Talk:Center for Immigration Studies/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Otis Graham as RS

Otis Graham, the center's founding chairman, wrote an autobiography in which he describes Tanton's role in the organization, saying Tanton "played no part" at all. We can say that "several sources say" Tanton is involved, but it's ridiculous to exempt what the guy who founded the organization said or claim somehow that's not reliable, especially when the article currently claims that CIS "does not reveal details about its founding." When both the current organization's leader (krikorian) and the guy who founded it (graham) talking about Tanton and their founding--both corroborating what Tanton himself said-- that can't possibly be ignored. Snoogasnoogans admits he "didn't even bother to check other sources."

Do you have a secondary source? Volunteer Marek 17:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)White supremacist organizations are not known for being forthcoming about their membership lists. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Graham's claims are what both Krikorian said in the WaPost and Tanton himself. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Struck commentf from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I said in that April 2018 discussion. This is the full sentence: "The Hill says he founded CIS. NYT says he helped start it. I didnt even bother to check the other sources. Those two seem sufficient." And the sentence was in response to Darryl.jensen's inaccurate assertion in April 2018 that no source in the Wikipedia article credited Tanton as a founder. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That was actually an a response you had made to something FactCheckerAtYourService had said, but thanks for the shout-out. Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The addition of the book quote (published years before the SPLC ever made an accusation regarding CIS) certainly contributes to the article's discussion as it corroborates Krikorian on what-- as the talk page has made apparent--is the most controversial aspect of this whole page. Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Low- vs anti-immigration

I'm not seeing a consensus for "low-immigration" on this page; could someone point me to it? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I was in agreement with Darryl.jensen in the Recent Edits/Primary Sources section. I proposed the change and after I didn't hear any pushback from Snooganssnoogans or anyone else, so per WP:BOLD I went ahead and made the change. After I did so, I invited anyone to critique/discuss, which Snooganssnoogans declined to do, and instead reverted my edit and did the same to Darryl.jensen. I'm glad to discuss low vs. anti here, as I strongly disagree with the clearly non-npov characterization of "low immigration" as a "weasel" word. Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My comment from the 16th of August: ""Anti-immigration" is perfectly fine, reflects the body and RS. The organization doesn't just advocate for lower levels of immigration, but spreads shoddy research and falsehoods to paint a bleak picture of immigrants and immigration." I even quoted it for you in one of the edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

RS refer to CIS as a think tank that "advocates for lower levels of immigration" (or similar language) far more than anything else, especially in recent months, and "anti immigration" is clearly not npov. As examples, see USA Today, NYTimes, NPR, and Townhall. The phrase "anti-immigration" reflects your personal biases far more than it reflects RS, which to the extent that they do use the phrase are generally just reciting SPLC. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Would love to hear the opinion of some other editors. K.e.coffman Darryl.jensen any thoughts? Right now it's basically been just a back and forth between Snooganssnoogans and myself, so I'd appreciate an outside perspective on the arguments we laid out above. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming amount of recent, RS evidence labeling CIS as a "low-immigrant" or "lower levels" etc. The sources that use the label "anti-immigrant" are generally biased. We should reflect the language of notable sources such as NY Times, NPR, and USA Today and reflect that in the description of the organization. So my vote is for "low-immigrant" rather than "anti-immigrant." Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

First, "anti-immigrant" is not automatically a "non-pov" term. Secondly, I'm not sure what is meant by "biased sources". Anyway, as we agree that the NY Times is a good source, this June article says "together Mr. Miller and Mr. Sessions often drew on the work of anti-immigration groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies — some of which are derided as hate groups by immigration activists and civil rights organizations." Then there's Bloomberg News.[1] "President Donald Trump announced plans to nominate a retired foreign service officer affiliated with an organization that critics call an anti-immigrant hate group to run the State Department bureau overseeing refugee protection and resettlement."Mortensen, whose nomination is likely to spur a confirmation fight in the Senate, backed Trump’s presidential bid and is a vocal opponent of illegal immigration. Attention quickly turned to his current role as a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which the Southern Poverty Law Center classified as a hate group in 2016 for its “repeated circulation of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers.” Note that Bloomberg is quite happy to use the SPLC as a source. The article also says "In several columns for the Center for Immigration Studies, which describes itself as “low-immigration, pro-immigrant,” Mortensen has sought to refute the idea that illegal immigrants are law-abiding, staked out his opposition to the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and criticized religious leaders for assisting illegal immigrants." Clearly anti-immigrant.

This is really interesting. The Boston Review has an article called The Anti-Immigration Bible[2] which it says the Center has embraced. Read the article. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't get the sense from reading this article that CIS "embraced" such a thing as the "Anti-Immigrant Bible". Going to the citation within the Globe's article just took me to a blog post on CIS questioning the use of the Bible for both sides of the immigration argument.Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a blog post, it's an article by the scholar whose translation of the Bible the linked article is discussing, and it ends with "

American cities that use their communities to circumvent the law to help the illegal alien in the name of justice are doing a gross injustice to the letter and spirit of the biblical law." Doug Weller talk 15:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

But it doesn't appear that any of these outlets themselves are labeling the org as "anti-immigrant" or "anti-immigration" but rather are quoting from the SPLC [for better or for worse] or passing it off as "some people say...", "some opponents have accused..." etc. In holding with actual first-hand descriptions of the org, almost every outlet describes them as either "seeking lower level of immigration", "advocating lower levels", something along those lines. That is why I think "anti-immigrant" is inappropriate because it gives undue weight to people inherently critical of the organization, rather than "low-immigration" or "advocating for lower levels" which is less politically charged and much more reflective of how most of the media describe them.Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How often do people need to say that the SPLC is a reliable source for commentary on racist organizations? Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? There is more than enough criticism of the SPLC to cast doubt on their reliability. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm dead serious. And there's plenty of history at WP:RSN to back me up on this if you go through the archives. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Darryl.jensen, I gather you're not a regular viewer of the program we like to call the "SPLC is trash shit show", but this is really not something you want to pursue. If the SPLC wasn't reliable, the NYT and others wouldn't be quoting them so regularly. That they get things wrong sometimes--well, even my dear President Trump makes a mistake every now and then. BTW, "inherently critical" of anti-immigration groups is not something you can say of the SPLC. There are organizations of whom you could say that, but those are not the ones under discussion. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for "Policy Stances" Section

It seems quite ridiculous to have an entire page dedicated to a think tank without mentioning what their actual policy stances/views are. There used to be a section on this, but there were too many self-sources, so at some point it got deleted. Below is a proposal to get us started, would appreciate any comments/critiques:

Mandatory E-Verify: E-Verify is currently a voluntary program run by the United States government to help companies determine whether employees and prospective employees are legally authorized to work in the United States. CIS Director Mark Krikorian has written in support of mandatory E-Verify for both public and private employers to prevent the hiring of undocumented immigrants.

End family-based migration: Family-based migration, commonly known as "chain migration" in the United States is the process by which legal immigrants and green card holders can sponsor family members for immigration to the country. CIS opposes family-based migration, and instead advocates for a "points system" of immigration, based on professional skills, which Krikorian called "completely conventional".

Thoughts? ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with this. This would also probably provide a better outline strategy for the page anyway - a short policy stance that's been notable and reported on can then include whatever quick criticism from outlets/think tanks there has been, instead of posting criticism on studies from the early 2000s. Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Lede

ModerateMike keeps edit-warring the lede to remove any mention of the broad swath of critiques that the CIS' "research" has faced from all kinds of news organizations, fact-checkers, scholars, think tanks and immigration-research groups. There is no justification for this, given that the body delineates these critiques, and the lede should summarize the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Look at the pot calling the kettle black! Regardless, the "broad swath of critiques" that you mention regarding their research is even questionable in the body. Three of the "controversial reports" are more than ten years old. The Norman Matloff paragraph is a giant personal back and forth between Shrek and himself. The 2014 CIS report on ICE is supported by the Associated Press statement, but not by ideological opponents - hardly a shocking development - which would also include statements made by Nowrasteh at Cato. The final paragraph re: the border wall hardly exposes "shoddy" research, as the main criticism is that CIS didn't count the "benefits" of American-born children of aliens who otherwise would have been stopped by a border wall. Additionally, the only "fact checkers" that have any citations in this article are WaPo, Snopes and FactCheck.org. It conveniently leaves out any mention of politifact which cites Camarota (at CIS) multiple times for immigration-related questions. Darryl.jensen (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother digging through your response or responding at length, as time and time again you say things that are in no way whatsoever accurate and wildly misrepresent both sources and what the Wikipedia article says. I wrote the text, so I know that you're characterization of it is inaccurate. On one obviously false point, it's simple: Put "politifact" into ctrl+F and read the instances of where PolitiFact are mentioned in this Wikipedia article. PolitiFact is one of a number of fact-checkers or news outlets to debunk CIS' shoddy research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Classic Snoogs. Everything I said is fair, and the fact that you refuse to engage is telling. Where are they debunking CIS' research if they are citing CIS staff for clarifications on immigration questions in the news? An actual question: do you ever open the articles that you claim are dismissing "shoddy" research from CIS? My guess is probably not. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not "edit warring." I have discussions in the Talk, you don't participate, then you repeatedly undo any changes I make with the same justification that I've responded to ad nauseam. Of course the lede should summarize the body, which is why I'm fine with noting that CIS research has been criticized by these groups. What I'm not fine with is a verbatim, laundry list reptition of which groups criticized them in both the lede and body. To Darryl.jensen's point, you keep inserting the word "shoddy" in when that's really not corroborated by the RS, but rather just reveals your own evident bias. I'm also not sure your beef with politifact, given that even a cursory review of Darryl.jensen's references show it to be true. If fact checkers sometimes debunk what an organization says, and other times use it as a source, that doesn't necessarily make the organization "shoddy". It means they're like any other research org. But again, the broader point is we're perfectly capable of summarizing the body in the lede without keeping your obvious NPOV and overly detailed edits. We're just talking in circles at this point. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

So I take it you and Volunteer Marek (who is totally not coordinating with you in an incredibly suspicious manner have dropped your act on this? ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit; primary sources

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "NPOV and excessive self-citations".

Speaking of self-citations, the section Policy stances uncritically replicates the org's own publications. I propose it be removed. Feedback? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

→Thanks for your response. I think you're right on self-sources, with regard to the "praise" for CIS, which came from their site. However, that doesn't explain my other changes, namely that we repeat the same Tanton line twice almost word for word and with the same sources, and that the outside source showed that Tanton himself disputed being a founder. Based on that logic--that Tanton is one of many early financial contributors and not "The founder", doesn't seem like npov to not include multiple lines at the top of the article about his other views (e.g. eugenics). ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This source, Modern American Extremism and Domestic Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Extremists and Extremist Groups, connects Tanton to the group, so I'm not sure I understand the objection. The edit also changed the group's description from "anti-immigration" to "advocating for lower levels of immigration". Please self-revert. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@ModerateMike729: Re this edit [3], sources do not support the material that was added. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

My source was Tanton himself, correcting the record after erroneous reports such as your source called him the "founder." He says he played no role in the development of the center and that his only involvement was being one of multiple people involved in raising a grant. As for anti-immigration, that's npov. Advocating for lower levels of immigration is very specifically what they do, seeking "fewer immigrants, but a warmer welcome" for immigrants here . Npov to use the anti-immigrant label, which comes from splc, a biased source — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateMike729 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"anti-immigration"

"Anti-immigration" is perfectly fine, reflects the body and RS. The organization doesn't just advocate for lower levels of immigration, but spreads shoddy research and falsehoods to paint a bleak picture of immigrants and immigration. Tanton does not deny having played a role in the founding (the text does not say that Tanton was involved in the development and growth of the organization), and multiple secondary RS say he helped found the group. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That sounds quite biased and doesn't just reflect RS. Anti-immigration reflects opposition to all immigration, when they've explicitly said they want some level of immigration (Krikorian threw out 400k) and have written various publications explaining the adverse effects of mass migration on immigrants themselvesProtecting immigrant communities from crime, Here as well, and How lower levels of immigration better helps immigrants assimilate. Clearly, lower levels of immigration is more accurate than the npov "anti" charge. As for the Tanton charge, he was involved to the extent that he was one of multiple people who raised money, but given that he was not on the Board, did not develop the center, and certainly was not "the founder", (secondary RS don't even presume that), I'm still not hearing the rationale for why his own biography--from eugenics to being an ophthalmologist from Michigan--has sufficient relevance to be on the CIS page at all, let alone before even the Center's positions or criticisms have even been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateMike729 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Awaiting your response on this but the edit-warring accusation goes both ways. You have not obtained consensus in the opposite direction, and I outlined clearly above the issues with the "anti" label. Open to discussing other terms but I stand by my point here, and Darryl Jensen has agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateMike729 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything concerning with these recent edits. (1) Tanton does say, in a primary source and repeated in the New York Times piece, that he did not solely found CIS. That's not to say he didn't "have a role" in founding it, which is what the current edition has worded. (2) There has been zero consensus made for User:Snooganssnoogans position. Would love some of the other editors to comment on these developments User:Factchecker_atyourservice Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you got it sort of opposite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

How so? We had reached consensus on Tanton placement, as well as the "have a role" wording which is currently up and seems appropriate. And he is right regarding lack of consensus for User:Snooganssnoogans position...What else is opposite? Would like to resolve this once and for all so we can stop the reversions. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Would like to circle back to this. Specifically regarding the language of "anti-immigration." RS repeatedly describe CIS as "a think tank that advocates lower levels of immigration" or something similar, and "anti" seems blatantly biased since supporting lower levels of something doesn't make you inherently "anti" that thing--particularly given the sources I listed above where CIS takes a decidedly more pro-immigrant stance. For the reasons above I think "low-immigration" is a far more accurate descriptor than "anti-immigration" and is in no way a weasel word, and am again proposing that change. Thoughts? ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

low-immigration is appropriate Darryl.jensen (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no remaining immediate issues, I'll go ahead and make the changes as per WP:BOLD. Feel free to discuss or critique here. ModerateMike729 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

• Comment: preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "undue self-citations". To add, this material belongs on the org's website, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the article is basically just a list of criticism of the org, without any actual discussion of its policies or views. Doesn't seem very balanced. If this section was replaced with one with fewer self citations and more outside sources, what would you think? 2601:140:8B00:1120:84FF:6ED0:CEF4:C064 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey ModerateMike729 suggest building consensus here at talk before you start going back to do big cuts again. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fine but I could use some help and feedback here. We agree that we need to trim, I've made multiple suggestions regarding where else we can trim, but I can't go it alone. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I re-added "anti-immigration" that seems to have been lost along the way: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Response: I was under the impression that by consensus we had removed "anti-immigration" and were going with "advocating for lower levels of immigration" Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Response: It wasn't lost along the way, we agreed to remove it and use lower levels of immigration, as that's NPOV and backed up by RS (see here, here, and here). ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"Disputed and cited" vs "disputed" in lede

The lede previously listed a range of fact-checkers and media sources that have "disputed" CIS research. I amended the lede to say "disputed and cited" because most of those same fact-checkers and media sources have also cited CIS research. It seems to be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE to list off groups that have challenged CIS' research without also acknowledging they've used it, too. If our evidence that CIS is research is "shoddy" is that it's been challenged by fact-checkers, then why do those fact-checkers also find the same research credible enough to cite as an expert source? I used RS to cite this. For example, Politifact has cited CIS research on immigrant household housing program use to debunk an online meme. Same goes for the news organizations such as NBC which have relied on CIS analysts for expert opinions, as I cited. Overall, it would be completely remiss and in no way encyclopedic to include a list of fact-checkers who have disputed CIS claims without also acknowledging that other CIS claims have been treated as fact by those same fact-checkers. Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

CIS is frequently cited for the anti-immigrant perspective on issues related to immigration. It's not an endorsement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the question of whether or not it's an "endorsement" isn't really relevant--they're citing CIS analysts as experts on the topic. Besides, that's not really an accurate description of the sources I provided anyway. For example, Politifact used CIS data to debunk an anti-immigrant meme about welfare use. Another time, they used CIS data to debunk a claim Donald Trump made regarding family separations;see here. It's important to consider what capacity RS is using CIS for. They're not simply citing them for an anti-immigrant perspective, but rather actually treating CIS data and perspective from researchers as a credible source used to weigh claims. That's a key distinction, and why I feel it's crucial we include both "disputed" and "cited" in the lede. thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

CIS is often cited as an advocacy group for its views on policies and actions. Given that this organization is where most anti-immigration advocates get their talking points from, fact-checkers of course also mention that not even CIS agrees with some of the made-up numbers and falsehoods from anti-immigration advocates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather than try to subjectively guess the motivations for fact-checkers citing CIS, let's take RS at face value. They cite CIS as experts. They rely on CIS research. They quote CIS researchers. The same fact-checkers that you allege prove CIS is full of "shoddy research" are apparently willing to use CIS as a source themselves. If CIS were really shoddy, fact-checkers wouldn't dare use them as a source. Do you think fact-checkers would ever use, say, the Daily Stormer as a source, even to debunk other false claims? Of course not, we both agree that's ridiculous. Frankly, this is pretty straightforward. You can't put a laundry list of RS in the lede and use them as "debunking" CIS when they also rely on CIS. If we want to be NPOV, we absolutely must include some variation of both "cited" and "disputed". To leave either out would be entirely inappropriate. ModerateMike729 (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

CIS is nearly always cited as an anti-immigration advocacy group, and always described as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've already given you multiple citations above disputing that, as evidenced by both PolitiFact and NBC. Regardless, I'm not sure how their view of CIS' bias is at all a refutation to the central point here: that they treat CIS as a credible think tank, and thus the word "cite" should be in the lede. The fact that they use CIS to represent a restrictionist view is in no way mutually exclusive from the fact that they consider it credible enough to function as a fact-checker. ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

RS go to CIS for the 'anti-immigration take' because it is the most prominent anti-immigration organization in the United States. Fact-checkers ask and cite all kinds of stake-holders and advocacy groups what their take is on particular issues. That does not mean they are cited favorably or cited as experts. Democrats and Republicans are repeatedly cited in terms of providing data and arguments in support of an argument, and sometimes they provide accurate data and sometimes not. That in and of itself does not mean those two parties are cited favorably or as experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason I say they're cited as "experts" is because of the context in which they're cited, as I've referenced. It would be one thing if these fact-checkers were simply polling both sides for a quote/opinion, as journalists are apt to do. In that case, I'd understand your argument. Rather, they are using CIS research as the objective standard by which to judge the claims of politicians and others. They're not just quoting CIS to show the restrictionist opinion on Trump's quote about family separations, for example. They're actually using CIS research to debunk Trump (among others I've mentioned). That's the very definition of an expert--someone you consult for facts on a topic on which they're well-versed. You seem to be taking fact-checkers at face value when they use sources to debunk CIS, but then you turn around and doubt those very same fact-checkers when they use CIS as a source to debunk others. That's not a tenable position. Either fact-checkers check facts, or they don't. Put simply, they cite CIS. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

In the instances you mention, CIS is described and cited as an anti-immigration group which disagreed with a delusionally high estimate of HUD use by undocumented immigrants and disagreed with Trump's claims about migration flows. It is entirely consistent with what I said. They are asked and cited for the anti-immigration take. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, in neither Politifact article are they called "anti-immigration". Let's stop inserting that phrase. But more importantly: By your logic, any time a fact-checker cites any think tank, if they describe that think tank's views, that means somehow the think tank is not an expert source? If they cite Brookings and say "Brookings, a liberal think tank" does that mean Brookings is somehow not an expert source? Of course not. It means Brookings is an expert source, and that expert source is a liberal think tank. Same logic with CIS.ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Being cited by a fact-checker is not in and of itself an indication of expertise, in particular when the organization being cited publishes a constant stream of intellectually dishonest and misleading garbage which typically stands in contrast to the most of the peer-reviewed academic research on those same topics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You're revealing your own biases by calling CIS research "misleading garbage." Let's stick with deferring to RS and fact-checkers, who credibly reference CIS. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, you still haven't referred to my other citations, namely that immigration experts have cited CIS research, and the very news sites you say "debunk" CIS have also relied on their experts to explain the issues, like NBC. Fact checkers, immigration experts, and news sites--all of the groups that have at times debunked CIS research (no disagreement there) also do cite it in what's clearly an expert context. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hans von Spakovsky is a climate-change denier who is most well-known for lying about voter fraud (incl. nonsense about non-citizens voting). Spakovsky is not an expert on anything, least of all immigration. In the NBC piece, CIS is cited as a "critic" of the H2-B program. In the very next line, CIS's opinion is being juxtaposed to the pro-immigration "business coalition ImmigrationWorks USA". Is ImmigrationWorks USA being cited as an expert source or just as a pro-immigration advocacy group? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Both. Which speaks to my point that bias and expertise are not mutually exclusive. And Von Spakovsky is Heritage's resident immigration analyst. Let's not be silly here. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That says a lot about the Heritage Foundation but nothing about von Spakovsky's credibility. And neither group is being cited as an expert source, they are cited for the pro- and anti-immigration attitudes on H2-B. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: "cited" in this context [4] is misleading. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, K.e.coffman, I'm open to another word that expresses the fact that those organization and people have relied on CIS research and experts if you disagree with "cited". Perhaps say that reports by CIS have been both "disputed and referenced by" or "disputed and quoted by", etc. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

And just for good measure, politifact just posted another fact check citing CIS as experts--not to highlight a certain bias, but clearly in an expert capacity:Here And another from buzzfeed here...I'm not really sure how we're even debating the fact that fact-checkers cite CIS for expertise, and the text ought to reflect RS already. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"disputed and quoted by"

• Comment: "disputed and quoted by" is also misleading in this context. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• I would have no objection to language noting that CIS is prominent for its anti-immigration advocacy or that the group features prominently in public debates about immigration (presuming that RS say something along these lines - I'm sure I've seen some). This should of course not be juxtaposed in any way with the shoddy research that the group does. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• While I certainly disagree with the use of "anti-immigration" for the plethora of reasons currently being debated in the RFC above, I do think that mentioning the group's research and analysts feature prominently in public debates about immigration is a reasonable addition, and I'd drop the issue at that if done correctly. Perhaps we could say: CIS analysis and researchers have been featured prominently in public debates about immigration, with Executive Director Mark Krikorian being called the "leading voice for immigration restrictionists"(source). Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, Washington Post, Snopes, CNN and NBC News, and immigration-research organizations. The organization has been cited by President Donald Trump on Twitter, and used by members of his administration. Can we drop it at that? This is getting silly.ModerateMike729 (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, that lets undue credence to the research and analysis done by this group. This is how it should be written: "Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, Washington Post, Snopes, CNN and NBC News, and immigration-research organizations. The organization, known for its anti-immigration advocacy, is prominent in public debates about immigration. The organization has been cited by President Donald Trump on Twitter, and used by members of his administration." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• We're not going to say "anti-immigration" as I've explained ad nauseam. Change it to "The organization, known for its advocacy for lower levels of immigration" and I'll agree. Every single source we've discussed in this conversation (Politifact, ABC, NBC) have all used that language, and we go based off RS. Could also say "the organization, known for advocating for cuts to immigration". Additionally, this line should go before what's there now, not after, as it introduces the paragraph. Make those two changes and I'm good to go. ModerateMike729 (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Re: ... as I've explained ad nauseam - ?? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• See the request for comment above. I, along with several other editors, have been making the argument that "anti-immigration" is not NPOV, and that using the phrases "lower levels of immigration" is more backed by reliable sources. Darryl jensen made a list above of the various RS that used the phrase, too. ModerateMike729 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The organization is prominent in public debates about immigration and is known for advocating lower levels of immigration." That seems pretty suitable Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• A bit confused, do you mean inserting that line before the list of groups that have debunked CIS? If so, I think that's fine, with the very small caveat that it should be "advocating for lower levels of immigration" as that's the exact phrasing used most often by RS and I think it reads a bit smoother. Other than that, I'd okay this version. ModerateMike729 (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• If that's the case ,then it sounds like we've reached a conclusion to this. I'll go ahead and make the change. ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, there's absolutely not a consensus for this. Stop claiming a consensus whenever Darryl agrees with you on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• I was under the impression this was language that we compromised on. If that's not the case, so be it, glad to keep discussing til we reach a consensus on this. But please take your own advice and don't claim consensus on "anti-immigration" when it doesn't exist. ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• I never claimed there was a consensus on 'anti-immigration'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• So you just inserted it into the lede five minutes ago because...why not? If I mistakenly assumed consensus, that's my fault and I apologize. But you literally just changed it to "anti-immigration" without even attempting consensus. ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Your objection to the line about CIS featuring prominently in public debate was that it shouldn't be contrasted with the next line, which states that many CIS reports have been disputed. It was worded in such a way that it did not contrast the next line, and it's reliably sourced. I really don't understand your objection to the inclusion of something that's sourced and is clearly encyclopedic, given that I already made an effort to address your prior objections. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• On this talk, I clearly expressed what kind of text I was in favor of adding, and I even added my version of the text into the article[5] after you falsely claimed that there was a consensus for your version of the text. Please pay attention, and stop re-adding text that there is obviously no consensus for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am paying attention, namely to your unilateral changes to this section and completely refusal to work toward consensus on this issue. I tried hard to accommodate the suggestions you made which were reasonable, while rejecting those which were patently ridiculous, not neutral, and not encyclopedic. This is getting ridiculous. We ought to reflect what reliable sources say without injecting our personal biases.ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on description: anti-immigration, low-immigration or both

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead describe the Center as a) favoring low-immigration, b) as being anti-immigration, or c) use both? Doug Weller talk 19:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

a) favors low-immigration

• Support: Darryl.jensen (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I support describing it favoring low-immigration. This is not only what the Center describes itself as but also what a variety of reputable sources describe it as. We need to reflect what reputable sources describe the org as, which is never "anti-immigrant".

LA Times: "... the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which advocates for limits on legal migration"

Politico: "The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates lower levels of immigration..."

Huffington Post: "at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower levels of immigration"

Pew Charitable Trusts: "the Center of Immigration Studies, which favors lower levels of immigration"

CNN: "the Center for Immigration Studies, a research organization that favors lower immigration levels"

NPR: "he did speak last month to the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower levels of immigration."

Time: "at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower immigration rates,"

Univison: "studies at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which favors lower immigration, says she opposes sanctuary policies"

Washington Times: "at the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that favors lower immigration levels,"

• Support:

Support. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose:

• No RS refer to the organization as a "low-immigration" organization. The term "low-immigration" is a WP:WEASEL term that the CIS crafted for itself, so that it would not be called "anti-immigration" which is the term that RS actually use to describe the organization. On the other hand, there would be no problem with describing CIS as an "anti-immigration organization that favors far lower immigration numbers". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Seems pretty nitpicky. Just remove the hyphen and say "favors low immigration", as every RS listed above did. Boom, "weasel" word solved and we reflect RS. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Anti-immigration organization that favors far lower immigration numbers" reflects what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Again, more sources cite lower immigration than "anti-" and I made an argument above as to why the former is more precise and NPOV but at this point we're just arguing in circles so I'll let the RFC period play out. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Where to start? The Pew source and the Huffington Post source are the same article republished on different sites, which is an indicator of the real problem. Not all sources are equal, so instead of playing games trying to count how many sources use one phrase over another, we need to summarize what sources are saying in our own words. "Favoring low-immigration" is not particularly informative, and it's also evasive and promotional when taken out of context. CIS can place their preferred public relations language on their own website, but Wikipedia should rely on reliable, independent sources, and we have to do the work of trying to summarize what those sources are saying, not just what words they use in passing while discussing a tangential issue. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, if (as the discussion above implies) this would mean using this term without mentioning "anti-immigration" - doing so would be, as others have said, evasive and promotional. "Anti-immigration" is well-sourced and is the commonly-accepted neutral term for this position; none of the sources above contradict that. Moreover, the sources above describe the group as "pushing for lower immigration", which is very different than using "low-immigration" as a broad political descriptor the way this is requesting. Caveat: I am not opposed to mentioning that they push for lower immigration provided we lead into this by describing them as an anti-immigration group; both things are true. They are an anti-immigration group that pushes for lower immigration; this accurately summarizes all the sources presented. --Aquillion (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose We're not in the business in providing ideological cover to political advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion:

b) anti-immigration

• Support:

• Peer-reviewed academic sources that describe CIS verbatim as "anti-immigration": Chapter 4 book[6], Page 116[7], Page 58[8], Page 285[9]. Reliable news outlets that describe CIS verbatim as "anti-immigration": NY Times[10], ABC News[11], NBC News[12], CNN[13], New Yorker[14], Politico[15], The Hill[16], Daily Beast[17]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• When it is supported by reliable sources, we should use direct language. The alternative smacks of being a WP:EUPHEMISM, or violating WP:SOAP by regurgitating CIS's public relations. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• The issue we're having is that reliable sources (often the same ones, in different pieces, depending on author, etc.) describe the org as both "anti-immigrant" and "advocating for low-immigrant". So I'm not sure what your point here is. "When it is supported by reliable sources, we should use direct language" adds nothing to this discussion when both Snooganssnoogans and I have provided lists of reliable sources describing CIS in both terms. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to sources above, Modern American Extremism and Domestic Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Extremists and Extremist Groups describes the org as part of a "network of anti-immigration groups". Separately, "low-immigration" is a euphemistic descriptor preferred by the group. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. First choice. Well-cited, and no sources contradict it. Note that none of the oppose comments have given any rationale at all. I certainly don't feel that "sources that say they support low immigration exist" is a meaningful argument for excluding the term "anti-immigration" when that is also so well-cited; at best, we can mention both. --Aquillion (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support They can hair-split and quibble all they want about "reduced" vs "anti" but the truth is they want to prevent immigrants from entering the USA. They're anti-immigration by definition. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The sources are sufficient. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose:

• ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• griffy013 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Anti-immigration" is not neutral and the reliable sources most frequently say that CIS supports “lower levels of immigration”, especially recently. "Anti-immigration" implies they are flat-out opposed to immigration, which is less precise than their actual position which is just lower levels of it.

Threaded discussion:

I definitely oppose "anti-immigration" because it's not NPOV. I suspect the argument in favor of using "anti-immigration" would be to say that CIS goes beyond just being low immigration and in fact uses its research to make immigrants look bad in general. That seems quite nitpicky to me and doesn't reflect RS. Krikorian himself has made the frequent argument that lowering levels of immigration would lead to a "warmer welcome" (see here) for the immigrants already here. Their research director put out an op-ed saying that lower levels of immigration would help the immigrants already here to better assimilate and succeed (see here). Further, it's not as if CIS has advocated for no immigration. Rather, they've advocated for a shift to "skills based" immigration instead of family-based migration (see here) In other words, they may want to change immigration as it exists in its current form and quantity in the country, but that certainly doesn't mean they're just "anti" immigration in general, and making that rhetorical leap to "anti immigration" is not encyclopedic; it's editorializing.

"Low-immigration" is more precise, more indicative of what the RS say, and more neutral than "anti". It more accurately describes their policy positions, all of which are ultimately related to advocating for lower levels of immigration than what we have now.ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not fair to say we've provided no rationale at all beyond just RS, when I lay out my logic pretty clearly below in the threaded discussion regarding how anti-immigration is not accurate. Further, this source says CIS was "founded as part of an anti-immigration network", language which has popped up a few times in slight variations. So be it, but the intentions upon founding the group in 1985 are not necessarily indicative of the group currently, 30+ years later. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

c) both

• Support:

Weak support for describing them as an "anti-immigration group that pushes for lower immigration" or something of that nature. Second choice. No valid arguments have been presented (in fact, no arguments at all) for excluding "anti-immigration", which is well-cited and a commonly-enough accepted term that it seems hard to justify avoiding it or treating it as non-neutral. However, there is certainly no harm in also mentioning that they push for lower immigration. Note that I only support the term "lower immigration" in the context of saying that it's something they push for - "low-immigration" as a descriptor isn't backed up by the sources presented above. But we can mention that they do push for lower immigration, which is what many sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose:

Threaded discussion:

General discussion

The organization of this RfC is a complete mess. It's a complete pain in the ass to write a comment and provide sources to defend one's position. It doesn't help that the two editors who have already commented can't format things properly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"It's a complete pain in the ass to write a comment and provide sources to defend one's position." This is an A+ comment. Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Edits

Every time I'm trying to discuss the kind of edits I want to make nobody replies. I am not sure if should just go ahead and do it.AdelfoMontanez (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:BB – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

cleaning up controversial reports

A few things I think should collectively be done:

1) These should be re-posted chronologically. I.e. why is there a comment on a report from 2017, then one from 2003, one from 2008, and then back to 2018?

2) Some of the points are redundant or unnecessary. For example, citing Alex Nowrasteh (who debates Krikorian on CSPAN, on Twitter, etc.) doesn't belong in this section. The only real commentary that should belong here is from the fact checkers like PolitiFact or WaPo's Pinocchio ratings. Anything else is just opposing debating opposing viewpoints. Thoughts? Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like this was ever addressed. Sounds reasonable to me. Not sure why anyone would object to chronology, and I agree on Nowrasteh. Haven't looked through all the other commentary yet but certainly his wouldn't fit. Definitely should keep the criticism from fact checkers as that's objective. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nowrasteh should absolutely not be dropped. He's frequently cited by RS, and has frequently debunked the shoddy research that CIS produces. The desire to whitewash CATO from this article is puzzling given that you yourself dispute that a wide range of think-tanks have criticized CIS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is currently 3219 words. The controversial reports section alone is 1840 words. Does anyone seriously think that's not extremely excessive? Drmies added an overly detailed tag, which pretty obviously was reasonable to do. Now let's reach some kind of consensus regarding what details in this massively bloated section don't belong. Not sure why you're so resistant to that. Perhaps Darryl.jensen can weigh in as well so we can decide which criticism belongs and which is excessive. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This whole thing should be seriously pruned, there is no doubt about it. Including every criticism from every organization or person is just overdoing it. Serious pruning and rewriting the text to make more generalized points with strong references is, IMO, mandatory here. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Add in "criticism" and we're up to 2642 words, or 82% of the entire article. I propose we combine controversial reports and criticism into a single section, and then prune it. Seems really redundant to separate them and an easy place to start if we need to cut trim this thing, no? ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies and ModerateMike729, there is no reason to include every minute criticism that has ever been lodged at the organization. A single, concise "Criticism" section is all that is necessary. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the changes accordingly. I'm preserving the parts of controversial report that I pruned below. The ones I pruned were done so on the basis of either 1) Biased author/lack of npov, or 2) Not a controversial report (e.g. there was one paragraph about the Trump admin. that was only tangentially related to CIS and didn't cite any specific reports...). Would be glad to discuss if yall think that there are some I'm missing, or something that should be added back to the sub-section:

In August 2008, the CIS published a report Immigration to the United States and World-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions saying that, although immigrants to the U.S. had, on average, 18% lower carbon dioxide emissions than native-born Americans, they "produce an estimated four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin." Amanda Peterson Beadle in ThinkProgress said that this conclusion was "simply absurd" because it had used the "deeply flawed methodology" of taking income in the U.S. as a surrogate for CO2 emissions. Andrew Light of the Center for American Progress did not take issue with the report's methodology, but argued that there were better and more direct ways of limiting U.S. emissions than reducing immigration.

Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute has repeatedly criticized CIS for "a history of using poor methodology and data in their reports".

A September 2015 report by CIS asserted that "immigrant households receive 41 percent more federal welfare than households headed by native-born citizens." The report was criticized on the basis of poor methodology. Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute said that the reported opted not to examine how much welfare immigrants use, but to examine households led by an immigrant so that the report could count the welfare usage of the immigrant's US-born children, which leads to a misleading estimate of immigrant welfare use.

CIS has claimed that giving birth on U.S. soil gives immigrants access to welfare and other social benefits, and that this gives rise "birth tourism" (the practice of foreigners traveling to the United States to give birth to U.S. citizens). CNN wrote that "Politifact has mostly debunked those claims, concluding that US-born children do little in the long term to help their immigrant parents. Citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until the young person turns 21 and any social benefits would be given to the child and not their undocumented parents, who would not qualify. The Pew Research Center also has found that the number of babies born to unauthorized immigrants in the United States has been declining steadily in recent years."

In 2018, CIS defended the Trump administration's decision to separate undocumented immigrant children from their parents. CIS argued that the policy deterred immigrant families from crossing the US border and said that the policy "actually protects foreign nationals". At a June 2018 event hosted at CIS, outgoing Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, defended the policy.

Elliott Young, Professor of History and Director of Ethnic Studies at Lewis & Clark College, criticized CIS as "a crackpot organization with a website filled with xenophobic racists who twist data to spread lies about immigrants". He criticized the organization for promulgating the false claim that 72 people from Trump’s seven banned countries were involved with terrorist activities. He argued that it was unwise for Lewis & Clark College students to invite Jessica Vaughan of the CIS to speak at the college, saying that "Vaughan’s reports are chock full of data, these data don’t withstand scrutiny and her conclusions are based in her nativism and not in facts."

In September 2017, the Trump administration defended its claim that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs" by citing editorials written by members of the Center for Immigration Studies. However, economists consulted by PolitiFact rejected the claim, noting that the job market is not fixed or zero-sum.' ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine as a start. But frankly we need to remove a lot more, and more strongly source what we do keep. As I've said, the only thing that really belongs here is fact-checkers rather than just opposing viewpoints. I will help work on this soon. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course opposing viewpoints belong here. While I agree with trimming bloat and repetition, there is obviously a place here to discuss people who reject the CIS, and explore why they reject the organization. Just as we discuss the many people who believe the Southern Poverty Law Center has lost its way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think NorthBySouthBaranof is right here. If we're going to talk about controversial reports, it's fine to talk about experts who find them controversial and why. That includes other think tankers and policy analysts, most of whom I kept in the criticism section in my above changes. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely possible to trim text without losing a lot of substance in the 'controversial reports' section. Some of the paragraphs go into too much detail. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't remove anything you added back, but just trimmed some of the longer paragraphs. I left Nowrasteh's stuff in tact as it was pretty concise. Take a look. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Could use some help here. If you disagree with those cuts that's fine, but some other input would be appreciated. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there are two areas that can be reasonably trimmed from "controversial reports" because they are excessively detailed, and as we've agreed we need to start cutting.

1. Remove the following from the February 2017 paragraph: "FactCheck.Org found that most (44 of the 72) had not been convicted on terrorism charges, and that none of the 72 people were responsible for a terrorism-related death in the US.[68] Snopes mirrored the FactCheck.Org assessment while noting that the CIS report also omitted needed context, as the CIS report tried to frame those countries as particularly terrorism-prone when they were not: "The omitted context was that persons from many countries that were not on the entry restriction list were involved in vastly more terrorism-related convictions than some of the countries that were on the list."[72] The Washington Post Fact-Checker said that the report was "pretty thin gruel on which to make sweeping claims about the alleged threat posed to the United States by these seven countries" because of its inaccuracies.[71]" It's quite excessive to go through the specific rationale of every factchecker that debunked CIS here. Makes far more sense to just list the fact-checkers who debunked them, and include the short summary as to why. This is clearly too detailed to add much value.

2. Remove the following from the March 2007 paragraph: "Cornelius noted that CIS "offers a relentlessly negative view of the most recent wave of immigration to the United States. The economic benefits of immigration – even illegal immigration – to the average American are barely acknowledged, while the costs are estimated in such a way as to provoke the maximum degree of public anger and anxiety."[51]" My rationale for this one is that the first half of that paragraph already explains why Cornelius disagrees with the CIS study about welfare use. The extra color commentary isn't needed. I'd appreciate some feedback on these changes, as when I've tried to make cuts in the past, the usual suspects have just reverted my changes without any feedback in the Talk or rationale. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there's no issues or push back here so according to WP:BOLD I'll go ahead and make those changes. Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a few more suggestions to trim this section while retaining most of the substance, and would appreciate feedback. I focused on the 2011-2014 period, where both the criticisms and the subsequent Center responses were far too overly detailed/wordy. I also cleaned up some awkward grammar/tenses/wording issues. My draft here:

In September 2011, CIS published a report Who Benefited from Job Growth In Texas? saying that, in the period 2007-2011, immigrants had taken 81% of newly created jobs in the state. Chuck DeVore, a conservative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation said that the report "relied on flawed methodology".[55] CIS subsequently replied to DeVore's criticism.[56] Politifact weighed in, saying that Devore was correct to claim that "trying to draw conclusions about immigration and employment in Texas in isolation from other factors is problematic at best" but that they agreed with Krikorian that "even if DeVore prefers a net-to-net comparison, immigrants still got a disproportionate share of new jobs."[54][57]

Norman Matloff, a UC Davis professor of computer science, wrote a report for CIS arguing that most H-1B visa workers, rather than being "the best and the brightest", are mostly of average talent.[58][59][60] James Shrek of the Heritage Foundation argued that the existing data shows that H-1B workers are more skilled than the average American and are "in no way average workers." [61] Matloff, in his reply, said that H-1B workers were not supposed to be compared to median workers and that Sherk's argument is "completely at odds with the claims the industry has made concerning the "best and brightest" issue" and that comparison to O-1 visa wage data showed that H-1B visas were being used by employers to undercut wages.[62]

In May 2014, a CIS report said that in 2013 Immigration and Customs Enforcement had "freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings... [and t]he vast majority of these releases from ICE custody were discretionary, not required by law."[63] An ICE spokesman said that many such releases were required by law, such as when a detainee's home country refuses to accept them or required by a judge's order.[64] The Associated Press, however, backed up CIS' claim, and said that "the releases that weren't mandated by law, including [the] 28 percent of the immigrants with homicide convictions, undermines the government's argument that it uses its declining resources for immigration enforcement to find and jail serious criminal immigrants who may pose a threat to public safety or national security."[66] ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there's no objections, so per wp:bold I'll go ahead with this. As always feel free to discuss. ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A complete disaster. This is mass-scrubbing of a large number of expert analyses and critiques of shoddy research by CIS, and gives readers the false impression that only a limited orgs and experts have identified errors in CIS "research". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous characterization and I invite anyone to compare my changes to the text as it currently stands, which I archived above and which you didn't object to until now. The page has an overly detailed tag, and including a laundry list of every expert who has commented on every CIS report is ridiculous to the point of parody. In my edits, I kept the substance of all the complaints--the question of sample size and extrapolation in the 2011 study, the question of H-1B qualification in the Matloff paragraph, and the question of ICE requirements by law in the 2014 paragraph. If you have your own suggestions for trimming this section--which consensus has agreed is massively bloated--I'm all ears. But all you've done is undo any attempts to trim the fat, and characterized every single accusation as crucial to the article. I'm trying to work with you here, but you've signaled that you're totally unwilling to trim any content whatsoever. Let's reach an answer here. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

IMO this has needed to happen for awhile. Its not "mass-scrubbing". Content has needed trimming and this maintains the spirit of credible criticisms while removing every single critique ever lodged at the organization. Darryl.jensen (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's weird how you in one talk page discussion dispute that a "wide ranger of think tanks" have criticized CIS[18] while now in this particular talk page section you are totally in favor of removing criticisms from a wide range of think tanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not "totally in favor of removing criticisms from a wide range of think tanks." I'm in favor of trimming down the section so its not paragraph after paragraph of every criticism that's ever been lodged against the organization. I've never advocated removing the criticisms entirely, that is a bad faith argument and you know it. The way it is written now is in your words a "complete disaster." Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd like to hear some new voices so we don't talk in circles here. Any suggestions from anyone else as to what can be trimmed/thoughts on my proposals to trim above? Drmies added the overly detailed tag, perhaps they have a suggestion? Or K.e.coffman?ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

ModerateMike729I just realized that there's a discussion going on here.. I want to edit the controversial report. Do I have to post my edit here first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdelfoMontanez (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Be bold! Alison Alice (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppets ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729 and Alison Alice. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Snoogs' Definition of Non-Partisan

Snooganssnoogans take a look at Nonpartisanism in the United States. Any organization in the U.S. that is non-profit is non-partisan as long as they don't endorse candidates. That doesn't preclude them from taking political stances. Its not really a matter of opinion. In case you weren't aware, plenty of political orgs can be described as "non-partisan" because they don't donate money or endorse candidates. A similar example is the Center for American Progress - they clearly advocate for a certain political viewpoint, but because they do not endorse candidates they are nonpartisan. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The "non-partisan" label needs to be sourced. This is very simple. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Snoogansnoogans is correct. I added it back in, sourcing it from ABC News. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's confusing, as they are certainly partisan as the woman in the street is likely to understand the word. 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, that was me I think. It means they don't support a political party, that's all. I'd prefer not to use the word. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's stick with what RS say. They don't take a partisan stance. Doesn't mean they're unbiased. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Location of critic accusations

Would like to reach consensus regarding where the the critics' accusations of CIS being connected to "extremist nativist and ties to white supremacy groups" should go. Right now the majority of the lede is criticism which seems hard to reconcile...While I think it's appropriate to keep the range of groups attacking their research, the rest of the criticism would fit better in the criticism section. Right now it's basically being repeated twice almost verbatim. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But then the accusation that the CIS has nativist ties needs to be added to Criticism SoccerSalvatore (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Agree I agree, the information belongs in Criticism as User:SoccerSalvatore said Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's important that the lede include mention that these guys have ties to nativism. Since they do. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• It seems there is enough criticism to warrant that statement, no? and if so, why wouldn't it be leadworthy? Drmies (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Guess we never resolved this. To elaborate, I do think there is valid criticism connecting them to individual nativists, but I don't think that's the case for white supremacists. The closest argument you could make, and the one always cited, is their relation to John Tanton, but even that is in the past (at their founding) not present tense. The Center disputes that relationship, but even to the degree it is there, Tanton isn't a supremacist; that is quite a big stretching of the definition. I'm also in disagreement with use of the word "groups". Tanton is an individual, not a group, and CIS has no relation to any white supremacist groups, though you could say the connection to FAIR could be a "nativist" tie. Finally, this is nitpicky but it's "CIS" not "the CIS"--not sure how the extra "the" has crept into the page. Given all those suggestions, more fitting language would be "Critics have accused the CIS of promoting and having had ties to nativists, which CIS denies." I'm fine keeping that where it is--in the lede. Thoughts User:SoccerSalvatore Drmies Darryl.jensen? ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The white supremacy label is a ridiculous accusation that draws away from any legitimate and needed criticism of the organization. Its inappropriate to include such a label in the lead. Darryl.jensen (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Due to the only response to the proposed compromise above being what seems like agreement from Darryl.jensen, per WP:BOLD I'm going to go ahead and change that line accordingly. Preserving old version here: Critics have accused the CIS of promoting extremist nativist views and of having ties to white supremacy groups, which the CIS denies. Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This line of the lead after today's revert is currently vague and uncited. It does not specify who the critics are, or exactly what the accusations are. Political opinions on CIS aside, the current lead page does not do an effective job at communicating to the reader the nature of the criticism of CIS. The leading bulk of the criticism section deals with the SPLC's 2016 report on CIS and secondary reporting of that publication, and as such comprises 'notable controversy' (as opposed to the accusations of inaccurate research methodology) and should be the main source of information presented in the lead. Per the style guide the lead must present a summary of each section of the article, consist of well-written paragraphs, and neither suppress nor provide undue attention to controversies. Please present why you feel it should be kept vague and short, citing criticism independent of the SPLC and accusations either besides or specific to Nativism, which are separate from accusations of eugenicism and the SPLC's much more specific/official/publicly-discussed 'hate group designation'. Please also present some alternative summaries with more detail so we can decide together on a better lead than this. --TheMiddleWest (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Family-based migration

"Chain migration" as a term to describe family-based migration is not an academic term, it is a derogatory term used solely by immigration opponents — "weaponized," in the words of The New York Times — see this article. "Chain migration" as an academic term refers to, as our article discusses, the social process by which migrants from a particular town follow others from that town to a particular destination. Chain migration can be defined as a “movement in which prospective migrants learn of opportunities, are provided with transportation, and have initial accommodation and employment arranged by means of primary social relationships with previous migrants.” It does not academically refer to the family-based migration law system which allows legal residents and citizens to invite their family members to the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, it's clearly a loaded term according to RS. That said, I'm not really sure why we even have a reference to "chain migration" in that section at all. Did CIS use that term? As far as I can tell, CIS just said it supports points based/skilled migration rather than family-based, so why bother to include this debate in the first place? Just say CIS opposes family based migration (the neutral term) and prefers skills based.

• Why not just say Family-based migration is the process by which legal immigrants and green card holders can sponsor family members for immigration to the country. CIS opposes family-based migration, and instead advocates for a "points system" of immigration, based on professional skills, which Krikorian called "a completely conventional idea". ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• That works for me; we can leave the "chain migration" argument to other articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Great, I'll edit it as such. Thanks. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Should hate group designation be mentioned in the lead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There seems to be disagreement about whether or not mentioning the SPLC's hate group designation in the lead is UNDUE or not. I did a Google search and found the following reliable sources that mention or discuss the CIS hate group designation. (Note that not all of these sources are neutral, but that's a different matter):
Primary topic of article is CIS's designation as a hate group:

• Southern Poverty Law Center (obviously)
• Washington Post (opinion piece)
• Washington Post (counter-opinion piece)
• PolitiFact Florida (apparently a partnership between PolitiFact and the Tampa Bay Times)
• America's Voice (probably a border-line reliable source)

CIS's designation as a hate group is mentioned in article:

• Newsweek
• USA Today
• U.S. News and World Report
• NBC News
• CBS News
• CNN
• Bloomberg
• National Review
• NPR
• Huffington Post
• New York Magazine
• The Hill
• Daily Beast
• Politico
• Daily Caller
• Vice News
• Salon.com
• Los Angeles Times
• Heritage Foundation
• Media Matters for America
• The Week
• America's Voice
• Right Wing Watch

...and maybe a dozen local news sites I'm not going to bother listing. Regardless of how biased or unfair the SPLC's designation might be, it seems to be commonly brought up in media coverage about CIS. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Include as highly relevant to the notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include of course we should also include the fact in the lead that the group rejects the designation, but the SPLC's designation has been widely reported on and regularly cited when talking about this organization, making it WP:DUE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude This page already has an excessively detailed tag, and already has serious issues with WP:NPOV as it is, as we've discussed ad nauseum already. It basically reads like a hit piece and we're treading into WP:LIBEL territory here. Due to the controversial nature of not just the SPLC generally but of CIS being designated one specifically, I've found that RSs have been far less likely to include the designation in the last year or two. I could draw up my own long list with dozens of RS but just as a few examples the NYT, Bloomberg, NBC, LATimes, Boston Herald, WSJ, etc. are all examples of the most reliable sources in the past year NOT including the designation. As evidence of how contentious it is, just see the recent "counter opinion" piece above where the WaPost reporter questions the validity of CIS designation as a hate group. Or here's a piece in realclearpolitics casting doubt on CIS designation. And here's a WaPo long form piece from several weeks ago where the author doubts that CIS is a hate group. Important to note that not only CIS but also a range of critics have disagreed with the designation. Our job is to be encyclopedic, not to repeat the word-for-word accusations of the SPLC, which have evidently declined in both relevance and validity lately. That said, I'm glad we're having this discussion and am confident we can reach consensus on the placement of this. ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @ModerateMike729: The articles you cite seem to support my argument that the designation is notable. The reason you cited for removing it from the lead was WP:UNDUE, not WP:NPOV. We can address NPOV concerns by drawing attention to the sources that dispute the designation, so I don't see how that's an argument against mentioning it in the lead. Regarding excessive detail, I would argue that the "hate group" designation is certainly more widely discussed in reliable sources than the fact that Trump cited CIS in a tweet, which we currently mention in the lead. Do you think we should remove the mention of Trump's tweet? Kaldari (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This page already has an excessively detailed tag, and already has serious issues with WP:NPOV as it is, as we've discussed ad nauseum already. It basically reads like a hit piece and we're treading into WP:LIBEL territory here. Due to the controversial nature of not just the SPLC generally but of CIS being designated one specifically, I've found that RSs have been far less likely to include the designation in the last year or two. I could draw up my own long list with dozens of RS but just as a few examples the NYT, Bloomberg, NBC, LATimes, Boston Herald, WSJ, etc. are all examples of the most reliable sources in the past year NOT including the designation. As evidence of how contentious it is, just see the recent "counter opinion" piece above where the WaPost reporter questions the validity of CIS designation as a hate group. Or here's a piece in realclearpolitics casting doubt on CIS designation. And here's a WaPo long form piece from several weeks ago where the author doubts that CIS is a hate group. Important to note that not only CIS but also a range of critics have disagreed with the designation. Our job is to be encyclopedic, not to repeat the word-for-word accusations of the SPLC, which have evidently declined in both relevance and validity lately. That said, I'm glad we're having this discussion and am confident we can reach consensus on the placement of this. ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per ModerateMike729. Particlarly the articles from WaPo and RCP cast doubt on this label. Including their designation in the lead would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. It is however right to include it in the Criticism section. Mkwia (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include extensively discussed in sources that discuss subject of article. If we want to add "a label that CIS rejects" or somesuch, I'm fine with that. Neutrality^talk 19:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Strongly exclude. Egregiously non-neutral article—the majority of the text (over 50% of the total word count as calculated before)is currently criticism in the lede and criticism section. A designation that is highly suspect among reliable sources (and only mentioned in a minority of stories about cis which were handpicked above) absolutely does not belong in lede. Serious balance and impartiality issues as said above. I’m not sure it even belongs in body but for the sake of reaching consensus inclusion in the Criticism section is fine as long as it has the caveat that CIS and others have challenged the label. Darryl.jensen (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include per WP:WEIGHT as demonstrated by the media sources listed above. Unless someone can demonstrate that this group is not discussed as a hate group by sources, we need to include it and note the source of the label. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude this from the lead. There are a TON of news articles about the CIS, both as a subject and for quotes from their "experts" (I use quotes because some of their work is quite shoddy, as we know). But I just went through the first few dozen on Google news on both time and relevance and didn't find a single one that mentioned the designation. While it has been discussed before, there are definitely WP:WEIGHT issues to inclusion. Please familiarize yourselves MOS:LEAD. I'm surprised there is no consensus here--it seems pretty clear cut that this belongs in Criticism in the body (duh!) but not the lead. And that's not even touching on some of the aforementioned issues with neutrality. Alison Alice (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude The SPLC is a non-neutral source for the designation of hate groups. They have designated groups as "hate groups" which simply go against the Left-Wing ideology of SPLC, and are not actual hate groups. Also, many of the articles referencing CIS designation as a hate group are highly biased to the Left. Unless CIS issues a statement specifically espousing hate for a protected group (which illegal aliens are not), then their designation as a hate group is completely against WP:NPOV. I agree with everything that ModerateMike729 says above as well. Smokeybehr (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This account has under 100 edits and last time they made one was ... more than two years ago. Volunteer Marek 20:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Include - well sourced. Volunteer Marek 20:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include - Extensive discussion in reliable sources of this designation; it's an expert-voice opinion which merits prominent inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include - Relevant and well sourced. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Three ultra similar comments in a ten minute span? come on guys. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@ModerateMike729: What'd I do? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Include - Relevant, well sourced, etc. There's not much else that needs to be said about it, so... Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment All of these "well sourced" pieces just cite back to the original SPLC piece. Its not as if multiple sources are, independently, accusing CIS of being a hate group. How much weight is given to a single claim, by a single organization, that a group with which the SPLC disagrees with politically is a "hate group." I don't see that as something that belongs in the lead. For the sake of consensus, this should belong in the already extensive "Criticism" section. Darryl.jensen (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The lede should be a summary of the body of the article. Many reliable sources consider this designation significant enough to mention. Due weight is already demonstrated by reliable sources, and it is not up to editors to decide something isn't significant when sources say that it is. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Violates neutrality of article, prominence in lead is designed to bias reader. VeritasVox (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV. Just because it's been mentioned in a small % of sources that talk about CIS in no way means it belongs in the lead. Mohancy (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Include Due weight, well sourced, etc. Of course the sources go back to the SPLC, we're talking about including the SPLC's view in the lead. I'll note that all the "exclude" voters have less than 500 edits, all the include editors - have far, far more. And this isn't an RfC, right? Noting ModerateMike729's comment above, come on, where are these editors coming from? Doug Weller talk 19:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Per Mike, Darryl.jensen and Mohancy. The list includes a lot of opinion pieces that aren't usable so I don't know why they're included. Trim it down to RS and I'll reevaluate. D.Creish (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include Overwhelming support from sources on the notability of such designation. It can be explained neutrally in lead. Weight is due. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude As D.Creish noted, this is pretty opinion-heavy. When you just look at RS, it’s a much smaller number—and there are a far larger number of reliably sourced articles that don’t mention the designation at all. This contrasts with most other SPLC designated hate groups where the designation is a staple of RS content. As Alison Alice sort of suggested, I went through the last hundred or so articles on CIS via search aggregators and not a single one mentioned the designation, neither local nor national sources. Seems highly undue for the lead, regardless of whether you include some throwaway line that CIS and others dispute the designation. Besides, I’ve been on here long enough to remember that all the above arguments in favor of inclusion have already been addressed in the past, in the archive. Griffy013 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include It's clearly notable, it's clearly due. Arguments against boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Include The criticism qualifies as notable due to its widespread discussion in highly public and qualified sources. It furthermore acts as a key descriptor of the body paragraph on criticism; per the style guide the vague "critics have accused CIS of nativism" line without reference to the specifics of the critics or accusations is an insufficient summary of the section. --TheMiddleWest (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude Highly undue, current version doesn't accurately characterize SPLC charges, ignores lawsuit, and belongs in body only. --Bluewolverine123 (talk) 9:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Another brand new WP:SPA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a proper RFC

It appears this was formatted as though it were going to be a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but it never received the templates needed to make it official. Right now, there is no path to consensus, and no expectation that this will be resolved by an impartial outside editor. Any editor closing an RFC would be expected to be aware of WP:SPA irregularities, and would judge the discussion on quality, not quantity. My concern is that without this process, this has become de facto filibustering, because it's being treated as a vote, but polling is not a substitute for discussion.

So, is there a reason not to add the proper template:rfc to this section? This would potentially invite more uninvolved editors to comment, and would eventually lead to WP:RFCEND. Am I missing something? Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC Reboot: Should hate group designation be mentioned in the lead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As noted by Grayfell, there was not a proper RfC for this. I am recreating Kaldari's attempt with the proper RfC template.

To reiterate, Kaldari's question was: "Should hate group designation be mentioned in the lead?". At issue is whether or not such a mention would be WP:DUE.

Above is discussion and links regarding this discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

• Include. Relevant, sourced, due weight.--Jorm (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - To reiterate my !vote above, I believe this should be included per WP:WEIGHT as demonstrated by the media sources listed above. Unless someone can demonstrate that this group is not discussed as a hate group by sources, we need to include it and note the source of the label. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. To reiterate my own vote, the overwhelming majority of RS (particularly the best secondary sources out there--NYT, WSJ, NBC, etc.) don't rely on the SPLC for CIS but rather describe it in the language in the lede now. Sticking with the current more NPOV language is appropriate. It's highly undue for the lede for three reasons: depth of detail, quantity of text, and prominence of placement. There was a long discussion and ultimately the SPLC designation was placed in the body, which I felt was appropriate. It's clearly not for the lede, and feels like a total hit job. Further, CIS is now suing the SPLC over the designation. Let's keep in mind we're dealing with a highly disputed and controversial designation and treat it as such, which we haven't up to this point. Also, per RS noticeboard, SPLC is considered "biased and opinionated" in its role as an advocacy group and when dealing with hate designations. It's only reliable on certain topics. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. Seems highly undue for the lead, regardless of whether you include some throwaway line that CIS and others dispute the designation.Griffy013 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. Per my earlier comment, it is highly undue, the current version doesn't accurately characterize SPLC charges, it ignores the lawsuit, and belongs in the body only. Also, in response to Volunteer Marek, I am a new user, let's WP:AGF please. Don't bite the newcomers. --Bluewolverine123 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. Undue. This question has been debated ad nauseum and reaches the same conclusion every time: there is no consensus for this change. Darryl.jensen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Southern Poverty Law Center, the SPLC is widely accepted by other reliable sources as having expertise in hate groups. Per Kaldari's original comment, this designation has been cited as significant by an overwhelming number of additional sources, including sources which ideologically disagree with this designation (such as the Daily Caller). Any overview of this topic which doesn't mention something as widely reported and significant as this would be incomplete, and the lede should, ideally, work as a stand-alone summary. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentThe SPLC is considered reliable on some topics, but "biased and opinionated" on others. To quote from the reliable sources noticeboard that you cited: "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on far-right politics. As an advocacy group, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed per WP:RSOPINION." ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, which is why this should be attributed. I don't think that was in question. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The SPLC just lost over a $3m defamation suit for falsely labeling someone racist and a hate group. There are another 60 lawsuits for defamation against SPLC already pending and another 200 in the works. SPLC is objectively not reliable and there's even a court judgment proving it. https://pjmedia.com/trending/update-on-the-60-separate-defamation-lawsuits-against-the-splc-under-consideration/ They're a hate group themselves, defaming anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their radical politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — 4.34.50.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • This has already been discussed elsewhere in tedious detail, but in the hopes it will prevent this from being rehashed again here:

This lawsuit is significant, but it's not directly related to this case, and should be properly explained at the SPLC article. Being sued doesn't make a source unreliable, because if it did, almost every large organization in existence would then become unreliable. The SPLC has issued retractions and corrections in the past, and this is a good thing, because this indicates that they take themselves seriously. I source which never admits it's wrong is not credible.

Also, PJ Media is not a reliable source for factual statements, if that was in question. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• That SPLC has repeatedly been accused of defamation and faced multiple lawsuits for it is already evidenced on the Wikipedia article itself. The lawsuit is relevant to the discussion in that it illustrates the bias of the source; it's demonstrably part of a pattern of the same source being sued for the same, specific reason, which directly relates to the reason why they would be cited here. 74.14.100.97 (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)— 74.14.100.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The mere existence of a defamation lawsuit is evidence and proof of nothing more than that someone has a lawyer capable of filing paperwork. The question is, how many such suits has the SPLC lost in court? As far as one can tell, the answer is zero actual trial losses. Maajid Nawaz never actually filed a court case - the SPLC acknowledged its error and apologized first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include per due weight. See list of sources in previous discussion. Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - as per due weight and the extensive discussion of this matter in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would further note that the sourced fact that the CIS is suing the SPLC over the listing arguably makes the fact *more* notable and lede-worthy; it's a very current event in the organization's history which may lead to a significant legal decision one way or the other, and has brought more notoriety and reliably-sourced discussion of the proffered reasons for the listing. If there is a legal ruling that the SPLC's listing was libelous, that would also be lede-worthy when and if it occurs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Use non-primary sources – put simply, remove the citation to SPLC's website. This designation can be included in the lead section, but it should be sourced to something other than SPLC itself. The two secondary sources cited (Daily Beast and NY Post) are an improvement over citing the original SPLC classification, but they are not particularly high-quality RS either. Adding a citation to a higher quality non-primary source that reports on SPLC's classification of CIS as a hate group would be very helpful. feminist (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include. A whole paragraph is undue, but a brief mention of the designation and CIS's lawsuit is perfectly merited given the number of reliable sources that have reported it. There is no requirement that all (or some overwhelming number) of sources mention it; that would be ridiculous and has never been the standard here. Also, the fact that the designation has been somewhat controversial isn't a reason to deemphasize it. The relevant guideline is quite clear that prominent controversies belong in the lead. R2 (bleep) 09:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I've been thus far strongly opposed to inclusion in the lede, I could be amenable to a brief mention of the designation and CIS' dispute of it as long as it's tight and not a whole paragraph. The various details of the designation's justification and of CIS' justifications for the lawsuit are due for the body, but undue for the lede. Would editors support tighter language, along the lines of "In 2016, The Southern Poverty Law Center designed CIS an anti-immigrant hate group. In 2019, CIS announced it was suing the SPLC over the designation and alleged that it was false"? Would love to work to a WP:MIDDLEGROUND as there are a lot of editors who've been making a sincere effort to improve this admittedly messy page. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment. This "reboot" of the original RfC is a complete farce, as is this page. No consensus on the first RfC? No matter! Invite your WikiFriends to join the bandwagon for the second go-around! The SPLC is an unabashedly controversial organization in 2019 - not unlike this group in that regard. The SPLC operates a 501(c)(4) political action fund. That in and of itself is not a bad thing. But to act like the SPLC is the final arbiter of a complex political matter is completely absurd. They are a political organization with a political agenda. I strongly oppose its very mention in this article whatsoever. Darryl.jensen (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment For better or worse, per WP:RSP the SPLC is reliable (although it is considered "biased and opinionated" on this topic, as I've noted and as should be addressed). I get where you're coming from, and I've argued that this is undue for the lede... I continue to believe that. However, in the spirit of WP:COMPROMISE, I thought the tighter wording I provided above was tolerable for the lede, with the other details in the body. As such I disagree with your hardline stance here. Would appreciate thoughts from other editors too. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ModerateMike729, I would tighten it up even further with something in the lead like, "The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the CIS a hate group. The CIS has disputed the label and sued the SPLC over it in 2019." R2 (bleep) 19:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. That's fine, too. I was okay with inclusion of the nativist wording (not that they're nativists but that they have ties) because it's been there for longer, supported by a far wider range of secondary perenially reliable sources, as I've explained why the white supremacist aspect has not been consensus for at least a year and is a lot touchier and less backed up. I'd slightly tweak your second sentence to "CIS disputes the label, and in 2019 announced it was suing the SPLC" just for tensing purposes. Another minor point but it's "CIS" not "The CIS", for whatever reason that issue has come up a few times. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No need to nitpick. Your wording is totally fine, I'd accept that as a WP:MIDDLEGROUND. Mikayla (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Include Weighing the number of sources we have, how reliable they are, and how prominently and in depth those that do talk about it talk about the group's status as a hate group, I believe this is WP:DUE. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include per PeterTheFourth. I'll add that the exclude voters are all fairly inexperienced (not an attack, just a comment, we don't expect inexperienced users to understand all our policies and guidelines, not even experienced users understand them all) and the two IPs haven't edited anything else, with 74.14.100.97 adding this dishonest edit allegedly sourced from PJ Media although the bit about the court ruling isn't in the source, and as far as I know there hasn't been such a ruling. The Nawaz case didn't get that far. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - The extensive coverage in reliable sources is a strong indicator that this is a significant point about the organization that should be mentioned in the lead. - MrX 🖋 02:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - Relevant and not undue weight. SPLC should remain in, as primary sources can be used for the opinions of the primary source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include - both the designation and lawsuit are relevant and there is sufficient coverage on the topic in sources. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 22:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude per ModerateMike729. Particlarly the articles from WaPo and RCP cast doubt on this label. Including their designation in the lead would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. It is however right to include it in the Criticism section. Mkwia (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume "RCP" refers to RealClearPolitics, which is republishing the opinion of syndicated columnist Debra Saunders. Opinions are not usable for plain facts, but these opinions help demonstrate that this is significant, otherwise they wouldn't be talking about it. No reliable source is casting doubt on the fact that the SPLC designated this org a hate group. Intentionally downplaying significant info by placing it in a WP:CSECTION is non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include, particularly the language citing the organization's publication of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, as well as its alleged ties to the American nativist movement, which is central to the topic and its coverage; substantial coverage, sufficient for a bare mention in the lead and later in the article. The fact that they dispute it isn't, itself, enough to remove it from the lead, and in fact the additional coverage of that only adds additional weight (and is something else that belongs in the lead, of course, given the coverage.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include: relevant to the subject at hand; WP:DUE is satisfied. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• Comment: I voted exclude but would support include if we use ModerateMike729's tighter wording above, as the current version is due based on the text's location but undue based on depth of detail. A short sentence simply stating that the SPLC classified CIS as a hate group and that CIS is suing is sufficient for the lead as the designation has been pretty widely covered. I also agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that CIS suing probably makes this more relevant, not less so I don't think Darryl.Jensen's argument really makes sense. Bluewolverine123 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude unless: exclude unless it’s much tighter, in which a brief mention at end of lead is probably due. My edit was NPOV. WP: RACIST, WP:UNDUE. 2601:140:8B80:18C0:E40D:B02F:1BDF:B57A (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC) — 2601:140:8B80:18C0:E40D:B02F:1BDF:B57A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Include and speedy close I actually triple-checked to see if I'd supported inclusion on yet this new version of the same RFC. There's been a WP:TEND trend to try and tie up use of SPLC as a source in constant RFCs. Whenever we might include the clearly notable opinion of this storied anti-racist organization somebody pops up with yet another slightly differently worded objection that MUST get formal consensus before we can proceed. I'm frankly frustrated by what increasingly looks like attempts to soften the encyclopedic perspective on racist organizations. Wikipedia must not be in the business of protecting white supremacy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't really speak for anyone else, but my issue in this RfC isn't whether the splc is a reliable source--it is. The question is over what aspects of their article about CIS are due or undue for the lede, and which are due or undue for the body. I want to be very clear before I continue my response--are you alleging that I'm a Nazi or white supremacist because I disagree with you on this RfC? That is wildly offensive and ridiculous--particularly given that I am a trans Jewish woman of color--, and I've spent much of my editing on this site adding content describing racists as such. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Inclusion or non-inclusion in the lede does not seem important to me, but in whatever part of the article it appears it should follow WP:SAID by replacing the verb "designated" with something less connotative of authority, perhaps "called." It's simply the opinion of a participant in a dispute, which Wikipedia should not participate in. The existence of the dispute seems to be one of the most notable things about this article topic, so it's reasonable to entertain its inclusion in the lede (whereas SPLC's opinion might not be so due in another topic.) Rhoark (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include Whether or not the SPLC's opinions, or anyone's opinions, are inherently noteworthy, they must be considered noteworthy when they are frequently included in references to the CIS in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include Obligatory for inclusion in the lede per MOS:LEAD. Lede must contain a coherent and sourced summary of the body of article including any prominent controversies. Noteworthiness and reliability of source is already established, further made noteworthy by ongoing litigation. Previous "consensus version" per ModerateMike729's claims is not agreed upon and is an editorially inferior version that employs weasel words rather than specifying source of criticism. TheMiddleWest (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include - Overwhelmingly sourced on the notability of such designation. Due weight and can be explained neutrally in lead. The SPLC often stood by their research on far-right politics, so CIS defenders should find a nearest mirror as well as deflect their complaint to WP:RSN. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include, attributed + mention lawsuit against SPLC. I came to this RfC with an open mind. The relevance to the lead discussing this is whether this is discussed in WP:RSes. So - I did a google news search for "Center for Immigration Studies" "southern poverty" "hate group" - and I see this discussed in multiple reliable sources. The SPLC's opinion is often notable. Therefore I would suggest including this in an attributed fashion ("according to the SPLC, the Center for Immigration Studies is a hate group"), as well as including the Center for Immigration Studies's lawsuit against the SPLC (e.g. NPR covering this). We should not say the Center for Immigration Studies is a "hate group" in an unattributed manner as it seems to me that the vast majority of sources are attributing the designation to the SPLC, and we should follow them. Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment That's fair, but I'd add a couple caveats. I don't think people are disputing that the SPLC's designation has been included in RS. It has, and the editors who are saying this is an attack on the SPLC itself aren't really treading through the discussion. Rather, I'd point out that 1) the "hate group" designation is generally used in quotes to denote that they're quoting the SPLC rather than calling CIS a hate group themselves, 2) CIS gets a huge amount of media coverage-- I can find many, many times more RS that don't mention the designation. In fact, ones that don't mention it make up the overwhelming majority of their media coverage, and not everything mentioned by RS belong in the lede. When it comes to something which gets highly covered, I think proportion matters most. 3) My main issue has been with including the specifics of the designation in the lede (circulating anti semites, etc), which I find to be WP:UNDUE. Some here claim that more context is inherently more NPOV, but that's not really the case when we're adding in WP:RACIST labels. Saying that an organization full of Jewish employees/supporters is publishing anti-semites is a pretty serious charge for example (especially by editors totally opposed to the inclusion or even mention of anti-semitism in other articles--but that's its own issue!), and it's not backed up enough by RS outside the splc to be corroborated in the lede. For the sake of compromise, I said I was willing to support a tighter version of the lede that basically just says that SPLC says CIS is a "hate group", and that CIS is suing. Would be curious to hear your thoughts on that. M (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I support tighter version of the lede that basically just says that SPLC says CIS is a "hate group", and that CIS is suing.. The SPLC's opinion is obviously notable, however I generally suuport attribution when media attributes (e.g. if the NYT says X is a hate group - no attribution, but if the NYT says X is a hate group according to the SPLC - I would attribute as well). The SPLC (and others - e.g. the smaller Jewish focused ADL as well) has been under some flak in recent years that they are politicizing their designations - the jury is still out on whether this has any merit (though I will note the NPR piece above reporting on the rise in number of designations). The SPLC is an immensely important resource for identifying hardcore extremists (e.g. armed neo-Nazi militia groups) - that being said - their "softer" designations (e.g. this one) aren't as clearcut black and white. For these "softer" designations (which is when media will do "according to the SPLC") - it is best to attribute - it is still almost always lead worthy (as the SPLC's opinion usually carries quite a bit of weight).Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with this, but just for the record I should mention that this is the status quo for inclusion (ie. all recent versions that have included the language have both attributed it to the SPLC and mentioned the lawsuit, both of which are clearly important.) At the moment, I don't think anyone is arguing that we should include it unattributed or skip mentioning the lawsuit. --Aquillion (talk)

03:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Include but follow WP:SAY. There is no problem saying the SPLC said this or that. But when we use the words "designated" or "citing", as the current version does, we give the SPLC a presumption of accuracy that runs afoul of WP:SAY.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• WOW, SPLC has been hit with "allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination and racism" yet I see wikipedians still using it as a reliable source when it comes to "mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination and racism". Just wow. 205.175.106.106 (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • And the current lead uses a title reference "Anti-Immigration Group Uses Mafia Law to Attack SPLC" when the actual provided link says "Anti-Immigration Group Files RICO Suit Against Southern Poverty Law Center Over ‘Hate Group’ Label". You guys have done a great job providing a "totally unbiased" look on this subject. 205.175.106.106 (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that this RfC is being posted about off Wiki and the IPs above are likely to have come here because of that. As a result, these comments can be disregarded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead rewrites

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ModerateMike729 WP:BOLDly rewrote the disputed paragraph of the lead here. I object to most of the changes made here. First, the source goes into more detail, specifically naming white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, as well as its alleged ties to the American nativist movement. Second "Circulation ... in weekly newsletter" parses to publication in this context (and stripped of the second part it's misleading, since it makes it sound like they were just circulating it internally.) Note that the rationale ModerateMike729 stripped out is the one specifically described in the Daily Beast source later in the paragraph, indicating that it's what secondary sources have found significant about the designation. I also strenuously object to Bluewolverine123 edit warring in an effort to push through a plainly-controversial WP:BOLD rewrite that substantially changes the meaning of a disputed paragraph in the lead, after it's clear someone has objected, in the middle of an WP:RFC. WP:BRD, people! --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging all parties who edited today: @ModerateMike729, Aquillion, Beyond My Ken, Bluewolverine123, Darryl.jensen, Jorm, Simonm223, NorthBySouthBaranof, MrX, and Grayfell:. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Since it has come up: While attributing these views directly to the SPLC is relatively new, the mention of white nationalism / white supremacism in the lead dates back to at least 2017 (and ModerateMike729 is entirely aware of that, since much of her contributions to this page have focused on trying to remove that line.) It is longstanding and removing it, which was the primary focus of her most recent edits, was a WP:BOLD change that in no way reflected any sort of status quo - this article has not had a stable version that reflects ModerateMike729's preference for omitting that material from the lead for years. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• But "the mention of white nationalism / white supremacism" comes entirely from the SPLC's article, so whats the point being made here? Darryl.jensen (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Because it has extensive secondary coverage that emphasizes those points, eg. [19], [20] [21]. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just to note, I have requested at WP:RFPP that the page be locked down to stop the edit warring and promote discussion here instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• * Aquillion reverted me claiming that some form of "white supremacy"/"white nationalism" has been in the lead since 2017. That is objectively false. I have been editing this page for the better part of a year and it has not been in the lead until now. Here is how the page was in January. Here is how the page was in December. Here is November. Here is October. Here's September. I could keep going back but you get the point. I totally agree we should keep it at WP:STATUSQUO until the RfC is over. The status quo very clearly DOES mention ties to nativism, but does NOT mention ties to white supremacy or anti semitism. Yes, there were points 2+ years ago where it was in here, but for the vast majority of the past year and longer, it has not been in the lede. And the notion that I've spent long trying to remove it is silly, most of my edits on this page have been about disputes in the body over CIS' positions, its founding, and the length of the criticism section. Please don't falsely accuse me. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Rather than focus on what the lede did or did not say in the past, shouldn't our focus rather be on what it should say? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. We're just debating what should be in the lede while the RfC is ongoing. My proposal is quite simple: The RfC is about whether or not to ADD content, so until it's resolved, we should keep the lede's content in its prior, longstanding form. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• The material was removed from the lead by an IP in the edit immediately prior to your first edit on this page; since that was just prior to your account being registered, I presumed that to be you (if it wasn't, I apologize and can understand you not realizing you were edit-warring against longstanding text that had coincidentally been removed immediately prior to your arrival; but the rest remains true.) At no point was that aspect of the lead stable after that - mostly because because you have been revert-warring to keep it off. See here, here, here, here, here (after which the discussion shifted towards the SLPC-specifying version.) Note the misleading edit summaries in many of those edits, as well as, here where you incorrectly claimed (as you are now) that the version you were edit-warring for was the stable consensus version. At no point did you manage to make it stable, and at no point has your proposal to remove that part of the lead ever enjoyed consensus (indeed, going over the history it's clear your the only one who objected to it - I was able to find every removal prior to the shift to the SPLC version simply by reviewing your edits. And, yes, edit-warring to try and keep that sentence off the lead was indeed a significant part of your contributions to this page.) The only stable version of the lead is pre-August 2018, immediately prior to your arrival on the page. EDIT: Also, you linked to a version from the 25th, claiming it was the "longstanding form", but here is a version from the 20th. (I didn't go back extensively, since my edits above trace the evolution of that section and the debate over it - I don't think the lead has ever been fully stable since August 2018 - but it's absurd for you to claim a stable version when the other version was live mere days earlier.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) I think an important point in respect to that is the RfC just above this one. Although it has not been closed, it appears to me that the consensus is that the SPLC "hate group" designation should appear in the lede. If this is the case, then further explaining why it has received that designation is merely providing additional context to the reader, and is a legitimate addition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel like I'm trying really hard to WP:COMPROMISE here and would appreciate some degree of people working with me here. I myself shifted positions--and agreed that the SPLC designation is due in some form in the lede, whereas I previously argued it was due for the body but not the lede. But to simply say you are "merely providing additional context" is unfair. We're selectively picking contentious WP:RACIST labels from the splc. If we were to say that the SPLC designated CIS a hate group due to their anti-immigrant views and/or their links to nativism, in the spirit of reaching middleground I'd be amenable to that. But I'm getting frustrated by a lot of bad faith accusations here and cyclical arguments. Can we work together on this? I'm amenable to the following wording: The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as an anti-immigrant hate group in 2016, citing the organization's ties to nativism.[12] In 2019, CIS announced it was suing the SPLC over the designation.[13][14] It's tighter, it's due, it's neutral, it succinctly summarizes the SPLC's position. This page has been a mess but I'd be glad to finally drop it if we can agree to that wording, as I do think the designation is due for the lede. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. The sources emphasize "white supremacy" or "white nationalism", and although you've removed it from the lead repeatedly, you have not provided any actual reason to omit that aspect. A "compromise" that removes it is no compromise at all - again, look over my list of reverts by you showing your efforts to remove that longstanding part of the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I read it. Yeah, out of the hundreds of edits I've made on this page, several times I've removed either poorly sourced or highly contentious content that included the word "white." You're as guilty of trying to ram that content in as anything you've accused me of. Every attempt at good faith or compromise I make toward you is met with contempt and refusal to cooperate. It's rude, it's sexist, it's getting incredibly redundant. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
        • You have repeatedly removed the same sentence (one that was longstanding on the article before you arrived.) My point is merely that it's silly for you to suggest that the version without that sentence was "stable" when you, yourself, have consistently destabilized the article by trying to remove it over and over again; and I'm baffled that you could claim that the versions in the months you linked were stable, knowing you were repeatedly reverting to try and keep the contested text off the page that entire time. I understand that you object to those words (as, it is clear, you have since your first edits on this page, given how consistently you've tried to remove them), but you also have to recognize that at least up until now your efforts to remove them have failed. If you want to keep them off the page, you need to stop revert-warring, stop trying to claim your preferred version enjoys some sort of consensus or stability, and actually present a compelling argument for taking the wording you object to out. Currently I am not seeing it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
          • I won't revert war, I apologize for doing so in the past, and I ask that you don't either. No problem. My actual argument is quite clear: There are some secondary sources that repeat the SPLC's claim about CIS' designation, which leads me to believe it should be in the lede. It is far harder to find reliable secondary sources that repeat the SPLC's claim that CIS is publishing antisemities/white nationalists, which is a far more contentious claim. Given how incredibly contentious the "white nationalist"/"anti semite" labels are, I don't think they belong in the lede if they're not well backed up by secondary sources. Nativism, on the other hand, is much more reliably backed up by secondary sources, so I'm comfortable including it. That's it. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
            • I understand your objection now. I think the previous sources were sufficient, but I've found two more sources to back that specific line and added them to the article ([22], [23]). One of them even specifically uses the word published. Do you have any further objections? (If you don't think they're enough, or if you have problems with those sources, I can find others - eg [24].) --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Without looking at whose version this is, the current text upon time of writing this comment, "The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group in 2016, citing the organization's publication of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, as well as its alleged ties to the American nativist movement.[12] In 2019, CIS announced it was suing the SPLC over the designation, alleging that the label was false.[13][14]" seems to best-reflect the reliable source, and in addition encapsulates what reliable sources say - that it's an extremist anti-immigrant groups with ties to FAIR that has given platforms to nativists, white nationalists and anti-semites. I think this is WP:DUE, sourced from an WP:RS, avoids inflammatory language sufficiently for WP:NPOV and provides a clear encapsulation of what the article should describe. Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  Furiously concur with Simonm223.--Jorm (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Administrator note: Full protected for 2 days. All of you know better than to edit war like this. I trust you will have figured things out when the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• The version I see now (the protected version) certainly seems to me to be acceptable, as it is well-sourced and tells both sides. I can;t image how this would not be good for everyone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• The nativist and white supremacy content have stood in the lead since April 12, 2017. Since there is obviously consensus at this point to include the SPLC hate group designation, the current version approximates consensus.- MrX 🖋 19:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Removed another WP:BOLD edit added to the lede by user ModerateMikayla555 (an apparent sockpuppet account of ModerateMike729) on March 19, 2019 due its use of weasel words ("some pundits"), potential lack of notability of in selected Fox News and National Review op-eds, and most importantly, failure to seek any consensus on the talk page prior to addition of the line. As you are likely aware, ModerateMikayla555, the lede has been highly disputed and protected this month - you are to start a new thread on this talk page to discuss further additions before you may proceed with doing so. TheMiddleWest (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • First of all, it's not a sockpuppet account. Take literally one second to click either one of those users and you'd see I changed my username. Second of all, we've had editors above arguing that more context in the lede is more neutral inherently, and I'm inclined to agree. Third, I'd be glad to change the wording of "some pundits" to perhaps "some conservative pundits" or something similar. Fourth, lack of notability makes no sense. The most prominent conservative television station and most prominent conservative publication both came to CIS' defense. You're probably right that it needs to be qualified with the word "conservative" rather than pundits generally, but the rest of your comment is nonsensical and assumes bad faith...again. Also, you apparently are quite well versed in WP rules for someone who has only made a dozen or two edits, basically all of them on CIS' page. Come on. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Am I to assume, then, that Bluewolverine123 is not one of your accounts, or that your interest in defending the reputation of CIS is purely an intellectual one? I'll be requesting a number of dispute resolution measures as your comments here as well as the threatening one on my talk page suggest that you are almost certainly assuming bad faith on my part. TheMiddleWest (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I asked on your talk page if you have a conflict of interest, which, given the fact that you almost exclusively comment on this page, seems pretty reasonable. I have no connection to BlueWolverine--now who's the one assuming bad faith? So, just to be clear here, you falsely accuse me of using a sockpuppet (when I've made very clear I'm a trans user going through a gender transition), you falsely accuse me of being BlueWolverine, you claim I'm "threatening" you for having the audacity to inquire about conflicts of interest, and then you tell me that I'm the one who's assuming bad faith? This is beyond ridiculous and offensive, and I look forward to finding a resolution. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I have no relationship to Mikayla whatsoever, and there's nothing threatening about inquiring about conflicts of interest. Let's cool this down and assume good faith please! Bluewolverine123 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The addition of the "conservatives have criticized" to the lede appears to be a way to subvert the consensus that is apparent in the RfC above. I'm sure some have, but this is just cherry picking a couple sources which means it's not important enough for the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Having several lines of back-and-forth argumentation in the lede will quickly become unwieldy and undue weight. Those who advocate for adding the lines about what conservatives think of the SPLC's position should consider that neutrality would require yet another set of balancing arguments of what liberals think of the SPLC's position. You can't just include one side of an argument and call it done. This would, ironically, give the SPLC's definition of CIS as a hate group more weight than it should have in the lede. It's far better to just include the SPLC's argument and the CIS' response, leaving any back-and-forth arguments to the body text. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree but it looks like the content was lost from the body during Darryl's edits. Can someone restore it to the body, while keeping it out of the lede, while we discuss--aka the LGV? Okay, looks like it's been fixed. With regard to the actual debate, I'm inclined to agree we want to avoid the back and forth and avoid giving it too much weight, ironically. If anything, consensus was going in the opposite direction, arguing for a tighter lede that basically just says splc designates cis as x, cis says they're not x--and that's it. If you look at older consensus versions of the page (pre August 2018, when all this started) that's closer to how it was. In other words I think you've convinced me the conservatives' comments are probably WP:UNDUE for the lede, but because we should be moving in the opposite direction. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that keeping it at just "splc designates cis as a hate group, cis says they're not" is the most appropriate lede. References to media coverage and Twitter notoriety is WP:UNDUE and makes lede far too wordy. TheMiddleWest (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.