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)
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)
The article should be rewritten and all of the "controversies" surrounding the organization should be posted in a seperate section entitled "criticisms".
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.
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?
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
I contend that in context, the quote references both (Dees, SPLC), and should remain. -- Fix Bayonets! 12:28, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
What is the name of the article? It must be sourced properly. FGT2 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
The section focuses specifically on the "teach tolerance" (schools, parents) program of tolerance.org. from a cursory look, it appears that the section may be dated, because that site has an individual/community component as well. I started updating. would appreciate any help in further updates.-- Boscobiscotti 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The following was recently added to the intro:
In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of claim for which we should identify a source. The adverbs "clearly", "sometimes", "more", "ostensibly", "less", and "manifestly" make the statement rather too vague. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:No original research for explanation of the relevant guidelines. -- Dystopos 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the FrontPage Magazine criticism because its ridiculous to include criticism from an online rightwing internet site on the SPLC's review of a movie. FrontPage Magazine is not a WP:RS. Criticism from newspapers are reliable. A rightwing website, which is ideologically opposed to the SPLC is not. This is an article, not an attack page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMght ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 July 2007
I see it was readded. Can someone explain how this online conservative website complies with WP:RS for criticism? Also another policy is WP:UNDUE. Are any of FrontPage's opinions backed by the mainstream to include this material which is 1/8 of the article?
Whatever I think of FrontPage's opinions, it's a reliable source. ThAtSo 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
DickClarkMises, how is it notable? This is one website's opinion. The only mention of this "controversy" is from FrontPage Magazine. One or three articles from a website is not convincing of it notablity.
I accessed the "series" and found much of the material posted on conservative websites to be selectively quoting material. Also I think it is wrong to call it a "series" as the material was printed on two days February 13 and 14, 1994. Since Dan Morse (author of the Advertiser's articles referred to) is concerned with SPLC finances there is no need to have two separate sections. FFthird 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the one line because one article from 11 years ago about one Klanwatch article from 17 years ago fails WP:NOTE. The other criticism is notable, but one line in an article from a decade ago about arson isn't. Specifically, it fails several criteria such as, "Significant coverage" and sources. Moreover, it doesn't even cite what issue of Klanwatch the controversy is from or any other data on the arsonist. C56C 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Berlet thinks he's right, Horowitz thinks he's right, and rehashing the argument from primary sources leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. If we really must coover this spat, we should cover it by reference to independent reliable secondary sources, which specifically excludes discover the networks, Horowitz Freedom Center and Front Page Mag since all are controlled by Horowitz. Guy ( Help!) 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Only the boldfaced portion of the following quote from the source was copied into the article:
By leaving the entire quote out and splicing it onto a summary of a previous paragraph that was talking about the SPLC, the editor has made it seem as if the phrase “published propoganda” refers to SPLC publications rather than “white power publications” which is clearly the topic of the paragraph. I have deleted the sentence since it is both misleading and unrelated to the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
if statistics from the SPLC have bias, they are not statistics but propaganda. WillC ( talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the energy to deal with this right now but in cleaning out a couple of boxes of old clippings I found this Wash Times article which criticizes SLPC: "Rsearcher says hate 'fringe' isn't as crowded as claimed." It is linked from several different sites. It quotes Laird Wilcox, David Horowitz, etc. Just for another perspective, of course :-) Carol Moore 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}
Currently its not even a redirect. Should it redirect here, or should it be stubbed? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Kkk-donald-cartoon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Last time I viewed the entry, and I admit it was quite a while ago, there were critical articles at the bottom. Where did they go? I'm restoring them. The SPLC may do some good work, but it is a highly controversial organization on both the right and the left. The right characterizes it as fanatical and prone to hyperbole while the left says it is too focused on fundraising as opposed to actually doing good works. Syntacticus ( talk) 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The article is not up to snuff. It reads like a press release from the SPLC. There is almost no negative info about the group. Syntacticus ( talk) 17:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Source | Says | <notes> |
---|---|---|
Example
| ||
The Guardian Saturday Nov 17, 2008 Klansman faces bankruptcy after victim wins $2.5m |
SPLC bankrupts racists | Article |
Ignored
sources
| ||
Source | What it says | |
Source | What it says |
What about his quality of research? You can't just throw out rhetorical questions like that in order to smear someone. What did he write or say that was inaccurate? Syntacticus ( talk) 07:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems I need to check these tags more regularly. The article is unbalanced. Adding the Capital Research Center report would make it more balanced. Syntacticus ( talk) 01:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice template! Will have to read the darned article again, won't i? :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Prima facie, this section currently reads like a hit piece. It does need rebalancing, and very possibly removal of redundant assertions. However, SPLC literature is an "unduly self-serving" source to contradict these assertions, and should not be used.
I personally can't believe that there would be no RS'es out there that can be used to defend the SPLC. Spend time searching them out, not arguing to include SPLC lit as a source on why they're financially responsible.
arimareiji (
talk) 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It has also been described as a "a controversial [[liberal]] organization"<ref name = Edsall-Silverstein/> by columnist [[Thomas Edsall]] as it occasionally involves itself in broader issues such as the [[Separation of church and state in the United States|separation of church and state]].<ref name="cnn.com">{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/ | title=Ten Commandments judge removed from office | publisher=[[CNN]] |date= November 14, 2003 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2007-09-18}}</ref>
It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by two users "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [6] [7]" and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source, so it seems the objections of the two editors in that regard has no substance. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 05:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think wikipedia needs to include editorials, or at least non-substantive name calling, in its articles. Or if it does, it must balance out this editorials with facts. Ron Smith's editorial, in which he called the SPLC a scam was based on poor sources and a self-admitted ideological purpose. It seems, according to the article, that his problem is hate crime laws and "liberal agenda", which his opinion as a talk radio host has little bearing or interest here. This type of editorial does not serve this article well.
The Mark Potok of the SPLC as well as Samuel I. Rosenberg, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates, responded to Smith the following week in the Baltimore Sun:
On Wednesday, The Baltimore Sun published an attack by Ron Smith on the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization known nationally for its lawsuits against and investigations of white supremacist hate groups in America ("The truth about 'hate crimes' and the racial justice racket," Commentary, Dec. 3).
Aside from a great deal of unsubstantiated name-calling, Mr. Smith mentions an essay written by Nicholas Stix, a man Mr. Smith sparely describes as a "columnist and blogger."
What Mr. Smith declines to say is that Mr. Stix is a well-known white nationalist who recently prepared a lengthy introduction to an article, published by the National Policy Institute, that paints "a statistical and narrative portrait of the war on white America."
...
With Mr. Stix, Mr. Smith claims that the October murder of an interracial couple in Winchester, Calif., allegedly by four black men, was motivated by race hate - despite the statements of police that the motive was robbery.
Mr. Smith goes on to describe hate crime legislation as a "questionable legal construct used almost exclusively against whites."
Actually, the concept has been ratified by the Supreme Court in a case in which the defendant was a black man who had attacked whites because of their race. Yet that doesn't stop Mr. Smith from claiming that "the truth is one thing and the liberal agenda is another."
Mark Potok, Montgomery, Ala.
The writer is director of the Intelligence Project for the Southern Poverty Law Center.
...
Perhaps Ron Smith is unaware that then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in the 1993 case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, held that hate crime laws are constitutional. How else could Mr. Smith erroneously contend that hate crimes "are a questionable legal construct"?
In the Wisconsin case, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: "According to the state ... bias motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The state's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty enhancement [in hate crimes cases] provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases."
Samuel I. "Sandy" Rosenberg, Baltimore
The writer is a member of the House of Delegates.
<source: Readers speak out on Ron Smith's take on race, justice December 5, 2008 Baltimore Sun>
Thus, if Smith's name-calling is kept, the SPLC's response and a politicians responses should be included. Dooteeyr ( talk) 08:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Arimareiji I am restoring the version of the article that omits the questionable Smith material. It appears at this point you are the sole person supporting the inclusion of the material so it appears that the consensus flows against you. Unless you have some actual PROOF that there was canvasing going on (I neither canvassed nor received a solicitation to contribute), it seems safe to ignore that particular claim.
Your claim that Smith is “articulating essentially the same claims as the Advertiser and Harper's” is not true. In fact, neither of these sources, while questioning some aspects of the SPLC’s fundraising, goes so far as to dismiss the SPLC as “a clever scam”. Rather than focusing on fundraising (the actual title of the section where you want to include the material), Smith’s agenda is attacking the whole concept and existence of hate groups and hate crimes.
You claim that “1994, 2000, and 2008 are too far apart in time to support each other directly, and the article shouldn't lead the reader to think they do” is mere speculation on your part with respect to Smith. He cites no sources at all to back up his “scam” claim -- instead he urges readers to “spend some time on the Internet and assess it for yourself.”
The biggest problem with your position, however, is your total misreading of the intent of WP:RS. This intent is spelled out in the lede to the article:
Wikipedia article should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
While the Baltimore Sun may be as reliable as any newspaper, this doesn’t mean that the “authors” of all its opinion pieces are reliable “in relation to the subject at hand.” Nobody, not even you, has argued that Smith, by his own credentials, is a reliable source on the subject of Hate Watch Groups. You are also ignoring that in matters of opinion, WP:RS merely says, “Some sources MAY be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.”
One big example of when MAY does not apply is when WP:FRINGE does. It states, “Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.” What we have here, IMO, is a single source making the “scam” claim. The question is NOT whether OpEd pieces may sometimes (or even often) be an acceptable source -- rather the issue is whether this particular OpEd is a reliable, relevant source for this article. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent, recopy of unaddressed objections)
Nicholas Stix really isn't the best source for anything, considering that he's little more than a lone journalist. -- Rock8591 08:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
The article should be rewritten and all of the "controversies" surrounding the organization should be posted in a seperate section entitled "criticisms".
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.
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?
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
I contend that in context, the quote references both (Dees, SPLC), and should remain. -- Fix Bayonets! 12:28, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
What is the name of the article? It must be sourced properly. FGT2 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
The section focuses specifically on the "teach tolerance" (schools, parents) program of tolerance.org. from a cursory look, it appears that the section may be dated, because that site has an individual/community component as well. I started updating. would appreciate any help in further updates.-- Boscobiscotti 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The following was recently added to the intro:
In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of claim for which we should identify a source. The adverbs "clearly", "sometimes", "more", "ostensibly", "less", and "manifestly" make the statement rather too vague. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:No original research for explanation of the relevant guidelines. -- Dystopos 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the FrontPage Magazine criticism because its ridiculous to include criticism from an online rightwing internet site on the SPLC's review of a movie. FrontPage Magazine is not a WP:RS. Criticism from newspapers are reliable. A rightwing website, which is ideologically opposed to the SPLC is not. This is an article, not an attack page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMght ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 July 2007
I see it was readded. Can someone explain how this online conservative website complies with WP:RS for criticism? Also another policy is WP:UNDUE. Are any of FrontPage's opinions backed by the mainstream to include this material which is 1/8 of the article?
Whatever I think of FrontPage's opinions, it's a reliable source. ThAtSo 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
DickClarkMises, how is it notable? This is one website's opinion. The only mention of this "controversy" is from FrontPage Magazine. One or three articles from a website is not convincing of it notablity.
I accessed the "series" and found much of the material posted on conservative websites to be selectively quoting material. Also I think it is wrong to call it a "series" as the material was printed on two days February 13 and 14, 1994. Since Dan Morse (author of the Advertiser's articles referred to) is concerned with SPLC finances there is no need to have two separate sections. FFthird 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the one line because one article from 11 years ago about one Klanwatch article from 17 years ago fails WP:NOTE. The other criticism is notable, but one line in an article from a decade ago about arson isn't. Specifically, it fails several criteria such as, "Significant coverage" and sources. Moreover, it doesn't even cite what issue of Klanwatch the controversy is from or any other data on the arsonist. C56C 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Berlet thinks he's right, Horowitz thinks he's right, and rehashing the argument from primary sources leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. If we really must coover this spat, we should cover it by reference to independent reliable secondary sources, which specifically excludes discover the networks, Horowitz Freedom Center and Front Page Mag since all are controlled by Horowitz. Guy ( Help!) 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Only the boldfaced portion of the following quote from the source was copied into the article:
By leaving the entire quote out and splicing it onto a summary of a previous paragraph that was talking about the SPLC, the editor has made it seem as if the phrase “published propoganda” refers to SPLC publications rather than “white power publications” which is clearly the topic of the paragraph. I have deleted the sentence since it is both misleading and unrelated to the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
if statistics from the SPLC have bias, they are not statistics but propaganda. WillC ( talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the energy to deal with this right now but in cleaning out a couple of boxes of old clippings I found this Wash Times article which criticizes SLPC: "Rsearcher says hate 'fringe' isn't as crowded as claimed." It is linked from several different sites. It quotes Laird Wilcox, David Horowitz, etc. Just for another perspective, of course :-) Carol Moore 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}
Currently its not even a redirect. Should it redirect here, or should it be stubbed? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Kkk-donald-cartoon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Last time I viewed the entry, and I admit it was quite a while ago, there were critical articles at the bottom. Where did they go? I'm restoring them. The SPLC may do some good work, but it is a highly controversial organization on both the right and the left. The right characterizes it as fanatical and prone to hyperbole while the left says it is too focused on fundraising as opposed to actually doing good works. Syntacticus ( talk) 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The article is not up to snuff. It reads like a press release from the SPLC. There is almost no negative info about the group. Syntacticus ( talk) 17:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Source | Says | <notes> |
---|---|---|
Example
| ||
The Guardian Saturday Nov 17, 2008 Klansman faces bankruptcy after victim wins $2.5m |
SPLC bankrupts racists | Article |
Ignored
sources
| ||
Source | What it says | |
Source | What it says |
What about his quality of research? You can't just throw out rhetorical questions like that in order to smear someone. What did he write or say that was inaccurate? Syntacticus ( talk) 07:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems I need to check these tags more regularly. The article is unbalanced. Adding the Capital Research Center report would make it more balanced. Syntacticus ( talk) 01:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice template! Will have to read the darned article again, won't i? :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Prima facie, this section currently reads like a hit piece. It does need rebalancing, and very possibly removal of redundant assertions. However, SPLC literature is an "unduly self-serving" source to contradict these assertions, and should not be used.
I personally can't believe that there would be no RS'es out there that can be used to defend the SPLC. Spend time searching them out, not arguing to include SPLC lit as a source on why they're financially responsible.
arimareiji (
talk) 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It has also been described as a "a controversial [[liberal]] organization"<ref name = Edsall-Silverstein/> by columnist [[Thomas Edsall]] as it occasionally involves itself in broader issues such as the [[Separation of church and state in the United States|separation of church and state]].<ref name="cnn.com">{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/ | title=Ten Commandments judge removed from office | publisher=[[CNN]] |date= November 14, 2003 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2007-09-18}}</ref>
It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by two users "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [6] [7]" and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source, so it seems the objections of the two editors in that regard has no substance. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 05:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think wikipedia needs to include editorials, or at least non-substantive name calling, in its articles. Or if it does, it must balance out this editorials with facts. Ron Smith's editorial, in which he called the SPLC a scam was based on poor sources and a self-admitted ideological purpose. It seems, according to the article, that his problem is hate crime laws and "liberal agenda", which his opinion as a talk radio host has little bearing or interest here. This type of editorial does not serve this article well.
The Mark Potok of the SPLC as well as Samuel I. Rosenberg, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates, responded to Smith the following week in the Baltimore Sun:
On Wednesday, The Baltimore Sun published an attack by Ron Smith on the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization known nationally for its lawsuits against and investigations of white supremacist hate groups in America ("The truth about 'hate crimes' and the racial justice racket," Commentary, Dec. 3).
Aside from a great deal of unsubstantiated name-calling, Mr. Smith mentions an essay written by Nicholas Stix, a man Mr. Smith sparely describes as a "columnist and blogger."
What Mr. Smith declines to say is that Mr. Stix is a well-known white nationalist who recently prepared a lengthy introduction to an article, published by the National Policy Institute, that paints "a statistical and narrative portrait of the war on white America."
...
With Mr. Stix, Mr. Smith claims that the October murder of an interracial couple in Winchester, Calif., allegedly by four black men, was motivated by race hate - despite the statements of police that the motive was robbery.
Mr. Smith goes on to describe hate crime legislation as a "questionable legal construct used almost exclusively against whites."
Actually, the concept has been ratified by the Supreme Court in a case in which the defendant was a black man who had attacked whites because of their race. Yet that doesn't stop Mr. Smith from claiming that "the truth is one thing and the liberal agenda is another."
Mark Potok, Montgomery, Ala.
The writer is director of the Intelligence Project for the Southern Poverty Law Center.
...
Perhaps Ron Smith is unaware that then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in the 1993 case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, held that hate crime laws are constitutional. How else could Mr. Smith erroneously contend that hate crimes "are a questionable legal construct"?
In the Wisconsin case, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: "According to the state ... bias motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The state's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty enhancement [in hate crimes cases] provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases."
Samuel I. "Sandy" Rosenberg, Baltimore
The writer is a member of the House of Delegates.
<source: Readers speak out on Ron Smith's take on race, justice December 5, 2008 Baltimore Sun>
Thus, if Smith's name-calling is kept, the SPLC's response and a politicians responses should be included. Dooteeyr ( talk) 08:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Arimareiji I am restoring the version of the article that omits the questionable Smith material. It appears at this point you are the sole person supporting the inclusion of the material so it appears that the consensus flows against you. Unless you have some actual PROOF that there was canvasing going on (I neither canvassed nor received a solicitation to contribute), it seems safe to ignore that particular claim.
Your claim that Smith is “articulating essentially the same claims as the Advertiser and Harper's” is not true. In fact, neither of these sources, while questioning some aspects of the SPLC’s fundraising, goes so far as to dismiss the SPLC as “a clever scam”. Rather than focusing on fundraising (the actual title of the section where you want to include the material), Smith’s agenda is attacking the whole concept and existence of hate groups and hate crimes.
You claim that “1994, 2000, and 2008 are too far apart in time to support each other directly, and the article shouldn't lead the reader to think they do” is mere speculation on your part with respect to Smith. He cites no sources at all to back up his “scam” claim -- instead he urges readers to “spend some time on the Internet and assess it for yourself.”
The biggest problem with your position, however, is your total misreading of the intent of WP:RS. This intent is spelled out in the lede to the article:
Wikipedia article should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
While the Baltimore Sun may be as reliable as any newspaper, this doesn’t mean that the “authors” of all its opinion pieces are reliable “in relation to the subject at hand.” Nobody, not even you, has argued that Smith, by his own credentials, is a reliable source on the subject of Hate Watch Groups. You are also ignoring that in matters of opinion, WP:RS merely says, “Some sources MAY be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.”
One big example of when MAY does not apply is when WP:FRINGE does. It states, “Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.” What we have here, IMO, is a single source making the “scam” claim. The question is NOT whether OpEd pieces may sometimes (or even often) be an acceptable source -- rather the issue is whether this particular OpEd is a reliable, relevant source for this article. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent, recopy of unaddressed objections)
Nicholas Stix really isn't the best source for anything, considering that he's little more than a lone journalist. -- Rock8591 08:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 ( talk • contribs)