Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV tag?

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: you added a POV tag to the article a few months ago, but unless I'm missing something, you didn't identify any POV problems. What's up? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Given this is Rms125a's most recent comment on this page, and presuming that's not intended as constructive criticism on the way the article is written, I'm going to remove the tag pending the opening of discussion here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed edits with Wikipedia articles

My edits were removed, even when they have articles about them (Volksfront and Resistance Records), and I'm sure the articles are filled with credible resources on being placed on SPLC's hate group listings. I want to mention there's a fundamentalist Christian movement Christian Exodus Movement wants to establish a "Nation state" by having all their members move to South Carolina. And Odium Books in Santa Barbara, CA is a publisher of white racist books. The National Association for the Advancement of White People qualifies as a hate group. And finally, the World Church of the Creator later became the Creativity Movement is still active. 2605:E000:FDCA:4200:CD97:D3B6:27B9:B21F (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed Volksfront, because I could not find any sources that state they have been designated a hate group. Each entry in this article should have a source that states that that specific group is a hate group. Having a Wikipedia article does not mean they are a hate group, nor is it a substitute for proper sourcing. See WP:CIRCULAR and WP:V.- MrX 12:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, the list comes from this page, which is, as far as I know, the limit to what we include here. In other words, though Resistance Records looks familiar such that I think it was listed, it is not now (for whatever reason). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed revamp

This talk page reflects an on-going concern about the encyclopedic nature of the listing. Also, the AfD discussion brought up last year indicated many of the problems apparent with the listing/article. Next, I note that some of the wikilinks go to non-hate-group articles or redirect to individuals (which may be WP:BLP-problematic). Lastly, I note that the listing has not been updated for the last 2 years [recently] and it doesn't provide info for earlier years. So...... I propose that we make it a straight listing of notable groups that have WP articles, organized by their particular classifications. We eliminate the year of listing sub-listings and simply give the year ranges in which SPLC published its opinion. It would look like this:

• Odd-ball groups:
  • XXX (2014–15)
  • YYY (2014)
• Alpha-bet soup groups:
  • ABCD (2015)
  • EFGH (2014–15)

I'm ready to do the heavy lifting. Comments (i.e., approvals) are welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)02:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)03:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The listing is one year out of date, not two. Usually, the report is issued in February or March for the subsequent year. So the Active Hate Groups in the United States in 2015 report was published on February 17, 2016, and the Active Hate Groups in the United States in 2014 report was published March 10, 2015. So it's does seem to be one year out of date - the 2016 annual report was released on February 16, 2016).

I'm fine with the idea of organizing by date range (this would be cleaner), but I would oppose eliminating mention of all the groups without Wikipedia articles. We can remove the redlinks if we think that certain groups would not be sufficiently notable to have their own article (I would agree with this), but removing the mention of the groups altogether would make our list incomplete for no real benefit to the reader. (There's also the question of selection bias - i.e., Wikipedia may have a lot of articles on notable hate groups in one class, but may be lacking articles on equally notable hate groups in another class; thus, I would be wary on eliminating mention of groups on the sole ground that they don't have their own Wikipedia article). Neutrality^talk 02:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

When you say "our list" you go beyond the basic purpose of WP. "We/WP" should be presenting a summary style recap of the primary source info. In this case it is SPLC's directory of "bad groups". The real benefit to interested readers comes about to those readers who consult SPLC's own listings. Indeed, the links provided in WP's articles will do just that, with no LISTORGANIZATION problems. Also, a limitation to wikilinked organizations will avoid WP:SPS problems. – S. Rich (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• So @Neutrality: with the revamp we now have ≈ 500 groups listed. The majority of these groups are not WP:NOTABLE (or even WP:NOTEWORTHY – except in the eyes of the SPLC). Well then, how is this listing valuable to the average reader? I.e., do they hear about a group and wonder if the SPLC has designated it as a hate group? Or do they search WP using the particular group name? (Clearly no.) More importantly, where does WP:BALANCE or WP:NPOV come in when we are restating/republishing the lists that SPLC has assembled? E.g., isn't it true that some of these groups have disputed the designation that SPLC has cast upon them? Well then, where are we presenting their views, which is vital to our WP:5P2? The only way we can remain true to our principles is to limit the list to those organizations which are notable, at which point more interested editors can speak up and insert the disputed view in the particular articles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

S. Rich: I agree that the majority are not independently notable by themselves; hate groups come and go, some are very small and marginal. But there's no requirement that groups be individually notable to be on included on a list. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists: "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." Here, the scope of the list is specifically definite — it's whether they've been designated by the SPLC.

As to objections from the groups, we deal with that at the top of the list: "Apart from the listed groups themselves, the SPLC's hate group listings have been criticized..." Moreover, the list attributes each statement specifically to the SPLC, including in the title of the list itself. Wikipedia is not labeling these groups as hate groups — the SPLC is. (That's why we have this instead of just a "list of hate groups" - because a listing on a page like that would make a statement in Wikipedia's own voice).` Neutrality^talk 04:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically we have a WP:PRIMARY source listing – groups designated by SPLC. Only ≈140 of the 500+ groups are noteworthy enough to have their own article. Also, a certain number of the notable "groups" are simply webpages, blogs, or individuals. So the remaining groups are astonishingly minor in significance; e.g., there is one such group per each 1,000,000 people in America. The gross number of groups designated is well set forth in the year-by-year tables that accompany each classification and those tables are proper WP:SUMMARYSTYLE data. When we simply re-hash or re-present the data that SPLC has provided we are not giving the reader anything valuable or useful. We can improve the article by narrowing the focus of the list to notable groups. (This is standard practice for most other lists such as notable residents of towns, alumni of schools, cemeteries, etc.) And by table-izing the list we can give proper balance to those particular groups that have objected to the designation by adding a notes column. – S. Rich (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) None of the groups, so far as I know, are merely webpages or blogs, see the top of SPLC's report ("Entities that appear to exist only in cyberspace are not included because they are likely to be individual Web publishers who likely to falsely portray themselves as powerful, organized groups").

(2) As to the primary concern - the SPLC's list has been discussed for many years as a set in the journalistic and scholarly sources Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists ("a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.").

(3) I would not object to adding a "notes" field or column if it contained a brief, full-context summary/overview of each group (which would, I imagine, contain date founded, region, leadership, a brief note on activities, and the group's reaction if any to being listed—I would object to a "notes" field solely to spotlight each group's objections). But I still don't favor removing all non-bluelinked on the basis of point (2), above. Neutrality^talk 20:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I hope we can revisit this questions. Perhaps via an RFC. In order to avoid WP:NOTLIST WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SPS and WP:CSC problems, I think we should limit the listing to notable groups. What would propose as the question for the RFC? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTLIST is a humor page. WP:SPS doesn't apply because (1) this page expressly attributes the content to the SPLC and in any case it is the kind of source that may be used ("established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"). WP:CSC presents no barrier for the reasons I explained above. But if you want to go to RfC, I would be happy to review the proposed question. I'm not sure what you have in mind. Neutrality^talk 23:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"RFC: Should the 'List of organizations designated by the SPLC as hate groups' include non-linked/non-notable organizations?" – S. Rich (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

An organization can have no link or article, yet be notable enough for an article - i.e., there are hate groups that are listed by the SPLC and meet the notability threshold but have no article yet. Are you getting at the following: "Should this list include only organizations that have their own Wikipedia articles?" Neutrality^talk 00:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The list has about 500 entries. Less than 150 have WP articles. But basically, yes. – S. Rich (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of this article? If I want to know what groups the SPLC lists as hate groups, I can go to their website. TFD (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems like the core question here is whether this page is the list of organizations designated by the SPLC as hate groups, or a list of [notable] organizations designated by the SPLC as hate groups. The former is a very uncommon type of list on Wikipedia, reproducing the content of a notable list. There are a few examples, like BFI Top 100 British films, APRA Top 100 New Zealand Songs of All Time, List of DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs, etc. but, again, they're rare. Notability of a list doesn't necessarily mean including the whole list, of course, and neither is inclusion of the list dependent on other publications reprinting the whole list. Once it's determined if we should include just notable organizations, the next question is whether citations are sufficient to show notability of a subject without an article or if they should have their own article (in practice, the former is pretty uncommon, but it's a possibility). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The BFI list is helpful because readers wanting to know about British films can follow the links to the best films made in the UK. Even though people may argue about the ordering, there is no doubt that the list includes the very best films made. I don't see this list as serving a similar purpose. Maybe we could just list the categories such as KKK and readers could go to them for the full listings. We could then include the responses of these groups there. TFD (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There are three factors that make the BFI, APRA, DJ lists useful to the readers. First is the fact that the lists themselves are notable. Second, the individual entries on the lists are notable. Third, these lists are limited to a reasonable number (100). With the SPLC lists, the number of entries goes on-and-on-and-on reaching several thousand organizations since 1981. Just the latest issue (2/17) of the Intel Rpt lists 917 organizations. My proposal to limit the listing to those organizations with actual WP articles (and excluding articles piped to individuals, etc.) is the only way to make the listing actually useful to the readers. – S. Rich (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC about proposed revamp (previous thread)

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 this listing of SPLC-designated hate groups include non-linked/non-notable organizations? – S. Rich (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No – as nominator, per the discussion above. – S. Rich (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - preserve status quo - per my extensive comments in the discussion above. Inclusion here violates no policy and is useful to the reader. It gives a sense of the relative number of groups listed by category; it is important for the sake of completeness; and it is not excessively lengthy. Moreover, there are at least a handful of cases in which an organization is notable, but does not have an article yet. Neutrality^talk 01:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes agree with User:Neutrality comment above Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• No For any organization to be listed in Wikipedia, they must show notability, so no, we're not going to shoe-horn in non-notable organization into a list. Further, we can't, per WP:LISTN, which states,
  Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group
  

That pretty much makes this RFC invalid, as as such , I move for it to be closed.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - A comprehensive listing creates appropriate context so that readers understand the extent and variety of these organizations. WP:LISTN is an article notability guideline and does not apply to the content of list articles. Decisions about whether to include non-notable entries in a list article are a matter of editorial discretion. There is no policy or guideline that precludes listing non-notable organizations anywhere on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Inclusion of non-notable organizations is useful and does not violate any policy or guideline. (Kosh's argument is a misunderstanding of WP:LISTN, which is about notability of lists as a whole, not about notability of the items in a list.) Removing them would be a disservice to our readers. It is true that sometimes we have lists of only notable things. This is generally done for practical reasons, e.g. inclusion of non-notable things would make the list unduly long and unwieldy, or identification of non-notable things is difficult or impossible. Those are not issues here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes -- I am primarily looking at two things: usefulness and readability. Because the article is so clearly organized, it remains readable. It is doubtless more useful, when more complete. As far as notability goes, the standard in WP:Notability#Stand-alone_lists reads "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." I interpret this to mean that the SPLC having included these groups in their list certifies that they are sufficiently notable for this list. Clean Copy^talk 08:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• No If the purpose of the article is to help readers navigate to an area of interest, in this case hate groups, it serves no purpose to have hundreds of non-notable organizations listed. If readers want to know more about these groups, then they should go to the SPLC website. Furthermore, this list has never been complete. And I don't like the idea of giving readers a sense of the number of groups. That's tendentious because it presents evidence expecting the reader to draw a conclusion, presumably that there are a lot of hate groups out there. But that's an opinion that needs to be sourced. And there is a wide difference among groups in terms of size and malevolence, that numbers of groups alone do not convey. TFD (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, more or less following the points made my Neutrality. This doesn't violate WP:LISTN, that's a misreading of that criteria, otherwise List of minor planets would be at risk. --joe decker^talk 03:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, but expand the criticism of the list portion of the article so there is a whole section about this matter. There are a lot more notable conservatives and conservative groups who disagree with the list and indicate that SPLC list is unfairly listing some groups as hate groups. The article also needs to express why some prominent conservatives disagree with some of the groups being on the list. Right now, it is a complete mystery to readers who do not take the time to read the footnotes which is probably the vast bulk of readers. And when the reader sees the very large size of the list, they might wonder if some of the groups were put on the list unfairly. I agree with the sentiment that the current list gives a sense of the relative number of groups listed by category. It is also helpful for the sake of completeness and more importantly because the article is broken down in sections and has some organizational structure to it, it is not excessively lengthy. desmay (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• No per TFD and WP:NOTDIR. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes If it can in any way, shape, or form be helpful to the reader, then in deserves to be included. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• No If there are multiple reliable sources that are undisputed- sure, but if not I don' think they merit inclusion. Otherwise everyone's racist uncle and his drinking buddies should be included. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@Neutrality: Actually the list does violate the three criteria of WP:CSC. If completeness is the goal, then thousands upon thousands of names would be added. The relative number of groups information is already presented in the tables. Helpfulness to the readers is accomplished by giving them the basic external link to the SPLC. Preserving status quo is not a helpful criteria because the SPLC list is dynamic year-by-year. The list is not currently excessively lengthy because efforts to add the hate-group designations from previous years/decades would be prodigious. (Along the same line, we would not confine the listing to those groups "currently" listed by the SPLC, would we?) Finally, concerns about yet-to-be-written articles about notable organizations are better addressed by the article creators; e.g., they should WP:WTAF. – S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: & @MrX: But listing DOES violate the WP:CSC guideline. 1. Every listing on the page is not a notable organization, so the listing fails in this criteria; 2. Not every listing on the page is non-notable, so this criteria does not apply; and 3. The listing does NOT meet the criteria of "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)...." (At this point the list is 85K, and it only includes 3 years worth of names.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In this case, allowing an exception to WP:CSC benefits the encyclopedia by preserving this important content. Many such exceptions are already in common practice across Wikipedia, for example in Category:Sports or Category:Television episodes.- MrX 23:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

S. Rich, technically we actually have 14 smaller lists that are and each less than 32K. Is it appropriate to apply WP:CSC's size limit based on an aggregate of all 14? I ask because I simply don't know. Personally I find this page not only useful but exceptionally well organized. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A question: would the article actually be improved by removing non-linked items? If so, how so? Clean Copy^talk 08:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My answer is yes. The reader would get WP:NOTEWORTHY information about notable organizations. As it stands it is merely a repeat of listings taken from some of the years (and decades) over which the SPLC has published the listings. Asking for an "exception" to the WP:CSC guideline is admitting that this article does not follow guidelines. The hodgepodge of Sports and TV episode listings are not relevant here. Why? Because those lists do not contain contentious or disputed material. In our case we see that many groups and commentators object to being lumped into the SPLC listing – they point out that they do not "hate", but simply have political or social positions that the SPLC disagrees with or finds distasteful. (And the objections come from both liberal and conservative commentators.) With these factors in mind, the policy of WP:BALANCE is violated because we simply repeat what the SPLC has already listed in their publications and on their website. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

To add one more point, related to Balance, this list is a WP:CONTENTFORK. That is, we already have Southern Poverty Law Center#Tracking of hate groups and extremists, which is the best place to add noteworthy information. The separate list basically avoids disagreement about listed groups (and people). – S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I take both of these points very seriously. If this is a duplicate article, it serves no purpose. If there are groups on this list who do not deserve a listing under hate groups, that is an egregious violation of balance. I would like to see responses to these points. Clean Copy^talk 22:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There a simple response to S. Rich's points. First, it may be "contentious or disputed" as to what is or isn't a hate group - but it's not "contentious or disputed" as to what the SPLC does rate as a hate group, and that's the scope of this article. That's an important distinction — and one made explicitly in the title and text of this article. This is just like List of designated terrorist groups — there are groups for which some people would disagree as to their classification as terrorist, but that doesn't matter - what matters is that they have been designated as such, and so we list them but clearly identify the designating party. As a result, there's no "balance" concern. To the extent that we should note the controversy, we can do so by adding a sentence or two to the lead section explaining that these designations are sometimes controversial and that some listed groups have vigorously contested the classification.

Second, as to "content fork": it's clearly related to the main SPLC article, but it's a proper spinoff, not a fork. For example, we have guerrilla warfare and List of guerrilla movements; we have both Italian Mafia and List of Italian Mafia crime families. Citing a few examples in the text of the main article does not make any list article a "fork." Neutrality^talk 23:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: @Joe Decker: Your comparisons do not apply. In the terrorist group, crime family, guerrilla movements, and minor planet lists the vast majority of the entities named have their own articles. In this article we have ~ 500 names listed. Only ~ 130 (26%) have articles of their own. Adding a generalize disclaimer that some groups dispute the listing is a sop; e.g., the whole dispute about SPLCs listing comes about because of two factors. 1. Groups dislike being described as "hate groups" simply because the SPLC says they are. 2. Various commentators (from both sides of the aisle) criticize the SPLC listings as a fund-raising tool. How does that criticism get incorporated into this listing? Again, we are acting as a shill for the SPLC by uncritically including every "group" they list without verification from third-party sources. – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It is simply not true that "the vast majority" of minor planets (mostly asteroids) "have their own articles." In fact, the vast majority of minor planets do not have their own articles but are nevertheless listed in the appropriate list article. (We have well over 500 separate lists for minor planets, see Category:Lists of minor planets by name (58 lists), Category:Lists of minor planets by number (489 lists)). Neutrality^talk 04:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the better analogy for you would be the Uppsala General Catalogue, which is in Category:Astronomical catalogues. (Also see: Minor Planet Center.) We know there is a listing, and it is an important one. But we do not have a list article which repeats every galaxy in the Catalogue. Also, the minor plant/asteroid lists are simply collections of numbers. – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I chose not to use UGC and similar catalogs in my example because of NASTRO, which suggests inherent notability for members of many catalogs, which would have undermined my point. In any case, there are many cases where we have long lists of items, whose list criteria are "all such items", not all of which are themselves notable. Minor planets aside (and I think my example holds, but whatever), it's (in my view) simply incorrect to suggest that those examples are outside of precedent or LISTN. --joe decker^talk 14:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean geez, you'd think y'all could actually read the relevant guideline. "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." -- LISTN (emphasis mine). --joe decker^talk 15:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC lists 937 hate groups[1] of which only 130 have their articles here. I submit that most of the remaining group lack notability and will never have articles; they don't even have their own SPLC articles. I think we should consider what we are trying to accomplish here. In my opinion, the value of the article is as a navigation device for readers. If they want to know more about Islamophobia for example, this article provides them will links to all the major groups set up for its promotion. Dedicated readers than then read every article. But scores of red-linked articles just slows them down. It is not valid to say it tells them how many groups there are when the section says or should say how many groups there are. I recognize that some editors want the list curtailed or deleted because of their view that the SPLC and its list are illegitimate, but that should not determine what we decide one way or the other. TFD (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A few comments:

• I don't think those of us who prefer full inclusion dispute that many of the groups are individually non-notable. I do think that the list serves purposes beyond simple navigation to existing articles, however. I can imagine a few other uses for a full list, largely related to understanding the character of the list as a whole, which is the notable subject of the article here.
• With respect to the "but there are non-notable items on the list?", please also read and understand my quote from WP:LISTN, above. LISTN doesn't require trimming here.
• For navigation, IMHO, navigation will largely be accomplished by in-browser search functions for most users. So I don't buy that the trimmed list is more usable. I do, however, believe that the list would arguably be improved by additional information in the list, particularly with respect to when an org was and wasn't included in the list. I do not, however, agree that the list needs to be trimmed to accomplish this. Other reasonable accommodations, made in other contexts, exist, including but not limited to splitting the list alphabetically, if WP:SIZE is considered an overriding issue.
• Pedantic: the non-notable ones are not redlinked. (Nor should they be.)

Hope this helps define the edges of where we differ. Best regards, --joe decker^talk 01:36, 10 May 2017 (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.

Removal of entries

Srich32977: I don't object to most of the de-linking that you've done to some entries, but I object to your outright removal of nine particular entries (on the ground that they were "a blog, not a group" or "a website, not a group" or "not actually a group"). I've restored these.

I don't object to the boldness but there is no dispute that these entries are in fact listed by the SPLC, as the citations show. Just because an entity is a blog, website, or publication doesn't mean that it isn't also a group. It borders on original research to pick-and-choose entities to omit on the basis that they are "not groups" - that seems basically arbitrary and based on one editor's perception of size or status. (Some of these removals are just baffling - like removing Stormfront or the Rense Radio Network; the latter page redirects to a article on the group's principal figure, Jeff Rense, and specifically mentions the SPLC's designation. If you honestly think that the redirect is inappropriate, try Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion). The same is true of the removal of the Florida Family Association on the basis that it's a one-man operation. That simply doesn't matter. It's still listed by the SPLC as a group (and is indeed a group, even if it's one guy), therefore we include it.

I am disturbed by the idea of individual editors making their own judgment about what's "truly" a group. That kind of subjective thing is exactly what we are trying to avoid. Neutrality^talk 19:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Alerting all the editors, irrespective of view, who commented in the above RfC: Seraphim System; KoshVorlon; MrX; DrFleischman, Clean Copy; The Four Deuces, Joe Decker. Omitting S. Rich since I've already pinged him above.

Per the source discussed here, page 142 of the source, second paragraph, the SPLC does exclude websites. But perhaps they've expanded their selection criteria since 2008, which makes their total number of hate group comparisons problematic. (If the SPLC has expanded its criteria, the readers ought to know when this occurred.) Moreover, the inclusion of websites in this WP-SPLC list, which "may actually be one person representing himself or herself as a group." demonstrates that SPLC itself is not a reliable source. That is, at one time they say "no websites" but at some other (yet to be determined) time they are including websites as "groups" or "organizations". – S. Rich (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

All of this is irrelevant. If the SPLC lists it as a hate group, we include it. If it doesn't, then we exclude it. We don't in do-it-yourself efforts to try to poke holes in the SPLC's listing, or to try to demonstrate inconsistency. Frankly, removing SPLC-listed groups from a list of SPLC-listed groups in a "gotcha" bid seems silly to me.

I should also add that it is pure speculation - and not well-founded speculation at that - to suggest that the SPLC has "expanded its criteria." Are you suggesting, for example, that Stormfront (one of the entries you removed) is "may actually be one person representing himself or herself as a group"? Keeping in mind that it has 268,000 registered users, and that its members have murdered almost 100 people over five years, I find it outlandish to suggest that it is somehow either "one guy representing himself as a group" or "merely a website and not a group." Neutrality^talk 00:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually your 'outlandish' finding goes to whether or not SPLC is RS. That is, the SPLC says it does not list websites as hate groups, but it then lists the West Palm Beach Chapter of the Stormfront website as a "group". Yes, Stormfront has lots of users/registered readers world-wide. (And, yes, the Stormfront webmasters are not people which most persons hold in the highest esteem.) But the SPLC conflates the number of registered users to the website to say Stormfront (as a website) is worthy of listing as a "hate group". In this case, "If the SPLC lists it as a hate group, we include it. If it doesn't, then we exclude it..." is not a valid editing rationale. That is, WP is "WP:NOTREPOSITORY" when it comes to re-publishing the SPLC's lists. Rather, I hope we, as WP editors, can look beyond the POV WP:CLAIM's of the SPLC and determine if they are verifiable. Once we take a critical look at the SPLC we might/should find ourselves less enamored of their listings. When we do so we will be less inclined to include every "hate group" in our listing. – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I understand that you don't have high regard for the SPLC, but that is neither here nor there. There's no dispute that the SPLC has designated these groups and this list is, as the title says, a "List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups." It is not appropriate to remove groups that the SPLC does list based on your own surmise that they are "not groups." That's not "critical thinking," that's original research. Now, I understand that you want to limit the scope of this list, and you're entitled to that view, but we have both already participated in the RfC and extensively commented above. You're repeating your same arguments here. Neutrality^talk 16:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I oppose delinking. Saying for example that the article about "Stormfront" says it's a blog while the SPLC says it does not list blogs is just wikilawyering. The SPLC article on Stormfront says "was the first major hate site on the Internet. Claiming more than 300,000 registered members as of May 2015."[2] So clearly the SPLC is writing about the subject of the article. TFD (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should re-title the article, and expand it. How about "List of entities named in the SPLC Intelligence Report"? That way we can include the group/websites, website/groups, actual groups with chapters and/or PO boxes and/or physical addresses, and individuals. As it stands now we are conflating our articles about websites and individuals with the "groups" that SPLC lists. That conflating is OR. (Also we might edit the website articles to clarify that the websites are "groups". Then the Stormfront article would say "SF is a group with a chapter in Florida that ....". And we'd use the SPLC listing as the citation.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

They call them groups, as in "hate groups" and it is OR for us to question that. Besides, if Stormfront has 300,000 members, they can be described as a group. TFD (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Stormfront does not have 300,000 actual members. They have Correction: It has 300,000 registered users. And very likely the SPLC is one of the "members", registered so that SPLC staff can have greater access to the content. Again, this supports my argument (above) that this list be best confined to WP:NOTABLE organizations. – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 00:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Disputed designations"

Noticed that Srich32977 added a few "Disputed designations" subsections. Most, if not all, of these groups would dispute the label "hate group", and a great deal of the coverage of the list (or, specifically, individual groups it includes) mentions something like "[the group] denies..." or "[group] issued a statement calling its inclusion in the list 'a load of political malarkey'". As this page is about the list, and not about the SPLC or the individual organizations, it seems like a bad idea to include section-level "disputed designations". There is a section for the subject at the Southern Poverty Law Center article. It seems like either the sections here should be removed or in some way collected to form a similar section here -- not for responses, but for listings which have been broadly controversial, with a relatively high bar for inclusion (multiple high quality sources). Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

For the vast, vast majority of listed groups there will be no disputes about the designations. But for those who do, the very fact that they are included in the list is disagreeable (and perhaps unfair) to them. Hence the attempt to WP:BALANCE the article with reliably sourced information. To omit the disputations would perpetuate the fact that this article (at present) is a WP:PROMOTIONAL directory for the SPLC. (Paring down the listing to Notable groups (as suggested above) would enhance its value to the reader, who already have the info available directly from the SPLC reports.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites that section-level "disputed designations" are a bad idea. I've OK with explicitly naming the more prominent organizations that have disputed this level, but not in individual sections. I've moved up this content (to the lead section — arguably making it more visible than it is now). Note that the lead section already notes that some of the listed groups object, so this is a logical extension. Specific reasons why "disputed designations" sections are not a good idea:

1. As Rhododendrites said, this is a list, and not about the SPLC or the individual organizations. Details about objections can go in the appropriate organization article or in the main SPLC article as appropriate.
2. The mention of specific groups may imply that other groups don't object to the hate-group designation, which is not correct. The FRC and CIS are not the only groups to disclaim the label.
3. These sub-sections break-up the flow of the article, even if excluded from the table of contents.

--Neutrality^talk 23:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So then, this list is purely about the SPLC list? And it is not about the individual organizations? Well, then, this article had best be titled "List of Organizations Designated by the SPLC and Wikipedia as ...". My point from previous discussions (above) is reinforced. E.g., the list is simply an expanded version of the Intelligence Report listings and not encyclopedic. Also, lumping the disputed designations at the lede conflicts with the purposes of the lede, with is to summarize the contents of the main article. Hence the disputers get short shrift for their legitimate complaint of actually being on the SPLC–WP list. The TOC flow of the article can be improved by simply giving the disputed claims a bold title "subheading" rather than actual sub-sub-heading markups.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

S.Rich:

(1) As to your views on the list itself ("promotional" and "not encyclopedic"): you're entitled to your views of course, but it is repetitive here. You've already made the same points in the two sections immediately above. As I said, it is not sensible to repeat ourselves endlessly.

(2) This is an overview list in that we don't mention founders, lead figures, years of founding, individual chapters, etc. If we want to change that, we should open a broader discussion on the point.

(3) I'm not sure I understand your point about what the list "best be titled."

(4) Obviously it's a judgment call, but I don't think we give objections "short shrift" by prominently including them the lead section. By my count, 3 of the 11 sentences in the lead section (fully 27%) are devoted toward noting the objections and objectors.

Neutrality^talk 00:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarify "bold title" – like this

I appreciate having the disputants getting some space. It is a step towards Balance. But what happens when more disputants are sourced? "Best be titled" is a mildly sarcastic remark about what this list has become. – S. Rich (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate having the disputants getting some space. It is a step towards Balance. -- this seems to highlight a point of contention that I think is ill-founded. This is a list of organizations designated by the SPLC as hate groups. The list itself is not one "side" such that another side must be presented for balance. It may make for a more encyclopedic list to include commentary, background, responses, criticism, praise, changes, etc. ... but not in the name of balance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119052722/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Christian_Identity.asp?xpicked=4&item=Christian_ID to http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Christian_Identity.asp?xpicked=4&item=Christian_ID
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604020743/http://www.adl.org/holocaust/theory.asp to http://www.adl.org/holocaust/theory.asp

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) 16:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

SPLC

WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is the SPLC a 'hate group'? Is truth hate? Is it acceptable to say that people turned other people into lamshades and soap (etc, etc) but hateful to demonstrate that they did not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.69 (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Map is definitely out of place

Even if this article should be here (which I maintain it should not), the map is certainly inappropriate. As it stands, it is extremely uninformative and grossly misleading, without a LOT more data accompanying it. But it would seem, to the less than critical reader, to provide interesting information. The darker the color on a state--the more rampant is "hate" in that state. "Ooooo! Don't ever want to go to THAT state!"

Here's why it's uninformative at best, and grossly misleading at worst. Two hypothetical states might each, arguably, have one hate group. One state has a population of half a million; the other has a population of 10 million. Suddenly, the state with half a million looks so much more evil than the other.

Furthermore, what if the single group in each of those states happens to be just a separate chapter of the same group--a group that sets up a chapter in every state? The chapter in any given state might consist solely of that chapter's chairperson. But suddenly, this state has a "hate group." And for the state has only half a million people, that works out to two "hate groups" per million. Shocking, compared to that forward-looking state with only one group per 10 million!

I have a very concrete reason for this concern. Apparently, the SPLC put out some sort of list of communities that they decided were hotbeds of hate. They included one of the Amana colonies in Iowa (which I recently visited--lovely places). The reason? Two known white supremacists were seen meeting for coffee in a coffee shop there. So the community is to be tarred and feathered.

If a community is now obligated to oust people who are breaking no laws, but who happen to think the wrong (according to whom?) way--and bar them even from sitting down to coffee together, we are falling into the grand old tradition of the Nazis in Germany or the Stalinists of the USSR. Then we have to ask ourselves, who are the real haters.Uporządnicki (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The "number of x per x population" compares density. It is a very well established metric for comparing something in unequal populations. It is impossible to make a direct comparison between, say, California and North Dakota, not when one state has less population that individual cities in the other state. So one uses a standardized metric, such as "per capita" or "per x population." So the map in question shows exactly what it is intended to show: that hate groups are more common in some states than in others. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Remove: It's actually pretty meaningless anyway, because it ignores numbers of members - Montana might have lots of little hate groups because of fragmentation, while Washington might have a lot higher percentage of the state's population belonging to a hate group. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Further comment: In any case, the title at the top is not neutral - it should be, as per the caption, something like "SPLC hate groups". This needs to be modified in the image itself, which is in Commons. I will remove it for the time being while the discussion is taking place". StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Fundamentalist Groups?

What about Islamic Fundamentalist Groups?--95.113.197.99 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC addresses hate groups in the United States. Currently, they have no US Islamic groups listed as hate groups. If you have suggestions, contact the SPLC and they will give your thoughts due consideration. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

There are several groups on this list that are outside the US such as Golden Dawn, Red Ice, and Soldiers of Odin, it beats me why there are no Islamic Fundamentalist groups, unless they count the Nation of Islam as their token Muslim group. Underneaththesun (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Should this article even be here

I'm sort of inclined to think that if this article is here, there should also be one listing anyone who happens to think that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group (and there are such). To say things a little more rationally, it seems to me that having this article sort of implies (without saying) a kind of authority--that if the Southern Poverty Law Center list it, then it probably is a hate group. And having this article/list is totally unnecessary. There's an article in Wikipedia on the Southern Poverty Law Center (and I don't deny that there should be one). If someone wants to see whom they've labeled, someone can simply go to their website. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not really how Wikipedia works. The SPLC is a respected and widely-cited expert source on the issue of hate groups, and thus its listings are generally notable because they appear frequently in reliable sources. Random people who happens to think that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group are not widely-cited expert sources on hate groups. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"That's not really how Wikipedia works. The SPLC is a respected and widely-cited expert source on the issue of hate groups" 0/10. Try harder. 108.41.8.142 (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not "random people," and that characterization shows a kind of judgmental coloring--an easy dismissal of the inconvenient. This is a very left-wing agenda'd organization, frequently cited by other left-wing agenda'd organizations and publications. "Respected" or not is the point of view of whoever is doing--or not doing--the respecting. And it amounts to them all rubber-stamping their imprimatur on each other--giving each other an air of semi-official authority to declare who is good and who is bad. By having this article, Wikipedia is reinforcing that, and that's NOT what Wikipedia should be about.
Again, sure! Have an article on the Southern Poverty Law Center. But leave the list to their website; presumably, one can go there and find it. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note above the two recent attempts at deleting the article through accepted processes; both overwhelmingly failed. A third attempt in such a short period of time would likely be speedily closed as disruptive. Of course, I can't stop you from trying, but at least you've had fair warning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah this definitely doesn't belong on Wikipedia unless they're just flat out trying to endorse whatever the SLPC considers a hate group. Pretty ridiculous but they have a website and lean left so it looks like they'll stay on here despite common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.213.196 (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not the SPLC is a reliable source, most of the information that it puts out is based on opinion not fact. Hate is an opinion word, calling a group of people a "hate group" or saying that something is hateful is subjective. The SPLC targets groups based on what they believe or advocate not on their actions. In any case the SPLC is a private organization and it is not the place of Wikipedia or its editors to either endorse or condemn the opinions or statements that it makes. I think it would probably be best to change this page to a category page (see H:CAT). Underneaththesun (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011040036/http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/music.asp to http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/music.asp

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) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't some token attempt be made to appear objective?

This article currently reads as a mere extension mouthpiece for what is just a private organization (the SPLC). The article reads as if the SPLC lists were compiled on stone tablets from God, delivered to the people by Moses, and thus unworthy of any type of critical examination.

In reality, the SPLC has had numerous contentious and public controversies related to people it has listed as purveyors of hate in the past (e.g., Harvard Professor, Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and what it took to remove their names (in many cases, litigation). Where is mention in this article of such controversies? In addition, there have been news stories looking into the massive net worth the SPLC has accrued from compiling its ever-expanding lists (over $300 million), as well as the obscene salaries many people within the SPLC draw. Where is mention of these stories/criticisms?

There have been news stories about how individual lives have been wrecked by being put on the SPLC list for the most picayune things, such that the SPLC lists have arguably taken on the power, on a national level, that McCarthy era Black Lists once wielded in Hollywood. Yet there is no mention or even whiff of such criticisms in the article.

SPLC hate lists are not remotely as objective as, say FBI crime statistics (which are themselves hardly unassailable). As it currently reads, this article's lack of even a slight twinge of a critical/journalistic voice stands as an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Bdmwiki (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We are not journalists. We are an encyclopedia. This article is about organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It is not our place to try to critique Southern Poverty Law Center. The article about the center itself does contain critiques by various sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir has put it perfectly. Editorializing is not our place. The relevant policy is over this way:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

If there are any reliable secondary sources criticizing the SPLC designations that are not present in the article, by all means, Bdmwiki, post them here so we can have a look at them. A Train^talk 18:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean creating a false equivalency between this authoritative source and the groups they describe as hate groups. Note that their description of hate speech is equivalent to what would be illegal in most countries. (See yeah it would be equivalent to crime stats.) TFD (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The existence of this article, as a breakout from the SPLC article, and without even lip service to gobs of related controversy that has made the news, is itself an act of aggressive editorializing (that has no place in an Encyclopedia). We should be just as opposed to seeing a decontextualized article entitled, "List of organizations designated by Pamela Geller as hate groups," where the author took the innocent position, "Hey, this article is simply doing what its title describes. Oh, and sourced news/criticisms about Geller are in her primary article, so what's the problem?" As to the last reply (and others of same type) that SPLC lists are objective crime stats, I already addressed their word-of-God position in my opening sentence about stone tablets (may be your opinion, but again, no place in an Encyclopedia).Bdmwiki (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Care to supply us with any examples of the "gobs of controversy"? You seem to be taking it as a fait accompli that the article can't be improved. On the contrary: every article can be improved. But you have yet to take any concrete steps that would lead to the article being edited; you're just shouting. A Train^talk 20:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bdmwiki: allow me to officially welcome you back from your hiatus. As for the comparison with Geller, if she ever became as notable, prominent, and authoritative a the SPLC, then I'd think we'd have a spin off list for her too. Until that day, we don't. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Geller was denied admission to the UK when Labor was in power. When the Conservatives took power she asked again for admission, it was refused. She took the government to court and lost, she appealed and lost again. So the view of the SPLC is how she is normally seen. TFD (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Thanks for welcoming me back, @EvergreenFir: Since your objectivity is clearly paramount wrt Wikipedia's behaving like an Encyclopedia, I know you will also welcome the following links, starting with the Britannica.com SPLC article, which has the integrity to note the exact concerns I've highlighted above:

"SPLC’s activities have long generated both widespread acclaim and ongoing political controversy. The organization has been accused of financial mismanagement, misleading fund-raising methods, and institutionalized racism. In addition it has been charged with exaggerating the threat of racism for purposes of fund-raising, of wrongfully applying the term hate group to legitimate organizations, and of promoting a left-wing “politically correct” agenda under the guise of civil rights."

That should be sufficient for you to begin your own objective inquiry, but in addition, below is a brief sampling of journalism/articles (some conservative-leaning, some liberal-leaning outlets, but all legitimate) to assist:

It seems clear to me, just as it did to the Britannica author, that controversy and criticism (with more than enough substance to be worth noting) surrounds SPLC. I would suggest adding a facsimile of the same Britannica quotation, to provide legitimately-rooted balance (i.e., not merely for the sake of balance sans substance) to this article.Bdmwiki (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Bdmwiki, your comments are interesting, but misplaced here. EvergreenFir already made the key point about this above. Let me put their point another way: if we write a list article, List of planets ruled illegal by the Flat Earth Society, for the purpose of appropriate article content it doesn't actually matter what kind of lunacy or bias the Flat Earth Society is involved with or how many critics have called them lunatics; it only matters whether they ruled the planet illegal or not. Otoh, at the article Flat Earth Society, all the criticisms would be highly relevant. See the difference?

So, it's not that your comments are right or wrong, it's just that they're in the wrong place. I suggest you consider raising your comments at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center instead. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Update needed?

Just noticed that some of the organisations listed aren't in the source cited. For instance First Baptist Church and Ministry and First Century Christian Ministries aren't in the source. Have they been removed? Is the link outdated? I think you would need to be pretty sure of your sources if you're going to include an organisation here. Tigerboy1966  08:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Tigerboy, we don't need to be sure. This is Wikipedia! --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:F933:9253:A205:B383 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Move criticism out of "Historical trends"

I suggest that the paragraph on criticism and lawsuits be moved out of "Historical trends", where it makes little sense, to the end of the lead—or, alternately, to a new section immediately following the lead. I imagine it would also make sense to have a link to this Wiki article. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Concerns raised that, although more concise, it would result in a WP:POVTITLE. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups → List of hate groups designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center
• List of symbols designated by the Anti-Defamation League as hate symbols → List of hate symbols designated by the Anti-Defamation League

– These titles are little concise than abbreviation. 122.2.10.69 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose These titles are not semantically equivalent. The current titles are clear that these are organizations/symbols which have been designated by the SPLC or ADL as being hate groups/hate symbols, i.e. the title itself makes no judgment about whether those organizations/symbols are "hate groups/hate symbols" or not. The suggested replacement titles assume that they are hate groups/hate symbols, and are listed together because they have been designated by the SPLC or the ADL. That's not the same thing. If a change is needed, "List of SPLC-designated hate groups" and "List of ADL-designated hate symbols" would be better, although I'd prefer no change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Although I liked the shortened version on first glance, I agree with Beyond My Ken. The change in title would be stating that these are hate groups/symbols rather than simply groups or symbols that have been designated that way. It's longer, unfortunately, but it is clearer. - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2020 (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.