Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 20 November 2010 (→Bias tag: + Cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alabama This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Claims of discrimination against blacks by the SPLC

An editor added the charge that the SPLC has discriminated against black employees. Another editor removed it, with an edit summary talking about a link (link to the referenced article?). While the addition's reference format may have been incorrect, the reference is legitimate (the newspaper local to the SPLC) and a link to the article is not a requirement for use in Misplaced Pages (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). Does anyone see problems in adding this material back? Drrll (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not even a question that it should not be added. A 16 year-old criticism without any link to back up the claims? Even with a link it would be undue weight, among others. Dave Dial (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How about arguing on the basis of WP policy instead of arguments not based in WP policy--that the criticism is "absurd", "not even a question", too old, and that it's not linked. WP:UNDUE hardly applies, as the charge originates from one of the only examples of in-depth reporting on the SPLC in a reliable source. And the charge is backed by Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree, hardly a crank and hardly a right-winger. Drrll (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The article on Clarence Thomas contains a large section on allegations made 19 years ago by Anita Hill.Strde (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Listing a single claim of discrimination in a single source from decades ago gives it undue weight. If there is a systemic issue or a pattern of behavior covered by multiple independent reliable sources, you can argue that it deserves mention in the article; however, in this case the material was properly removed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that it is WP:UNDUE if we had numerous sources that include in-depth reporting on the SPLC. Do you know of any other examples of in-depth reporting? An entire article in the local newspaper was devoted to this question. Drrll (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The policy is neutrality: "This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It is fairly simple to go to far right websites and find disparaging articles about the SPLC. In order to be neutral however we must determine how widely reported these stories were and if they have received ongoing attention to present "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The way editors can avoid tendentious editing is to begin with the best sources on SPLC and see what they consider important rather than deciding what they consider to be important and searching for sources that support their point of view. TFD (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Montgomery Advertiser series of articles on the SPLC is one of the best (it was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize) and certainly one of the most extensive as far as reporting on the SPLC. The editor that put the material in referenced one of the series' articles--not some right-wing website. Do you know of any other sources as good as the Montgomery Advertiser series? Do you have suggestions for wording the addition in a way you see as more neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 October 2010

• If it was such an in depth, unbiased article, then why was there no follow up by any other news outlet? Why are there no available links to any of the articles on the web? Why are there no published quotes from Ogletree making the same claims in any published article? Why are the only hits on Google(a total of 8) from the CIS or in the comments sections of articles about the SPLC? And why was a users first edit to add this to the SPLC article, and your posting on the talk page making the same claims just a short time later? Seems like an attempt by those at the CIS(and people who sympathize with them) to orchestrate anti-SPLC propaganda. That is the epitimy of undue wieght and POV. Dave Dial (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question about why such an in-depth series of articles which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize got little to no follow-up by other news organization. I think that it's because most news organization uncritically accept whatever the SPLC puts out. No links exist because as far as I can tell, it is inaccessible by any means electronically (e.g. the Montgomery Advertiser site itself doesn't offer access to articles before 1999 and the same thing goes for Lexis-Nexis). None of that in any ways takes away from the fact that the charges appear in one of the best reliable sources about the SPLC. You better have evidence if you're going to suggest that I'm in some way associated with the editor who put the material in originally, or that either one of us is somehow associated with the CIS. Drrll (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter why the media ignore stories - stories they ignore are just not notable. TFD (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't ignored--it was reported by the Montgomery Advertiser--a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox referred to an article in the report ("Marketing the Militias" by Dan Morse, June, 1995) in pp. 255-256 of his 1996 book American extremists. I would not oppose using that book as a source for the article, since it meets high sourcing standards. If no one has access to these pages, i could copy them. TFD (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What does the book address as to the reference in the Montgomery Advertiser? Does it address the charge of discrimination against black employees by the SPLC? Drrll (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilcox, who was a student radical in the 1960s and now calls himself “a classical free-speech liberal,” has observed the SPLC for years. “They want to marginalize certain points of view in our society, and they do it by acting like a kind of certifying agency that decides who is extremist and who isn’t,” he said.

Wilcox calls the SPLC a prime example of the “anti-racist industry afoot in the United States that has attracted bullying, moralizing fanatics.”

Wilcox says compliant, unquestioning reporters have been key to the SPLC’s efforts. “The media has just rolled over for them,” he said. “It would be considered almost racist for a reporter to be skeptical of the SPLC. It would be like questioning Mother Teresa about whether she had a bank account.” http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nyh_fWA3tkoJ:www.cis.org/immigration-splc+journalist+Alexander+Cockburn+splc&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Strde (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We would need a high quality source where he expressed his opinions or where his opinions were quoted. We cannot tell from the link whether the comments were taken in context, two of the footnotes refer to e-mails, and The Watchdogs is self-published. But his reporting of the Montgomery article in his book meets RS. TFD (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So there are a total of two reliable sources? I'm unconvinced that one article and one book constitutes due weight for inclusion, especially since books don't carry the same weight of review that journalistic sources do. //Blaxthos ( t / c )

If their were 100 sources you would still be unconvinced98.204.211.159 (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a stunning and unjustified lack of good faith. Regardless of the fact that you spin immediately into an ad hominem argument, the fact of the matter is that there aren't 100 sources... there aren't even 5 sources. With only two sources (of which one is a book) adding the material violates WP:UNDUE. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

self-published: "SPLC lawsuits have bankrupted or crippled 12 major hate groups whose members killed, injured or threatened innocent people"

Hi,

Do we have any third-party source that collaborates the following info from the spring 2008 Intelligence Report, published by SPLC?

SPLC lawsuits have bankrupted or crippled 12 major hate groups whose members killed, injured or threatened innocent people.

A quick search on the web only shows mirrors of Misplaced Pages material.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No criticism

No criticism? A guy on his first edit removed Social Contract Journal: The Southern Poverty Law Center - A Special Report. I reverted but it was removed again by someone else. That caused me to notice this article has absolutely no counterbalancing at all. No criticism. Nothing. It is written like a pamphlet for the SPLC. Has anyone else noticed this? And what little criticism there was, namely the removed link, was simply removed without bringing it to the Talk page due to its removal representing the total removal of any counterbalancing information whatsoever. So I'm doing that. I know nothing of the source except what someone said in a history comment. But it sure is peculiar this article has no criticism at all. Let's add some. I prefer not to be the person who does that as I am not an expert in the SPLC. But the above link may have useful reliable sources linked therein good enough for at least a head start. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bias tag

I will add the BIAS template, for the reasons stated above in several sections on a lack of criticism. Without criticism, the article is simply biased. Other than a lack of criticism, I have no complaints about the existing text at this time. The lack of criticism has been discussed here for a while, but the discussions go nowhere while the bias remains, so it is only fair to advise WP readers that bias exists in this article until such time as the bias is remedied. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• The article does refer to criticisms leveled against the SPLC's fund-raising tactics and executive compensation, and quotes critic Alexander Cockburn at length. What other sources of criticism do you propose should be included? --Dystopos (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Seems balanced to me. TFD (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• There is some criticism in the article, as mentioned by Dystopos, but to me it is insufficient for such a controversial organization that almost exclusively targets the Right, including mainstream conservatives (especially conservative media). The SPLC does not have the credibility of an organization like the ADL, which targets both the Right and the Left. I support the BIAS template. If someone has access to the Montgomery Advertiser articles on the SPLC, that would be a good start for balancing out this article. Drrll (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• The SPLC is a well respected organization that is sourced throughout mainstream media. There is a small number of critisms from a few outlets, which is already represented enough in this article, because the vast majority of sourcing is positive. Dave Dial (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No wonder I missed reading Cockburn. It is literally buried in the 4th to the last sentence in this huge article. If that is the only criticism, then I have proven my point about the article being biased. As a result, comments that say the article is balanced evidence those commenters feel a near total absence of criticism is "balanced."

And we all know and admit that the "SPLC is a well respected organization that is sourced throughout mainstream media." But that does not dismiss our duty to write encyclopedic articles, not corporate pamphlets.

Dydstopos asked a reasonable question: "What other sources of criticism do you propose should be included?" Let me say that I am not an expert in this area so I really do not know what's out there. But my own inability to produce a meaty response to Dystopos's question should not be considered evidence that no such criticism exists. I have a concern for the number of SPLC supporters writing here over a long period of time that if I do not personally find Wiki-worthy criticism, then the community consensus will be that such criticism does not exist. Indeed, that's a foregone conclusion to DD2K who said, "There is a small number of critisms from a few outlets, which is already represented enough in this article, because the vast majority of sourcing is positive."

That said, let me provide one source that is clearly Wiki-worthy, namely Tom Tancredo. See The Hidden Agenda of the SPLC, by Tom Tancredo, Spring 2010, where Tom Tancredo talks about, among other things, how the SPLC smeared him personally, so he should know.

See also "Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press, and Duped its Donors", by Jerry Kammer, March 2010.

Let me be clear I am NOT promoting any anti SPLC agenda. I am merely following Wiki rules about the presence of criticism in Wiki articles so they do not look like puff pieces, which is what the SPLC article looks like right now, and a single criticism buried in the fourth to the last sentence of this huge puff piece is evidence of a lack of appropriate criticism. Further, my linking those articles is a result of responding to a question from the community. I have to say this because I want to head off at the pass the claim that I am promoting certain views of certain people or groups because I linked to them or for any other reasons. No, I am merely working with the community on the Talk page as I should be doing. Let's all try our best to avoid ad hominem argument. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Alabama articles
• WikiProject Alabama articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles