![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is this [11] appropriate? -- Doug Weller talk 18:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Southern Poverty Law Center has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
The SPLC has recently discouraged its employees' attempts at unionization.
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Surely it bears some mention that SPLC has been challenged with financial issues and harassment allegations. Is this a serious encyclopedia or not?
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)
|
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.
|
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)
Can we hat this wp:soapboxing? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request to
Southern Poverty Law Center has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
"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?
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)
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)
SPLC was virtually sole source of the FBI investigationas you claim. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:41, 3 March 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is this [11] appropriate? -- Doug Weller talk 18:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Southern Poverty Law Center has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
The SPLC has recently discouraged its employees' attempts at unionization.
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Surely it bears some mention that SPLC has been challenged with financial issues and harassment allegations. Is this a serious encyclopedia or not?
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)
|
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.
|
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)
Can we hat this wp:soapboxing? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request to
Southern Poverty Law Center has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
"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?
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)
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)
SPLC was virtually sole source of the FBI investigationas you claim. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:41, 3 March 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)
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)
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)