Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Archives for this talk page:

Casting way too wide?[edit]

Why just these few token groups, and why are so many other obvious ones missing? One searches in vain for any of Pat Robertson's groups, Liberty University and anything else associated with the Falwells, the Scottsdale, AZ Spiritual Freedom Church, Bob Jones University, Sword of the Lord, or any of the big megachurches, but they are nowhere to be found. —

If they are hate groups, then pretty much every group of people is. The ones listed are kinda stupid,but harmless.-Maeve (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia[edit]

No mention of the Aayan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz controversy? ^{— Unsigned, by: 184.68.61.66 / talk / contribs}

There should be mention of it, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Financial Criticism[edit]

There is no mention of the accusation by several sources that the splc (a non profit organization) has transferred millions to offshore bank accounts and are paying their high ranking staff six figure salaries. This has been written about by freebeacon, Washington Times, Daily caller, the new American,Daily Wire, Catholicism.org, the Federalist, and Breitbart amongst other sources. --101.181.57.232 (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There should be a mention of it in the article. What are your thoughts? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

These are all wingnut sources (not merely right-leaning, but actually cranks) except the Washington Times, which is repeating one of the wingnut sources by name - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

How are they "wing nut" sources? And even if they were such sources, that does not make them wrong in his regard. Do you have any sources that cast doubt or refute the aforementioned articles? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No further responses? Than I shall institute the edit. --101.181.57.232 (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

These sources all lean very far to the right and have problems with factual accuracy. Find one centrist or leftist source supporting this. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@David Gerard The Washington Times is a wingnut source, I think you're confusing it with Washington Post. --It's-a me, 🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 20:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the constructive criticism, I've gone and used several forms to show their suspicious financial transactions, and also the SPLC's tax forms to show that the president and chief executive officer of the SPLC received over $300,000 for his work. Quite a lot for a nonprofit organization, yes? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments to LeftyGreenMario[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You were told to look for less wingnut sources (Brietbart, Washington Times, The Federalist), but you went ahead and added them anyway. Our comments weren't really addressed. --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 01:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I did use "non-wingnut" sources. I used several forms from the SPLC itself. The SPLC's Form 8865, which is Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships, Form 926, a Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation, Form 990-T, its business income tax return, UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM D Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities, which shows that the SPLC sent $2,200,000 to an entity incorporated in Canana Bay, Cayman Islands, and this which shows that Richard Cohen, president and chief executive officer of the SPLC, was given $346,218 in base compensation in 2015, its tax forms show. Cohen received $20,000 more in other reportable compensation and non-taxable benefits. Morris Dees, SPLC's chief trial counsel, received a salary of $329,560 with $42,000 in additional reportable compensation and non-taxable benefits.

I did also include the links from before stating that the SPLC has been criticized for transferring millions offshore and paying their high ranking staff six figure salaries, though I did include the word "wingnut".

Your comments were addressed. Did you not bother to properly read through my edit and peruse the citations listed? Will you revert your edit then? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, those forms don't exactly mean anything unless you get a source to compile all of this and come to a conclusion? It's where journalism comes into play, and you shouldn't cite those articles we mentioned since they usually put a spin on things. --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 19:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The forms do show high salaries for top SPLC execs and lawyers. This should be included -- but not as a major section (as you had before). Why? Because a lot of charities perform much worse, and yet we still focus on their work more than their ineptitude/corruption/inefficiency/bureaucracy/etc. I suggest you also lookup the Charity Navigator and GuideStar (etc.) ratings for the SPLC as well, to give comparisons to other orgs. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because the SPLC is on "our side" doesn't mean they aren't beyond criticism. Anyways, how should we include these forms? Minor sction, or just as a paragraph in "Criticism?" RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

How much worse are we speaking, and should SPLC be an example of charity to follow or not? I just know SPLC is pretty transparent in what they do and in their Wikipedia page, their score by the third party ratings are usually pretty high. I don't know much else beyond this. --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 22:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The "much worse charities" thing kind of reeks of Not as bad as to me. If the BoN has reliable sources, then his/her edits should be included. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the freebeacon is a politically biased website or not, this article of its on the SPLC is well-researched in its criticism of the SPLC, using sources such as this, this, this, and this in it, and so should be included in the article. And saying a source is not valid because it is perceived as "wingnut" is insufficient. --101.181.57.232 (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Like you said mario, "those forms don't exactly mean anything unless you get a source to compile all of this and come to a conclusion". I did get a source to compile all of this and come to a conclusion, though it is not a source that you are particularly fond of. --101.181.57.232 (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm not fond of the source, but I'm skeptical of it mainly because I suspect spinning and all I request is for some unspinning to check if freebeacon is a good source. It doesn't help that the author of the freebeacon article, Joe Schoffstall, wrote for Media Research Center. --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 08:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What about something along the lines of, "The southern poverty law center has been criticized by the Free Beacon (and other sites) of transferring millions to offshore bank accounts and paying their high ranking staff six figure salaries" with citations from the free beacon and the splc center sources and a few other sources? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

And also "Richard Cohen, president and chief executive officer of the SPLC, was given $346,218 in base compensation in 2015, its tax forms show. Cohen received $20,000 more in other reportable compensation and non-taxable benefits. Morris Dees, SPLC's chief trial counsel, received a salary of $329,560 with $42,000 in additional reportable compensation and non-taxable benefits." with citation --101.181.57.232 (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What about "no, this is actually just stupid, go away"? - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

How is this stupid? Sources state that the SPLC have sent millions to offshore bank accounts and that the SPLC (a non profit organisation) have been paying high ranking staff six figures. Do you have any sources that cast doubt on this claim or refute it? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If you can find non-wingnuts who care, maybe it's not stupid. You've had weeks so far ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources the Free Beacon article uses are not wingnut. They are from the SPLC itself. Have you even read it? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Despite what David Gerard said, I still think we should add that wingnuts have seized on the sources to try to discredit SPLC but I'm not sure what the response to that should be aside from simply rejecting the sources because they're "wingnut". Again, can anyone interpret those forms? I know I can't which is why I'm not going to try. No one is being really helpful so far. --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 03:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you put something in the article then mario? I assume if I do it my edit will be reverted again. --101.181.57.232 (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't know where to look. Just searching and ducking "SPLC" in "news" doesn't give me relevant results outside of wingnuts. --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 21:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not write that the Free Beacon has an article using SPLC documents that says so and so? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we can write something like that along the line, just saying "free beacon and right wingnuts have blah blah blah". --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 02:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I think even that is paying it more attention than it warrants - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added in the Free Beacon criticism section per talk page. --101.181.118.62 (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(IP address has changed btw) --101.181.118.62 (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I've looked into the issue on my own. Sources that are paying the most attention seem to be of the right-wing variety, but the IP is correct that this in of itself does not discredit the content. A piece in the Weekly Standard ([1]) includes more context and input from the SPLC's financial advisory firm, Cambridge Associates:

“”Cambridge Associates has served as investment advisor to the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2008. In that role, we are committed to recommending investment strategies and vehicles that we believe will help the organization fulfill its mission and meet its fiscal objectives over the long term. The approach involves having a portion of the organization's endowment invested in funds that are registered outside of the United States—a practice consistent and in line with investments made by many nonprofits, including foundations, universities and other highly regarded and influential charitable organizations

Cambridge Associates is indeed reputable ([2]), much more so than the small consultancy quoted in the Washington Times, etc. ([3]). Also, it seems somewhat odd that Ms Casil of Pacific Human Capital would be so against the practice (see [4] for quote) when it is something widely done and openly facilitated by an industry leader like Cambridge Associates. Given that it is generally in-line for non-profits to invest abroad, why is it an issue for SPLC to do so? --(KingWill473 (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC))

Thank you very much, and that's what I've been wanting, a more neutral source. I haven't entirely tried to dismiss the right-wing sources but I just wanted a clearer picture of the thing and to check if there are any strings attached (if that's the right word) to the stories they're selling. --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 18:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. The Weekly Standard itself isn't entirely neutral either but it is at least not as comically partisan or unreliable as Breitbart or the Daily Caller.--(KingWill473 (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC))

Here are some articles detailing the investment strategy:

--(KingWill473 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC))

"Although SPLC president Cohen's asserts that the group’s practice is “common,” at least one other large civil rights organization completely eschews the practice. The American Civil Liberties Union and related ACLU Foundation have combined assets of more than $250 million, but both 990s filed by the groups answer "no" to a question about "aggregate foreign investments valued at $100,000 or more." Another civil rights group, the Human Rights Campaign, similarly avoids foreign investments, though the organization’s assets total only about $9 million." per the weekly standard source used in the article before my edit. --101.181.58.119 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is what the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign do with their financial assets relevant? Given that this is a common investment tool used by non-profits, I can also name some virtuous non-profits that engage in offshore investing (e.g. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore mentioned in the Baltimore Sun article). What an organization legally does with their funds is simply a matter of choice and does not necessarily imply unethical behavior like these conservative commentators insinuated--KingWill473 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, copy/pasting the article directly isn't the best way to go about this-KingWill473 (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Does The SPLC have a Bias?[edit]

So The Southern Poverty Law Center Has severe biases. The two most prominent ones are it's treatment of black lives matter, and Antifa. Let's start with BLM. It claims on it's website that "these critics fundamentally misunderstand the nature of hate groups and the BLM movement" In reality it is quite clear that they have a political agenda with regards to their choice. They claim that a movement as large as BLM is "Too weak and decentralized to pose a threat to people, yet said movement has led to the death of at least 6 people. Further they list White Lives Matter at a hate group. A group less than a THIRD the size of BLM and which has never killed anyone. The Southern Poverty Law Center had claimed that a hate group is only a group that targets people based on an immutable characteristic thereby implying that a career is not worth equal protection.

This is even more ridiculous when it comes to the topic of Antifa, which is an even bigger group which has caused more violence and especially with the "Counter" Protest of the Unite the right, they specifically targeted White people.

This is the core problem with The Southern Poverty. Redefine words just so that groups that are violent and hateful don't get the label or their criticism. What enforces this is this idea that they're above criticism. Especially in regards to their treatment of people like Laird Wilcox, a person who shares their views, but is simply more moderate, slandering him as a dishonest reporterTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

No. --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 17:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"The death of at least 6 people" is a hell of a claim. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes female luigi, and I was referring to the police shot by the guy inspired by BLMTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

You mean the guy who left BLM? The guy who called BLM too pacifistic? That guy? The guy that BLM condemned in no uncertain terms? That guy? The one who also shot at BLM protestors? That guy? Hmm... Pesky things those facts. Why not ignore them and make up whatever narrative you want? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

He was inspired by BLM just ignore that. It fits your white guilt narrative that BLM does no wrongTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

DegenerateTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Employee allegations of mistreatment[edit]

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-splc-morris-dees-20190314-story.html

Morris Dees cofounder gets fired and there's some strife in the organization on how employment is handled; black attorney complained about not having enough black people. I don't know if this is really news, as complaints about lack of diversity and questionable fundraising have been a thing for this organization for a while, but it's worth including as I don't follow SPLC shenanigans and this article didn't inform me about that. --It's-a me, 🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 18:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)