can charge me with WP:POINT although this was not disruptive but took care of a specific violation. I merely did not finish the second part as well in order to show you this distinction. if you still think the section is dramatized, I think you can show that easily by digging up some sources. Because that is what it takes to show bias. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep typing WP:PRIMARY but it has limited application to the issues being discussed. While the SPLC website is a primary source for some topics (i.e. its mission statement), for most issues used in the article it is serving as a secondary source describing third party actions. Take the material copied from the SPLC website at the top of this section. All of the material describes events and actors unrelated to the SPLC (i.e. the court's decision, the KKK's activities, Millers declaration of war on Jews). SPLC is a watchdog group -- nobody disputes that. Watchdog groups investigate and report on third party groups -- just like a newspaper does. Reports by the SPLC discussing its findings on the KKK are not primary documents, but secondary documents relying on primary sources. From your favorite quideline, "Whether material counts as a primary or secondary source is not fixed. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source of material about the war, but if he includes details of his own war experiences, it would be a primary source of material about those issues. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the SPLC is a reliable source with regard to such things as Klan activity. Dylan Flaherty 18:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing, really. The accounts of these cases DO involve SPLC actions BECAUSE THEY ARE CASES IN WHICH THE SPLC HAS FACILITATED LEGAL ACTION AGAINST ONE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED. IT IS FRIENDLY TO ONE SIDE IN THE CASE AND UNFRIENDLY TO THE OTHER. As a matter of common sense would we want to take, say, the account of either Operation Rescue or of NARAL as the exclusive factual source for a case involving an anti-abortion protest outside of an abortion clinic in which each are aiding one side or the other? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-responsive. The issue is not FRIENDLY or UNFRIENDLY but PRIMARY or SECONDARY and RELIABLE or NON-RELIABLE. The SPLC has been held as reliable both here and throughout wikipedia -- something never achieved by Operation Rescue or NARAL. As far as when a source is primary and when it is secondary, this is very clear in this case. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't even object to the SPLC's mission statement being quoted as fact, North Shoreman, then it would seem that you think that a Wikipedia article sourced entirely by the SPLC would be, if not desirable, at least perfectly acceptable. If so, I guess I rest my case. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still non-responsive. As far as the mission statement, I made a proposal to change it, but no consensus has been reached to do so. Too many distractions have been raised by you and your buddy both in that discussion and elsewhere. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Badmintonhist: So now you're calling her a liar?! Unbelievable. Seems like you and LAEC would rather act like self-appointed morality police and scold others for the copyvio rather than improve the article yourselves. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Kim wasn't offended by my comments, Sir Galahad. As for working to improve the article, although you've posted numerous testy comments on the talk page here your efforts on the article page don't seem as prolific. My eyes aren't that good so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I only noticed ONE edit, a deletion, to your credit there. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because she chose to take the high road doesn't mean your comment is excused. And no I haven't edited the article since I'm not as familiar with it or the subject as others. Do you even realize that your sarcasm at this point is not funny but rather smug and dismissive? Your attempts at humor are almost as bad as your skewed sense of propriety. You can't claim to be here in good faith while attacking others who've been here far longer than you and had nothing to do with the copyvio problems. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, PrBeacon, please at least be accurate. Significant changes are being made to this article as a direct result of the actions of those you just maligned, and it has to do with Wiki rules, not morality. Please, let's be civil. We are improving the article. Kim is helping. Westbender is helping too. Tom is adding good comments. Please join us. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Maligned'? Calling out another editor for his poor behavior is not a personal attack. Stop playing the victim card for yourself or others, you can't keep lecturing us on being civil when you don't show the same respect. Anyone can count the many times have you called this page an "advertisement for the SPLC" -- a veiled insult to many of the editors who've worked on it in the past. Neither you nor Badmin knew about the copyvios at first, either, and probably only because you went looking for trouble. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LEAC, I agree, the article has been improved. I just have one suggestion, you can fix the copyvio's yourself in the same way as I did it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kim, I can do that. I had not until now just to avoid any problems. I think you and perhaps others have got the picture now that I only seek to apply Wiki rules to improve this article. And, now with your blessing, I'll go ahead and make some changes accordingly. Again, thanks, and it's been a pleasure working with you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I rewrote the section so the COPYVIO is removed, but the same sources are still used. Did removal of the copyvio change the content, no, it did not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, Kim, your edit blocked mine at he White Patriot subsection and for some reason the mouse isn't letting me copy and paste. I'll check what you've got there in a while. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started taking out some of the copyvio sections, but stopped so people could comment here. I could move them to talk if you like instead, or maybe there are other suggestions. Should take them out till they are re-written. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahum, nice that you took out a copyvio section about the White Patriot Party here. Unfortunately, it was copy edited and no longer a copyvio. Please explain your action. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

]

I just got excellent advice on handling the WP:PLAGIARISM and/or WP:COPYVIO issues on this page from Moonriddengirl (talk section "Q"). Allow me to reprint the advice here, and hat tip to Westbender for tipping me off to this, hat tip to KimvdLinde for handling the situation in apparent general alignment with this advice, and hat tip to Badmintonhist for seeing this issue in the first place:

An editor told me, "You disagree that plagiarism is widespread on Wikipedia? Perhaps you should check out WP:CP and meet the good folks at WP:CCP." I doubt that plagiarism is widespread on Wikipedia. Who is correct? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say honestly and accurately that it depends on your definition of widespread. :) The real place to look here is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, where we have quite possibly hundreds of thousands of articles waiting review contributed to by people who have persisted in violating our copyright policy (usually in a manner that also constitutes plagiarism). (Not to mention the ones already archived.) At WP:CP, I routinely see this, and WP:SCV usually gets a couple of dozen additional articles a day. Plagiarism is by no means rare on Wikipedia, but I can't begin to guess the percentage of articles that contain it. If somebody told me that a random sample found 10% of our articles contained substantial plagiarism, I'd believe it. It meets my definition of "widespread." But this is what I look at every day, and it's possible that my perceptions are skewed. I like to think that the situation is improving. I certainly see a lot more people paying attention to the issue than I used to. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, and surprising, to me. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask this. Having found Southern Poverty Law Center is loaded with unattributed direct quotes from the group's official web site that make the page look like an advertisement, like as in several entire sections are plagiarized from splcenter.org, should I be reporting that anywhere? I should think that I should not be the only one reviewing for plagiarism, especially since some editors who actively perform the plagiarism claim I'm only doing it to cause trouble. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're not the only one reviewing for it; some of us review for it practically full time. :) And we are often accused of trying to cause trouble. But just to clear up terms here: plagiarism is a secondary consideration. It's easily addressed by attributing. The first and most important question is whether the content meets our copyright policy. Essentially, we can only copy content from other websites or publications if they are verifiably public domain or compatibly licensed. If they are not, and if permission is not confirmed through WP:OTRS, content cannot be copied except in brief, clearly marked quotations (as per WP:NFC). If the content doesn't conform to this, it is a violation of our copyright policy, even if it was probably placed by somebody connected with the company. I'm not able to do much reading at the moment (migraine), so I'm not comparing the article to its sources, but the handling of it depends on how extensive it is. If there are a few unattributed quotes, they can be dealt with through attribution. If there are extensive quotes, they need to be cut down. Extensive quotes are forbidden by policy. (Basically, we can't take too much from a single source.) If whole sections are copied from the website, those sections should be removed for rewriting or blanked with {{subst:copyvio}} to give other contributors notice and time that the content must be dealt with. At the very least, if you find content that violates our copyright policy, you might explain your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. That will bring it up so others can take a look. There's kind of a handy overview at Wikipedia:Cv101. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope this helps everyone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good advice. I found a whole article On Jat history (1669–1858) that I could put subst:copyvio on (since deleted). Wikipedia is really full of copyvio. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do accusations against the editors participating here help everyone? The largest bit of copyvio reverted today seems to be [10], added by someone else almost 2 years ago - [11]. The bit about the 'mentally disabled black man" was added in 2007 [12], again by someone not involved today. "Bearing guns and dressed" added Feb 2009 [13] by the editor who added the first bit above, again not involved today.

So, what is the basis for " some editors who actively perform the plagiarism claim I'm only doing it to cause trouble"? Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, this was an example of LAEC making less than helpful comments. It happens, and it's not a good thing, but let's move on. I'm told that giving attention to those who seek it is akin to feeding trolls. Dylan Flaherty 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, I added that info to Moonriddengirl's Talk. Look there. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you just repeated an earlier accusation against Blaxthos [14]. I think Dougweller's question is appropriate and deserves a proper answer, not just a questionably framed incident of removing quote marks. Badmintonhist also casts such aspersions ([15] et al) so he should answer the question, as well. Otherwise it's time to collect diffs and ask for outside help. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):I did. Anyone reading the exchange above would, I think, assume that you were referring tothe large chunks of copyvio that have been reverted, some of them in your edits above. Now you say 'some editors' meant just one, Blaxthos, and his comma reversion. If that's all you've got, your comments clearly aren't warranted and you need to strike them. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He removed quotation marks from quotations, not commas. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you say we do as Kim suggested in the section below and just stick to discussing improving SPLC? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for that, but your behavior and Badmintonhist's have been out of line. Redacting those statements would go a long way towards restoring some of your lost credibility. Dylan Flaherty 03:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I have not been out of line here, as is evidenced by the positive changes to the page itself and a number of other things, including being asked to make the copyvio revisions I used to let others make. That shows I have gained credibility, but I thank you for your concern. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if Blaxthos removed quotation marks from a quotation in the manner and under the circumstances he did, that is his problem, not mine. He made that edit, not me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, it's that sort of denial and finger-pointing that only strengthens the case against you. Better by far to accept the errors you've made and work to get past them. Again, I speak from personal experience.

I'm going to move on and focus on article contents. I suggest that you do the same. Dylan Flaherty 04:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is rapidly degrading into a blame fest left and right, and it is not helpful with regard of improving this page. For that reason, I asked everybody to do the two following things:

1. This talk page is to discuss the content of the SPLC page. And only that.
2. Problems with other editors should be addressed on either their personal talk pages or at the noticeboards.

Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC) PS. This includes reacting to this post. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)ot[reply]

Thanks KimvdLinde, that was needed. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::I take your point, but I'm adding the edit I've been trying to add for a while anyway as I started that discussion, and I would like to make it clear that these accusations of copyvio against the editors editing in the last few days are inaccurate. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the battleground behavior needs to stop. I've replied further at Kim's talkpage. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. I think that it is definitely a benefit that the copyvio has been found. I used the Earwig yesterday but it found nothing, although I see more was found today. I do quite a bit of looking for copyvio, and I can assure everyone that there is a lot of it in articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KimvdLinde rewrote this section to eliminate the plagiarism. Badmintonhist rewrote it and changed the word "terrorized" to "harassed and threatened". No explanation was offered and "terrorized" is the word used in the source. "Terrorized" and "harassed and threatened" are not totally synonymous and the former is certainly stronger than the latter. In light of everthing that has gone on recently and all the charges made regarding POV, it is important that controversial changes be discussed here first.

If Badmintonhist has actual sources that suggest that "terrorized" is too strong a word, then he should produce them. Otherwise, it seems that this is nothing more than a continuation of the attacks made on the SPLC as a reliable secondary source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with "terrorized"; that's what our source says. It's one thing to rewrite so as to avoid a copyright violation, another to bowdlerize. Dylan Flaherty 14:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's no big deal either way. Kim actually agreed with my change. The article used "terrorized" once. Later it says "continued to harass and threaten." Apparently, no criminal charges were filed in the original "terrorization" and no one was physically injured. "Terror" is a loaded term, especially since 9-11. I would say that changing one word, "terrorized," to "harassed and threatened" hardly constitutes an "attack" on on the source that used the the word "terrorized." Badmintonhist (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The long history of the KKK and associated groups is that they use violence in order to intimidate their target group -- the potential for violence is always there. The always looming threat of violence is a basic part of terrorism and the SPLC's description of the KKK as terrorist is hardly unique.

Your edit summary contained the following, "If you disagree with changing the initial "terrorized" to "harassed and threatened" please take to talk first." That's not the way it works -- see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for a better way to proceed.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the wording change is no big deal to me. There have been hundreds of KKK's. In the early 1920's it was huge. By the 1980's any podunk group of four or five bullies might have called itself the KKK. "Terrorize" is one of those words that is used in very differing ways (ex. My three-year-old is terrorizing the household). To me, "harassed and threatened" is more precise, less flamboyant, and thus more encyclopedic. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no mistaking the context of "terrorize" when it is used in conjunction with the KKK. When an organization engages in terrorism, it is not encyclopedic to refuse to say so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If what Badmintonhist says is true, I'd have to agree with him. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I agreed with changing the wording from terrorized to harassed and threatened is because the only sources currently used for the section are from the SPLC, which has a stake in the case. In the original complaint, the word terrorize is not used. As such, I think using the wording of the original complaint is best, which is intimidated and threatened and words like that. (the case files are linked from the SPLC link). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original complaint is a Primary Source (see all the discusiion of that above) that served a specific legal purpose. It is Original Research for editors to question the reliabilty of secondary sources based on their own interpretation of primary sources. The original complaint also says that the "Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, for a series of intimidating and violent acts committed against them... ". This sounds more like terrorism than simple harassment. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, no. The article is about the SPLC, so that makes the SPLC interpretation the primary source and potentially biased as they had an explicit stake in the case. The court ruling is not a primary source, but a secondary, and it does not uses those words. But the problem can be resolved in a much better way, and that is to dig up some independent sources and see how they call it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the SPLC website is a primary source for some topics (i.e. its mission statement), for most issues used in the article it is serving as a secondary source describing third party actions. SPLC is a watchdog group -- nobody disputes that. Watchdog groups investigate and report on third party groups -- just like a newspaper does. Reports by the SPLC discussing its findings on the White Patriot Party are not primary documents, but secondary documents relying on primary sources (i.e. court transcripts, witness statements, newspaper accounts, etc.). From Wikipedia:No original research, "Whether material counts as a primary or secondary source is not fixed. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source of material about the war, but if he includes details of his own war experiences, it would be a primary source of material about those issues.”

With respect to court rulings, you’re switching the subject. You originally referred to “the original complaint” (an advocacy document filed by the SPLC with the court) and have now changed to “the court ruling”. I can adjust. Court decisions are very clearly primary sources. They reflect the very first evidence of what a court has decided. This university website [[16]] defines primary sources and lists websites that provide them. Under legal documents it includes several sites that provide Supreme Court decisions -- if SCOTUS decisions are primary documents then so are District Court decisions.

I'm not sure what current stake you think the SPLC has in a 25 year old lawsuit. Of course, its reputation for honest and objective reporting is always subject to review by the public, but this case is no more important than any of the other cases it has intiated or numerous reports it has issued on hate groups and related subjects. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like we disagree here.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, people tend not to lie when they know it's easy to catch them in a lie. The lawsuits that the SPLC is writing about are public record, so they'd be demotivated from lying or even stretching the truth. Dylan Flaherty 21:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and they are still the litigators in this case. And nothing ain't going to change that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for compensatory and punitive damages. Terrorism usually isn't treated this lightly by federal courts.Badmintonhist (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're really getting into original research, aren't you? Bottom line, we have one reliable secondary source and it uses the word "terrorized". Your take on the signifcance of a court decision isn't all that relevant -- let's stick to discussing what the relevant sources say. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Good find there, Kim. Thanks. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is getting very long and starts to have issues with loading and navigation. I strongly recommend that the archiving time should be decreased from 60 days (means that next archiving starts in January). With my experience with th auto-archiving it looks like 2-3 weeks archive time (time since last timestamp) would make this talk page lighter. I was before interupted and therefore asking for consensus. Is it OK start to start archiving (begin with 3 weeks)? --Kslotte (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 weeks won't do much, 2 weeks is more suitable based on a more detailed investigation. --Kslotte (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BE BOLD -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Now auto-archiving time is set to 2 weeks. --Kslotte (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PrBeacon has led me to see that the SPLC's publication, Intelligence Report is indeed listed as a "reliable source for information about hate groups and hate crimes" by the Illinois Association for Cultural Diversity. However, what do we know about the Illinois Association for Cultural Diversity other than the fact that its home is Western Illinois University? Why would the organization itself be a reliable source for information found in Wikipedia? Why would its opinions be notable, and even if they were notable why would we give them such weight? I can certainly see including the FBI's listing of the SPLC as a source for information about hate groups, but the Illinois Association for Cultural Diversity? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to have it both ways. On one hand you argue, incorrectly, that the SPLC is not a reliable source and then you object when information is provided from other sources that support the SPLC position. The Illinois Association for Cultural Diversity seems to be firmly rooted in the academic community and would be expected to adhere to rigourous academic standards (see [17]). Do you have any information that questions the groups reliability? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I questioned whether the SPLC should be used as a reliable source for its own activities not whether it was a reliable source for information on hate groups. The major question is what makes the Illinois group's opinion significant? The mere fact that it is attached to a college means little. We have no real knowledge whether or not this group "adheres to rigorous academic standards" and even if we did, clearly, in the academic world, and even more so the culture at large, the organization is very small potatoes. We don't use every organization attached to a college as a reliable source and even if we did we would still have the problem here of undue weight. Why should the opinion of some small academic organization that almost no one has heard of be used as a singular source to verify the SPLC's reliability as an authority on hate groups? By the way, is the FBI listing of the SPLC as a source on hate groups (which I know exists) listed in our article? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad, there's nothing anywhere that suggests the SPLC accounts are anything but accurate. You're casting doubt where none can be found. This is POV-pushing and it's not going win any friends, much less influence people. Dylan Flaherty 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, anyone who wants to suggest the SPLC is not reliable should source that very carefully. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course he's right to question sources and this does not seem to have anything one would call editorial oversight; who knows who put in that caption/description [18]. I think I remember seeing it described as reliable in one of the sources, so we could use that if we can find it. I think in a normal article one would question a source like that, which is a listing by an organization with none of the reliability checks of a good newspaper. That caption could have been written by a student set to develop a list. Let's just improve the sourcing or phrasing and forget about whether it's POV pushing, because you can't POV push this way on a well-sourced and well-written article. It says it's "award winning," [19] which if someone can find what award it won should be a sufficient substitute for this source. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please let's stop saying that material should be considered right till proven wrong. It's the opposite in Wikipedia. We don't say something is reliable or whatever just because no one questions it, but rather because RS endorse it. If SPLC is reliable, and you want to call it that, get a RS to say so, don't say that someone who questions an assertion of its reliability has to have proof against it. It doesn't matter who you think is POV pushing here, this is just Wikipedia RS policy. I've seen enough valid points raised by Badmintonhist to know that whatever his POV or whatever POV pushing he's done other places, his points are often valid and dismissing him as a POV editor rather than addressing his points should be done with more care. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think this through: if we need a RS to show that SPLC is reliable, then we'd need yet another RS to show that our first source was reliable, and so on. This leads to infinite regress or circular reasoning. The SPLC is, on its own, reliable with regard to its own history. Let's leave it at that.

As for the requirement of doubt, the SPLC is fully aware that these lawsuits are matters of public record and it would be slammed with complaints if it contradicted those highly reliable sources. Therefore, the absence of anyone doing the slamming is itself evidence of reliability. Dylan Flaherty 22:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia defines RS. So we'd only need one. And yes, it's circular, because there's nothing outside the human system of knowledge endorsing various points within the system. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are way past needing to prove that the SPLC is a reliable source. That issue has been addressed over and over again on this article, other articles, and places such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This is more than a consensus of the editors of this article -- it is a community wide consensus.

As far as the Illinois Association for Cultural Diversity, I've provided the website and you really should review it, look at what other universities support it, look at the contributors to its publications, and review its activities before dismissing it with statements like "That caption could have been written by a student set to develop a list." It is the responsibility of the parties that introduce a source to make a case for its reliability. The website makes the prima facie case -- the burden is now on the institutes detractors to show otherwise. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so are we agreed on the reliability of the SPLC in this matter? Dylan Flaherty 23:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I smell a consensus. Let's bury the dead and move on. Dylan Flaherty 00:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, as I think the caption is not a good enough source for an encyclopedia; however, I don't object. I would support any other editor who wished to seek more opinions on the RS noticeboard. If the caption were not merely a caption on a list, that would be different, for instance were it more of a central position paper. But not every caption on every list is a reliable source even if the source is generally reliable. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I will reiterate that the Association for Cultural Diversity is at the low end as a reliable source, according to Wikipedia's standards "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Association may consider SPLC reliable, but it has no known structure of fact checking. And the list is at the low end of that low end source. The sourcing on this article often sucks, for example the Neo-Confederate movement section which is sourced almost entirely to the SPLC itself. Please stop pretending that this article doesn't have major problems. It needs re-writing based on third party sources. I don't think it has many problems with NPOV, but how would we really know considering its sources? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get the feeling that we're re-enacting a Monty Python film? (Jump a minute into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs and you'll get what I mean.)

Any academic source has a reputation for fact-checking; that's what peer review is all about. While there are perhaps more august institutions than good old Western Ill. U., there's no particular reason to think it lacks reliability just because it lacks fame.

I'm not denying that the article has sourcing issues, but that's a very, very different thing than having POV issues. Let's continue to rewrite it to avoid WP:COPYVIO and to add more third-party (or even second-party) sources. Dylan Flaherty 02:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that list is peer-reviewed? Peer-review is what happens with peer reviewed scientific journals. And I didn't say it had POV issues, it probably doesn't but we don't really know till we get the sources right. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously suggesting that academic publishing (not just scientific) is based on peer review and anything posted as coming from the school is under editorial review of the institution as a whole and the department in specific. Agreed that we need to source better; I don't think anyone is doubting this. Dylan Flaherty 03:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny video, yeah, that guy didn't have any third party sources claiming he was alive. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly like the part where the carter says "^{[citation needed]}" and hits him on the head with the shovel... Dylan Flaherty 03:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah. Or in this case changed a dubious tag to a deadlink tag and then delete the section for lack of sourcing by the next day. I think of peer review as something which 1) the reader knows for sure happened and 2) that it was sent out to be actually read and reviewed by other experts in the relevant field. I don't get that from the list. However, we agree the article needs better third party sourcing and that's what's important (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not dead." "That's what you claim but since it is WP:SPS, we can't include it in the article!" :) --Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that it would be a WP:COI violation for someone to edit their own biography. Dylan Flaherty 07:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Ok, let's agree to agree and get sourcing. Dylan Flaherty 03:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I return from Christmas shopping, dinner, and karaoke to find that my points have been misconstrued by some. They were not made to question the expertise of the SPLC on hate groups and hate crimes. They were made to question the use of a very obscure academic association, whose expertise on those topics has in no way been established, as a reliable source on hate activity. WHO CARES WHAT THE VIRTUALLY UNKNOWN ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION FOR CULTURAL DIVERSITY SAYS ABOUT THE SPLC'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS? Even were we to establish it was a reliable source on such activity their opinion as used here would constitute undue weight. Now, were we to do a Wikipedia article on this association (in the current absence of any) then using the SPLC as a reliable source on the association's hate activity bona fides would make sense. Here we have it ass-backwards. It's like using Badmintonhist to vouch for the effectiveness of Lin Dan's training methods or using the North Shoreman as an expert on a book about the Battle of Gettysburg by James M. McPherson. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think of this? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent source. Not only does it directly state that SPLC's hate list is widely recognized as valid within both the legal and academic communities, but the source is a $100 academic hardcover, not some rag. Well done. Dylan Flaherty 05:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[20] [21] [22] I'm not fully vetting these, just putting them here for review. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. States that it's reliable, comes from a textbook except it's put out by a niche religious/ethnic publisher and seems aimed at, uhm, younger students (the web site lists it as 12-adult). Not so great.
2. Calls it a prime source, from a trade paperback put out by an academic and scholarly publisher. Much better. This one's a keeper.
3. Lists it as detailed and reliable, from an $85 hardcover put out by an academic publisher whose weighty tomes I have on my own shelves. Definitely robust.

All told, we have three solid sources calling the SPLC's hate list broadly reliable in the academic, legal and law enforcement communities. So much for self-publishing... Dylan Flaherty 05:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Badmintonhist, what other problems do you see with the article? It would help to have a list that we can just run down and solve. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

content & source removed, restored

First of all, since Badmin opened the door for discussion, I want to voice an objection to the way the content dispute was initially handled. In his edit summary for the removal [23] Badmin said "Deleted information not found in source. Found no such "reliable source" designation." though it didn't take more than a browser-window search for the wording. And it seems that he didn't carefully read thearticle section where this appears, which already contains other possible sources for the claim as well as details and a link for the award BeCritical asks about. All this should have been considered before the line was even removed. So I restored it [24]. Now he's saying the source itself is either unreliable or its use is undue. I don't understand these various arguments against using the academic source, albeit a simple list, even though I didn't add the line or source under review. It's still hosted on the university website and there is no indication that this page is not endorsed by the school, nothing to support the conjectures floated above by Badmin and BeCritical, as others have said already. Policy-based objections to the academic source sound like misinterpretation. What specific RS or wiki-policy supports these claims against WIU? By the way it didn't take long to find this discussion from last year: WP:RS/N - Archive 27: Intelligence Report which answer some questions, too. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to BeCritical for additional sources. Though I still think the WIU citation is sufficient in context, I'm not particularly attached to it. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed that WIU is sufficient, but in cases like this, overkill works best. Dylan Flaherty 07:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay so that's what the awards are, two for articles and one for the project itself? And the objections were good, but the problem was solved above. Thanks for the links to old discussion. And those new sources can be used several places in the article, they are going to be helpful. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have I missed something already in the article or are you leaving out the fact that the FBI lists the SPLC as a source of information about hate crimes? Badmintonhist (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This USAToday reference was lost somewhere among recent edits, could someone who's better than I at cite-coding please review this: LAEC removed what appeared to be a dead link [25] but from what I can tell it got shuffled around in an earlier rewrite: [26] (since it's used a couple of times). Thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to give undue weight to criticism, while ignoring plenty of data which is much more complimentary as shown by the sources (see above) [27] [28] [29]. Should be updated/redone. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On this matter, we agree. The scare-quotes around "watchgroup" (twice!) are a particularly undue touch. Essentially, this is a fringe view and it's not even saying anything particularly relevant. Group A has slightly different estimates than group B but concede's that B's estimates are reasonable. Boring. Dylan Flaherty 06:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this entire bit about exaggerating stuff should be taken out or put in the financial section, IMHO BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Both of the sources discuss the accuracy of the SPLC's research and belong there. I don't understand why you eliminated the positve information about the Intellgence Report in the first place. If I recollect properly, McVeigh says nothing in the entire article about fundraising and the section quoted from Dobratz is the sole mention of financing and applies to watch dog groups in general, not just the SPLC -- a fact that your edits removed. The financial section, as I've stated elsewhere, is already bloated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't recall eliminating positive information about the intelligence report. I certainly put in a very very strong endorsement from the sources I recently found. And what I think needs to come out is the Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile bit. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the McVeigh quote BEFORE you edited the section. The boldfaced content is the very positive info you cut from your edits and which I partially restored:

Such measurement bias, if it exists, would be more likely to show up in claims concerning membership or in descriptions of the movement's goals, rather than in a listing of organizations. The SPLC's lists of U.S. racist organizations are by far the most comprehensive available. Its outstanding reputation is well established, and the SPLC has been an excellent source of information for social scientists who study racist organizations.

I had added the McVeigh quote to counter the Dobratz quote. I have no feeling one way or the other about retaining the Dobratz quote, but McVeigh is an excellent source and all the information he provided should stay in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I remember. I agree on keeping the source, but I put that information in the head, and what I think should be done is take out the whole back and forth bit about "the SPLC may determine what it focuses on in order to influence people to make contributions" and have the information you're talking about left in where I put it "The Intelligence Report is cited by scholars as reliable and as the most comprehensive source on right-wing extremism and hate groups." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

A comment or reference might have been lost in all the shuffling. <humor>zombies</humor>

As Badmintonhist asks,

By the way, is the FBI listing of the SPLC as a source on hate groups (which I know exists) listed in our article? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have looked on FBI's web site with this search query. I found a few possibilities but no definitive statement: <humor>no smoking gun</humor>

• Investigative Programs: SPLC helps with Civil Rights era cold cases:

  In response to this proposed legislation, the Civil Rights Unit of the FBI established the Cold Case Initiative. With assistance of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Urban League, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and our local and state law enforcement partners, 100 potential cases were identified that matched the established criteria.

• Our Outreach Partners: SPLC is listed as an African-American Outreach partner. (Over thirty other organizations were also included: American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Anti-Defamation League)
• Hate Crimes: SPLC is listed along with five other links to resources

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant, Kevin. I saw the Hate Crimes section of the FBI website. It doesn't use the term "reliable source" but that is Wikipedia's term of art. It would seem to me that the FBI information is vastly more important than a reading list statement from the obscure "Illinois Association for Cultural Diversity". Badmintonhist (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While a legitimate problem was identified, the solution is not to elevate the status of David Horowitz by mentioning him in a section title, placing him on an equal footing with the major categories of SPLC activities. I believe it is better to leave the material in the section "Tracking of hate groups", but place it as a subsection. The Berlet article does include discussions of some hate groups so the material is not out of place here.

My sugestion is to make the title reflective of the general theme of the article by Berlet ("Into the Mainstream") and add an introductory paragraph that applies to the entire article. My suggestion:

Mainstreaming of hard right extremist language

Chip Berlet, writing for the SPLC in 2003, identified 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." Berlet said that while many of these groups, some of whom are labelled as hate groups by the SPLC, claim to be part of the political mainstream, they still rely on the use of "prejudice, fear, disdain, misinformation, trivialization, patronizing stereotypes, demonization and even scare-mongering conspiracy theories."

One of the groups listed is David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (now called David Horowitz Freedom Center). Berlet accused Horowit... [resume existing language at this point] Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a better description of the problem? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which problem? The problem with the previous organization or the problem with the first effort to solve it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Horowitz's group specifically labeled as a hate group or was it one of the 17 which were not listed as a hate group by the SPLC? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't listed as a hate group or no it wasn't one of the others? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't listed as a hate group. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why would an editor put it back into the hate group category and back into the neo-Confederate subcategory neither of which fit? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one way the discussion can go. Along that line, why don't you explain why you want to give such prominent exposure in an article about the SPLC to a right wing extremist such as Horowitz? I suggest a better way to go is to discuss my alternative. If you don't want it under hate groups it would fit nicely under "Litigation and advocacy" as a subsection right after (or even as part of) "Criticism of right wing rhetoric". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to be fond of saying, North Shoreman, you were not responsive to my question. I would say that as a temporary measure we should we should get rid of your last edit on the article and go back to mine. Referring to Horowitz as a "right wing extremist" doesn't exactly evince a willingness to set one's ideology aside and approach the article from a NPOV and perhaps explains why you seemed loathe to work with my change instead of reverting it. That being said the last part of your suggestion about locating the material seems okay. Your earlier suggested title for the material is definitely not okay. It's biased and conclusionary. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle -- is there some urgency that I am unaware of? My title is descriptive and accurately covers the thrust of the article by Berlet -- what you're really saying is that the SPLC is "biased and conclusionary". This has been the thrust of your editing since you made your initial appearance here.

I didn't like your initial title so I suggested another one. Since you don't like my suggestion, provide an alternative that doesn't have Horowitz's name in it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If You didn't like my initial title then you could have changed the title, not thrown the material back into a section and subsection where you should have known it didn't belong. Your anxiousness to put Horowitz back into the hate group category makes you "more royalist than the king" so to speak, since the SPLC itself didn't put him in that category. My bias in this article has been against lazy, complacent, POV editing. I put Horowitz's name in the edit because the name of his organization has recently been changed (with his name now in it) and the old name was rather unwieldly to put in the title anyway. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reponsive. To repeat myself, "I didn't like your initial title so I suggested another one. Since you don't like my suggestion, provide an alternative that doesn't have Horowitz's name in it." If you would like (it wasn't clear which of the alternatives in my last proposal was OK), feel free to move the material in question into the existing subsection "Criticism of right wing rhetoric" without adding or changing any section or subsection titles. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the transfer as I had proposed -- it was added to the section I suggested w/o any separate new title. I have highlighted what I proposed in case there was a misunderstanding. Badmintonhist did slightly change the title of the recipient subsection, but I don't have a problem with that.

Berlet was writing about 17 separate groups, not just one. If a new subsection is created, then its title should be applicable to all 17 groups, not just one. The text itself should also make this clearer than it currently does and the language I suggested above will accomplish that. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pleasant surprise. Perhaps we should now sing Kumbaya. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the episode with David Horowitz notable enough -weighty enough- to be included? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. It is hardly encyclopedic to get into a back and forth between sides. Here you've got seventeen lines dedicated to a SMALL PART of ONE SPLC report and one individual's opinion of the report. Horowitz is not a stand alone reliable source so the text was manipuated in order to justify having his opinions inserted into the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bunch of edits to the section, but they are for the most part copyediting and putting it in chronological order. I took out all but one quote which seemed appropriate, and put in a sentence to begin with which in conjunction with the second sentence seemed to sum up the whole section, both positions. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BeCritical flattered me recently by suggesting that I make a list of problems with the article. I'm not ready to do that and I don't think that other editors would take too kindly to such a presumption, anyway. However, I do think the article is bloated. People are more likely to read a relatively concise article than an article as long as this one. I think it could be cut significantly in size without losing much of its meat. One place we could start is on the subsection Tolerance.org. It is about SPLC activities and seems to be sourced entirely by the SPLC, itself. Could we perhaps find a reliable third party source that concisely describes the program and base a much shortened section on that? Badmintonhist (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly feels like two or three of you are "on the warpath", so to speak, with regards to this article. It's biased, it reads like an ad, it has primary sources, it's plagiarism, it's bloated, it might be too long to read so we should helpfully trim it... I'm not sure what you're doing is actually productive, and even if the article does need some work I'm not sure any of you are honestly objective enough to be the ones to do it -- from where I sit, it looks like your tribe has been trying to take an axe to this article for the last several weeks. Maybe it's time to step back and let the landscape cool awhile. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help out then. I just removed 3 paragraphs of specifics of the org that were simply not needed. What remains is SPLC's description of the site. That's fine, barring primary source problems, etc. It really reads and looks way better without losing anything of encyclopedic significance. I mean really. It won a Webby Award? The award winning aspects of the site from Webby Award is not really encyclopedic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what Blaxthos just said? Cool it with the contentious edits. This is not the time to be wp:bold and remove such a large portion [30] with no specific discussion of it here, and especially with an edit summary of "remove bloat/more SPLC advertisement - didn't check but it wouldn't surprise me if copyvio was present" (my emphasis). While I agree this section could be trimmed, thats alot different than simply removing it without proper justification. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason to write a list would be to give people an idea of what you think needs to be done so they don't feel you are out to ax the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll make a list after the holidays. For now I'll make the observation that any intelligent adult would make, bearing in mind that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry. It is waaay too worshipful, in tone and in content, as befits an article which largely was, and to a substantial extent still is, "self-written" by and about a organization which sees itself as righteous and heroic. The lead sentence still has the absurdly unencyclopedic formulation to the effect that "the center dedicates itself to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society." Not counting the articles that receive very limited attention, it may be the most biased lead sentence that I have seen in my three years of editing here.

The history section reads like a testimonial geared to juveniles. It's all about the the center's bravery in battles with obvious troglodyte types, many of them taking place two decades or so after the political starch had been taken of such groups, rendering them easy legal targets. Nothing in it about the criticism of the center from moderate, liberal, and lefty sources. That comes at the end, and for a naive reader who actually gets there, it might be disillusioning. Everything else has been so glowingly positive. How could the Washington Post possibly call it controversial? Why would any nice person accuse it of using scare tactics to raise money? How could it possibly be spending more on advertising than on legal services? Why would it be using its huge endowment to provide big salaries for the already well-off?

Look, I know the SPLC has done many fine things. I doubt that any editor here is sympathetic to its more obvious targets, certainly not the early ones. Cleaning up messes after the Klan and similar groups had already been weakened, gaining damages for its victims, helping to put some remnant leaders behind bars, monitoring upticks in Klan-like behavior, looking out for the safety of groups who tend to be scapegoated, all of those are fine things. It doesn't mean that our Wikipedia article about the SPLC should be a love letter. Aren't we a little too sophisticated for that? Badmintonhist (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the problem... on your very first edit to this article, you attempted to change the introduction with the edit summary "My Goodness, who wrote this lead that I'm editing? The SPLC's press agent?". As it turns out, the introduction was derived and endorsed by a strong consensus of 12 editors after a long discussion, though you call it an "absurdly unencyclopedic formulation". Fuck that 12 editor consensus, eh? From where I stand, it looks a hell of a lot like we have at least two editors (Badmintonhist and LAEC) who have a less-than-friendly history with anything progressive (and a very friendly history with conservative causes) trying to gut this article. Making snarky comments like "any intelligent adult" would agree with you only belies your true disdain both this article and any dissenting editors. Again, this looks more like a witch hunt by right-wing editors than it does an honest attempt to improve the article via consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to partially disagree. The problem is not that these two editors are conservative -- I'm pretty conservative myself -- but that their behavior is unreasonable. There's room for people who disagree to edit harmoniously, but they have to learn from the example of Bad and LAEC instead of repeating their errors. Dylan Flaherty 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BeCritical -- As far as BAD being "out to ax the article," how can anyone conclude otherwise? With his very first edit he insulted the editors of the article and his latest effort, with phrases such as "any intelligent adult" and "geared to juveniles", only reinforces my belief that he is not interested in a collaborative effort. Some of us were making progress on the article lead, but that discussion has been abandoned as BAD and LAEC have decided to start maing controversial edits to the main article. Anyone who wants to fill the role of an honest broker needs to recognize that folks who so arrogantly dismiss anyone who disagrees with them needs to be placed outside the process. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the area of insults and snarky comments Blaxthos takes a backseat to no one working in Wikipedia. If twelve editors took part in approving that opening sentence then I can only say that they messed up. It happens. It tends to happen more when some get accused of right-wing bias and get worn down. As far as axing the article goes, some editors have done a pretty good job of that already. I noticed that the editor who introduced much of the most blatantly plagiarized material into the article (with nary a peep from any fellow editor, Tom) was awarded a barnstar for his work on it right around the same time. I guess people were just too trusting. As clumsy with a computer as it gets (my son just told me how to copy and paste without using the right click side of the mouse), I nonetheless discovered it in about 20 seconds of effort. As I said before, the amount of effort that some editors here make defending a flawed article seems to dwarf the amount of time that they actually spend improving it. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do need to rewrite the lead. That's been well started above, but delaying it is a good idea while the rest of the article gets combed out. I've seen worse leads. Is there other RS stuff that is critical of the SPLC we are leaving out? I agree there should probably be a sentence about the finances or criticism in the history section. Dylan, I am not drawing conclusions on editors, I was making an observation about what editors here think of BAD (as he seems to be called now). Anyway, let's be honest about the way Wikipedia works: the attacking editors are either trying to improve the article or they are trying to introduce POV. Either way, it causes the article to improve (and the article would have been static without them). So they are part of the real process. So are the editors who stonewall, as a necessary balance to the attackers. So long as the whole dynamic pushes the article toward a better state (and it usually does or crowdsourcing wouldn't work), everything is good. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get the feeling that some here wouldn't be happy with any reasonably balanced portrayal of an organization (the SPLC) which has listed another organization that you support (Family Research Council) as a hate group? A little digging shows that Badmin & LAEC have been fighting criticism of the FRC at that article, e.g. [31], failed, then came here to work on breaking down this article. For example here, the illinformed criticism about SPLC's advertising costs versus litigation is misleading to say the least: promotion and outreach efforts are more than just advertising -- PSAs, publications, educational programs, various other campaigning and collateral materials, etc can all be (improperly) lumped together as marketing, and thus advertising. Taking the critics' word for it in this case is undue. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not disagreeing in general, I'd like to recast this in terms of accuracy, not bias, so as to put aside any personal issues. In the end, what matters is not the motivation of the editor but the extent to which their suggestions are justified. In the same way, it's perfectly fine to look at what critics are saying, just so long as we don't simply take them at their word or give them undue weight. In the case of SPLC, the amount of praise overwhelmingly exceeds the few cases of mild criticism from reliable sources, so we should follow this pattern in the article. Dylan Flaherty 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks for saying that about how to treat editors. I don't think the Harpers criticism was mild though. But certainly the praise is much more extensive. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to address one more thing here -- to quote Badmintonihst: "If twelve editors took part in approving that opening sentence then I can only say that they messed up." That sentence alone shows that Badmintonhist not only refuses to accept a consensus with which he disagrees, but also that he does not understand the word consensus. You can't just show up, say "those editors must be wrong", and then proceed as if the judgment of two or three should supersede the hard work of twelve. That statement alone is demonstration that he is not an honest broker in this discussion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to Wikipedia than just consensus. If 12 out of 12 editors agree the Earth is flat, they still have no Wikipedia basis to change the page to say the Earth is flat. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One, that's prima facie incorrect in terms of WP:CONSENSUS. Two, it's a false analogy, as you're improperly equating an immutable fact with an issue controlled by subjective opinion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true you can't come in and change the consensus by fiat. But consensus can change based on the persuasive power of new arguments. Those arguments can change the minds of those who came to the former consensus. I think you see persuasion happening here... the article is improving, and by consensus. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast there with that assumption, the article has improved by cautious editing and rewriting previous copyvio content, not by supposed persuasive reasoning against long-standing consensus on the contentious issues. Please don't conflate the two. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Legit and I have previously pointed out, some users devote far, far more effort to defending the status quo than they they do to improving the article. My friend Blaxthos is a textbook example. All sorts of edits on the talkpage, basically excoriating those who dare to criticize the article. I think one substantive edit on the actual article over the past six months. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on "improving the article" is far from objective. Do you deny that you resisted the SPLC-sourced criticism at the Family Research Council article before coming here? -PrBeacon (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are going after someone for edits on another page. Will you please just get back to improving this page? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your misguided attempt to re-frame what I just said is indicative of contrary evidence to WP:AGF. Both of you continuing the argument from the FRC article to here is relevant to what Badmin wrote just above. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are going after me for edits on another page. Will you ever just work on improving the Wiki page? I mean this page is getting filled with your comments about the supposed failings of others. Please, take a little break from the personal comments for a day or two. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you could choose to set the right example, by stopping yourself first. is anybody preventing you from doing that? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm going to try not responding to the persistent personal attacks. If it ends up with people believing the substance of the personal attacks, then I will return to responding. Please consider asking these people to stop the incessant comments of a personal nature. Asking a bullied victim to stop complaining about the bullies doesn't work in real life. I doubt it will work here. But I'll give it a go given your suggestion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I had already the agreement of those opther above, so I will take that that they will agree with doing the same.Looks like I am wrong.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks? Please see NPA - What is not.. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that comment a personal attack. If you still think so, take your complaints to WQA, but stop deflecting the central question: Do you too deny that you have continued your FRC crusade here? -PrBeacon (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem odd that out of 900+ groups labeled as hate groups by the SPLC, only 2 are discussed by name. I'm sure it's pure coincidence that both of those are conservative groups. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I count far more than two being discussed in the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, I didn't think that anyone would really think I meant the entire article. I'm talking about the section about hate group listings. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that clarifies. I created a header as to make this clear. Anyway, yes, and I think that is just an artifact of h0ow WP is pieced together. I actually think we should either remove those two entries, or condense it and make it more general. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just editing on that section, hope people like what I did. I'm curious about how the groups under "Organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object to this characterization:" were picked? Why just those? Was it purely chance, when people came upon sources? If there isn't a good reason, I agree with Kim in taking them out. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming it was just a coincidence and that the 2 picked just happened to be conservative orgs, then it shouldn't bother anyone if the list is either balanced or those two removed. There is nothing wrong with how you edited it, but nothing really changed either. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intent to change anything, just to improve the structure and make it more encyclopedic sounding. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift, the reason that any list of groups named by the SPLC as hategroups would be heavily weighted toward conservative groups is that the SPLC really isn't that interested in hate on the left. Out of the nearly 1,000 groups they identify, you could probably count on one hand the number of left-wing groups that the SPLC identifies as hategroups. Their prominent blog Hatewatch is subtitled "keeping an eye on the radical right" and a quick glance at the entries there reveal a focus on not just hategroups, but on mainstream conservatives. Drrll (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm on the SPLC's mailing list. I know who is on their list and there are non-conservative, non-right groups on the list. So I'm curious why the only two listed are conservative. Since I'm assuming good faith, it must be a coincidence, right? So the remedy would be to either balance the groups mentioned by name or remove the two specific examples, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer would be to come up with some sourcable way to justify listing any particular groups who object to SPLC. I would suggest just taking them out and forgetting about the issue. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of a two, three sentence section with a general picture that groups often do not like it that they are listed, although I have seen some exceptions to that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably because hate groups are typically right-wing. TFD (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really conducive to keeping what's left of a nice atmosphere here. And yes, we could say they generally don't like being listed... although I don't know why we'd bother. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be taken that way. I have never heard of any hate group that was not right-wing. TFD (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't remember one off-hand either. Sigh. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You guys need to get out more :) Ever heard of the Nation of Islam? They're on the SPLC's list of hate groups. New Black Panther Party? They are on the list too. The The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ is a black separatist group that is on the list. Of course I don't truly consider the c of CC to be an actual conservative group (just using conservative in your title doesn't make you one), but there is a chance it was specified in the section because it has the word conservative in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, some left-wing animal right activists fit the category of hate groups. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC) To add, if you really want to get a real feel for that, look at some groups in Europe, where left wing hate groups do exist. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that either. How do animal rights groups discriminate or hate people because of their immutable characteristics, not their choices? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your addition about European groups, I don't know anything about them. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some pro-Palestinian groups can be called left-wing hate groups because of their hate against Israel. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, that is an example, thx (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any left-wing anti-Semitic or anti-Israel hate groups in the US? Drrll (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The US is very far to the right on the political scale covering the world. What you consider left wing here is our hard core right wing, like liberals. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the SPLC, "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics". Can you name any left-wing Palestinian group in the United States (which is the only country where the SPLC monitors hate groups) that meets this description. TFD (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I was talking from a European perspective for the moment in order to demonstrate what the left wing hate group COULD look like. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: these two groups are specifically mentioned because of their objection to being listed, apparently thought notable enough to include and survive over time -- I think that's what Kim meant by 'artifact' of editing -- not by coincidence. In the past others have been mentioned as objecting to the designation. Besides, hate groups are not so easily ascribed to any part of the political spectrum. For example, isn't the Nation of Islam considered right-wing? I believe TFD has mentioned Laird Wilcox's work before on this. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Who considers NOI to be conservative? They are black separatists that believe that black scientists created the world on a plan that repeats every 25,000 years and a number of other fringe theories. They are far from conservative. Picking out 2 of 900+ that you happen to be able to find disputed the designation doesn't seem like any sort of balance or pattern. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do some digging before you make such a blatantly false allegation. I never added either one. As far as I can tell they were both added by editors who are sympathetic to conservative causes. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What allegation? I haven't made ANY statement about any editor. I don't know who added them. I don't care who added them. Who added them is completely immaterial to the discussion. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but everything I say isn't about you. Read it again, realize that you have imagined some allegation (maybe surprise me and admit it) and stick to the topic, m'kay? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then choose your words more carefully, especially given our history of disagreements. And while you're at it drop the sarcasm. You clearly said "Picking out 2 of 900+ that you happen to be able to find..." (my emphasis) -- this is not an imagined reference to me when it comes directly after my comment. That's a natural implication of your (sloppy) word choice. I know that you don't appreciate it when others do that to you. Perhaps you assumed I was defending the questionable content as status quo -- that would be another mistake. As Kim said, the section should be reworked anyway and I don't give a damn if conservatives are mentioned with their objections or not. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh give it a rest. You (PRBeacon) want to ignore the rest of the entire conversation and manufacture an allegation because of a generic "you"? See, unlike you (yes, PRBeacon), I don't enter every conversation carrying the baggage of every conversation I've ever had with you (PRBeacon). If you (PRBeacon) bothered to get past your (PRBeacon) own sense of self-importance, you'd (PRBeacon) see that I said almost the exact same thing at the start of this discussion. In fact, I avoided contributing in some of the other discussion you (PRBeacon) were involved in because I predicted that you (PRBeacon) wouldn't be able to have a conversation without dragging everything ever said into it. Stop manufacturing drama where there is none. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, ' give it a rest ' and then that ridiculously pointy reply? Get off your high horse and stop trying to re-frame what I said. It's a stale old tactic of trying to wear down other editors because you have nothing more substantial to add. You're free to move along and suggest a re-write of the section, as others have already agreed to. Yet you prefer to focus on the partisan angle, apparently. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, give it a rest. There is no accusation. Period. Repeating yourself won't change that. And now you start with accusations of your own? What was your point? Apparently, it got buried in all the bullshit about the imaginary allegation. Can you make the point again, without the paranoia this time? Stop living in the past and focus on the topic. Are you able to do that? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takes two to tango eh. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one said they were conservatives, any more than one would call Kim Jong Il a liberal. They are listed as a hate group by the SPLC and as right-wing extremists by Laird Wilcox. Their leaders have met with George Lincoln Rockwell, Tom Metzger and other rightist leaders. TFD (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, :)

I added the two organizations described by hate groups who object to the characterization.

Because we don't have a Criticism section in this article, criticism of the SPLC is spread throughout the article. In this case, the groups that criticize the SPLC were listed as hate groups. So their criticism goes into the "Hate group listings" section.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And the entire financial section is criticism. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So can I take out the selective objecting groups from this section? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will try this edit later if no one responds. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to determine whether something in wikipedia is encyclopedic is to compare how the same material is treated in other encyclopedias. They seem to manage to cover the same material w/o resorting to inflammatory quotes or discussions of Pulitzer Prizes.

From the Encyclopedia of Alabama ([32]):

"The dramatic, and often heroic, work of the SPLC has not gone without its critics. Questions have been raised in local and national media about changes in SPLC's fundraising tactics as it has grown to become "one of the most profitable charities in the country," as noted in Harper's magazine. Critics contend that efforts at marketing the organization for potential donors have taken the focus off the important work of the organization, such as its early efforts to fight the death penalty."

From West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (original article pasted at [33]):

"In addition to being the subject of continuous vitriolic attacks by extremist organizations, whose activity it monitors, the center was the subject of strong criticism by Washington, D.C. based writer Ken Silverstein. Writing in the November 2000 issue of Harper's Magazine, Silverstein accused the center of raising millions of dollars from fund-raising and investments but spending only a portion of the money raised on its civil rights programs."

The Encyclopedia of Business at [34] in a very detailed article doesn’t mention it at all.

The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties covers the issue in more details (start at [35] and then switch to Amazon to get the rest of the section -- I can’t paste from either site) but it still zeroes in on what’s relevant by focusing only on what the Advertiser and Silverstein w/o inflamatory quotes.

Since there is an expressed concern about streamlining the article and the use of quotes, this section would be a place to start. It would certainly show good faith from that faction that seems to me to be concerned only with the encyclopedic nature of material that conflicts with their personal views of the SPLC. We should be able to reduce the section to one paragraph representing the SPLC position and one on the criticism, eliminating the quotes and limiting it to Silverstein and the Advertiser. I note that ALL of the encyclopedias list it LAST in their articles and NONE mention it in the opening paragraphs.

Let's discuss FIRST and edit only if consensus is obtained. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I just did that yesterday, see what you think. And I don't think we're quite to the stage yet where everyone has to discuss first. People here aren't so upset that they aren't able to value a respectful incremental edit with a good summary. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the recent changes to this are an improvement in terms of balance. However, now that it's stated more accurately, it's become clear that there just isn't much to say here. Yes, it's possible that they'd be influenced by such motivations, but it doesn't seem as though there's any evidence of this actually happening. Reporting such vague speculation seems undue. Dylan Flaherty 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really boils down to outsiders criticizing the internal financial decisions of the organization. No laws have been broken and all contributions are voluntary. The only actual investigation (the Advertiser's) is over 16 years old. I agree -- there's not much there and it takes up too much space. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um back at you. You left in the Pulitzer prize stuff, a redundant USA today reference, a redundant Cockburn reference, and a final paragraph discussing charity ratings that besides being unnecessary relies entirely on primary sources -- where is the secondary source to show the significance of the ratings? My point was that we have examples of how encyclopedias do it and the wikipedia version does it differently.

I have no problems with purely style issues, but here I'm talking about more than style. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Pulitzer prize issue is being discussed in a previous section, concurrently. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the criticisms are too significant to leave out. Just the fact that they said that they would stop collecting at a particular point and did not makes it quite significant. The point of having the older sources in there is that it gives the perspective of criticism over time, and that's necessary in this case. I streamlined the section quite a bit already. What do people think needs to come out? I would agree if the criticism hadn't been sustained over time. These are reliable sources with significant criticisms. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying to take all of them out. I'm saying to limit them to the Harper's and Advertiser sources, just like the three encyclopedias that mentioned it did. The Colburn and the USA Today quotes come in 1996 and 1998 -- between these two. There is a difference between being sustained over time as opposed to just being repeated over and over again by political opinion writers and every group criticized by the SPLC. There is no reliable secondary source that I am aware of that has done what the Advertiser did over 16 years ago. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's an interesting suggestion. Could you edit it and paste it here at the talk page so people can see just what you're talking about? I would say, keep the sources in the article, but put the two you want to cut (USA today and the Nation) after "The SPLC has received significant criticism for excessive fundraising and having excessive reserves" just so we have them in the article for future, and they lend extra credence generally. Then cut specific mention of them from the text. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small point but worth mentioning; the Encyclopedia of Business that the North Shoreman referred to does briefly mention the SPLC fundraising issue. You'll find it under the Key Dates section as part of a summary of the criticisms of the SPLC found in the Harper's Magazine article. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I didn't have time to read those. It does seem notable. It might not be if it weren't covered by such good sources. Harpers is an excellent magazine.... IMHO. And the other encyclopedias seem to think so. But I's dwunk wight now tho mebby i'm wrong. **GRIN** BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of this revision on 12 December, the fundraising section read like a hyperbolic tirade. IMO, as of this present revision, after Becritical's edits yesterday, it is far more encyclopedic in its presentation. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's an improvement but there's still some tightening I would suggest. Though at first I wondered why start with the line on criticism, I see that a simple switch with the second sentence doesn't work so well. I'm also not sure how exactly is it 'significant criticism' if no laws have been broken? (as Tom mentions). Here I would like to reiterate my point from another section -- advertising budgets (as they relate to fundraising, here) can be misleading since, depending on how they are calculated/perceived by an outside audit, they might include marketing efforts not strictly promotional: publishing, outreach and educational programs, PSAs etc. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I've made a simple copy-edit to replace the second excessive (and to fix the problem with parallel construction) but I thought it best to ask others before replacing significant-- how about noteworthy or notable? Because the term 'significant' has several connotations: how exactly has the criticism been significant? Has it resulted in a marked change in practices, as noted by reliable source(s)? Has it resulted in legal action or other official inquiries? If these are valid questions arising from a misused word, then we should simply look for a better alternative. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right [36] BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well glory be! Whether or not the North Shoreman realized it at the time, he's helped to solve two problems in one search. The sources he found in working toward streamlining the "Fundraising" section of the article should help to solve the problem that I mentioned with "Teaching tolerance" section of the article; to wit, that it was exclusively primary sourced. Two of the books he discovered, The Encyclopedia of Alabama, and The Encyclopedia of Business, have a reasonable amount of material on the project. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While more remains to be done on body of article, it is substantially better than it was a week ago. I would suggest that we return to the lead to correct the peacockery and primary source problem found its first sentence. No reason, however, not to get the whole thing done. I think we should work with the North Shoreman's 1.1 model which, in my opinion, is fine until the middle of the last sentence starting with "welfare rights" when he lists some things that aren't talked about much in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because what happens here is that there are multiple discussions ongoing about other aspects of the page that are not resolved, and contentious. The outcome of those discussions will affect what needs to be in the lead, so I suggest we first finish the issues with the article itself before dealing with the lead again. Besides that, I do not see the issues as you indicate, and more important, I think you maybe better concentrate on that yet-to-be-produced list of issues with this article, which might change what needs to go in the lead by itself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's not time to edit the lead yet, and it should be done on the talk page first. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

About ten hours ago, a bot reverted a change an IP user made where he changed American Family Association lead sentence from:

The American Family Association (AFA) is an American group.

to

The American Family Association (AFA) is an American hate group.

Even though I object to calling the Americian Family Association a hate group, I think it is strange that a bot would make this decision. I think it is a decision that the editors of American Family Association need to make.

I have notified the bot that it made a bad revert. I have also written on the user's page that the edit he made wasn't vandalism.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't vandalism, but I doubt the bot would have done that for a regular user. Bots can't be perfect, and it looks like they know that which is why they say "possible vandalism." However, the IP might have been responding to the source [37] added by another IP [38]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To someone unfamiliar with the article, an IP changing "group" to "hate group" would appear to be vandalism. It is up to the IP to deal with the bot. TFD (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, TFD! --Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, go ahead and justify them. Dylan Flaherty 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did think some of the edits were good. Good copy edits, and also possibly some sound judgments on taking things out. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of them were. Would you like to provide diffs? Dylan Flaherty 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like most changes, except for the removal of the section highlighting that the SPLC was the target of assassination plans etc. Why are those removed??-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example this took out some unnecessary text, and also took out an unnecessary mention of Hal Turner. That is kind of random information which doesn't really add to the informational needs of the article but does drag in something rather off-topic. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting choice, as I would have picked that one out as an example of a sloppy, pointless edit. Look at how, in the "after" version, there are two references to GruvermontgomeryJuly back to back. Sloppy. He removed a quote on the basis that it sounded kind of silly to point out that this was going to be a bigger threat than past ones, but this is precisely the thinking of the sender, so why are we doing them any favors? Finally, while the brief explanation of who Turner is could be cut, the reference ought not be, precisely because we'd otherwise not have a clue about his role. Dylan Flaherty 00:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that Badmintonhist has reverted his change twice now, the second time with a dishonest "minor" flag, but hasn't said a word here. Clearly, he is not interested in cooperating, and that's reason enough to throw out everything he did. Dylan Flaherty 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking more of not needing to repeat the rhetoric of terrorists, and also of paring the article down as much as possible while still retaining its core information. We want to have something that people will actually read. In that light, it just seemed like a good edit to me. Any sloppiness could be corrected. He also corrected some sloppiness, for example "While Metzger lost his home and will not be publishing any more material" ---> "While Metzger lost his home and ability to publish material." So I just don't think we can condemn the entire series of edits, and it would be worthwhile to do corrections or further edits rather than wholesale revert. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All possible good he did the article aside, however, the edit summary here [39] is disruptive of normal WP process, as he was reverting almost entirely [40] to the changes he himself had just made. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the boldly removed part, under WP:BRD. Now that it is reverted because I think the reasons are not valid, discussion is next. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kim. I prefer to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring, so I generally stick to 1RR and only go to 2RR if its warranted. The one thing we seem to agree on is that discussion is needed, but Bad has not seen fit to join the discussion. I think it's very nice of Becritical to try to step in for Bad, but it's ultimately Bad's job. Dylan Flaherty 01:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that each and every change was wholly bad. However, they're a mixed batch and there's enough bad in them to make it hard to filter out the good. I recommend that each change be considered individually, resolving it fully before moving on. Dylan Flaherty 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about either more discussion or more editing care. here is the current state of the changes after I put some stuff back in. I accidentally moved the information about Bond, but don't see a reason to correct that. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And note that "Several neo-Nazi groups held a rally in front of SPLC headquarters in early 2003." is still missing, as is ""promising the most dangerous threat" ever faced"" et seq. I'm leaving it up to others to vet this current version. I'm not endorsing it necessarily as the one that should be kept. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might have joined the discussion earlier but my singing talents are often in demand on Saturday nights. Right now the family computer is being demanded by my wife so more detailed comments will have to wait. For now, I'll just observe that my recent edits were excellent and should be embraced by discerning editors throughout the Wikipedia project,. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/cringe. Jeez, now he's channeling fictional character Ignatius J. Reilly?! Next he'll be quoting Boethius and Fortuna. Even more so now, I stand by my earlier objections [41] [42] to his editorial opinion of what constitutes article improvement. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We bow to thee, great Badmintonhist the Mighty. It is thy editing which doth set us an example, tho verily never shall we meet thy admirable standard. Forgive us our humble objections, for it is merely our ignorance and perversity which hath overcome us in our tear-filled and loathsome debasement. Whilst thou walkest among the stars of True Knowledge, do we scrape our bellies on the lowly thorns, and drag our weary tails in the mud of ignorance and contrariness. Be lenient and patient with us, oh Badmintonhist, Father of All Good Writing and NPOV, for we are weak. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:P BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All kidding aside, I took the time to write edit summaries for all but the most obvious edits so I would have expected an individual approach to each edit rather than a blanket deletion. I would be happy to defend each change that I made but not all at once. Dylan sent me a rather odd note threatening to "report" me for mischaracterizing my edits as minor? Where does that come from? Badmintonhist (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I have to compliment BeCritical on his rejoinder.[reply]

A note which you ignored and apparently fail to understand. The note includes a diff in which you made many significant changes but labeled it as Minor. This is Bad. Do not do this. Dylan Flaherty 17:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember I was hurrying out for the evening. Perhaps I noted some small glitch in the edit summary, corrected it, and unconsciously labeled it a minor change before clicking "submit." Even the great ones can make small mistakes from time to time. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain you'll be more careful in the future. Marking a large reversion as Minor may be seen as suggesting that you are reverting vandalism. Dylan Flaherty 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think wiki software automatically labels some kinds of reverts as minor, it's a flaw in their software rather than something he did on purpose (or at least that used to be the case, they keep updating the software). He obviously didn't mean to do that and it's too obvious a ploy for any intelligent person to have done it to try and get by our radar on this article. Since it can't have been bad faith, let's AGF. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's the case, but I'm willing to AGF if they say it wasn't intentional. Dylan Flaherty 05:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2, since the first try generated no consensus. So, two questions here:

• Should Wikipedia have information on groups that the SPLC designates as hate groups?
• If so, should this information be in the form of a category, or a list?

(If you're going to link to a policy page, it would be helpful if you'd provide a quote so we know what you're referring to.)

• Yes - its tracking of hate groups is definitely notable, and Wikipedia already has both List of designated terrorist organizations and Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator (some subcats of which also include lists). So it's clearly not unprecedented, and it's also notable. I have no opinion on whether it should be a category or a list. Roscelese (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - this is an authoritative list and therefore quite helpful. Ditto about category/list, although leaning slightly towards category, for convenience. Dylan Flaherty 04:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong No - A list might be okay for "information on groups that the SPLC designates as hate groups" if is it presented as the SPLC's list, not an actual list. But then why have that at all since a simple link to the SPLC will suffice? Designated terrorist organizations come from a reliable source, a national government. They have encyclopedic significance. Hate groups as listed by the SPLC would come from a source that has admitted it is trying to smear certain groups, not in so many words, of course. SPLC's listing is not encyclopedic, except to the extent that a hyperlink is made to the SPLC web site for the SPLC's list on an as needed basis, or except for mention on the SPLC page itself. Giving the SPLC's list an encyclopedia page would give its list qualities of reliability, etc., that its list on the SPLC site does not now have, and that is not the mission of Wikipedia. It may be the mission of SPLC, but not Wikipedia. On a related note, a list of actual hate groups would be a strong magnet for trouble.

And a category is inappropriate per WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT.

Procedurally, I am not comfortable with attempting to gain consensus in a new section for something that had no consensus so recently, as in a day ago. The existing section was entirely appropriate for continuing the conversation. By having this new section, it essentially nullifies the previous one, and if the editors there do not comment here, suddenly their votes have disappeared. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked you to specify what policies at WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT you're referring to, since I see nothing there that would preclude the creation of a category. Now I'll also ask you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups." Roscelese (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is the more likely of the two, and that suffers from serious problems as I stated. So I'll pass on spending time on the CAT problem for now. As to the smearing, see, for example, the Tom Brokaw matter here: "SPLC's Cowardly Lyin'", FRC, 8 December 2010. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand. When I ask you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups," I mean that I want you to provide evidence that the SPLC "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups." Roscelese (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other issues you raised: 1. Procedurally, I started a new section because I wanted to discuss the alternate possibility of creating a list. Hopefully some of the editors from before will contribute their opinions as well, but I think it's neater this way. (I don't see what you're worried about with opposing votes being lost - of the people from the previous discussion who haven't commented here yet, the number of supporting and opposing is the same.) 2. What makes the government more reliable than an organization whose mission is, largely, tracking hate groups? I suppose the Simon Wiesenthal Center is also not reliable, because it is not a government and it is biased against Nazis. Roscelese (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to hear you actually answer her question. If you don't, I will give "Huckleberry Finn" as a Christmas gift to a teen. Dylan Flaherty 04:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy answer. You misquoted me. The full quote is, "admitted it is trying to smear certain groups, not in so many words, of course". The key phrase is "not in so many words, of course". However, I have linked to an article where Tom Brokaw questioned the SPLC's action. There's a RS if there ever was one. The focus here is on Wikipedia, not on it editors. Tom Brokaw, not LAEC. And Tom Brokaw or the like did not question the Simon Wiesenthal Center on why it was smearing Nazis. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has an impeccable reputation. As the Tom Brokaw matter shows, the SPLC does not.

Huckleberry Finn is outstanding writing and beloved by almost everyone, including myself. That said, the book comment was genuinely funny. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. Then provide that evidence in "not so many words." Even if Brokaw had said anything of the kind in the unreliable source that you cited, his own personal opinion, as someone completely unaffiliated with the SPLC, would not be a substitute for the admission you are claiming exists. Roscelese (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I see no need for the category. People should be able to find the up-to-date on the SPLC website. LAEC, could you please stop linking to sites that cannot be used as reliable sources. I find them just as offensive as you find pornography. TFD (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I think it would be useful as a navigational tool - so that articles about the groups would all be in one place or all accessible from one place. Roscelese (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could have a list with links, which would be easier to maintain. We probably do not even have articles about most of the groups, so it could be helpful in showing that. TFD (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was one of the alternatives I was suggesting. So, to be clear, do you, like LAEC, oppose the idea of Wikipedia's having this information, or is it just that you oppose a category? Roscelese (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, good to have you back. I do not oppose pornography, unless it is illegal. I know the ref is not necessarily a RS, but we are talking in Talk and Tom Brokaw is the RS contained in the link I provided, and he directly calls into question the SPLC motives for labeling certain groups as hate groups. I see that Tom Brokaw/SPLC exchange and I am not impressed with the SPLC's response, and it appears neither is Tom Brokaw. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^Pls. note that this comment misrepresents the source in multiple ways: Brokaw says nothing of the kind, nor is his personal opinion (ie. not a news broadcast on which he is host) a reliable source. Roscelese (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the category because the terminology is specific to the SPLC and will no doubt cause disruption over dozens of articles. But a list article would be fine, if someone wants to copy over the 900+ organizations and provide internal links. TFD (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear (again), the proposed category would be something like "Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center," so it would be quite clear who was doing the designating. Roscelese (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD is exactly correct. And in saying "copy over", that reminds me of the potential for WP:COPYVIO. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - do you also support a list? (I really should have made two separate headings so this would all be clearer.) Roscelese (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a list, but for the problems TFD and I have discussed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category would have no utility and would soon be out of date. We can always mention in individual articles that groups are listed by the SPLC as hate groups. I do not see btw any copyright problems with copying a list but you may wish to check it. Incidentally if you were to create a category at a later date, having a list with internal links would make the process a lot easier. TFD (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, I've addressed your contention about reliability - do you really think there would be a copyvio problem, given that the information would likely be presented in a different way (I see no reason to organize by state, as their website does - moreover, this would mean that individual branches of groups would not have to be listed more than once)? Roscelese (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would the list consist of? Just the list the SPLC has? If so, we don't need that list here, and it would be an inferior source since it wouldn't be updated as well as the SPLC's version. A category, however, would be highly appropriate for hate groups in general, but not limited to the SPLC's. TFD's point about the disruption it would cause is a good one though. I say, don't do either. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could never be a category "Hate groups" without including who designates the group as a hate group, for the same reason the "terrorist groups" categories are by designator. Roscelese (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right so I'd say it's definitely not something we should do... and the list is merely redundant to the SPLC's and less up-to-date. There's a reason to have List of designated terrorist organizations, since it includes more than one authority's designation. I doubt that is feasible in this case? If we could include groups designated by other authorities, it would be a good idea to have the list. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it would be useful as a navigational tool, but that's a decent point, and it would be an even better list if it had more than one organization's info. We could add the ADL. The article hate group says the FBI also tracks hate groups, which I confirmed on their website, but I can't find a public list. Roscelese (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be cool if we could find the FBI list. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this, useful for the article as it recommends SPLC. We already knew that, but could add it. I didn't find an FBI list either, and I think I would have if one existed. They keep track, but don't publish the list apparently. I would think they wouldn't, it would give the groups a heads-up. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yeah, I saw that as well - guess there's no list we could use. Do you think we'd be able to start an article with the SPLC and ADL, though? (Any other monitoring groups I might not be thinking of? I found something called Hate Directory, but no reliable info on the creator's credentials, so I wouldn't include it.) Roscelese (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure... the Anti Defamation League "publishes a list of the "ten leading organizations responsible for maligning Israel in the US", which have included a group calling for the United States to "stop funding Israeli apartheid"." That's not much to go on is it? What it looks like to me is that the SPLC is it. It maintains the list on which the FBI depends and no other organizations feel the need to duplicate the SPLC's work. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I found at first, too, which isn't very useful, but then I dug a bit and found this, which has at least a few. (the "movements" category on the sidebar also includes the KKK and others). Roscelese (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ADL lists the American Front's ideology as "Anti-Semitism, White supremacy, Third Positionist". The WP article already puts them in the category of "White supremacist groups in the United States". We also have a category, "Antisemitism in the United States", and could create a sub-category for organizations. We could also create categories for third position, etc. TFD (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a discussion going on now over whether it's acceptable to categorize groups as anti-Semitic, since previous consensus is that they can't be categorized as homophobic. An attributed list would solve the POV issue. Roscelese (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not. No one wants to be labeled with a negative category, just because it's "attributed." I know three public libraries that are defrauding the government of millions. Should there be a "defrauder" cat that attribute the allegation to me? Some libraries even cover up child pron crimes. Should the "child pron" cat be added to the pages of various libraries? And the cat you seek, even if attributed, would still suffer from all the other problems discussed by the various editors above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you cute. Since your opinion is so clearly authoritative, as substantiated by dozens of reliable sources, how about you try adding "Cat:Libraries that LAEC thinks are committing fraud" to the articles and see what happens? Maybe you'll get an A on your school project. Roscelese (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the FBI actually formed a partnership with the SPLC. This should probably be in the article in a special section. What do others think? [43][44]; this might be of use for something [45] [46] BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Two years ago, the FBI and the Department of Justice began to work with the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Urban League on the Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative. " BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]