Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Criticisms of SPLC are over-represented 2 Anonymous user 3 Is this article neutral? 4 Hate groups 5 This article is bogus 6 "Controversial" 7 Edit warring on DSN placement 8 POV 9 No Controversy 10 A litigation paragraph? 11 Yes, criticism 12 SPLC & Harpers 13 Morris Dees Divorce Papers 14 Horowitz claims 15 Of course they would 16 the latest POV issue 17 Latest claim 20 October 2006 18 Dees quote 19 Laird Wilcox 20 Dees quote 21 Citing Harper's Magazine 22 1996 USA Today article 23 Montgomery Advertiser investigation 24 This article needs to state........ 25 Discover the networks 26 balance 27 Hate groups

[edit] Criticisms of SPLC are over-represented

The Montgomery Advertiser story was a watershed development in the criticism of the Center, and virtually destroyed its credibility in Birmingham and Montgomery. Your deletion of that section removed a strong piece of contention against the Center, and it will be restored. I also think its disengenious to say that 'because of its work the Center has met controversy', etc etc. This is true to a point, but it should be noted that the Advertiser story was originally jumpstarted by employees of the Center who passed on hints that 'something isn't right over there.' It should also be taken into consideration the lengths the Center went to kill the Advertiser report, with threats of lawsuits and lobbying against its consideration for awards. I believe the Advertiser story, with the note that it was a finalist for a 95 Pulitzer Prize, are very important, because it indicates that it was well respected in the journalistic community even though the SPLC mobilized against it. A further note about the critical stories in USA Today, Harper's, and The Birmingham News would be fair. I've repeatedly tried to get people at the Center to respond to these allegations, and I've been shut out everytime. There is no mention of it on their website, except for the line about extremists groups trying to slander the Center. But I digress...

It is very hard to find this article credible when virtually all of it contains criticism of the Center's work. Whomever is making these edits does not serve even their own purpose very well by making this article so biased. What type of work does SPLC do? That question is not really answered here. One must distill that from the hailstorm of criticsm that appears here. Clearly the people who have placed this article on Wikipedia do not like SPLC. Clearly they have an agenda. Do they really believe this article could be perceived by any disinterested party as unbiased? -PS

I removed the link to Deeswatch because its broken, not because of its content. Saul Taylor 17:14, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the SPLC is an historically important institution in the USA, regardless whether you agree with them or not. They have been involved in many court actions aimed at disrupting organizations they do not like. However, it is no co-incidence that their legal targets are overwhelmingly euro-american christian heritage ones (i.e. "white"). Whether you like their targets or not, they are *NOT* unbiased, and their work has little to do with "poverty" per se. Why would that be in dispute? They are also associated with the web of race-based laws and regulations in the USA, whether you approve of those laws or not.

It seems to me the entry needs to make it clear that this is a very important group in the racial politics of America and that they make no pretense of their tilt. They are not universally admired in the USA although they have many very vocal supporters. This institution is one of the victors in the American "culture wars" of the past 40 years, and quite influential. I believe most educated Americans would say they are "anti-hate" as long as the targets of that hate are on their "preferred" list.

user:milesgl 11/01/04

Stuff and nonsense. The SPLC has, on numerous ocassions, targeted black seperatists, the new black panthers, muslim extremists, and racist mexican prison gangs. I can, if needed, locate the specific issues of their magazine, "Intelligence Report", in which they critisized and agitated against these groups. However, it would be instructive to point out that the vast majority of american "hate groups" are white, though, in terms of religion, they run from neo-paganism to christianity to athiesm, so I'd hardly say they single out "christian heritage." Irongaard 09:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous user

The article should be rewritten and all of the "controversies" surrounding the organization should be posted in a seperate section entitled "criticisms".

[edit] Is this article neutral?

While this article presents a point of view in regard to the SPLC that deserves some attention, it will be difficult to term this "Neutral Point of View." The writer seems to be quite unabashed about his/her point of view regarding SPLC and it is not positive by any means.

I've moved these two paragraphs here. The first one seems redundant to me (the same info is in the first paragraph). And the second paragraph uses weasly passive voice to talk about criticism of the center.

"The center claims to be engaged in tolerance education, litigation against white supremacy groups, tracking of hate groups and sponsorship of the Civil Rights Memorial. SPLC publishes in-depth analysis of political extremism and bias crimes in the United States in the quarterly Intelligence Report."

"Some people have accused Morris Dees of practicing a modern-day form of McCarthyism using smear campaigns against those who question government actions. Others accuse him of exaggerating the threat of the Ku Klux Klan and militia groups as a mail order fundraising tool."

I've replaced the second paragraph with one sentence on the critic cited in the external links.mennonot 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

GETTING IT RIGHT. This article has gone through many edits. Some of these edits removed material and then added new material. However, an argument for removing material was not made. Further, many of these changes were made by anonymous users (IP address only). One must assume that SPLC is a controversial organization. Thus any article written about it from NPOV must be carefully crafted and contain as much attribution as possible. Diverse points of view should be presented and preserved. This article should not become a vehicle for slamming the organization as some versions have done. A review of past edits may yield material that can be restored. It might be helpful if contributors who have material from various sources engage in a discussion on this page about it. Information that can be defended should and will remain with the article through future edits. This is the nature of Wikipedia. It is an exercise in futility to engage in a tug of war between warring opinions each trashing the other's contributions. --MacSigh 17:21, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

I did some research on the SPLC, and found the Montogmery Advertiser series which was highly critical of Dees and the SPLC. I also located the roundtable discussion with the investigative team's editor, and added that as a link. I sent an e-mail to the Center, asking them to respond to the newspapers allegations and they did not respond. I also had a senior individual's e-mail at the Center, and they did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Checking the SPLC's Website, they have no mention of the allegations, only a brief line to 'attempts to smear the Center by extremists groups' in the history section. -Anon. User, Jul. 24, 2004

Can anyone tell me why all the criticism of the Center has been deleted, as have the critical weblinks?

Please sign and date your contributions to the Talk pages. Wikipedia:Wikiquette Willmcw 22:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hate groups

As an encyclopedia article about an activist organization, the main activities of the SPLC should be adequately covered. I've added a section on their tracking of hate groups. Their education effort sounds significant and, if so, should get a graf or at least full sentence. Willmcw 07:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is Nation of Islam listed twice?

My oversight. -Willmcw 21:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This article is bogus

The first paragraph is lifted directly from the SPLC site.

The SPLC is most certainly not universally known for its "tolerance education."

If anything it is mostly known for its racial hucksterism and scapegoating.

• Comment made by 4.230.249.20 Trampled 00:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's odd. The only time I've heard of it being known for hucksterism is your biased comment... 68.33.185.185 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversial"

Most NGOs are "controversial", as are most ideologies, political parties, government policies, religions, etc. Adding the word "controversial" adds no real information, but simply prejudices the mind of the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion of the controversy later. In general, adding "controversial" to the lead sentence is like adding "famous". Better just to describe the subject than to apply epithets. -Willmcw July 6, 2005 03:47 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement. One could as easily apply the word "controversial" to the lead sentence of Amnesty International, and it would also be factual yet also an epithet. I must say that this article is quite unbalanced, since the vast majority of it appears to be devoted to the "controversy", and almost none to the activities of the organization itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

I'm pleased that there seems to be an active group of editors committed to maintaining NPOV on this article. It's a subject I wish I knew more about. Certainly there is something behind the criticisms of their approach to fund-raising. Maybe there is also a low threshold of consideration for "hate group" status. Certainly they are not afraid of controversy. As I read up, I'll probably be adding some bits and pieces. For one thing, I know their new building is of some note in architectural circles. Dystopos 6 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on DSN placement

It seems an edit war has broken out over Willmcw's decision to move a long standing block of text from the education programs section into criticisms on account of it being critical. I'd like to hear some outside commentary by more neutral editors on this issue. My position is that the DSN paragraph is of a narrow focus that explicitly addresses the SPLC's education programs, which are discussed at length in that section. As such, it is distinct from general criticisms of the SPLC as a whole and fits better into the article by being placed in the context of their education programs. Moving it makes the article choppy as the topics now switch from education programs to general criticisms of the SPLC to Horowitz's criticisms back to their education programs as viewed by DSN.

I'll also note that I find it troubling that Willmcw and Jayjg now appear to be tag teaming their revert efforts on this article, presumably to avoid WP:3RR. This type of behavior is generally anti-consensus and seems to run against the Arbcom's recent warning issued to Jayjg: "3) Jayjg (talk • contribs) is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts." [1]. - Rangerdude 07:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If we have a criticism section then we should use it. Hiding Horowitz's role as organizer of the DNS gives his different groups excessive prominence. We can label it as his criticism of the education program. Please comment on the edits, not the editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Horowitz's involvement with DNS is not hidden and in fact is describes very openly at the DNS article. There's no need to selectively present qualifier details about sources, and unless it can be shown that Horowitz specifically authored the DNS article on the SPLC a simple link to DNS is sufficient to convey his involvement. Regarding comments on editors, seeking greater adherence to wikipedia principles, policies, and arbcom rulings is a legitimate exercise. Tag-team reverting to avoid WP:3RR is a form of gaming the system & thus is notable when it occurs. In this particular case, one of the participants was also warned by the Arbcom recently against his excessive tendency to engage in edit warring, so reminding him of that warning is accordingly appropriate. Rangerdude 16:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a criticism section for a reason; most articles are organized this way. Please follow Wikipedia convention, and please comment on edits, not editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I'd only reverted twice, so no "tag team" effort was involved in circumventing the 3RR. That is a spurious accusation about user behavior which doesn't belong on article talk pages. Getting back to the article, DNS's connection with Horowitz is sufficiently important in this context that it should be mentioned. Readers of this article will not necessarily follow every link. Relevant info should be listed here, and criticisms from the same source should be placed together. -Willmcw 23:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article will remain POV-tagged until such time as the opening paragraph is not lifted wholesale from the SPLC's site. The organization is NOT necessarily known for its "tolerance" programs: it's widely known as an extremely biased group.

I dont' see where on the SPLC site this text was taken from. If that is your objection then I think it is mistaken. -Willmcw 21:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Controversy

Historically, the SPLC has been controversial only to racist organizations. It is very much known for tolerance education; its magazine, "Teaching Tolerance", is used in hundreds of public elementary schools across the country. Its numerous documentaries on civil rights subjects have both won and been nominated for Academy Awards. The group is most noted for its litigation; founder Morris Dees and other Center lawyers sue racist groups in civil court, holding them accountable when their members use violence against citizens. The group is undefeated in civil rights lawsuits, and has successfully bankrupted groups including the Mississippi White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, then the nations' largest hate group; the Aryan Nations, the nations' most violent hate group; and White Aryan Resistance (WAR), among others. Hundreds of police departments across the country find the centers' "Intelligence Report" magazine and KlanWatch invaluable in monitoring neo-nazi groups and milias for possible illegal and/or violent activity.

I am well versed in the modern civil rights movement, and have never heard anything negative said about the Center. I've spoken to many teachers who are enthusiastic about "Teaching Tolerance." None of the above, the Center's main work, is considered controversial. Dees is welcome in almost every town he files a lawsuit; he works pro-bono, and the communities are almost never supportive of their local hate groups.

The one exception to controversy is the Center's somewhat recent fight against the religious right. The SPLC was the primary group in suing to get "Roy's Rock" removed from the Alabama State Courthouse, and has criticized numerous religious right leaders, such as Pat Robertson. This, I can see a neutrality fight over. The rest of it all? I have to question the motives of the center's detractors.--unsigned comment by User:Texasmusician

The authors of the various exposés don't appear to have hidden motives, if that's what you mean.--Nectar 10:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree basically with Texasmusician. The criticisms may have merit, but they don't amount to a controversy central to the organization as it (frequently) is portrayed in this article. --Dystopos 15:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So Texasmusician's comment basically boils down to "if you don't buy the SPLC's witch-hunts, then you're a 'racist.' After all HOLLYWOOD and the NEA love them!" Forgive me if I'm too bored by the radical Left's constant bleatings of "racism" to respond much.Zuzim 03:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your boiler is contaminated with reactionism. --Dystopos 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zuzim - I'm not saying disagreement means you ARE a racist, just that most of the people I have met or heard of who do are. There are exceptions to every rule. But I should add it's not just Hollywood and the NEA - I live in Kootenai County, Idaho, the most Republican county in the most Republican state in the country, and the SPLC is very much loved here. And did you read what I said about police departments and other local communities, from Oregon to Mississippi? Cops and Galveston, TX residents are hardly "Hollywood". And I admitted that language used by the Center to describe the Religious Right is questionable and controversial. Did you even read everything I wrote? And of course, you really shouldn't say my comment boils down to "if you don't buy the SPLC's witch-hunts." Putting those words in my mouth implies I agree with you that they ARE witch hunts, which I most certainly do not. Keeping an eye on groups with violent histories, and suing people for inciting violence, is not a witch hunt. Conservative and liberal judges and juries alike have agreed (not that that's proof, but it's something). Texasmusician 10:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A litigation paragraph?

Shouldn't there be a paragraph about SPLCs litigation? My understanding is this aspect of the center is as imp't as education or watchdogging hate groups. Sadly, I'm not versed enough to author such a paragraph.

[edit] Yes, criticism

I'm trying to find this, but the link has been removed from the web. Their stance against black separatist groups is new. They used to say that the Constitution Party was a "group of concern." Harvestdancer 01:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPLC & Harpers

I just did a search of Harpers database & back issues. I could find no such article in Harpers. A google-search shows just questionable links to the article (American Restance, The Patriot, etc). An exact search for the article in question did bring up the article, but again, in questionable sources. In order to verify that the article is genuine, and not along the lines of the forged divorce papers, could we get a good source or verification that is indeed genuine. Rsm99833

Harpers' appears to not keep online records farther back than 2003.[2] Many libraries would carry back issues. --Nectar 09:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

JSTOR will most likely have backlogged articles. I'm confused as to where the issue of Harper's comes up though. If someone clarifies, I'll look it up in JSTOR --Tom12384 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What does your second sentence refer to? The section of this article we're talking about has Harper's in the title. The re-print in question is here.[3] --Nectar

No luck in JSTOR. Though I don't know how much of Harper's they've got. Sorry. --Tom12384 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is on the Factiva database The church of Morris Dees Ken Silverstein 2031 words 1 November 2000 Harper's Magazine 54-57 Volume 301, Issue 1806; ISSN: 0017-789X English Makgraf 06:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morris Dees Divorce Papers

Does anyone know where to get these papers and are they relevant to this article?

The papers are a forgery. A really bad one at that. They can be found on the Internet on various extreme-right-wing websites. It's been discussed before. It's irrelevant to this article. Rsm99833

[edit] Horowitz claims

In the article, there is a claim by Horowitz that "the SPLC targets people who disagree with them while they ignore virtually other racial supremacy groups." I'm looking at hatewatch.org, and am not clear as to which groups are being ignored. Rsm99833

Looking over this page I see Horowitz says that:

• Although the SPLC denounces extremist religious groups like the Jewish Defense League and Westboro Baptist Church, no mention is made of even a single extremist Muslim group. Similarly, while far-right groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens are tagged as hate groups, the SPLC withholds judgment on extremist leftwing groups.

Buth that doesn't seem to agree with our statement. Perhaps we should reword our statement to say "... while they ignore left wing and Muslim extermist groups." -Will Beback 23:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the haewatch map, I see they do include Muslim extremist groups. Left-wing hate groups, there's not a lot of them, and not to many actually come to mind or have active centers/mettings/activites. Rsm99833

ALF would qualify as left-wing, but supposedly they don't have meetings. Regarding the Muslim groups, it's tricky to deal with a source that is demonstrably wrong. I think we should just omit the sentence. There's no point in repeating something that is obviously incorrect. There's plenty of other criticism from Horowitz. -Will Beback 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

We have the claims by Horowitz in the David Horowitz section of the article but then basically repeat them later in Hate Group section (though those were previous phrased with the weasely "some have claimed" style. Shouldn't we just cut them out of the second section then? Makgraf 06:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add about the SPLC's involvement against eco-terrorist groups such as ALF, which can be labled as far-left.

[edit] Of course they would

Some organizations described by the SPLC as hate groups object strenuously to this characterization of them, particularly those in the Other category. VDARE, for example, insisted that the SPLC's actions were doing more harm to anti-racism than to genuine racism.

Of course, this goes without saying that even if some or all of the claims are true, ANY group would strongly oppose to being labeled something so strong. That doesn't change ANYTHING. I strongly suspect that the wording of this segment - possibly the entire segment itself - is intended to mislead and deceive. --OneTopJob6 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What it means is that some organizations feel that SPLC writers have mischaracterized them or their views, and sometimes they may be right. That's their prerogative. --TJive 00:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fair to give groups which object to a characterization to be given at least a token reponse, though a fuller response would probably be best placed on their own article. Looking over all the groups I suspect that the majority do not argue with their placement on the list of hate groups. They may curse or criticise the SPLC, but I don't think the Westboro Baptist Church, the Aryan Nations Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, or the National Socialist Movement make serious arguments that they don't qualify. VDARE is one of the few groups that have really made an issue of it, perhaps in part because they see themselves as mainstream. -Will Beback 02:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the latest POV issue

L0b0t replaces "describe" with "vilify". How is that NPOV? L0b0t describes the neo-Confederate movement as existing "for historical accuracy in reporting on the Civil War"? How is that NPOV? It simply replicates the movement's rhetoric without any context.Verklempt 19:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest claim 20 October 2006

I've moved this bit here--- "A former partner of Dees, renowned anti-death penalty lawyer Millard Farmer, has been quoted Harper's Magazine, November 2000 as remarking that Dees "is the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement"...Farmer went on to apologize to Jim and Tammy Faye. ". This purports to be from Harper's Nov, 2000, well Harper's is a weekly. Which of that November's 4 issues is it from. Also the website it is from cribbed it from a now suspended website hosted at www.dixiehosting.org. So I'll look at the actual back issues tonight and see what they say. Cheers. L0b0t 17:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Same story here (?): Free Republic (reprint of Washington Times article)--Fix Bayonets! 19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, after a very pleasant afternoon in the microfiche room at the NYPL, I can say with certainty that that is indeed the from the Harper's magazine. L0b0t 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that effort. However, since the quote is about Dees instead of the SPLC, I think we should move it to Dees' biography. -Will Beback 22:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Going to the library is more of a pleasure than an effort, but thanks. L0b0t 22:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dees quote

The Dees comment was preceded by this:

"Today, the SPLC spends most of its time--and money--on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate."

– Ken Silverstein, Harper's Magazine, November 2000, as found here: American Patrol

Therefore, the context (and article) concerns the SPLC, and is not limited to Dees alone.--Fix Bayonets! 09:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, there is NO reason to take this out of the article. This is a story in a major, respected, magazine about the SPLC. L0b0t 12:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to include that quote, the one that mentions the SPLC, then that's fine. But to include a quote only about Dees is irrelevant. -Will Beback 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not when the quote is a comment his fundraising work with the SPLC. L0b0t 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If it were, it would say so. The quote doesn't mention the SPLC. -Will Beback 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I contend that in context, the quote references both (Dees, SPLC), and should remain. --Fix Bayonets! 12:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, the Harper's article is about Dees' fundraising work with SPLC, and the quote is comparing Dees to a fundraising religious huckster, so it is very germane to this SPLC article. L0b0t 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We've got plenty from the Harpers article already. If you think it must be in here then place it with the other Harpers criticism. -Will Beback 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I made restoration of the Dees quote as originally placed. It is in the "original place" that the quote is most relevant.--Black Flag 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back down for now, but it really needs to go entirely; it's not about the SPLC. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote is comparing the founder and head of the SPLC's fundraising for the SPLC with the Bakker's fundraising work with PTL. How is that not germane to an article on the SPLC? L0b0t 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote is from the Harpers article. We have a whole seciton devoted to the Harpers article. Therefore, it belongs (if at all) in the Harpers article section. -Will Beback 21:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Harper's section is the best place for it but Jayjg just said it should go entirely, I thought that was already settled. L0b0t 21:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it really only belongs in the Dees article, but if there is consensus for it to go in the Harper's section, I would concede to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dees belongs in this article. I agree that it is okay to move to the Harper's section. I oppose any effort to delete it entirely.--Fix Bayonets! 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont' see a consensus to keep it. -Will Beback 00:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont' see a consensus to delete it.--Fix Bayonets! 08:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it's a new addition, and since there's no consensus for it to stay here, and since it's already in the Dees article, it should stay in this article. -Will Beback 08:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. (I assume you mean shouldn't). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laird Wilcox

The Watchdogs: A Close Look at the Anti-Racist 'Watchdog' Groups, appears to be self-published. That would likely discount it as a reliable source. Does anyone have any other information about it? -Will Beback 01:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilcox has also published critically on extremist groups. He is not a member of an extremist movement with an axe to grind. Furthermore, he has published other books with legitimate presses. I don't know anything about this book, but he is a credible researcher.Verklempt 02:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilcox certainly seems to be grinding an axe. I'm not sure how we can say he's neutral. -Will Beback 08:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read this book, so I'm not disagreeing with you about its contents. But Wilcox has written a book (that I;ve read) entitled "American Extremists" that is rather critical of such groups, which indicates to me that he does not play only one side of the fence.Verklempt 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dees quote

There is no consensus to delete the Dees quote. There are several editors who want it to stay. I ask you to leave it in. We can arbitrate the matter, if you want.--Fix Bayonets! 09:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact there is cosensus to keep the quote. L0b0t 10:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. --Black Flag 16:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Three in favor and two opposed is not a consensus. -Will Beback 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Add another vote for keeping the quote.--Monstertrucker 07:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Harper's Magazine

The only issue I can see with citing Harper's directly is the article's availibility online. Harper's does not archive online, I went down to the ole NYPL and looked it up on microfiche. It is verifiably from Harper's but not available at Harper's website. L0b0t 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

user:Brimba, as you can see from the above discussions, this is a well sourced factual quote. How does it violate WP:BLP? Cheers. L0b0t 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 USA Today article

One USA Today article is used in several segments of this article to show a negative bias to the organization. I have posted it in full so it can be used as a reference in order to correct the POV issues.

The controversy section needs some clean up and proper sourcing. I have looked into the citations and having a section title "Fabrication of stories" when an editorial says the group "misinformed the media" shows a dangerous bias. The article currently states "The USA Today verified and collaborated the Charlotte Observer story, commenting further that the SPLC purposefully hid the fact that some of the fires..." when it did not. If anything it refers to one line: "For instance, in a recent report on arsons at black churches in the South, his Klanwatch newsletter included five 1990 fires in Kentucky. The article doesn't mention they were set by a black man."

As for the USA Today article, here it is cited in full so others can know what it says

USA TODAY August 3, 1996, Saturday, ATLANTA FINAL EDITION SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A LENGTH: 1360 words HEADLINE: Morris Dees: At center of the racial storm BYLINE: Andrea Stone DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: WASHINGTON -- Morris Dees recently sold his passion for fighting hate to the Direct Marketing Association here. In his "aw, shucks" Alabama accent, the founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) wove one "let-me-tell-you-a-story" after another. His tales of boldly suing racists riveted these junk mailers, themselves masters of hyperbole. Later, at a VIP reception, Dees signed copies of Hate on Trial, his book on how he battled neo-Nazi leader Tom Metzger. Nearby, a college student told how Dees sold anti-balding cream through the mail. For Dees, selling racial justice isn't much different than hustling hair cream. Today, 25 years after founding the SPLC in Montgomery, Ala., Dees heads the nation's richest civil rights organization. At a time when the NAACP is struggling back from bankruptcy, this white lawyer's nonprofit center boasts assets of $ 68 million. Most was raised through the mail from 300,000 contributors, most of whom were white. Their dollars helped Dees end segregation in public accommodations and government. They fund the center's Klanwatch and Militia Task Force, which monitor more than 800 hate groups. They underwrite Teaching Tolerance, a project that distributes free educational materials to 55,000 schools nationwide. And they finance precedent-setting lawsuits. Currently, Dees is focusing on the rash of arson fires at Southern black churches. The SPLC recently filed a civil suit against two members of the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan arrested in two South Carolina blazes. The men were later indicted on federal charges. "He's been one of the most persistent seekers of truth and justice in the South," says Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a civil rights movement veteran. Dees' crusades have made him a target of numerous death threats. The SPLC's first offices were firebombed by Klan arsonists in 1983. Today, Dees and his fourth wife, Elizabeth, live with round-the-clock security at their 2,500-acre ranch in Mathews, Ala. Bodyguards follow when Dees travels. "He's taken tremendous risks," says Ron Kuby, a white New York civil rights lawyer. "As a Southern white man, he's uniquely situated . . . to put the spotlight on racism in his own community." Yet some black civil rights leaders and others have criticized Dees for running a "poverty palace." They say he raises millions by exaggerating the threat of hate groups. For instance, in a recent report on arsons at black churches in the South, his Klanwatch newsletter included five 1990 fires in Kentucky. The article doesn't mention they were set by a black man. "He's a fraud who has milked a lot of very wonderful, well-intentioned people," says Stephen Bright of Atlanta's Southern Center for Human Rights. "If it's got headlines, Morris is there." Critics say Dees ignores controversial issues such as affirmative action. Some former black employees quoted in a 1994 series by The Montgomery Advertiser say they often heard racial jokes or slurs from white staffers. They say the SPLC is a paternalistic organization where few blacks hold high positions. Dees says such charges are the gripes of a few disgruntled staff members. He notes that two of the SPLC's five board members and one of four staff lawyers are black. To some blacks, though, the complaints seem petty. "This young man is to be honored, to be praised," says Mamie Till-Mobley, the mother of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old black boy whose 1955 murder for talking to a Mississippi white woman sparked the civil rights movement. "Anytime you do anything, you're going to be criticized. But even critics say Dees, 59, is a genius at selling both his cause and himself. His tour to promote his latest book on right-wing militias coincided with the one-year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. After that, he waded into the black church arsons. Dees' arson lawsuit is similar to his 1987 case against the United Klans of America. In that, he won a $ 7 million judgment for the mother of Michael Donald, a black lynching victim in Alabama. In 1990, the SPLC won $ 12.5 million in damages against Metzger and his White Aryan Resistance. A Portland, Ore., jury held the neo-Nazi group liable in the beating death of an Ethiopian immigrant. Critics say only a fraction of those settlements have actually been paid out by hate groups. Dees says what is recovered has paid to house and educate victims' families. Dees came late to the civil rights movement. In college, he hawked birthday cakes by mail, using what he learned to later make millions marketing cookbooks and tractor cushions through direct marketing. In the 1960s, Dees tended mostly to business and his law practice. It was there, on the sidelines of history, that Dees transformed himself into a visionary civil rights lawyer. In his autobiography, Dees writes that the Till murder "touched me so deeply that for the first time I seriously examined the Southern way of life." While a student at the University of Alabama, he watched as a black woman, Autherine Lucy, tried to enroll in the all-white school as white protesters jeered and threw bottles. But Dees did nothing. In 1961, as a young lawyer, he defended a white neighbor charged with beating a journalist covering the Freedom Riders, who had come to Alabama to integrate its bus terminals. During the trial, Dees sat next to Bobby Shelton, founder of the United Klans of America -- the group he would later sue in the Donald case. After a black Freedom Rider asked him how he could defend a racist, Dees was shaken. "I vowed then and there that nobody would ever again doubt where I stood." Still, it wasn't until he read the autobiography of crusading lawyer Clarence Darrow that he decided to sell his business and practice civil rights law. In 1971, he and lawyer Joseph Levin founded the SPLC. At first, it focused on Alabama, forcing the state Legislature, state troopers and the Montgomery YMCA to integrate. In 1972, Dees raised money for George McGovern, one of four Democratic presidential candidates for whom he's worked. His pioneering use of direct mail worked so well that the losing campaign ended with a surplus. His techniques have been copied ever since. McGovern rewarded Dees with 700,000 names. Dees took the huge mailing list home to Montgomery. Contributions soon poured in. Last year, the SPLC raised $ 14 million. Its goal is to increase its $ 68 million endowment to $ 100 million and quit fund-raising. As the center's coffers grew, so did Dees' fame. With his blond curls and toothy smile, he is often mistaken for a Kennedy. Dees says people who criticize him are resentful of his success. "I'm white. I had a business that made money. I wasn't active in the civil rights movement," Dees says. "Some in the old civil rights crowd may see me as an interloper because the (SPLC) is such a success." He says his work is crucial today because extremists have not faded into history, as some black civil rights activists contend. Instead, they have "traded their sheets in for paramilitary uniforms." Or, as the recent spate of church fires indicates, they carry on their own private race wars. "Don't tell me hate groups are less serious today," he says. "Don't tell me that they're paper tigers."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FGT2 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for posting this. The more transparent the use of source material, the better.--Ty580 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montgomery Advertiser investigation

What is the name of the article? It must be sourced properly. FGT2 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs to state........

This article needs to state how the splc is itself seen as a hate group because of its hate for groups that have different views then itself. The splc is also seen as a heritage hate group by many orginizations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.79 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Discover the networks

Do we have evidence that discover the networks is a reliable source? Specifically, focus on

Attributability, Editorial oversight, Declaration of sources, Corroboration, Recognition by other reliable sources, Age of the source and rate of change of the subject and Persistence. Review WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is a suggestion, not policy. The onus is on you to prove that it is not an acceptable source. L0b0t 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe discover the networks lacks editorial oversigh, corroboration, recognition by reliable sources and persistance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is more than a suggestion - it's a guideline on how to follow WP:V, which is a core policy. Another useful restatement is at Wikipedia:Attribution. I'm not familiar enough with DTN to know if they have editorial oversight, etc, but Hipocrite is correct that if they don't they should not be used as a source. -Will Beback · † · 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, a suggestion, NOT POLICY. It is also a guideline under dispute. DTN has jsut as much oversight as SPLC (none). If DTN is unacceptable then all sourcing to SPLC (other than to talk directly and only about SPLC) is also unacceptable. Cheers. L0b0t 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and unreliable sources can be used in articles about themselves. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to present as to why you feel that DTN is self published? If you have such evidence, let's see it. If you don't, then we are done here. L0b0t 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not reliable. It lacks verifiability from other locations, it has a strong bias, it is rarely corroborated and never cited by other sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing lots of statements of fact but NO evidence. L0b0t 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the website, and determined it was not a reliable source. You appear to dispute the reliable sourcing guidelines, but agree that this fails them. (Otherwise, why would you have argued that RS was a guideline, not a policy, and thus ignorable?) What does having those two sentences in the article get you? It gets you me, about to read the entire article and fix all of the sourcing problems that are likley therein. I guess it lets you link to some website you like - it dosen't do anything for that websites pagerank - wikipedia outgoing link are . Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I just don't know WHAT you are talking about. What does a websites "pagerank" (I have no idea what that is) have to do with sources being acceptable. RS is just a guideline, and a guideline that is under dispute on a regular basis at that. Please edit this article, I'm sure there are more sourcing problems here. No one has asked you not to edit the article. I have asked you not to remove sourced info just because you seem to think that the source violates a guideline. I'm sorry if you disagree with me but your methodology of "I looked at the website, and determined it was not a reliable source." is not good enough. Cheers. L0b0t 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the website and found that it lacks verifiability from other locations, it has a strong bias, it is rarely corroborated and never cited by other sources. Very little "information" was removed as a result of my excusing of this source. WP:RS has not been in serious dispute for a very, very long time.Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If by "very, very, long time" you mean 29 JAN 07 - 06 FEB 07 on the talk page and 01 FEB 07 - 06 FEB 07 in the guideline itself. L0b0t 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is transparent you are not engaging in discussions, rather in pedantic argumentation. I have nothing more to say. Seek consensus for any future attempts to include wholy unreliable sources or remove maintence tags. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss with you but you are just presenting your own personal opinion rather than any evidence. L0b0t 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A confused post on David Horowitz Freedom Center brought me to [[4]], and thence here. The absurd AfD on DHFC {[[5]], also see [[6]]) is Hipocrite's work, as is some similar vandalism he's performing on Political Research Associates with the same lame excuses and ex-cathedra pronouncements. I know we're supposed to WP:AGF, but how long are we supposed to overlook his failure to respond to your 6 Feb request that he defend his characterisation of DTN as "self-published" (repeated at PRA on 9 Feb)? [You make the same point about quoting SPLC as I did about MediaMatters in my response to him -- if DTN isn't quotable (properly attributed) half of the political content of Wikipedia needs to be deleted, and the affected articles will be pretty useless as a result.] Andyvphil 11:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] balance

The article as it stands is unbalanced, and reads as a advertisement for the center. the negative criticism is emphasized in long sections, and the response relatively hidden. I gave it some proper emphasis as = to the negative criticism, but there is much correction of POV needed--many critical statements are presented as undoubted facts. this was notice back in 2004, and its time it was fixed--I have just begun. DGG 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hate groups

Why is hte list of hate groups being removed? Characterizing and tracking hate groups is one of the subject's principle activities. I don't see how reporting on that violates WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. -Will Beback · † · 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I would respectfully suggest that this article is about the SPLC itself, not its opinion of other groups. Admitedly the connection to BLP is tenuous, based upon listees not self-identifying as "hate groups" (there is even a statement in the para above the list stating that fact.) I would ask in return is there any purpose whatsoever in an unencyclopedic laundry list of selectees from the complete list that is already available through the SPLC website? Let's look at the selectees, who chose them and why just those groups? If this list was created as a seperate article, it would be deleted as an attack page or a violation of WP:NPOV in a hot second. It adds no information whatsoever about the subject of the article, just listcruft and bloat. Cheers. L0b0t 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I should add that you are correct that naming and tracking these groups is one of the subject's principle activities. The article would do well with more information about that work and the process that is involved, but a partial selective list of groups is not needed to accomplish that. Cheers. L0b0t 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We also link to the complete list twice in that section already, so a selective excerpt is redundant. Cheers. L0b0t 01:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of your points, but I do agree with the first one. This article should focus on their their work and how they do things rather than presenting their workproduct itself. -Will Beback · † · 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

and think of the linkspam. -- especially if done for every such organization.DGG 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that I think there is an encyclopedic interest in listing hate groups as they are defined by the SPLC. Such a sampling of notable groups better enables readers to draw their own (now more informed) conclusions about the SPLC's credibility or non-credibility based on their own subjective valuations of those organizations (perhaps derived from further inquiry through the encyclopedia). I think it would be an incomplete treatment to say the SPLC decried "certain groups" and then fail to offer a notable, repesentative sampling of such groups. DickClarkMises 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Empowering readers to draw their own (now more informed) conclusions about the SPLC's credibility or non-credibility is a worthy goal, but it should be done by explaining how the SPLC reaches its conclusions, not be listing groups it considers hate groups. History has shown that on Wikipedia the SPLC's list of hate groups has been used predominantly as an attack of the groups listed rather than as a way to better understand the inner workings of the SPLC. What is needed -desperately- in this article is a discussion of how the SPLC determines that a group's beliefs or practices attack or malign an entire class of people.-Psychohistorian 13:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The SPLC lists several hundred groups, though most of them are just local chapters of KKK and other notorious gangs. If we're going to include a sampling of entries those should be the examples. The "Others" list is more interesting, but there are too few entries to be representative of the larger list. It'd be good, as suggested by L0b0t, to find and add information about how they compile this information. -Will Beback · † · 12:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think readers would be even more empowered and informed by reading the entire list which is already linked to TWICE in that very section, and available through the many links to the SPLC mainpage. Another issue is NPOV, who chooses the "notable, repesentative sampling of such groups" there are almost 200 on the OTHER list. Any selective listing will be pure POV on the part of the selector. Also, this article is about the SPLC, not a forum to display their opinion of others. Cheers. L0b0t 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)