Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Version

Just so y'know, I've been working on a version of this list at User:Roscelese/List of designated hate groups; it's bluelink-only, includes rationale, and also includes ADL listings. I welcome any help. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to you and others for working on the list-article. ~Kinda seems odd that it's been tagged for merging without a talkpage discussion started. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The article is presented solely from the POV of SPLC, without rebuttal from affected orgs, which is plentiful, and as we all know, that is a no-no. Also the list itself has generated notable criticism and that as well is missing. Lionel (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not all the responses are notable, so especially in a list-type article, not all of them need be mentioned. (For example, the FRC, I believe it was, got news coverage for its denial that it was a hate group, so that would belong - but other groups whose claims that they are not hate groups only appeared on their own websites, not so much.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if the "rebuttal" is notable enough it should be included in some form but that in itself doesn't make the whole list unbalanced. Jnast1 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not so much criticism of the list, but rather that the idea that the Southern Poverty Law Center has such authority. The SPLC is an activist group. For instance, the blog roll on "Hatewatch" is merely a list of progressive and Democratic Party activists. While they may be the only group with sources on certain fringe groups, the idea that they can designate who and who is not a hate group in a factual sense is problematic for a Wikipedia article. The article does not so much need a criticism section, unless such criticism is considered notable, but the text needs to list things such as "hateful rhetoric" as the opinion of the SPLC. Gtbob12 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. I am working on another article presently and my goals for this article include sourcing why the SPLC is considered an authority and adding the reasons the SPLC would put a group into each of the issue areas. Tjis will take some time but I believe will result in a more balanced read overall. Jnast1 (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article maligns mainstream churches simply because of their Christian view of homosexuality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Soniarangel (talk • contribs)

Please, can we establish structure and inclusion criteria

As I mentioned, I also have a version of this article in the works. I do want to move it into mainspace when I've completed it, and obviously the two shouldn't exist independently, so let's have a discussion of what the article on SPLC's listings should look like.

1. Should it include all the groups listed, or only those which have articles?
2. Should it be organized by ideology, or alphabetically by group name?
3. Should we include the listings of other organizations that track hate groups, such as the ADL? (Consensus at talk:splc was to do so, but consensus can change.)
4. Should we include information on what each ideology is?
5. Should we include details on why each group was added to the list?

In any case, statements that a group is listed as a hate group should be cited. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the list should:

1. include only bluelinks
2. be organized by ideology
3. not include the ADL because their list is much less comprehensive and not as notable
4. not include a description of the ideology (most have their own articles)
5. definitely include the SPLC's rationale for adding the group to their list.

However, ADL doesn't use the same categorization scheme, so if consensus is to include ADL listings, organizing groups by ideology would not be feasible. (There are even a few cases where this fails for SPLC - if I remember correctly, Stormfront is filed under its creator in a section on people.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two kinds of lists. Comprehensive lists include all entries, whether blue-linked or not. List of "notable' entries only include blue links. I think arguments could be made either way. There are many items on this list that will never merit an article.   Will Beback  talk  05:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

My rationale for only including bluelinks is that some of the groups really are very tiny and local; it doesn't benefit a reader to have them listed when their mention as a hate group is the only thing that brings them any recognition. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think both lists can exist and complement each other - this one can speak as to why the SPLC generally sees each subject area as meeting their guidelines but yours is focussed on specifics to each organization. Plus you found a way to incorporate the ADF in your list which is fantastic. Also your list is only for articles that exist whereas this one includes all the SPLC ones noted in their Intelligence files. I see a lot of sourcing still needs to be added and I'm looking to do so over the next while, a bit each day. As part of that I'm looking at each article link to ensure we have the correct article linked. I think this list being comprehensive makes sense but also agree that if there is no way an article could be made, then it can still be listed but doesn't need a link. It will take some time to evaluate every group listed. Jnast1 (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason why the National Organization for Marriage isn't on this list? Exploding Boy (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe they're listed in SPLC's paper on anti-gay groups, but not all of those are officially hate groups. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Tax Protesters

I believe the Sovereign citizen movement should be included under Tax protester groups. -Shadowfax0 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who died and made the SPLC an authority on this matter?

A far-left group calling far-right groups "hate groups" hardly qualifies for its own article. 67.233.243.255 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll address the point in your text a bit. The criteria for inclusion within Wikipedia policy are laid out at WP:N (and see in particular Wikipedia:N#Stand-alone_lists, I also get the sense that you are concerned that the article may not meet another important policy WP:NPOV, so you may wish to read that as well. Wikipedia:DEL#REASON, part of our deletion policy, might also be helpful reading. If, after consideration of these policies, you feel the article is not in conformance with those policies, you are welcome to nominate that article for deletion by following the instructions at WP:AFD. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: While this particular article has not been discussed for deletion before (that I can find), this dicussion may be relevant as well. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. Your uninformed opinion has no value at WP. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also? If you want to know how the SPLC is an authority on this matter, why don't you, y'know, read the article? It is made perfectly clear that the FBI relies on the SPLC's tracking of hate groups, which has also won several journalism awards. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And if you actually read the article link, there ABSOLUTELY no proof that the FBI relies on the SPLC's tracking of groups they list as hate groups, contacts or coordinates with the group, or considers them any kind of authority. They are merely a link that is listed on the FBI's website on hate groups along with several others. The fact that they won several journalist awards is irrelevant to that. I'll be removing this from the article lede because it's blatant original research -- the citation doesn't actually attribute any sort of notoriety; it's a first/second party resource, not a third-party source. I'll also being considering nominating the entire article for deletion as I fail to see the notoriety of every single claim the SPLC makes and I also see it as a strong POV article. I'll be sure to do my research on policy since the SPLC is undeniably a political (and largely partisan, though not entirely) organization and it's nomination for deletion will result in uncontrollable meat puppetry as all contentious issues like this do. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 00:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

For NPOV, SPLC should be defined in this article for it's left wing adherence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We'd need exceptional reliable sources to make that exceptional claim, presently no one has provided those sources. Insomesia (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not an exceptional claim. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional or not, you still need sources. --Robert Keiden (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Some notes from prior discussions at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard on SPLC as a source:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The SPLC is an eminently reliable source on the radical right. Contra OP, the article's poster is identified in the byline, and SPLC has editorial oversight from a board of directors and a program staff. SPLC is a reliable source. They have many detractors in far right publications because they investigate the far right, but their accuracy is not challenged in mainstream sources. as others have questioned its neutrality, then the text which is referenced to it, should attribute the information SPLC is a reliable source, as they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. SPLC is a reliable source for facts about particular individuals and groups in the U.S., though possibly more questionable on whether the general trend of right-wing and racist activity is upward or downward, because that gets a bit closer to their own fundraising. It's actually the Intelligence Report that is the source. The Report "won a second-place Green Eyeshade Excellence in Journalism Award in non-deadline reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists.[1] Intelligence "Project staff have been involved in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's hate and bias crime "train-the-trainer" program since its inception in 1992. FLETC trains personnel for more than 75 federal law enforcement agencies and provides services for local, state and international agencies."[2] "The editor of the Intelligence Report presented a paper on Internet hate as a United Nations-certified expert to the U.N.'s High Commission on Human Rights in 2000."[3] If it is sourced, look for the original source, if possible. "About 50 percent of the statistical estimates provided in stories about the militia movement were provided by experts from either the SPLC or the ADL." It appears to qualify as reliable within the area of investigative journalism. It has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [4] [5]. Unless there is a specific reason for questioning the content of one of their articles, I don't see any problem in using them as a source. Where those sources have a history of fact checking and responsibility (e.g. Brennan Center for Justice, Southern Poverty Law Center or the Center for Public Integrity), we can feel comfortable summarizing published material that they create in articles which relate to their areas of expertise. Anti-Defamation League's views should probably be used with caution and attributed as an opinion of that org. I would consider Southern Poverty Law Center more reliable as it has a legal background.

More selected quotations. The last section on which there was consensus that the SPLC might be reliable was in 2010, and it was left open whether it is BLP-reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC) These were the closing statements by all different editors generally coming to the same conclusion that you don't seem to approve of, that SPLC is reliable even on BLPs, that their sourcing should be attributed and like all sources used with care. Yes, they are BLP reliable and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is there are ready for every dispute on the usage of SPLC. Insomesia (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If any article deserves a criticism section it is this one.

In educated circles SPLC itself is considered a hate group for identifying non-hate groups as hate groups contributing to hate crimes against those organizations.

If you have reliable sources for that, it certainly belongs in the article. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added the article from the Christian Science Monitor regarding criticism of the "overbroad definition". StAnselm (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Missed this. There are problems with both the contents of the article and the placement of the info in the lead of an article that is basically nothing more than an annotated list. This issue is directly under discussion on the SPLC main article and that should be resolved prior to adding the same info elsewhere. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Lead

Based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, the lead of the article should provide info allowing the reader to determine what the list is about and its significance. It says:

The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.

It seems that the lead should be cutoff after the sentence "Since 1981 the SPLC's Intelligence Project has published a quarterly Intelligence Report that monitors what the SPLC considers radical right hate groups and extremists in the United States.

Any thoughts? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not do as you suggest and simply create a "Background" or similar section. That preserves the lead as its intended purpose and people can choose to skip to whatever suits their interest. Insomesia (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the guidelines suggest that narratives on a list serve a limited function -- allowing readers to understand the list. The more narrative you add, the more this becomes an ARTICLE about SPLC designated hate groups. I have no problems with that, but there should be a conscious decision, supported by consensus, to do that. If my memory serves me correctly there was such an article, it was deleted, and this list was offered as a replacement. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Link to the deletion discussion? Insomesia (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a category that was deleted. FWIW I've had a replacement draft of the list of hate groups in my sandbox for ages (it includes only bluelinked groups, discusses the reason for each group, and includes ADL's listings as well) but it's difficult to manage on my own, especially since the list keeps updating and I have, y'know, work and stuff. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

All articles are a work in process, maybe it's time to launch it and insure the lead explains the scope? Insomesia (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom Brown Ministries

Twice an editor has submitted a rebuttal by Tom Brown Ministries for its inclusion on this anti-gay list. The problem with this, is that this article is merely a list and not an article about hate groups. There is a discussion at the main SPLC article about whether material from hate groups should be included in that article -- that seems to be the proper forum. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the criteria for inclusion on this list is pretty concrete: does the SPLC list an organization as a hate group? If so, it is on the list. I don't see where any discussion on the Wikipedia is relevant. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This line of editing does, I think, highlight the need for us to get consensus for a neutral, balanced statement about criticism of SPLC. I don't think saying "this is just a list" is enough. If we come up with a statement in the main article, then it should be added here. But that is a discussion for another day. StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think "this is just a list" is a fairly good reason to stick with larger issues and themes, and not get bogged down in an angry response from every listee.

Certainly there is room in a list article for a description of context, including widely published protests against listings of certain prominent organizations. However, the very small Tom Brown Ministries of El Paso listing cannot be considered large enough to represent the main themes, and that listing cannot be fought by the minister's own response printed in the local El Paso newspaper, which is what Pastortom2002 supplied. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Allow me (someone who never viewed this article before today) to make a proposal on a way to reformat the article that may address some of these concerns while increasing the quality of the article:

• All organizations listed should meet notability guidelines and should have their own article. Rationale:

• SPLC already has a complete list of organizations they consider hate groups on their site. We don't need to mirror that.
• Per Wikipedia guidelines WP:LISTCOMPANY this article itself can make determination on whether an org needs to meet notability guidelines to be listed. In other words, we have a choice.
• Since each organization would be notable enough to have suitable secondary source coverage as part of WP:ORG, there will be enough data on both why the SPLC considers them a hate organization and allow for any rebuttals assuming those meet existing Wikipedia guidelines for secondary sources, thus maintaining WP:NPOV guidelines. Since the pages on the organizations themselves would have to abide by NPOV, it isn't something the maintainers of the list would need to be concerned with.

• Any organization that doesn't meet notability guidelines would be removed.

In practice, this means that groups accused of being hate groups by SPLC would have more information on them other than "they hate <insert ethnic/social group here>" which serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a NPOV encyclopedia, since it would have greater, in-depth information on any organization listed. If an editor wanted to list a organization in this article, they'd need to ensure it is notable (which is a good thing.) Thoughts? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems perfectly reasonable. If a putative "hate group" doesn't merit its own article on Wikipedia, it's hard to see how it should merit a place on this list. Belchfire-TALK 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like the sound of that. A couple of editors have argued that the listing itself implies notability, but this position has not gained consensus. StAnselm (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

From the lists guideline it states "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment."

I think by this standard the current list is fine and no changes need to take place. The list is not in any way unmanageable or too large to be useful to readers, all entries can be verified as being a part of the list. Additionally we simply don't redlink entries, that is, they are listed and we correctly show how many of the groups in the category have articles. The proposal as I understand it would remove every entry that does't have an article directly linked. I think that violates NPOV in that it assumes every group on the list has notability, which is absurd, and masks that this designation is likely the most notable recognition that many of these groups get. There is also a second list talked about above that is only blue-linked groups and combines SPLC and ADL lists. I think both lists complement each other. This list is comprehensive to SLC and the other to notable hate groups. Then the practice on this list, which has been very stable until just recently, is to only link an entry when an article or redirect actually leads somewhere. The the reader can decide to follow a link or not. I don't see any reason to suppress a group's listing. Insomesia (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In that vein, I wish to point out that the hate group listing by SPLC gives a group one of the two needed reliable sources to become notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, per WP:GNG. (Two national level notices on a group is enough.) Thus, the SPLC lends notability to every one of the listees, and writing an article about the group is made that much easier. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is notable. One of the reasons it is notable is its list of designated hate groups. I would assert that an article listing those hate groups meets the requirements of the general notability guidelines. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is circular reasoning, and it ignores most of WP:GNG. Belchfire-TALK 23:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Balance

I think it would be a good idea if the number of organisations mentioned in the "By ideology" section roughly reflected the numbers mentioned in "Types of groups". At the moment this is not the case: the "By ideology" section lists 29 of the 39 "Christian Identity" groups (74%), but 5 of the 113 "black separatist" groups (4%). There may be perfectly good reasons for this, but it's quite a big disparity.  Tigerboy1966  06:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC counts separate chapters of the same group as separate groups. The Nation of Islam, Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, etc. have many chapters nationwide, while there seem to be a more diverse (so to speak) range of Christian Identity groups, although there are fewer of them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I did find a missing one and added it to the article (since right now it's comprehensive.) Otherwise Roscelese is correct. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The categories of "by ideology" are the same categories that the SPLC uses, and groups are listed under the categories that the SPLC lists them under. We must follow suit, as the policies on original research do not allow editors to synthesize. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this and I'm not an expert. I'm just thinking that the way the groups are listed is slightly misleading and makes it look as though the SPLC gives disproportionate attention to some types of group. Would it be better to write, for example "Legion of Thoth (18 separate groups)" etc. Tigerboy1966  21:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If we have reliable sourcing for it I think that would be a good idea. Insomesia (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is the source for every single entry here.

Tigerboy1966, I think that's a fine suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 15:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bluelinks or redlinks

I'm not sure it's a POV issue; it's just a different way of editing the article. Is the list meant to be comprehensive, or to include only notable groups? (My draft includes only bluelinks.) However, if we do limit it to bluelinks, we absolutely must state in some way visible to the reader (so not an edit notice) that the list is not complete. Also, MrX and possibly other users have been creating articles, so perhaps for the time being it may be productive to leave the redlinks so it is easier to see which ones still must be made. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as the bluelinking goes - WP:LSC definitely implies that it should only include bluelinks. I agree with you that it should be stated as such - e.g. mention the total number of groups, and mention that these are the notable ones. StAnselm (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with StAnselm: the article is not "List of some organizations" or "List of notable organizations". All organizations on the SPLC's list should be included. Those that do not have Wikipedia articles should be listed as text, not as redlinks. Just like they are now. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur with TechBear's comments, except that I would add that if someone were willing to assess each organization for notability and redlink those that are notable, that would provide helpful guidance to editors who are looking to create new articles. – MrX 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be better to write an article, even if it is just a stub, and then link to the article. I will admit to having a general principle dislike for redlinks, however, so here's a grain of salt to go with my opinion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's have a look at WP:CSC. The options listed include Every entry meets the notability criteria, Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria and Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. Clearly, number 2 doesn't apply. Number 3 might work, except that it says it should be created if the list is less than 32K, and the current list is over 80K. That leaves us with number 1: Every entry meets the notability criteria. The guideline also says "lists devoted to a large number of redlinked articles don't belong in the main namespace". StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's even more simple than that:

Lists of companies and organizations

A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.

– MrX 20:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't get that far in reading WP:SAL. Yes, that is clear and simple, and it means there is nothing wrong in having the non-notable entries. However, it does not mean the list has to have every single organization, and I am still in favour of restricting it to notable organizations, merely as a stylistic issue, for lack of redlinks and size of the article. StAnselm (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with listings the way they are currently, if edit warriors are going to create drama then we can simply add sources to every entry so what we assert is verifiable is indeed verified. We also had an excellent suggestion previously to note that group X may include a certain number of chapters or subgroups so we could represent that as to accurately portray how many groups in each category. Insomesia (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are no references, they should not be included, and can be removed at any time. That is Wikipedia's longstanding policy.Spylab (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The policy is that content needs to be verifiable, and it is. Did you look for confirmation of any of the information and find it was unverifiable? Did you seek help from anyone else to verify that the entries are valid? Insomesia (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability applies only to articles. The list of organizations designated by the SPLC as hate groups is sufficiently notable to have an article. The article itself should cover the topic sufficiently, which means listing the organizations that the SPLC has designated as hate groups. Whether those groups have their own articles is irrelevant. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No Legal Definition of "Hate Group"

There is no legal definition of "hate group," which is why even the FBI does not, cannot, designate "hate groups," but somehow a private fundraising group like the SPLC can?

The article is full of "The SPLC defines..." and "The SPLC considers..." and so what? This is nothing more than a marketing ploy by the SPLC's fundraisers. They have no authority or mandate to designate anyone as anything. The SPLC has no more authority to designate "hate groups" than does the SPCA.

The article also misquotes the legend from the SPLC's primary fundraising tool, the "Hate Map," which makes the incredulous claim that "Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing." While this alleged "civil rights organization" deliberately conflates six of the most basic, constitutionally protected civil rights with "criminal acts" and "hate group activities," the lawyers at the SPLC at least have the common sense to follow up this ridiculous claim on the "Hate Map" legend with the fig leaf "Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map

Furthermore, while the SPLC's public relations chief, Mark Potok, has designated 1,018 "hate groups" for 2011 by his own subjective and spurious definition, Mr. Potok cannot seem to locate 247 of them on any map, including his own. That's one in four.

A perfect example is the state of Georgia. In March of 2012, Mark Potok added 20 chapters of something he calls "The Georgia Militia" to that state's "Hate Map." The problem is that he cannot locate 18 of them. Instead, Mr. Potok merely added 18 empty slots marked "Georgia Militia" to the map.

See it for yourselves on the SPLC's web site: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map#s=GA

This is hard data??

In all, 29 of the 65 "hate groups" Mr. Potok has designated for Georgia are homeless. That's nearly half of the total. In many states, the percentage of phantom "hate groups" runs as high as 60-, 80- and even an incredible (literally!) 100% of the total.

Again, this is hard data??

"Problem" is a gross misnomer since no one in the Media, government, or certainly Wikipedia, can bother to submit Mr. Potok's claims to even the most rudimentary fact checking. Mr. Potok can pull any number he likes out of his imagination without fear of contradiction. We had the opportunity to ask Mr. Potok directly about these incongruities in October of 2011 and he admitted on camera that his "hate group" numbers were "anecdotal," "a very rough measure" and "an imperfect process." http://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/mark-potok-the-splcs-hate-map-is-an-imperfect-process/

Potok's "hate group" list is not based on any legal statutes and is nothing more than a marketing ploy designed to incite the donors without charging the alleged "hate groups" with any actual crimes.

This article falls so far short of Wikipedia's standards that it should be pulled immediately.

Richardkeefe57 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your deep doubt of SPLC is not shared by many scholars who consider the work by SPLC to have established a definition. Scholars define the topic, not Wikipedia editors. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not just non-neutral; false. It is kind of cute that you cite your own blog though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I must say that I was struck by Mark Potok's near dismissal of his own organization's "hate group count" when questioned about it, as contrasted with our more-royalist-than-the-king reverence for the same in Wikipedia. By padding its "hate" count with the likes of the sinister Catholic Family News the SPLC undoubtedly does a splendid job in adding to its $220,000,000 surplus. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Keefe seems to spend a large amount of time posting comments, letters, etc all over the net attacking the SPLC and Potok. And now he's here. Badmintonhist, that's just nonsense and you know you have no evidence for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, my evidence was faulty, apparently the SPLC's "endowment fund" is now closer to $240,000,000. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And surely you know that this is not the place to bash or praise the SPLC. Please don't use this as a forum. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, the SPLC has established a definition. The problem is that it is entirely subjective and not based on any legal statutes. A "hate group" is whatever the SPLC says it is and that's not good enough. This article cites that definition as groups that "... have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."

In 2002, the Boy Scouts of America released the statement "The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law..." BSA Press Release, Feb. 6, 2002

Would you agree that the claim that "all gay men lack the moral values" to be Scout leaders meets the SPLC's definition of attacking or maligning an entire group of people for their immutable characteristics? I do, but the SPLC doesn't. Despite this blatant anti-Gay discrimination, and despite the fact that the core mission of the BSA is to mold the minds and shape the characters of millions of American boys, the SPLC has never designated the BSA as a "hate group."

In fact, the SPLC never even mentioned the BSA for a full decade until last year, when they wheeled out retired co-founder Joe Levin to issue the most tepid scolding in SPLC history. Levin even made excuses for the BSA's anti-gay policy, “Of course, the Boy Scouts of America doesn’t intend to encourage bigotry. But such policies can have that effect.” http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/boy-scouts-of-america-policy-embraces-anti-lgbt-prejudice

Doesn't intend to encourage bigotry? Really? If you're happy with the SPLC's subjective definition for "hate group" that's your privilege, but how about a little consistency?

Roscelese, Where are the 18 missing "Georgia Militia" chapters? Who provides the oversight or peer review of Mr. Potok's claims? The 1999 report you cite is the only instance where the term "hate group" appears in an FBI document. It's not based on any legal definition or established FBI guideline. It's merely the opinion of that particular document's author. If it's an official policy, if the Feds have established a list of "hate groups," it should be a simple matter to find it on the FBI or DOJ web sites. Try it. I have.

As for citing my own blog, that's my own video clip. I asked Mr. Potok where his phantom groups were hiding and I recorded his fumbling reply. Sources don't get a lot more primary than this. How should I have linked to the data?

The "Hate Map" is the SPLC's primary fundraising tool and well-meaning people send the SPLC tens of millions of donor-dollars every year, (more than $106,000 dollars every day in 2011), based on Mr. Potok's numbers. Mr. Potok makes these claims publicly. It's up to him to support them and he does not.

Dougweller, I spend a lot of time challenging the SPLC and Mr. Potok's claims because I have spent years studying the SPLC's claims, financial documents and hiring policies. I'm sorry if you feel that holding the SPLC accountable for their claims is somehow "attacking" them, but when I read "Mark Potok says there are 1,000 'hate groups' in America!" I just can't help asking "So why can't he locate 250 of them?" and "If there's no legal definition for 'hate group,' what authority does a private fundraising organization have to designate them?"

I've done the research. I cite my sources, most of which come from the SPLC's own web site, press releases and the writings of SPLC founder Morris Dees. I created a blog to post my findings so that I wouldn't have to write lengthy essays like these every day. I'm sorry if you don't like to hear it, but it is what it is. If you'd like to refute my findings, please show your evidence, as Roscelese did.

I don't ask anyone to take my word for it. I encourage everyone to look at the data and decide for themselves Richardkeefe57 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Keefe, Wikipedia cares not for blog sources, instead relying upon WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia is also not here for your WP:Original research, that is, you cannot publish your "findings" here without having had them published in a reliable form. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, this is a Talk page. I have not edited the main article in any way. The Potok video is an uncut primary source. If you're concerned with WP policies and procedures, perhaps the "Avoid Edit Wars" page would prove useful. Also, have you had a chance to locate the Federal "hate group" list yet? Richardkeefe57 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

How is this relevant?

Why should we care about a legal definition? This is a list, right? Of organisations the SPLC calls hate groups. It doesn't claim to be anything else. So exactly what is the point of this discussion? What changes are being asked for? Yes, this is a talk page, but the discussion here is meant to be about the article itself. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Richardkeefe57's emphasis on the absence of an "official" definition of a hate group is not especially relevant, but I think Potok's response to RK57's question in the clip points to a more important problem with our list here. Violating the spirit of WP:BLP constraints, we are placing a mark of Cain on the listees when the "reliable source" for our list basically admits the hit or miss nature of the whole thing. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's moot until we have a reliable source questioning the SPLC's listing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)::

If you go to the main article on the SPLC and look at the Controversy subsection in the Tracking of Hate Groups section, Ros, you will find a number of reliable sources questioning the SPLC's listing. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and that would not make the listing irrelevant or well documented, it would suggest a line above the text should clarify that.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a list of organizations the SPLC calls "hate groups." While it doesn't claim to be anything else it implies that the list has some official or legal basis You want a suggestion for an edit? How about a simple disclaimer that lets the readers know that this list is not based on any legal interpretation of the term?

Under the "Types of Groups" heading the last update is from 2008. Mr. Potok designated 1,018 "hate groups" for 2011 and will release his latest "very rough estimate" this coming March.

Under the same heading, "That number did not include hate groups that appear to exist only on the Internet," yet all of the subsequent "groups" are listed as "websites." Nowhere on the SPLC website does it say that the "hate group" count refers to websites.

The groups listings are out of date. For example,Mr. Potok counted 221 Klan groups in 2010 but only 150 for 2011 (66 of which are homeless) and he has added a number of new "groups" in the meantime. The current data, such as it is, is inaccurate.

Are those suggested changes sufficiently article-specific? Richardkeefe57 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing actionable until a reliable source is found to support suggestions. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Addressing Kim's point (and may I add, parenthetically, it's good to hear from ol' swashbuckling Kim again) the question is what we, as editors, should make of the SPLC's list. I happen to think that the amount of play we give it on the main article on the SPLC is about right. Specifically listing each organization when, by Potok's own admission, that count is often hit or miss is not very encyclopedic. At the very least we should mention the reliably sourced criticisms of the list and also substantially include the SPLC's own caveat about the list. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I'm glad we finally found a point of mutual agreement. The legend on the current SPLC "Hate Map" reads: "The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 1,018 active hate groups in the United States in 2011. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2011 are included."

Like you, I don't find them to be a reliable source either.

Badmintonhist, I applaud your willingness to take Mr. Potok at his word. Sadly, all the logic in the world cannot counter cognitive dissonance, but I very much appreciate your willingness to at least examine evidence to the contrary without hiding behind pedantry. You represent the true spirit of Wikipedia

PS: While I'm sure it's "unreliable hearsay," I did post the raw video on Youtube of Mr. Potok admitting that his "hate group" count was "anecdotal," "a very rough estimate" and "an imperfect process." In response to my direct question about the phantom "hate groups," Mr. Potok generously admitted that "I understand the criticism and it’s not an illegitimate criticism." Good for him. Mr. Potok even went as far as to concede that at least 20% of his "hate group" claims could not be verified.

Granted, it's only Mr. Potok's opinion and since it's only a primary source it's not especially reliable.Richardkeefe57 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of SPLC claims

The opening paragraph of the article cites the SPLC's "hate group" definition verbatim, "The SPLC defines hate groups as those that "... have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics," but paraphrases the following section of the same SPLC citation, significantly changing the SPLC's basic claims.

The first paragraph concludes, "The SPLC states that hate group activities may include speeches, marches, rallies, meetings, publishing, leafleting—and criminal acts such as violence, though not all SPLC listed groups engage in criminal activity."

The actual quote from the SPLC's "Hate Map," as cited in the the first Reference URL in the article, (the same SPLC map that now claims 1,018 "hate groups" in 2011 as opposed to the 926 groups it designated for 2008), states: "Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing." At no point does the SPLC equate "criminal acts" with "violence." This is solely the interpretation of the article's author(s).

In fact, the SPLC map legend explicitly states: "Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity." This is, in fact, the only reference to violence in the entire map legend. Therefore, the article's interpretation of the SPLC legend, "...and criminal acts such as violence,though not all SPLC listed groups engage in criminal activity" implies that some or any of the groups listed engage in criminal activities and violence, whereas the disclaimer on the SPLC legend clearly does not imply that any of the groups listed do so. This is a significant misinterpretation of the SPLC's own claims.

The wording in the article should quote the SPLC directly to avoid any misunderstanding and to provide a more balanced view of the SPLC's actual claims. Richardkeefe57 (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a sources to help with that apparent inconsistency: [6]. Their statement "Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity" means that they are not claiming that all hate groups are violent, but they are leaving open the possibility that some may be. - MrX 17:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC's claim that "Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity" does not imply that any of the groups listed engage in violence, whereas "...and criminal acts such as violence, though not all SPLC listed groups engage in criminal activity" implies that some of the groups listed engage those acts. It's not what the SPLC actually says in the Hate Map legend, which is the source for the quote.Richardkeefe57 (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I provided the source that says: "We’ve crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members.... Currently, there are 1,018 known hate groups operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others."

Again, the SPLC statement "Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity" does not imply that any of the groups listed engage in violence" is not an exclusive statement. It doesn't imply that any are, but it also doesn't imply that any aren't. - MrX 18:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The footnote citation for the "though not all SPLC listed groups engage in criminal activity" does not lead to the page you are citing, though. It leads to the Hate Map legend page which "does not imply." If your reference is more accurate or simply less ambiguous, then simply switch the links.

I guess I'm still not getting the part where the direct quote from the Hate Map legend needs to be interpreted? Why not just cite the quote directly and be done with it? There is no shortage of lawyers at the SPLC who know how to write an accurate disclaimer. Why second guess them? What do the other editors think?

Also, if the SPLC claims there were 1,018 "hate groups" for 2011, why does this article still refer to the claims from 2008? Either the article should be updated to reflect the current numbers or the title should be changed to "organizations designated for 2008" and all supporting URLs should lead to the Spring 2009 Intelligence Report where the numbers were first obtained.

Richardkeefe57 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. SOFIXIT, but be CAREFUL. - MrX 20:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

MrX, you know as well as I do that accuracy is not the point of the exercise here. No other editors have weighed in for the past 24 hours but that means nothing. Just for giggles I'll update the article with actual data from the SPLC's website, as linked to in the primary article reference, but you and I both know it won't last three minutes before it gets reverted. Still and all, we have to give it a try. This may be the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but it's also the "encyclopedia that bigots can revert." I mentioned three minutes but I'll bet it doesn't last that long.Richardkeefe57 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I hereby stand corrected. I posted my updates at 22:47 Wikipedia time on 1/22/13 and as of 22:57 Wikipedia time it had not yet been reverted. Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa.Richardkeefe57 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to provide external links from this list to hate groups' web sites?

I have noticed that there are couple of hate group entries that have no WP article, but instead have external links to the groups' web sites. This does not seem like such a good idea per general convention and WP:ELNO.

Examples:

• Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments
• Charles Darwin Research Institute

- MrX 18:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If people really want to find out about them, Google's their friend. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have only SPLC's word that the CDRI actually exists. All I can find on Google are Wikis and multiple entries about disparate (defunct) entities with that name, none of which agree with what SPLC says. Still, we shouldn't list the groups' websites here, even if we can find them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Time to update the numbers?

Okay, the "Types of Groups" section lists 926 SPLC designated "hate groups" for 2008, but the first footnote link and at least one long-time editor, (e.g. reliable source) has confirmed that the SPLC now claims 1,018 "hate groups" designated for 2011, is it time to:

a: Update the article to reflect the current totals according to the SPLC citation?

b: Redirect users to archived links of the 2009 SPLC "Intelligence Report" that claims 926 "hate groups" for 2008?

Any thoughts? Accuracy being our watchword here and all. Richardkeefe57 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No objections or comments in nearly 24 hours, so there doesn't seem to be any controversy over using the latest numbers then. Let's give it a try. Richardkeefe57 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Numbers do not add up

The number of "hate groups" listed under the "Types of Groups" section, (whether one goes with the SPLC's updated count of 1,018 for 2011 or reverts it back to 926 for 2008) adds up to 1,085.

Obviously, this is a significant difference regardless of which set of totals one prefers. Should the group count be updated to match the latest total or removed entirely? Richardkeefe57 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We should use the most recent total count from the source (the SPLC) and correct the group counts as we get better information. I will tag it accordingly. - MrX 21:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia article or a running blog? Neither set of numbers match with the number of named groups in each category. Why not just occasionally list a new approximate number (since any given SPLC number is, by their own admission, an approximate number, anyway). Badmintonhist (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 update

I wanted to update the list with the 2013 changes, starting with the anti-gay list. There are new groups on this year's list.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-gay/active_hate_groups

Two questions. First, what is the procedure for updating the anti-LGBT section? I've been told that this must be changed first, but I don't have a lot of info on some of the new groups other than the fact that they are on the list.

Second, since the other ideology sections also need updating but do not have their own page, is the updating process the same? -Ian --108.176.91.162 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The numbers still do not add up

After revising the number of "hate groups" to conform with the 1,007 number that is actually listed on the SPLC web site, the "types of groups" section that follows still adds up to 1,085 and should be revised or removed.

If you actually go to the "Hate Map" and count up the number of groups designated by the SPLC (yes, I know, "original research" and therefore worthless...) you find that the current numbers are significantly different, i.e., 162 Klan groups vs. 186, 139 neo-nazis vs. 196, 153 Black separatists vs. 113, etc.

If you're going to cite the SPLC's numbers they should be cited accurately according to the SPLC's current figures and not some broad-brush "somewhere between 1,000 and 1,100..."

One last bit of "original research," the 1,007 number for 2012 actually represents a decline from 2011, the first recorded decline in SPLC history. That is a significant footnote that should be mentioned. Richardkeefe57 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist hate groups

Kinda interesting that the SPLC does not list Al Qaeda or Hamas as a hate group. Feels conspicuous by their absence, since they do squarely fit the definition in the opening paragraph. This should be covered somehow.William Jockusch (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

They only monitor groups located in the U.S. If you have information about a local chapter of either organization, please send the address and list of officers to SPLC. They do in fact list Muslim hate groups operating in the U.S., which you would know if you had read this article or the SPLC's listings. TFD (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As a friendly gesture, you might drop a note to Janet Napolitano also. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, was Sept. 11 not an operation in the US?William Jockusch (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you being purposely dense? They monitor groups based in the U.S., not groups that operate in the U.S.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Misogyny

Right now content has been added to our controversial Reddit communities article relating to Misogyny: The Sites published in the SPLC's Spring 2012 Intelligence Report (issue 145) which discussed various sites accused of being hateful towards females (girls and women). I am wondering if a section should be created about this?

It's worth noting that although /r/MensRights was listed in this Spring 2012 report, a March 28 2012 statement has Mark Potok quoted redacting this saying "We wrote about the subreddit Mens Rights, but we did not list it as a hate group" and "it's a diverse group, which certainly does include some misogynists—but I don't think that's [its basic] purpose." If this quote is accurate it somewhat contradicts classifying it among "misogyny sites" since misogyny sites WOULD be hate groups.

What this indicates to me is either Potok didn't look at the list (and didn't realize the subreddit had been called misogynistic) or he distinguishes betwee misogyny and hatred of women in some way I don't adequately understand.

In case we do a section, I'll copy the text from the article here and hyperlink the designated names to show which we do and don't have articles about. Any lacking may improve in standards of notability via this infamy. As a reminder, this is what SPLC wrote in the report about these sites and not my personal opinion [Redacted for potential copyvio —Roscelese]:

1. Alcuin
2. Boycott American Women
3. The Counter Feminist
4. The False Rape Society
5. In Mala Fide
6. MarkyMark’s Thoughts
7. MensActivism
8. Reddit: Mens Rights
9. RooshV
10. SAVE Services
11. The Spearhead
12. A Voice for Men

As you can see, none of the twelve sites listed by the law center actually have articles about them, so I guess we should just, if we do make a section for SPLC's misogyny accusations, just bold the names. I am wondering how much to abbreviate if this is done. Should we just list the names, or should we try to summarize the claims the SPLC make about them in their summaries? Ranze (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've redacted your extensive quotation of SPLC's website, which is a potential copyright violation problem. As for the rest of the comment - perhaps you're not aware that the SPLC frequently writes about biased/bigoted groups and movements that aren't on its list of hate groups. This is regardless of your personal feelings that a "misogynistic" group ought to be a "hate group." I don't see that you're indicating any changes that need to be made to this article, since the misogyny list is not a list of hate groups, but it's true that people who are interested in this list may also be interested in creating articles on the misogynistic websites on the list, if those sites are notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the redaction (because I'm so sure they'll be filing copyright charges for something they send out freely which is properly attributed to them) the evidence is clear that they have called them all hate groups. That the SPLC writes about biased/bigoted groups elsewhere is irrelevant, in this instance they go beyond applying these B-terms and describe hatred. The misogyny list is most certainly a hate group list, both evidenced by its title and the descriptions within it. I explained why thorough in the CRC article and the generalized statements in that report apply to all of the sites here.

For an example of how this was interpreted, see the Mar 9 2012 report of RadFemWorldNews, talking about Issue 45 of its quartlery "The Year in Hate and Extremism" released in Spring of 2012. It opens with this report before moving onto Misogyny: The Sites where it says of the twelve these statements:

• “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general
• they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express
• "brief descriptions of a dozen of these sites."
• manboobz.com .. keeps a close eye on these and many other woman-hating sites.

It is clear by saying "a dozen of these sites" that all the expressed descriptors that it is implying that the specified sites fit the stated criteria:

1. dedicated to savaging women in general
2. thick with misogynistic attacks
3. expressing gutteral hatred
4. woman hating

Not only is 'hate' used twice (well to be technical, 'hatred' and 'hating') but other associated terms are as well. Something dedicated to savaging a group is hateful. Misogyny is hatred of women.

There is no realistically denying what the report is talking about here. The denials about it not being on the 'regular report' or whatever are irrelevant, the MTS report was clearly labelling all twelve hate sites as evidenced by the language. The exact phrase 'hate site' does not need to be used when it is talking about "cites" and saying that are 'expressing astounding gutteral hatred' and "dedicated to savaging" and "woman-hating".

So my question is: when the reasonable consensus does eventually get reached to include this report, when neutral minds prevail, what would be the most appropriate title for this section? Ranze (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Descriptions should be what SPLC defines at hate group

The descriptions of each hate group category should be what SPLC define them as, not what academics define them as. Pages on their website are at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology.--10:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomspicker (talk • contribs)

I agree. Seems like that would be constructive. You want to do it, or let someone else? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have done one, each of the 13 categories of groups need their own description using the website as a primary source. It should pick out opinion based statements and avoid historical or factual based ones. The list should describe what SPLC defines the groups as, not anyone else.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. These are not niche categories exclusively defined by the SPLC. They are categories of [hate] groups that are studied by sociologists, historians, religious scholars, and so on. While the SPLC's description should be the focus, I see no reason to omit the broader context that these addition sources provide. - MrX 17:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinks to the relevant articles can be provided, by proving a general summary here it may differ somewhat from SPLC defines them as.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

MrX, the article is not titled "List of organizations designated by someone other than the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups." Since this article focuses exclusively on SPLC designations, SPLC categories and descriptions should be what this article uses. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Techbear. That would be one of a range of editorial options for this article, but it is certainly not prescriptive.

What we have us a brief 50 word description of anti-muslim hate groups, supported by multiple sources, followed by the SPLCs listing of such hate groups:

"Anti-Muslim or Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims. The term seems to date back to the late 1980s, but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States to refer to types of political dialogue that appeared prejudicially opposed to Muslims."

Is there something in these two sentences that someone objects to as being non-verifiable or non-neutral, or in violation of some other policy? I don't object to also including the SPLCs definition, but not at the exclusion of this the critical context provided by the status quo version of this section.

I'm also concerned that at least a couple of other editors have raised a notice board issue alleging that Loomspicker has made an effort to whitewash the concept of "Islamaphobia" from several articles. Although this talk page is not the place to discuss these allegations, I note that their edit here seems to be part of that broader effort. - MrX 18:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Linking to the Islamophobia page should be enough in terms of including other definitions. This page is about the SPLC and how it defines and classifies hate groups. It only makes sense to use their definitions. The other other sensible option would be to include both general definitions and the SPLC's definitions. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Items missing from this article

SPLC's list of anti-immigrant hate groups: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-immigrant

SPLC's list of Sovereign Citizen Movement hate groups: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement

SPLC's list of Patriot Movement hate groups: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/patriot-movememnt

Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.234 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. Adding them now. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Follow up: the latter two do not list groups in particular, so that may be why they were not included. I've included them for now. Please discuss here if you disagree. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

None of these are SPLC designated hate groups and should not be listed in this article. The SPLC's scope extends beyond monitoring just hate groups. - MrX 13:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-immigrant hate groups are the most extreme of the hundreds of nativist and vigilante groups that have proliferated since the late 1990s, when anti-immigration xenophobia began to rise to levels not seen in the United States since the 1920s." - ACTUAL QUOTE. FIRST PARAGRAPH. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING?

You were correct about Anti-immigrant groups, however the other two types of groups were not described as hate groups in the sources. - MrX 15:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

MrX - The SPLC does use the term "hate group" for every single one. But they are all under the header "extremists and extremist organizations". They seem to be moving away from the term "hate group" to include "extremism" as well. Perhaps we'll need to consider renaming the page some time in the near future if they move away from the language entirely. Their Hate Map still uses "hate group" though. I understand your removal of the other two ideologies though since they only list individuals and not groups at this time. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I think that presents a dilema for this article. This is a list of organizations that the SPLC (explicitly) designates as hate groups. I don't think we can try to guess at their intent or correct for their somewhat ambiguous reporting, especially since some of these organizations are small, which presents a WP:BLP problem. - MrX 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict... follow up to my previous comment) I take that back a bit... they do list groups, but don't seem to call them hate groups (example for Patriot Movement). Also, the Sovereign Citizens Movement is clearly a hate ideology, just that I can't find any groups yet, they do mention specific events with those in the movement. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we at least need to stick to groups. I think the ambiguity comes from the overlap of hate and extremism; the boundaries are not clear. For now, I agree with the current page's text. I'll keep an eye out for changes on SPLC to see if they add groups from the Patriot or Sovereign Citizens Movements on their Hate Map. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

SPLC expands list of anti-gay hate groups

The list at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-gay/active_hate_groups has been expanded, according to http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2014/02/39681/ Will collate tomorrow when I have some time, unless someone wants to do it first. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ack, meant to add: there may be other changes in other sub-lists; they will need to be checked, too. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Scholars on the SPLC's reliability

I am changing the intro's statement that "the Intelligence Report . . . is cited by scholars as reliable . . . " to "the Intelligence Report is cited by a number of scholars as reliable . . . " The wording that I am about to change implies a unanimity or very strong consensus on the proposition which is not as clearly warranted by the currently cited sources as the wording which I am replacing it with. "A number" of scholars have, in fact, criticized information in the SPlC's Intelligence Report. These include, for example, sociologists Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, whose criticism is found in the Academic assessment subsection of our main article on the SPLC; historian Robert H. Churchill, author of To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face: Libertarian Violence and the Origins of the Militia Movement; and extremist movement researcher Laird Wilcox already mentioned in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

An article such as this should be worthwhile.

As it stands, this article is poor, because it's not sourced. Is there any reason not to require that every entry in every sublist should be sourced?

As long as not every item is sourced, we can expect nitwits and trolls to continue to add and remove items at whim or to accord with their own personal fantasies. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Or you know, people that are looking for reliable information? Zambelo; talk 02:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that people looking for reliable information add and remove items at whim or to accord with their own personal fantasies? And that matter aside, is there any reason not to require that every entry in every sublist should be sourced? -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In most cases there's proper citation on the linked articles. If someone's willing to go collect them... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. (Of course, it all takes time.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

PS "It's not sourced". Except that the "Radical traditional Catholicism", "White Power music" and "Black supremacy" sublists are sourced. Which is as every sublist should be. -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Mosfetfaser - Why exactly are you removing listed groups? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Appears you are removing groups that do not have a wiki page. Is there any consensus for this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Unverified redlinked names - I do not need a "consensus " to remove them - please do not verify and rewrite them replace them without redlinking them also - writers can then have the opportunity to start stories about the orgs - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mosfetfaser: Why, exactly, does each group need to have a wiki article? Or are are just saying they should be linked? If the latter, then why are you removing unlinked entries instead of just adding links? These names have been listed for months now (if not longer). You do need consensus if there's no WP policy violation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Unverified redlinked orgs that have remained that way for months as you say - very worthy improvement to remove them - please verify and replace - please also redlink them if they do not have a wiki story to allow for further project improvements - ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll work on verifying them and will link anything I add. Still seems a bit extreme to just remove them, but I can always use the edit history if I need to. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

OW cool, ta for the work and improvements Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mosfetfaser: All finished. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Great work. Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Rename page?

This is now a list of active groups. Think we should add the word "active" to the article title? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Georgia Militia

Hey Mosfetfaser, why the revert? What exactly do you object to about "Georgia Militia"? It is listed in the source.

User:EvergreenFir - Georgia Militia

you say - it's listed by SPLC - but who are they? what is the wikia page story? what is the wiki link ? - E fir you added Georgia Militia a non redlinked non notable org - the redlink was disputed - and you just reverted - please explain - Georgia Militia Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

References

User:EvergreenFir "Georgia Militia" has been changed because link leads to entry on the former official militia of the state of Georgia, not to the modern paramilitary group.) - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's listed on the SPLC page. Per WP:NLISTITEM, it does not have to be linked or notable enough for its own article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

yes - just sort the confusion out please, who are they and make it clear - or keep them out Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay let me think on it. It appears from SPLC news posts that they are just militia groups in Georgia, but have been convicted of crimes. I'll look into it more. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

yes, check it out a bit - the addition is disputed so ... don't put it back again until you are clear about it Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So we have [7] and [8]. There's also [9]. They've got their own website and a forum which you have to register to view. They don't exactly appreciate the SPLC ("look at who bankrolls them" is what one poster wrote). Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we just link to Georgia Militia (21st century) or something? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, great - that forms a redlink that would solve it. Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Gospel According to SPLC? Actually, more exaggerated than even they stoop to..

So, is everything on this page supposed to conform to what the SPLC says or are we supposed to follow NPOV and provide actual, verifiable, encyclopedia-quality facts for readers? Because apparently adding "allegedly" (which is much nicer than what was really called for) next to completely bogus claims is cause for immediate reversion. Or are we going to assert that organizations like FAIR are actually xenophobic publishers of racist propaganda that confront of harass immigrants? (The article's current blanket description of all listed there: "characterized by xenophobia, publish racist propaganda, and confront or harass immigrants and their supporters".) Even SPLC's own description of "anti-immigrant" groups doesn't state that everything they've listed is all those things. -- Glynth (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edits per WP:ALLEGED and WP:SCAREQUOTES. Based on the title of this article, I'd say that it should be about the groups the SPLC labels. We also report how the SPLC describes these groups. As long as we are clear that this is the SPLC's designation and not Wikipedia's, there should be no issue. Perhaps WP:TRUTH would be a useful essay here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in re-reading Wikipedia's "we bow to authority, so long as that authority says what we like, rather than what's true even if it's obviously true" essay again. Especially since 1) there's no real authority that says they are racist (unless, again, we're back to "The Gospel According to SPLC"), and 2) there's no way an honest person can seriously claim that organizations like FAIR are "characterized by xenophobia, publish racist propaganda, and confront or harass immigrants and their supporters". Do you stand by that claim? Why should Wikipedia make this claim just because SPLC does? Moreover, why should Wikipedia make this claim when SPLC doesn't? It's not like we're on a page about Middle Earth and someone has come in and insisted that we put "per the mythos of the setting" in every paragraph. We're talking about charges that could in some contexts actually be considered libelous. -- Glynth (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Since apparently no one else is interested in correcting the article so that it's accurate per the source, let alone accurate in reality (which would involve dumping the source but that's another issue), or even discussing the changes that need to be made, I've changed the article to better line up with SPLC's own description. (The description here was inaccurate per SPLC's own description. "Nativist extremist" is not a term they use synonymously with "anti-immigrant", etc.) -- Glynth (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting that. I'm hoping others will get in on this conversation as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The SPLC is an arm of the Democratic Party, is tied to LGBTQ activists, teachers unions (note its webpage comments about the Koch Brothers and rants about "school privatizations"), trial lawyers, etc. It is obsessed with sex and any standards that get in the way of sexual libertinism. The SPLC uses its influence and lists and lawyers the same way McCarthy did in the 1950s, but apparently far more effectively. Quis separabit? 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate

Since there seems to be a bit of an edit war going on regarding this, I believe the source the original editor was looking for was http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/10/16/hatewatch-headlines-101614/ wherein GamerGate is listed on a Hatewatch page. They aren't on the general page which keeps being cited as the source, but they have been mentioned by the SPLC. Tev (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Hate Watch page monitors recent hate-related events. While it's fair to mention somewhere, this article is a list of groups designated as hate groups by SPLC (which is made explicit in their Intelligence Report and visible at their hate map page). I'm at 3RR, but this shouldn't be added again. Note that this has nothing to do with particular allegiances regarding GG. If they were listed, I'd also be reverting someone trying to remove them. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Rhododendrites is correct in the distinction here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that they are not listed on http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee is not listed by the SPLC and citing Salon.com re stupid stuff he may have said doesn't make it so (see [10], [11], [12]). Quis separabit? 21:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Foreign groups with U.S. presence

Srich32977 - please be careful when removing links on the idea that the group listed is different from a foreign group. You've done this twice now, with Soldiers of Odin and then Golden Dawn. These groups are based abroad, but have a U.S. presence. See SPLC 2014 ("Greek Neo-Nazi Organization Continues to Spread in the U.S."); ADL 2013 ("Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn Party Expands Presence in U.S."); The Guardian 2013 ("Greece's neo-Nazi Golden Dawn goes global with political ambitions ... As part of its international push, Golden Dawn has also focused on the US"). Thanks. Neutrality^talk 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i45/45a01201.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114181938/http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/faq.asp to http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/faq.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609180542/http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/abc-clio/ to http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/abc-clio/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpr.org.uk/Reports/CS_Reports/no_3_2000/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Objectivity

Their is a lack of objectivity in the articles opening description because it fails to mention the political swing of the SPLC or any of the damage this list has caused. Wikipedia needs to strive to show the full story of information not just a closed view point of the left, Acedmia is already full of liberal thinkers killing free though let’s make Wikipedia the true source for unbiased information. History club 26 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have issues with a perceived bias by the SPLC, take it to the SPLC's page. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC has been brought up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard numerous times, and the results have always been that it is considered to be a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC isn’t a reliable source it’s has been used as a source for a shooting DC, and has named conservatives groups that dare to have different opinions then them hate groups. This was the case for the Family Research Council and it got shot up, and Steve Scalise the American Congressman who got shot practicing for a charity game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by History club 26 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It would seem that a majority of Wikipedia editors disagree with your assertion: see Reliable sources/Perennial sources. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Examples and black/white supremacy

This is regarding this revert

@GenerationCurrent2015: Hello. I do not dispute that the source supports the fact that SPLC recognized black supremacist groups have grown. My concern is the context set by contrasting this with the KKK. If the KKK is just one example, is it an example of white supremacist groups? If so, why are black supremacist groups also being mentioned? This risks editorializing, as it is using an editor's opinion to present this lone fact in a context which is not necessarily supported by the source. Further, what other hypothetical examples could be selected here?. If this specific set of examples is cited in the source as examples, I did not see it in the source, but this may just be my own oversight. Does this explain the problem? Grayfell (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

List of hate groups listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of hate groups. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the groups this outfit DO NOT label as "hategroups" would be shorter! I find this article very biased and I wish there was more BALANCE. Lets try to tell BOTH SIDES of the issue, not just the extreme left. A lot of people say the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group itself. --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:F933:9253:A205:B383 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)