Jump to content

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

SPLC founder fired for alleged misconduct.

March 14 at 7:38 PM This is a developing story, and it will be updated.

The Southern Poverty Law Center fired co-founder and chief litigator Morris Dees on Wednesday, the civil rights organization announced.

In a Thursday statement, SPLC President Richard Cohen stressed the importance of “ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world.”

“When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action,” Cohen wrote. The statement did not offer specifics on the circumstances behind Dees’s termination. When pressed for more details on the decision, a spokesman for SPLC said he couldn’t “comment on the details of individual personnel” and did not anticipate any further statements on the matter.

In its story on the firing, the Montgomery Advertiser cited its 1994 investigation into the nonprofit advocacy group, in which staffers accused Dees of being a racist and alleged “discriminatory treatment of black employees.” The SPLC denied claims of racism raised in the series, the Advertiser reported.

[The Southern Poverty Law Center and the delicate task of defining hate in 2018]

The SPLC statement continued, “Today we announced a number of immediate, concrete next steps we’re taking, including bringing in an outside organization to conduct a comprehensive assessment of our internal climate and workplace practices, to ensure that our talented staff is working in the environment that they deserve — one in which all voices are heard and all staff members are respected."

Dees told the Associated Press his firing involved a “personnel issue,” but declined to offer more information.

“I think the Southern Poverty Law Center is a very fine group and I devoted nearly 50 years of my life to it and I’m proud of its work,” Dees told the AP. “About being fired, all I can say is it wasn’t my decision and I wish the center the best.”

Founded in the deep south on the heels of the civil rights movement, the Southern Poverty Law Center began as a small firm dedicated to fighting racism and segregation. Dees co-founded the organization in 1971 with Joseph Levin. Jr., and in the 48 years since, it has grown into a large and influential advocacy organization, cited by news outlets and lawmakers, with a revenue of more than $120,000,000, according to 2017 tax documents.

Dees’s biography was scrubbed from the SPLC’s website by Thursday afternoon, but a cached version of the page lists awards he received and lauds him for “innovative lawsuits that crippled some of America’s most notorious white supremacist hate groups.”

He famously represented the family of Michael Donald, a black 19-year-old who was brutally murdered and then hanged at the hands of the United Klans of America. The family was awarded $7 million in damages in 1987, effectively bankrupting United Klans. Donald’s mother was awarded the Klans’ only asset, their national headquarters building in Tuscaloosa.

In 2006, the National Law Journal named Dees one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the United States.

Reis Thebault contributed to this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.42.69 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know what she did with the national headquarters building in Tuscaloosa? Did she sell it? I wonder what is there now? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You should not post lengthy quotes from news media which is a violation of copyright. Also, this page is not for a general discussion of the SPLC, but for ways to improve the article. Since the information has been added to the article, there is no need to mention it here, unless there is disagreement about what text to insert into the article. TFD (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Dees firing and allegations of misconduct

I added content regarding Morris Dees' firing to both the lede and the body. When the founder of an organization--who has run it for the past 50 years--is abruptly and unceremoniously fired, and the organization firing him says it needs to conduct an internal audit to assess its workplace culture, that's notable and WP:DUE. Don't take my word for it. It's been extensively covered by the most reliable sources we have. NYTimes, LATimes, NBC among many others. His firing also reportedly coincides with a letter from "two dozen" employees alleging racial and sexual discrimination, which as the RS note Dees has faced in the past as well. I feel this content is certainly due in both the lede and the body, but at the very minimum don't understand why this content was stripped from the body, too. Seems like a particularly egregious case of WP:WHITEWASH, and recentism is not a sufficient explanation.ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it belongs in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article. Note that allegations against Roger Ailes are not mentioned in the lead for Fox News Channel, although we have actual information about them. TFD (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I think those allegations probably belong in the Fox News lede, and would be glad to discuss so on that Talk page. Regardless, Dees' is particularly significant given that it's a civil rights organization facing civil rights allegations. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
What you or I consider significant is beside the point. What is important is the significance assigned to it in reliable sources. AFAIK, it's not being discussed on cable news. That could be because of lack of information at this time. That of course may change and we can revisit the matter. TFD (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think that's the case. It's been covered on Fox News. I don't have a CNN clip but they covered it pretty prominently on their site. And all the major newspapers covered it too. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I am aware that it has been reported in the news. It is however not being discussed on cable news. Rachel Maddow isn't suspending her coverage of Russia to discuss it, for example. There's nothing on the Sunday morning talk shows either. So per weight, there is no reason for it to be in the lead. TFD (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I have seen news of it (which is why I came to the page here) and I am not even in the USA. I would say that making international news makes it significant. Varybit (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
"Rachel Maddow must discuss X story for it to be in the lede" is a laughably ridiculous standard. It's a story that's received massive amounts of rs coverage. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The standard is "to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If you think a different criterion should be used, then get it changed. How about whatever self-declared libertarians and social conservatives find important? Why use news sources, when there are some really good blogs out there that aren't controlled by the cultural Marxists and the liberal elites? TFD (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Calm down and drop the accusations, pal. I perfectly understand the standard for proportional weight. But that's not what you said. You said "it has to be on cable news", which is laughably arbitrary and self-serving. Forget "blogs", if the Times, NBC, ABC, WaPo, CNN, Fox, and the AP aren't good enough for you, then you're being ridiculousModerateMikayla555 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I get the point of not using humor or irony since some readers will miss it deliberately or otherwise. For your benefit I will translate it irony free. If something does not attract extensive media coverage in relation to the topic, then it lacks weight. No doubt the story is the topic du jour on conspiracy theory websites, but other than straight forward reporting on Dees and others leaving the SPLC, it has attracted no attention in mainstream media. And speaking of "calm down and drop the accusations," there is no need to use terms such as "laughably ridiculous" and "laughably arbitrary and self-serving." TFD (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In the body, not in the lead. There should be a 48 hour waiting period before any breaking news goes in, as a minimum for coverage to establish any WEIGHT and to allow some time for content to show, with commentary and responses. This item has gone on long enough we see it’s not been taken up widely enough to for example be in bbc.com, and seems to have reduced coverage several days later and moved on to talk about his replacement. The Google count just isn’t high enough and there’s no reason to expect tales of it being a power play and/or lurid tales of misconduct to become public so there just isn’t much to talk about. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree that it belongs in the body, but as far as the lede goes, we need to wait and see what the long-term impact is going to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I added it to the controversies section, but I see you expanded the Dees' section title and put it there. I think that's perfectly reasonable, and I suppose we should hold off on adding it to the lede to avoid recentism. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

President Richard Cohen and legal director Rhonda Brownstein have now also resigned, which I've added to the section. This appears to be shaping up to a much bigger story, now that all three of the organization's highest ranked members have all departed in a week. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we mention the recent New Yorker article that calls the SPLC a “scam” ? Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We have an interesting NPOV-related problem. The SPLC calls a bunch of organizations "hate groups" (some obviously are, others appear to just be groups that have unpopular political opinions) and we have a huge number of Wikipedia editors who really dislike said organizations and who will fight to the death to retain the SPLC as the reliable source on who is and who is not a hate group. Try to change this and you are in for a huge shitstorm. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Roger Ailes, the effective founder of Fox News, resigned after allegations of sexual misconduct; that didn't affect the fact that we still consider Fox News a (more or less) reliable source. I'm not sure why you would think that the founder of the SPLC resigning for similar reasons would somehow magically make the SPLC's research findings unreliable.
Having an "unpopular political opinion" is one thing, saying that gay people are dangerous to children or that immigrants are all criminals is quite another. The SPLC rightly targets the latter — which are dangerous lies designed to inflame unwarranted hatred, resentment and fear of entire classes of people. "I don't like gay people because the Bible says so" — that's an opinion. "I don't like gay people because they spread AIDS and molest kids" — that's false, hateful propaganda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Dees said all that? No wonder everyone is upset. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not a WP:NPOV problem since NPOV says that we provide greater weight to expert opinion than to fringe views. We don't for example provide equal weight to the opinions of 9/11 truthers, birthers, creation scientists, etc. TFD (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
--Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Boy, that sure is a big long list of mostly right-wing partisan columnists and bloggers whining that their hateful homophobic racist anti-Semitic buddies are being called out on what they are. City Journal? The Daily Wire? National Review? Washington Examiner? John Stossel? Good work, surprised you didn't cite VDARE too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Come on Baranof, you're betraying your own bias here. You say that the splc doesn't just targret "unpopular opinions" but rather real hate, then you go on to wave your hand and dismiss even the most milquetoast, mainstream, right-of-center critiques of the organization--not to mention that you pretty obviously ignored the non-partisan examples Guy Macon included on that list. I'm an admittedly left wing person myself and as a trans woman I certainly don't appreciate the statements from many of the groups on the splc's list about queer folk. But you've invented a total straw man ("calls all immigrants criminals?" Who specifically said that?) of the splc's targets, dismiss evidence provided to the other end, and then come pretty close to calling Guy Macon a white supremacist (VDare, really?) rather than WP:AGF. Anyway, all of this is a bit of a distriction from the originally question which is whether the New Yorker article (which, by the way, was written by Bob Moser, a gay, openly liberal former employee of the splc)--and the answer is still yes, because it's reliable and due. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

For those who still think that the SPLC is a reliable source, see this report from the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:[2]

Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on the Daily Stormer website, claiming that this "book club" met sometime in September 2016 at a unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post the SPLC listed the Iowa town a "refuge of hate" and listed them as as the home of the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group.

Later, facing a storm of criticism, the SPLC changed the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub’s designation to "statewide."

One small problem: The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed. And the SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year[3], ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only reluctantly posting a "correction" that still insists that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level, and only posting the "correction" after there was a huge public backlash. Needless to say, there is zero evidence for the "statewide" claim either.

David Rettig, executive director of the Amana Colonies and Visitors Bureau, says that he attempted to reach out to the SPLC as soon as he learned about the map, but nobody from the civil rights organization would return his message. "It was a shock to us when we found out," he said. "We’ve checked around with the sheriff (Rob Rotter) and he indicated to me there is absolutely no hate group operating in the Amana Colonies, and he checked with his superiors in Des Moines and there are no reports … we’ve seen nothing of this, visitors or residents." Rotter backed up Rettig’s remarks" "There is no such neo-Nazi group in Iowa County." and that the SPLC was "irresponsible at best. I would hope that the SPLC is a more responsible organization than this example of their professionalism exhibits." The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong. Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, they changed the claim that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And yet the SPLC still refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll".

When you make a claim without a shred of evidence[4] other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for well over a year without providing a shred of evidence, you no longer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[5] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I can find even more op-eds claiming that global warming and evolution are hoaxes, some written by the same authors presented above. Op-eds however are only considered reliable sources for their authors. TFD (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Those op-eds op-eds claiming that global warming and evolution are hoaxes do not contain any actual evidence that the claims are true. The op-eds about the splc are full of easily verifiable facts -- many of them from the splc website.
Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed. This is an easily verifiable fact, not an editorial opinion.
The SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year, ignoring all calls for any actual evidence. This is an easily verifiable fact, not an editorial opinion.
The SPLC eventually posted a "correction" that still insists that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level. This is an easily verifiable fact, not an editorial opinion.
The SPLC has consistently refused to supply any evidence for the Amana claim or the statewide claim (which they still insist is accurate) other than the post by Concerned Troll on the Daily Stormer website. This is an easily verifiable fact, not an editorial opinion.
There is zero evidence for the "statewide" claim. If you dispute this, show me a single shred of evidence that there is a statewide neo-nazi group in Iowa called The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub. Show me any other source that claims that it exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You mentioned the Amana group before and opened two discussion threads about it two years age. (see Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 17). Apparently the group exists, and they meet in Amana Colonies, but are not centered there. I don't have access to the files that SPLC investigators build, but then I don't have access to the files that mainstream journalists build either. I don't see what it has to do with Dees leaving the SPLC, which is the subject of this discussion.
I find the arguments against the SPLC strange anyway. A group will say for example that there is a homosexual agenda to turn children into homosexuals. Then when the SPLC lists them as a hate group, they will say it is because they oppose same sex marriage.
TFD (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Re: "Apparently the group exists", bullshit. No such group has ever existed. The Des Moines Register has been asking the SPLC for evidence -- and has done its own looking for evidence -- for years. Nobody can name a place and time where the group had a meeting. Nobody can name a single member of the group. Nobody has produced any literature produced by the group. This is in stark contrast to the real neo-nazis, who try to spread their message and recruit new members. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • TFD, your comment re Op-Ed’s is correct... but the same goes for advocacy groups... they are reliable for attributed statements as to their views, but not for unattributed statements of fact. So, we can reliably cite the SPLC for the statement that “the SPLC believes that the Amana group exists”, but not for “the amana group does exist”. The real question isn’t the reliability of an advocacy org’s opinion, but how much WEIGHT to give it. Previously, I would have said that the SPLC had a strong enough reputation that we should give it a fair amount of weight. Now (after these new allegations about their founders)... I have to question my previous assessment. Their reputation is falling. Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think any policy or guideline says that and in fact many advocacy groups are routinely used as reliable sources in news media and academic writing, for example Human Rights Watch, the Brookings Institute, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the SPLC. However, the main use of the SPLC in Wikipedia articles is reporting their opinion about whether groups are hate groups. And that is mentioned not because the SPLC is a reliable source, but because of the weight of their opinion as established by its reporting in reliable secondary sources, including news media and academic writing. TFD (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's a story about a Davenport Iowa member of the "National Alliance" distributing racist leaflets. The article mentions that similar leaflets were distributed in Iowa City, which is 20 miles from Amana. The SPLC said in 2015 that a former accountant with the National Alliance told them that the man "has been purchasing bulk quantities of racist books."[6] It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that he once met like-minded people at a restaurant in Amana. TFD (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow, There is a white supremacist in Iowa. what a shock. And he belongs to a group that actually exists, and has writups at the SPLC[7] and on Wikipedia.[8] Clearly the existence of a horse proves that unicorns exist. Unlike the imaginary neo-nazi group, for the real group the SPLC lists leaders, a website, and membership estimates. Would you care to speculate on why they refuse to do this for the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub?
Maybe we can go to The Daily Stormer website and ask the user "Concerned Troll" to post more details. Clearly that's the only source the SPLC needs to fabricate a hate group that never actually existed. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, you are saying that the "group actually exists" and that it is imaginary. And you don't know if Concerned Troll's posting was the basis of the original determination that the group met in Amana. It's hard to make assessments based on incomplete information and you should stop using conspiracy theory websites to inform your opinions. They are worse than the Daily Mail. Perhaps you have some sort of objection to any listing of hate groups, but that's a separate issue. TFD (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I simply repeated what the SPLC themselves told the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:
"The Amana Colonies is no longer designated as the home of the neo-Nazi group. The Southern Poverty Law Center had previously designated the historic settlement as the home of the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi and white supremacy news and commentary organization.
"On Monday, one of the economic leaders of the Amanas received word that the SPLC, a civil rights organization, changed the Daily Stormer’s designation to 'statewide.' The group had earlier stood by its claim that the Amanas were the home of a hate group, noting that it had confirmation that a group of individuals met sometime in September 2016 at a restaurant in the Amanas. A thread, originally posted on the Daily Stormer and since cached by Google, backed the claim.
'The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!' posted a user with the screen name Concerned Troll in a Sept. 26, 2016, thread. Concerned Troll, who did not post specific details about the visit, went on to suggest a subsequent meeting in Des Moines sometime in the late fall or early winter."[9]
My other source is The Des Moines Register:
"The Southern Poverty Law Center is standing behind its claim that Amana, Iowa, is the site of a hate group.
In reaffirming its claim that the Amana Colonies are a home of the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi and white supremacy news and commentary organization, a spokesman for the nonprofit legal advocacy organization said that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong.
Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC, said that the group met at a restaurant in Amana in 2016 and that it is fair to say that there is indeed an active group in the historic village."
The group doesn't exist. It never existed. The SPLC determined that it did exist based upon a posting by an internet troll. They cited that posting when asked why they had listed Amana. They refused to answer when several newspapers asked them if they had any other evidence.
And, despite your personal attack implying the contrary, I have no problem with the SPLC listing actual hate groups that actually do exist (and are not plastic signs). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND. You're clogging up the entire Talk page, I can barely even follow what's going on in the discussion now. This is a place to discuss how to improve the article and whether or not the Dees allegation should be included in the lede--not the place to air your grievances about some store in Iowa. Seriously, can someone step in here. This is getting ridiculous. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I read "Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?", in Politico. Interesting--didn't offer that much that was new. The question posed by the article title, though, isn't really answered by the article: it's rhetorical. At best, you can get out of it that the SPLC admits it's focused more on right-wing groups than on left-wing groups. By the way, there is still plenty of speculation about Dees and Cohen and their departures--but how that would affect the organization's reliability is not clear to me. Their reputation, that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • My particular favorites are the people who (according to their accounts) once supported the noble work of the SPLC until it turned into "the modern SPLC" (that's a good one—was there an ancient SPLC of which the history books are silent?) and threw its old mission statement out the window, and that is the only reason David Horowitz, and Newt Gingrich, and Mitch McConnell and their ilk cannot support the SPLC. Yeah, like they ever supported it in the first place. Gimme a f'ing break. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • That was probably when the SPLC opened in 1971 and concentrated on fighting poverty, racism and the death penalty. TFD (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
      • “I do not think it belongs in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article.” TFD, 20:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • When the SPLC libels a group it hates, the SPLC partisans here always insist on putting that libel in the lead in the WP article. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. 2604:2000:1580:415A:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Right. So the lead of the article on Neil Armstrong should contain comments by every crank who thinks the moon-landing was faked. TFD (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
          • That’s exactly my point. Thus, the lede of every article about a person or group that the SPLC has libeled must be revised. The only fair alternative would be for the SPLC lede to mention every group that has condemned it for its demonstrated race-baiting, etc. 2604:2000:1580:415A:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
            • The problem with that is that what goes into articles is determined by weight. Since most articles in mainstream media about organizations that SPLC describes as hate groups mention the SPLC assessment, it gives it weight. But the reverse is not true. See for example an article in NBC News Channel 4 Washington: "But Sumrall acknowledges that members of the far-right group called the Proud Boys — who have been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and connected to violent protests — will be at Saturday's rally."[https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Far-Right-Group-Anti-Fascists-Demonstrate-in-DC-Saturday-Protest-512295262.html} But when they write about the SPLC, they never say that it "is described by the Proud Boys as George Soros backed communist anti-American white race genocide Jewish liars." When the media start doing that, then we can change the articles. In the meantime, you either need to get media to change their reporting or get policy changed. TFD (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Should the firing be placed in the lede?

  • I suggest we post an RFC to discuss the editing issue. (It might attract more interest to this little noticed article.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Seconded. To be clear, the question for the RfC should be whether the whole current scandal/situation should be in the lede--not just Dees' firing. It started with the firing of Dees, but also now includes the subsequent external investigation over harrassment and leadership resignations (e.g. president cohen). Since it's all part of the same broader story. I definitely think it's worth discussing in what capacity that should or shouldn't be in the lede. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thirded. And I agree that the RfC should be about the broad scandal roiling the organization, not about the firing or resignation of any specific individuals. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • RfC or not, this is an issue worth discussing more. I've noticed that there's been continuous coverage of these events from reliable sources. I had some WP:RECENCY concerns over including it, but now I'm re-assessing. For example, the NYT just ran a second follow up piece here. Likewise with the WSJ (although this one is an editorial) here. And various sites did follow-ups to cover Cohen's resignation, like CNN here. There are even former SPLC employees writing about it all, like in the New Yorker here. At this point, we've had these firings/resignations extensively and repetitively covered by reliable sources (many more above have already been listed in this Talk), and I think it's WP:DUE for the lede. When the founder of an organization who has run it for 50 years is abruptly fired and then the most senior staff suddenly depart, that's a big deal. It's a particularly big deal when it comes in the wake of dozens of employees complaining about sexual/racial harassment going back decades to the point where former employees are taking it to the press. When an organization which stands for civil rights has a problem with privileged white men at the top of the organization doing things contrary to the organization's mission, it is highly notable, and RS seem to agree. I think we'd be doing a disservice to wikipedia readers not to include this information in the lead, especially given how many readers are likely coming here looking for it. Thoughts?ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • This is more complete coverage than we had before. Evidently, the SPLC is changing its leadership and reviewing internal practices. I suggest saying something in the lead like, "In 2019, the founder, Morris Dees, was dismissed, followed by the resignation of the president, Richard Cohen. An outside consultant, Tina Tchen, was brought in review workplace practices, particularly relating to race and gender." TFD (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I think that your wording is great, with the caveat that "relating to race and gender" seems a bit too broad after looking at the language in the latest coverage. Given that we have former employees on the record calling it harassment and the RS above describing it as such, I think we should use their specific wording and say "..particularly relating to allegations of racial and sexual harassment." The rest of your suggested edit definitely seems encyclopedic to me. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Per WP:BB, I'm going to go ahead and add TFD's wording with my caveat. Glad to discuss further. For some reason, I'm having formatting trouble making it the last paragraph of the lede, so instead I put it as the second to last paragraph. I think it has something to do with the formatting of that last paragraph, which begins "Since the 2000s". If someone could fix that it would be appreciated. Sorry--still somewhat new at editing. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 12:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

“Hatchet Job”

In the Finances section there is an unsourced quote claiming the newspaper series is a “hatchet job”. The quote is missing an attribution, with a “citation needed” tag, but two years later no citation has been added. I intend to remove this in a few weeks if no citation is produced. Thanks.--That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead and criticism

The lead contains this blurb: 

 The SPLC's listings have also been the subject of criticism from others, who argue that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad, politically motivated, or unwarranted.

Considering the body of the article, this is rather a weak mention in the lead. I don’t want to waste anyone’s time or edit war over this, so I’m posting here first to foster some discussion. Just precisely is “who”, are the “others” mentioned above? The source of criticism is important context, especially in the lead. Also, this should be fleshed out a bit more to mention that the SPLC 'has' responded to criticism, either by reaffirming their positions or making retractions, as well as making settlement payments. I don’t think a lot needs to be added but the lead should reflect the body, and this lead comes up a bit short. Thanks. --That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The others are members or supporters of groups the SPLC describes as hate groups, Andrew Cockburn and Laird Wilcox. It doesn't have to be explained in the lead, as long as it is in the body. TFD (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversies: Alliance Defending Freedom

According to WaPo "At a meeting of the Alliance Defending Freedom in August, Sessions said, “You are not a hate group,” and condemned the SPLC for using the label “to bully and to intimidate groups like yours which fight for religious freedom.”" Seems rather strange that the criticism of a US Attorney General is nowhere to be found in the criticism sections. 2601:602:9200:3120:29DE:518D:BC1E:70A6 (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Since they are not mentioned in the article, there is no reason to include their rebuttal that belongs in the Alliance Defending Freedom article. I note that, according to the SPLC, they are "a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has linked homosexuality to pedophilia and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society. ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBT people on the basis of religion."[10] Whether or not you agree with those views, I don't think there is an dispute in reliable sources that they represent hate. Your issue therefore is not with the SPLC, which merely categorizes groups according to accepted criteria, but with the concept of anti-LGBTQA hate itself. TFD (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Family Research Council

Is this[11] appropriate? --Doug Weller talk 18:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Bogus vs false

Regarding the transmission of AIDS. The SPLC said the Doctor’s claims were “bogus”. There is no RS stating the claims made were false. We shouldn’t make statements of fact without a source. How hard is that to understand?--That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source as extensively discussed on WP:RSN, and the word "bogus" is a literal dictionary synonym for "false" or "untrue." You're welcome to open an RFC, but until then, we're going with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
We use what the source states, not what you “feel”. --That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The use of "false" as a paraphrase is perfectly acceptable, and not a violation of policy. That you disagree with that paraphrase is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The word "false" has been used as a paraphrase in that sentence since at least this edit more than two years ago. You unilaterally removed it without discussion - sorry, that's not on. You can open an RFC if you wish, but your unilateral removal is not accepted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
You of all people should know that no matter how long an unsourced item is in an article doesn’t make it valid for inclusion. Additionally, you’re above 3RR. You should correct this, sooner rather than later. You also seem to have a novel interpretation of how sources should be used. While it’s true the SPLC is considered a reliable source, that consideration is not without limits. The SPLC is only reliable as to “hate” groups designations and similar matters. They are not a reliable source for matters of scientific fact. When they claimed the doctor’s view of HIV transmission as “bogus”, that is not a matter of fact as if say, the NYT stated that. Hence why we can use the quoted phrase “bogus”. Your opinion that bogus always equals false, is pure bullshit, as any dictionary would tell you. That’s par for the course on you making up shit to justify your edits. (Personal attack removed) That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome to open an RFC to gain broader consensus if you think the interpretation is wrong. You're not welcome to remove reliably-sourced content without consensus. And D. James Kennedy was not a medical doctor. A doctorate in religious education grants no particular expertise in the realm of infectious diseases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but you haven’t a fucking clue as to how to properly reference reliable sources. Twisting them to support your POV bullshit is why people laugh at you. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Lets just change it to bogus then, this is pure semantics and serves no purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not just semantics. There is no reason to use quotes (presenting it as mere opinion) when we have multiple sources to support stating it as a fact. It is an undisputed fact that D James Kennedy Ministries promoted false claims about the transmission of AIDS. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
We should say false or bogus without quotes because we should not give credence to Kennedy's misinformed claims. He said for example that 450 million people would die from AIDS. TFD (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I was commenting only on False or bogus, not on the use of quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

The section about Andrew Anglin and the Daily Stormer should be updated. Anglin has been ordered to pay $14 Million USD to Tanya Girsh for his harassment campaign, court filing here: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/0211._07-15-2019_findings_and_recommendations_re_201_motion_for_default_judgment_as_to_defendant_anglin_filed_by_ta.pdf . Secondary source from SPLC's website, which gives a very in-depth overview of the case in question: https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/04/18/splc-sues-neo-nazi-leader-who-targeted-jewish-woman-anti-semitic-harassment-campaign TheSupremeChad (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the section using some independent sources. If there are any details from the SPLC links which belong, feel free to propose them for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Silverstein

Why is mention of Silverstein's criticism being taken out of the article? In addition to the references removed, see the following secondary sources that mention his work on the SPLC.

And the Politico article referenced elsewhere in the article mentions him too: * https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312 NPalgan2 (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your first source says that not all criticism comes from white supremacists. "Left-wing commentators such as [Cockburn and Silverstein] have argued that...." Note that left-wing in this context does not mean Clinton Democrats, but editors of a magazine that is well outside the mainstream of U.S. politics, and conflates hate groups, mainstream liberal and conservatives, democratic socialists and other left-wing groups as agents of American imperialism. The phrasing of the text however casts the criticism as coming from the mainstream and hence is misleading. TFD (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, by "a magazine that is well outside the mainstream of U.S. politics, and conflates hate groups, mainstream liberal and conservatives, democratic socialists and other left-wing groups as agents of American imperialism" do you mean harper's or the nation? In any case, the New Yorker article, Politico and both reference works I cite mention Silverstein's criticism as notable. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
How are either Harper's or The Nation substantially outside the mainstream? They're both national institutions and the latter was even endorsed by Obama.GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. Since you consider it important to include Silverstein's opinions, I thought you were familiar with his biography. I was referring to CounterPunch, which was founded by Cockburn and Silverstein. Also, when you quote policy, could you please do so correctly. Notability is about article creation. It has nothing to do with what goes into an article. That is covered under Due and undue weight. And whether or not we include Sikverstein's opinions, we should not falsely imply that they are coming from the mainstream. TFD (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Politico, the New Yorker and the two encyclopedias establish dueness. They didn't feel the need to say that Silverstein was not your preferred flavour of "mainstream", so why should we? NPalgan2 (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the fact that his opinion has been reported in reliable sources means that it should be considered. But what wzs wrong about the the text was that it misrepresented the degree of support for the opinion. It pretends that it is a prevalent view among anyone to the left of the Family Research Council, when it is a minority view of the extreme left of the U.S. spectrum. Note that every attack article in right-wing blogs mentions Silverstein. But there's no one else who might be considered progressive who has expressed these views and been reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
"The great Southern journalist John Egerton, writing for The Progressive, had painted a damning portrait of Dees, the center’s longtime mastermind, as a “super-salesman and master fundraiser” who viewed civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool for bilking gullible Northern liberals." https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center "The Southern Center for Human Rights, an Atlanta group specializing in death penalty defense, is one of a number of poverty law organizations that are upset with the SPLC for raising so much money and doing so little (in their view) for poor people and people of color. " https://books.google.com/books?id=oD46JBOhMU0C&pg=PA480 NPalgan2 (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
That's very interesting but you still need to explain which segment of U.S. opinion holds that view and how prevalent it is. I can probably find one writer who says that watermelon causes cancer but unless there is widespread support for that view I cannot add it to the watermelon article for balance. TFD (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
You may think those on the left who criticize the SPLC are as fringe as people who think watermelon cures cancer, but then your quarrel is with the reliable secondary sources. My suggested wording: “Some on the left, such as journalists John Egerton and Ken Silverstein and Yale law professor Stephen Bright have criticized what they have described as the SPLC's deceptive fundraising appeals and finances. https://books.google.com/books?id=XO9nBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA620 https://books.google.com/books?id=6gbQHxb_P0QC&pg=RA3-PA362

https://books.google.com/books?id=oD46JBOhMU0C&pg=PA480 https://www.al.com/news/2019/03/claims-of-workplace-racism-harassment-stretch-back-decades-at-southern-poverty-law-center.html https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-splc-morris-dees-20190314-story.html https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312 NPalgan2 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Bit unsure about this, if the sources said "and left wingers like..." I might have no issue with the text, but this looks a bit sysnthy to me "X says Bert Terrible is left wing, Bert says SPLC eat cats therefore we can say some left wingers say SPLC eats cats". Nor do I think attribution solves this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Some of the sources above label various individual critics as things like "progressive" or "liberal", etc. I don't think it matters if it's just "Journalists John Egerton and Ken Silverstein and Yale law professor Stephen Bright have criticized ..." NPalgan2 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Then we have a problem, Left may not mean progressive or liberal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, then how about "Journalists John Egerton and Ken Silverstein and Yale law professor Stephen Bright have criticized ..." NPalgan2 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Which then neatly takes us back to undue, why is their criticism worthy of inclusion, more so then any other Journalist or Yale Professor (was he one at Yale?)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Because respectable news organizations and other sources keep on mentioning them. They decide what's due. Here's another quoting Bright https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/03/16/morris-dees-splc-southern-poverty-law-center-martin-luther-king-jr-levin-hatewatch-klan-tracy-larkin/3173039002/ How can a single sentence be UNDUE when it's supported by so many high quality secondary sources? NPalgan2 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No we decide what is undue based upon polices like wp:undue. You have not shown that their views on SPLC are more due then anyone else who comments on them. Moreover as a one sentence line (about three peoples views) we have no context as to what they were in fact criticizing SPLC for, but to include more then a line may well violate undue as it gives to much weight to three peoples opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Why is eight high quality sources not enough for you? NPalgan2 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The montgomery advertiser is a local newspaper. At least one of the books only mention Silverstein (and with fewer words then we use in our sentence). That is what is meant by undue, giving more weight to something then RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The Montgomery Advertiser was a Pulitzer finalist in the past for its work on the SPLC. And which book do you mean please? NPalgan2 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
This one [[12]]. Also as far as I can tell a few of the other sources only talk about Silverstein, and only in single sentences. Again it is undue to give as much coverage to criticism as RS do, we summarize and you cannot summarize one sentencece without losing context. This as far as I can see has run its course, you do not have consensus and we are just rehashing the same arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I will add we already cover the finance issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The first source says first source says that not all criticism comes from white supremacists. "Left-wing commentators such as [Cockburn and Silverstein] have argued that...." By left-wing, it does not mean liberal or progressive. Cockburn and Silverstein were the founders of CounterPunch, which expresses opinions not normally associated with American liberalism or progressivism, such as opposition to gun control and climate change science. That does not mean that their opinions should be ignored, but that they cannot be presented as speaking for liberalism or progressivism. The overwhelming majority of mainstream media (such as ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC News) ignore Cockburn and Silverstein's criticisms and continue to cite the SPLC. Extreme right blogs however continue to quote Cockburn and Silverstein to make the false statement that even liberals and progressives question the SPLC. But this is not an extreme right blog, and we are supposed to accurately represent weight when we present opinions. TFD (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Counterpunch is not relevant. What's relevant is that Silverstein's SPLC reporting was vetted by the progressive editor of Harper's, and consumed without protest by thousands of very liberal Harper's readers.GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, it is fatuous to claim that, because he has a few non-conforming opinions, that Silverstein isn't progressive. That's like saying that Pat Buchanan, being anti-war and pro-labor, isn't conservative.GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Pat Buchanan has also written for Harper's. So has Gus Hall, the former leader of the Communist Party of the U.S. Unlike conservative media, mainstream media in America publish a range of opinions, not just those of their editors and readers. And I would suggest that if we included Pat Buchanan's opinions, we would mention that he is a conservative. We would not however claim that he was speaking for all Republicans. But it's not a good example, because a sizeable number of Republicans hold views similar to Buchanan. If we reported Gus Hall's opinions, we would mention he was a Communist. It is important when political opinions are expressed in news media to identify the ideological orientation of the writers. TFD (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Uh huh. I don't recall Pat Buchanan being a full time Harper's writer and an Open Society Fellow though.GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Harper's isn't OAN or wherever you get your news from. They don't enforce rigid ideological conformity. Therefore it is misleading to say that any one of their writers or editors speaks for the magazine and its readers, let alone all of U.S. liberalism and progressivism. In "Shaky Foundations" for example, Silverstein wrote, "The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends." I don't remember hearing that in Hillary Clinton's nomination speech at the Democratic National Convention the following year. TFD (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I hate to break this to you TFD, but whether or not Hillary Clinton represented progressives is an open question.GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
But working towards consensus, TFD, you should have no objection to the wording “Some on the left, such as journalists Ken Silverstein [1] have criticized what they have described as the SPLC's deceptive fundraising appeals and finances." GPRamirez5 (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
That sounds good. My concern all along was that when we report criticism, we explain where it is coming from and how much support it has, which your suggestion does. TFD (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices (Routledge) by Roger Chapman, James Ciment

Southern poverty law center

The Southern Poverty Law Center has gone to extremes in labeling certain groups as hate groups. They label many Christian Organizations as "hate" groups just because they define marriage as between a man and a woman. These groups do not advocate violence against gays in any way. Even Focus on the Family was labeled a "hate" group because of their Christian view of marriage. Surely the term "hate" group should have some definite meaning beyond disagreeing with someone's politics or stand on marriage. They do label some genuine "hate" groups as "hate" groups. But certainly the question of their judgment on this issue should be reflected in the article in Wikipedia so people will realize that they should not trust Southern Poverty Law Centers' labeling as conclusive. Don't take my word for it. Check out these websites about very mainstream Christian organizations: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/civil-rights-watchdogs-hate-map-includes-christian-groups. https://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2017/08/24/southern-poverty-law-center-labels-christian-groups-hate-groups-now-faces-lawsuit/ This article in particular points out the danger of SPLC's reckless labeling of a group as a "hate" group- as their labeling resulted in an extremist shooting someone and attempting a mass shooting at a Group headquarters that SPLC had labeled as a "hate" group. https://lidblog.com/splc-hate-group/. The fact that SPLC is seen by many as a "hate" group itself by labeling as "hate" groups those groups that disagree with them politically; this fact should be explored in the Wikipedia article. As the article stands now it sounds the SPLC can totally trusted to be correct in who they label as "hate" groups. Rogerpkeller (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Violence isn't the only definition of "hate." Would you deny that those groups you mentioned have opposed basic civil rights for LGBT Americans, such as the right to marry, the right to be free from discrimination in employment and public services, and even the right to be free from criminal prosecution? You're right that Focus on the Family hasn't called for violence against LGBT people, but they certainly have called them unworthy of basic civil and human rights and advocated that they be legal targets for discrimination.
A RedState blog is not a reliable source, nor is "The Lid." Our article already discusses the fact that some people disagree with the SPLC's positions. It also discusses the lawsuits, and the fact that the lawsuits have been dismissed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

They are beneath public discussion,

Why was this diff done? Surely it is pertinant, sourced, has enough weight to include. Was it reverted solely because it was labelled "minor" by a newbie who probably isn't familiar with the implications? Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 20:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth including if there's some larger discussion of the Stephen Miller story, but just mentioning Grisham's opinion without context gives the misleading impression that she's just offering some sort of a detached analysis rather than trying to deflect questions about a White House staffer. On its own, the opinion isn't notable, and it also probably doesn't belong in the section on Controversies regarding hate group designations Nblund talk 20:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, I'd prefer more than one source, per WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 23:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Unionization Controversy

The SPLC has recently discouraged its employees' attempts at unionization.

https://eu.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/11/12/southern-poverty-law-center-wont-voluntarily-recognize-employee-union/2580284001/

This seems like a fairly significant controversy that should be added to the Wikipedia page, given their activism around civil rights and broad-based egalitarian advocacy.

From the article I linked: "Southern Poverty Law Center management said Tuesday they would not voluntarily recognize a union organized by employees at the civil rights nonprofit and have hired a Virginia law firm whose website boasts about victories over labor organization attempts." 2A00:1028:8386:CA6:EC2D:6BE8:EF3E:EBBC (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure once source makes it significant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a story which is developing and quite new. More sources:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/southern-poverty-law-center-workers-say-they-want-a-union/
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmj9xe/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-unionizing-after-a-year-of-scandals
Expounding further on the scandals section seems like it could be worthwhile too.2A00:1028:8386:CA6:7913:24FB:745:CECF (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Then lets wait, we are not a newspaper.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Slatersteven. TFD (talk)

Political scientists' classifications of the SPLC

It is important to state in the intro that the SPLC is a left-of-center group, as many of its hate speech/hate group classifications are based on left wing cultural values. This should not serve to discredit the SPLC or remove its classification as a Reliable Source on wikipedia; the Reliable/Perennial sources list admits that it is a biased and opinionated source, but still considers it Generally Reliable. I personally agree with many of their hate group classifications, for example the National Socialist Movement, the KKK, Nation of Islam, or Christian Identity.

It has been difficult to find a meta-discussion of the SPLC in reliable media sources, so I would suggest looking through various political science journals, and see how they describe the SPLC and its history. Drbogatyr (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC is not described as a left-of-center group in reliable sources, and in fact their hate group classification is based on universally accepted cultural values, at least in developed countries. All of those countries have hate speech laws which criminalize the type of publications and speech that lead the SPLC to designate organizations as hate groups and the U.S. has hate crime laws which provide additional penalties for crimes motivated by the types of hate that lead the SPLC to designate organizations as hate groups. TFD (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Saying that SPLC classifications are based on "universally accepted cultural values" is a pretty bold claim, you got a citation to back that up? Also, what countries have hate speech laws? I know that the US has the First Amendment, which prevents those sorts of laws. I think you will find that you are more persuasive if you stick to facts rather than making them up.Drbogatyr (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
A good place to start if you want to know about hate speech is Wikipedia which has an article called Hate speech that presents the hate speech laws of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, the EU, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. You are right that the United States constitution has been interpreted as preventing these sorts of laws, which is why mainstream sources rely on the SPLC rather than the courts to identify hate groups. The groups listed by the SPLC as hate groups would be prosecuted in any other country that had hate speech laws. TFD (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Drbogatyr, you are jumping to a conclusion and then working backward to find support for your conclusion. Wikipedia works the other way: WP:SECONDARY sources are perused by we the editors, and these sources are summarized for the reader. The literature does not support your conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

We only need one thread about their leftyness.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

::TFD, Come on now, "The groups listed by the SPLC" would NOT necessarily be prosecuted in "any other country that had hate speech laws". Rather, SOME of these groups would be prosecuted in SOME of those countries. Don't exaggerate. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not exaggerating. The SPLC classifies groups as hate groups for disseminating hate speech. Hate speech is illegal in most Western nations except the U.S. Name any listed SPLC hate group and look at the reasons for the classification In every case it is because they have according to the SPLC disseminated hate speech which would meet the bar for prosecution anywhere else. If I am wrong, provide an example. TFD (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The IP is Badmintonhist evading their block so I've struck their comment. Doug Weller talk 06:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledge that the SPLC is a politically progressive organization

I think we should state at the beginning that "The (SPLC) is an American nonprofit progressive legal advocacy organization. There are both liberal and conservative reliable sources which indicate this. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/something-strange-is-going-on-at-this-civil-rights-institution-it-must-be-investigated/2019/04/05/a08f227c-5712-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/southern-poverty-law-center-apologizes-after-painting-journalists-as-fascists-in-retracted-article https://www.nas.org/blogs/event/peel_and_stick_splcs_reckless_labeling

This should not serve to discredit the SPLC. Wikipedia describes Media Matters for America as a progressive group, and it is still seen as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 00:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Politico source doesn't say that it's progressive, it says that "progressive" has been used by critics as an attempt to undermine its legitimacy. Since the source specifically doesn't support this label either way, it's not usable for this being a defining trait.
The Washington Post is an opinion article which mentions "young progressives" who work at the SPLC, near the middle of a lengthy article. Again the source isn't specifically saying this applies to the organization, and a passing mention buried in an opinion would be a weak source for several other reasons, even if it did.
The Fox News article doesn't say that SPLC is progressive, it just cites (misrepresents, really) the Politico article. It does, however, specifically accuse supposedly progressive journalists of being "framed" by the SPLC. If the assumption is that a progressive group is targeting other progressives, clearly we would need a lot more context for this to make any sense.
As for the last one, it might be worth discussing whether or not the opinion of historian Peter H. Wood should be included, but all sources are judged in context.
Since most of these sources are weak or totally unusable for this detail, this appears to be seeking sources to support a prior assumption. Instead, sources need to be evaluated and summarized, first, and conclusions based on sources in total.
Discussions about other articles belong on those article's talk pages. Wikipedia strongly favors sources over precedent, so attempting to use how some other group is described to prove a point would be false equivalence, at best. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, maybe "progessive" isn't the best-supported term. I found other reliable sources describing it as left-wing, perhaps we should say that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-watches-the-hate-watchers-11553726030 https://www.city-journal.org/html/demagogic-bully-15370.html https://www.foxnews.com/tech/conservatives-call-for-paypal-boycott-after-ceo-admits-splc-helps-ban-users https://capitalresearch.org/article/splc-and-the-lefts-growing-philanthropic-tyranny/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/southern-poverty-law-center/ Drbogatyr (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Out of these sources, I think these two have the most neutral point of view: https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-watches-the-hate-watchers-11553726030

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/conservatives-call-for-paypal-boycott-after-ceo-admits-splc-helps-ban-users Drbogatyr (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, it appears you are googling for sources which support a prior assumption. This is a poor approach, because among other problems, it risks cherry-picking.
Furthermore, "left-wing" and "progressive" are not the same thing. (Many self-described leftists despise progressives and liberals, and these terms aren't particularly good indicators of whether or not someone supports the SPLC). Some news outlets might casually use these terms interchangeably, but this is almost always to contrast them to some ideological opponent. We're not a news outlet rushing to meet a deadline, and we're not specifically trying to contrast this group to some other group, we're attempting to neutrally summarize a group with several decades of complicated history. We should be more thoughtful, and more restrained.
Several of these links above are not reliable, or are very weak for this point for various reasons. Of the "most neutral" last two, the Washington post does not say that SPLC is "left-wing". Instead, it says that tWilliam G. Boykin from the Family Research Council has accused the SPLC of having a "left-wing agenda". The article then explains that the FRC invokes the SPLC as a boogie-man for funding purposes. In other words, it is in the FRC's financial interest to portray the SPLC as ideologically driven, and this context is the only use of the phrase "left-wing". Hopefully it is obvious, but we cannot lie and say that a source supports something it does not. If you have not actually read these sources, you should not be proposing them for this point.
I do not have a subscription to the WSJ, but this is an opinion from their editorial board. If, in context, this is similar to the others, and being an opinion piece, this also seems totally underwhelming. If you have read it, perhaps you can summarize the section which describes them as "far-left". If you have not read it, then you're wasting time by proposing it as a source. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Wrong question. The SPLC was established as an organization working against hate and bigotry, not as a progressive political force. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
It may have been established that way, but it has evolved over time.Drbogatyr (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
A lot of conservative sources conflate the terms liberal, progressive, left-wing and far left and to a degree they overlap. But the SPLC is non-partisan and used by reliable news reporting across the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Personally I do not see either term as an insult I am really not sure what it the aim of using them (and yes I would say they are left wing, as in they oppose many, many right wing values). But we go with what RS say, and I am not sure (if the above is a sample) this is really that well supported.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it is important to state that they are either liberal, progressive, or left wing, because their definitions of "hate speech" are informed by cultural left-wing values. They consider criticism of Islam to be hate speech, even when it comes from ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They consider all three major American immigration restriction lobbies (CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA) to be "hate groups" because they disagree with their founder for using racialist talking points, even though he no longer is involved with them, and these lobbies have never advocated profiling immigrants by race. They also believe that quoting the Bible on gay marriage is hate. Again, these are all criticisms that stem from left-of-center beliefs about Islam, immigration, gay marriage. However, it seems to be very difficult to find media sources that accurately discuss this, so I think we should look to some reliable political science journals. Drbogatyr (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The center and even some conservatives opposed many right wing values. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I would be interested in any quotes you have found on gay marriage in the Bible because as far as I know it only became an issue in the last twenty years. As I explain below, there is consensus about what constitutes hate and the SPLC is widely accepted as an expert source in identifying them. NumbersUSA btw is not listed as a hate group. You will find that you are more persuasive if you stick to facts rather than making them up. TFD (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The SPLC has accused NumbersUSA of "intolerance" https://www.splcenter.org/20090131/nativist-lobby-three-faces-intolerance. The Bible forbids gay marriage. You are correct, it only became an issue in the last twenty years, because progressive activists made it so. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Gay-Marriage/ No, there is very little "consensus" about what constitutes hate speech, Americans are very divided on this issue. https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america Drbogatyr (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I know that this is a rather old post, but just to note: none of those verses have anything to do with gay marriage, and very few of them are even about homosexual relations of any kind. Most of them are about fidelity to God, and several are being implied to apply to homosexuality, but they aren’t even remotely touching on that subject. The one from 1 Timothy, for example. Most of the Corinthians quotes are about actually about cross-dressing and gender roles. The remaining ones talk about extramarital sex. Only about four of them (total) have anything to do with homosexuality, and many of the verses are taken *way^ out of context. That website is practicing novel synthesis to an extreme. You should be more careful about where you get your information. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SPLC in lead paragraphs

A discussion which includes the assessment of the reliability of the SPLC as a source of reference for Wikipedia article lead paragraphs is taking place here. Please feel free to participate. SITH (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Add far-left

Should be added "far-left" American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Monkman12 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - Please cite reliable sources which support your proposed change. Which reliable sources consistently describe the SPLC as "far-left"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"$PLC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect $PLC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 20#$PLC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Making Widespread Changes

Noting lots of changes on this page recently by one user @oceanflynn User:OceanFlynn. I have not examined the contents, as they may be fine, although I glanced and saw some primary sources from the SPLC website. I see that @dougweller User:DougWeller has made brief changes during this time, and I have also recently contributed. Not long ago I was excoriated and my changes reverted on another article for making multiple edits to a "mature" article without first discussing them on the talk page. So I'm bringing up this issue here so that Wikipedia standards are upheld and understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveadreamagain (talk • contribs) 15:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Note that I am not criticizing any editor, I just need clarification on what is proper. Thanks for your attention. Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The most recent SPLC endowment figure . . .

is just as shade under $530,000,000 as of October 31, 2019 [13]. So that figure should replace the $471,000,000 now in the article's infobox. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

==Classifications of groups== section isn't what the title says.

The majority of it is law suits against the organisation and criticism. I've moved the content to the correct subsection of the article. Alexandre8 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Marxism/Communism

The SPLC is a far left Marxist organization. They are Anti-American and try to stifle the speech of patriots that they and Wiki label far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:690D:300:2D8E:FC10:8333:31AA (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you're just trapped in an echo chamber that uses refuses to allow political dissent. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuits and criticism against the SPLC

The inclusion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an anti-muslim extremist by SPLC has been omitted, so I propose the following wording:

In October 2016, the SPLC published its "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists", which listed among others, Somali refugee and feminist activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, British activist Maajid Nawaz and a nonprofit group he founded, the Quilliam Foundation. [1] [2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luchofraga (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The lawsuit is already extensively covered in the article, although Hirsi Ali is not mentioned. TFD (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it is important for everyone to know that a human rights activist and feminist was like Ayaan Hirsi Ali was labeled as an anti-muslim extremist, just because she speaks in favor of LGBT rights and woman rights in the muslim world. This was widely criticized by both liberals like Tom Lantos [3] and conservatives like Carol M. Swain [1]. Luchofraga (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-its-like-to-be-smeared-by-the-southern-poverty-law-center-1505171221
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html
  3. ^ https://www.lantosfoundation.org/s/Letter-to-SPLC.pdf

Change in text needed based on source

The cite here doesn't fix the text. They are not classified according to the cite.Thelouiepup (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The FBI classified the group as "an extremist group with ties to white nationalism".[146]

"that the FBI classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism. ".Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

FBI Designation of Proud Boys as Extremist Group

The citation from CTVNews that states the FBI categorizes the Proud Boys as an extremist group (according to a county Sheriff's Office) in the same article a paragraph down, states that according to an FBI representative that the FBI does not designate broad national groups as extremists Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Harryjamespotter1980, fixed. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RNC officially condemns SPLC

It is weird that this locked article has yet to include major resolution officially adopted by one of the two major US parties. I guess the wp:Cabals on wikipedia keep fighting for the "right side of history" by ignoring one the core founding principles of wikipedia, wp:NPOV: Republican National Committee delegates have approved a resolution condemning the Southern Poverty Law Center, calling the legal advocacy group dedicated to fighting extremism "a far-left organization with an obvious bias." [14][15]. 2601:602:9200:1310:B458:2F73:854C:6B3 (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not particularly weird that no one has added a little covered story from five days ago. TFD (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
If you have something you'd like to see included in the article, feel free to propose a specific set of words here and we can see if there is consensus for including them. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It is odd this has not been added. Whether or not this was “little covered,” it significantly calls into question the SPLC’s image as an objective institution. Users cannot edit because this page has been locked a long time and without expiration. If this doesn’t get remedied promptly, I will report this up. Odoylerules22288 (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No need to report to higher-ups. The content mentioned is now included in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Need to remove redundant self-cites

There are far too many references to SPLC-published sources. In most cases, there are already WP:NPOV and WP:RS sources provided for that content. I'm going to clean out some of the self-citations.

Also, there is a kind of hilarious excess of over-citing regarding some of the SPLC's recent misdeeds, e.g. keeping donation money, discrimination within the SPLC organization, wrongfully listing left-wing Jews and feminist victims of Jihadis as "hate groups". While amusing in a mordant way, it isn't encyclopedic (i.e. it's inappropriate to go so hog wild). A better approach would be to create subheadings of SPLC excesses, rather than redundant drive-by citation pile-ups. The subheadings of cases won by SPLC in years past are well-constructed. The same can be done to document SPLC's more recent, less commendable activities. I might try to do something about this if I have time.--FeralOink (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Just discuss the changes you want to make and avoid the editorializing. Your obvious bias against the SPLC might make it more difficult to gain consensus with other editors. TFD (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not editorializing, TFD. I was feeling kind of giggly before. More seriously now, I am trying to say that editors who are biased against the SPLC have gone too far. It isn't encyclopedic to be cackling with glee over SPLC's stumbles. This is especially true given that some of the negative SPLC sources are opinion pieces. My concern is that the SPLC article has swung from positively biased to excessively pejorative. The latter is no more convincing than the former.--FeralOink (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

SPLC denounced as ‘thoroughly disgraced’ after labeling pro-life, family organizations as ‘hate groups’

Several criticisms have been made against SPLC recently and it has been called thoroughly disgraced since it has labelled pro-life, family organizations in good standing and with good reputations as ‘hate groups’ [1] It has also been accused of being an hate group itself leading to the attempted murder of Jessica Prol Smith [2] Washington Post also ran a piece questioning the credibility of SPLC 2 years ago [3]

I think these are significant and important criticisms that need to be highlighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2073:D74:60C5:E588:8F93:48EC (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Already there. See section on Law suits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The section is barebones and does not properly convey the various criticisms of the group, including the fact that the group has even lead to people being shot due to their "hate listings" and many false accusations and has lost most of its credibility [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2073:d74:60c5:e588:8f93:48ec (talk • contribs) 15:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That is an Op_edd peice.Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The FRC shooting is already mentioned in the article. Incidentally your source doesn't say that the SPLC led the attacker to commit a crime but that he used it to identify the FRC as an anti-gay group. You may as well blame Google maps helping rioters find the U.S. Capitol. TFD (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/splc-denounced-as-thoroughly-disgraced-after-labeling-pro-life-family-organizations-as-hate-groups
  2. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/17/southern-poverty-law-center-hate-groups-scam-column/2022301001/
  3. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html
  4. ^ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312

I'd like to add to this thread that the overall feel of this article poses this organization as being much less controversial than it is given recent criticism by POLITICO, the atlantic, washington post, the newyorker, usa today, etc etc. For one concrete example, I would recommend changing "Since the 2000s, the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups (organizations it has assessed either "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics")[10] and extremists[11] have often been described as authoritative and are widely accepted and cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues.[12][13][14] to "Since the 2000s, the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups (organizations it has assessed either "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics") and extremists[11] have been described by some as authoritative and are accepted and cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues." The statement as is, is far too strong given recent critique. Correctionedits422 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"often" does not mean always.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It is subjective, and simply one suggestion to help improve a page that is clearly bias. Apologies for no signature on the previous comment, should be there now. Correctionedits422 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

And nothing you have presented says it is still not the case, often "often /ˈɒf(ə)n,ˈɒft(ə)n/ adverb frequently; many times.", this still seems to be the case. The fact some sources have said they may not be authoritative (have they, in fact, said this, source please?) does not mean they are still not often seen as such.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

My point was giving a concrete way to change the tone of the article. For critique of the reliability of the SPLC "hate group" classification and overall organization structure, see below. Signing off on this thread, I encourage other editors with access to the page to consider my points. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/ https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019/521/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312 https://reason.com/2019/03/27/southern-poverty-law-center-hate-crime/ https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/RESOLUTION_REFUTING_THE_LEGITIMACY_OF_THE_SOUTERN_POVERTY_LAW_CENTER_TO_IDENTIFY_HATE_GROUPS.pdf?_ga=2.204349527.670623286.1598203807-82759038.1598203807 https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-in-a-state-of-moral-collapse/ https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/17/southern-poverty-law-center-hate-groups-scam-column/2022301001/ Correctionedits422 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Your statement that the SPLC was criticized by the Washington Post, etc. is incorrect. These publications present editorials from a range of authors, some of whom oppose the SPLC. The vast majority of that criticism comes from groups listed by the SPLC as hate groups and their supporters. There is also a scattering of criticism from Alex Cockburn, Laird Wilcox and a few others, who are frequently mentioned by supporters of hate groups to show that criticism extends beyond the far right. Most of the criticism rests on the assumption that racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. speech is not hate speech because it is true, while some left-wing opponents of the SPLC criticize it for supposedly threatening free speech. But the hate speech the SPLC identifies would be considered criminal in most industrialized countries outside the U.S. where hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. TFD (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Except when it is not, of course. Such as in the case of Maajid Nawaz, whose writings would be considered criminal only in Islamist countries. I wish you would stop making such sweeping statements, pretending that the SPLC did not take down that page as a result of the lawsuit. (Of course, a reliable source which is really reliable would have taken it down as soon as people found out they had made a mistake, two years earlier). --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
But does this prove the statement "have often been described as authoritative and are widely accepted and cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues.[12][13][14] to "Since the 2000s, the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups (organizations it has assessed either "attack or malign an entire class of people" is now untrue?Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I did not say it did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
In fairness, the SPLC never accused Nawaz of anti-Muslim hate speech. TFD (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You are right, they were not stubbornly wrong about this, they were stubbornly wrong about something else. Sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Your complaint against them isn't that they don't accurately identify hate speech, but that you disagree with the concept. If I am wrong, then you should be able to identify a more authoritative source. If one believes that blacks are less intelligent than whites, that gay men recruit children into their lifestyle or Islam commands its followers to destroy Western civilization, then it's not hate to tell people that. Which specific type of speech the SPLC describes as hate speech do you think its not hate speech? TFD (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
What? No! What gives you that idea? The concept is fine in my eyes, but the SPLC does sloppy work sometimes. They get carried away. It is probably rare, but it still happens. That's alright, we are all human. But what is much worse: when they are caught at getting it wrong, they do not admit it but double down until they get sued! To me as a scientist, that is a completely crazy way of behaving, or, dare I say it, even a Trump way of behaving, but for them, as lawyers, lawsuits seem to be the only language they understand. That is why I do not think they are very reliable.
About finding a better reliable source: I can only hope there are better sources than the SPLC. If not, well, then they will have to do. I guess that most of those people they expose as vile bastards are really vile bastards, and that they know they will not succeed if they sue the SPLC because the SPLC is right in their case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Addition: I hate it when, as in this case, unreliable bumblers are on the same side as me. They should be on the opposite side, where they belong, and where the vast majority of them are! But back to article work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Why no 'Controversies' section?

Surely it bears some mention that SPLC has been challenged with financial issues and harassment allegations. Is this a serious encyclopedia or not?

Sure, but sources are need. Got some? Freelance-frank (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a controversies section and all that criticism is already in the article. TFD (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

More controversies should be covered in the lead

Not a forum EvergreenFir (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since SPLC is a very controversial and political organization, more controversies should be covered in the lead. Now just one is covered. Although it has thousands of innocent victims. This organization has destroyed many lives, just because they don't agree with their political beliefs and right to free speech. The standard of this article shows how little people can trust wikipedia. 77.16.61.99 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Lol, thousands of innocent victims? Citation please. Generalrelative (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
You have many examples, one is in the article. People who want to save lives, unborn children, are designated as hate groups. And since left wing media, companies and politicians listen to this immoral organization, it has consequences for many of them. 77.16.61.99 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The SPLC has not designated any group as a hate group because it opposes abortion. Can you provide an example? TFD (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
There's a litany of groups that oppose abortion but never are they labeled hate groups solely for opposition to abortion. The Impartial Truth (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Sanitizing SPLC

The controversies surrounding SPLC continue to mount, but I see the "advocates" have done their best to edit out as much material as possible to sanitize the organization.

216.152.18.132 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Controversies that are mentioned in reliable sources may be included: do you have any specific examples? P.S. see the above for why "Controversies" sections in articles tend to be looked down upon by Wikipedia editors. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Why was the controversies section removed?

I'm just a standard reader. It seems like this article has been "cleaned up" by advocates. It does not even state why the former President was fired. It states why separately but if you don't know why he was fired you won't be able to link the two yourself. Why was the controversies section removed? 174.251.192.254 (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Because we try to avoid controversy section, and rather work in into the body.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
You don't create any goodwill when you accuse other editors of being advocates. FYI the article says Dees was fired for "unspecified reasons" and mentions the allegations against him. We cannot say why he was fired because there are no reliable sources that explain this. TFD (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Fruitless to debate against the stooges of the SPLC and related advocacy groups unless you have much free time. The Impartial Truth (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I can agree to delete this entire section as it is thinly veiled comment to draw out advocates and create a hostile discussion. Wikipedia:SOAPBOX. The Impartial Truth (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
It's a loaded comment by an IP address that has never made any edits besides this one single comment on the SPLC talk section. It doesn't add anything or talk about improving the article. Isn't that odd? The Impartial Truth (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we hat this wp:soapboxing? Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

This page needs to address the New Yorker's reporting of racism within the SPLC, specifically the treatment of black people as "help" and the restriction of roles of substance to white people, along with the other criticisms. There is a bias here unfitting of wikipedia.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center 98.169.80.132 (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The New Yorker's article is mentioned briefly in this section, and similar reports are described in other parts of the page. Llll5032 (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No critique in the "Lawsuits and criticism against the SPLC"

There's not a single point of critique in the Lawsuits and criticism against the SPLC section, only a list of lawsuits against the SPLC. Surely some actual critique must exist. I propse the section is renamed to simply "Lawsuits against the SPLC", as to not confuse people of its real content. 89.239.195.102 (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Needs a comma

"In March 2019 founder Morris Dees was fired, and in April Karen Baynes-Dunning was named as interim president and CEO"

In this part of the article, there should be a comma after "April". It would fit the natural rhythm of reading, and particularly, prevent people thinking her name is "April Karen Baynes-Dunning", since April and Karen are both capitalised proper nouns, with no punctuation between them. At least, I made that mistake! April is also a woman's name, of course.

Somebody who's verified as not an online Nazi hatemongering troll, please make this correction for me?

84.71.95.220 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

‘Notable publications and media coverage…’ section full of un-notable publications and media coverage.

As well as featuring the meat of the allegations of misspending etc., this section is full of bizarre media appearances, such as their appearance in an article on them in Encyclopedia of American civil liberties. Why is an encyclopaedia talking about another encyclopaedia covering a subject in their entry? Does the Encyclopedia of American civil liberties shout out Wikipedia’s article on the SPLC?

There’s a couple of books by David Mark Chalmers that are referenced frivolously, offering nothing to the article. Are these notable? They don’t have a Wikipedia page, call me ignorant but that implies they aren’t.

Finally ‘The National Geographic Channel television series included the 2008 episode entitled "Inside American Terror"’ isn’t even a complete thought.

I think a reorganisation of this article is due, with a clear section on the funding controversies under the management of Dees and Cohen. The whole article is kind of a mess, often feeling like it has been touched up by sources close to the subject. Given the SPLC lists importance to articles discussing hate groups on Wikipedia and across news media, I think this article needs to be much better than it currently is. 2A00:23C7:FA4:4701:6D9D:C546:BFD0:99CD (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

See David Mark Chalmers. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Attorney General Garland's comments

I think that the AG's comments on the FBI Richmond Investigation should be included. It is significant news and SPLC was virtually sole source of the FBI investigation. PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

How many reliable, independent sources covered this story? And how central was the SPLC to that coverage? I'd be happy to be convinced, but the sources provided in your original edit did not stack up. 1) The Catholic News Agency source appears to be partisan on this issue (see this discussion for context), and in any case it only mentions the SPLC once in passing. 2) The USA Today source doesn't mention the SPLC at all. 3) The Newsweek source mentions the SPLC twice, the first time noting that the FBI memo included the SPLC list, but does not back up the claim that this list was an actual factor in the investigation; the second mention is to quote a Twitter comment by right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk, who is obviously engaging in some hyperbole. Am I missing something here? I don't see any reliably sourced information which would lead us to believe that SPLC was virtually sole source of the FBI investigation as you claim. Generalrelative (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The story isn't relevant to the SPLC. Since the SPLC is the major source for information about extremist groups in the U.S., it would be unusual for anyone investigating them not to use the SPLC as a source.TFD (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There’s a new logo for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Here’s the link: https://logowik.com/splc-southern-poverty-law-center-new-logo-vector-55476.html FireDragonValo (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Verification failed

The intro reads: The SPLC's classifications (1) "are widely accepted" and (2) "cited in academic and media coverage of such groups and related issues." The first citation (2016) certainly does not support claim (1). The other citations might be seen as giving support for (1) but they are old books (2002, 2006) and thus hardly support the current situation.

Claim (2) has unclear meaning, because in combination with (1) it might be taken to mean that SPLC's classifications are widely cited. I could not find any support for this claim in the citations. The references themselves do support the statement that SPLC's classifications are sometimes cited. 85.149.24.199 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

possessive form of Dees

In the last sentence of "Fundraising and finances", Dee's should be Dees', as is used for the possessive of Dees in the other three places where it appears. (An alternative would be to replace all four occurrences with Dees's. I don't know how the name is pronounced, but if it rhymes with "piece", so that the possessive ending is an extra syllable, then I think the possessive should be written Dees's.) 99.167.203.39 (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done 23impartial (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_19&oldid=1218391415"