Talk:Center for Immigration Studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The SPLC and IRC claims 2 Request for comment 3 Shameless POV pushing by CIS 4 Sources 5 non-notability of right-web

[edit] The SPLC and IRC claims

Neither the SPLC nor IRC provide evidence of their claim. As such, it must be identified as a claim, not proof of that claim. To identify it as a claim is not an ad hominem.Psychohistorian 20:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then say it is "claimed", but don't attack the claimants. This article isn't about them. -Will Beback 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you see calling a group "liberal activists" to be an attack on them? I'm trying to figure out how you think I attacked them.Psychohistorian 21:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What purpose does that description of the groups serve? -Will Beback 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When evaluating an attack on a group (and associating a group like CIS with radicals like FAIR is an attack), it is usually worthwhile to identify the attacker.Psychohistorian 21:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

According to whom is FAIR radical? You seem to be bringing in a lot of judgements. I don't see that listing CIS's history is an attack. -Will Beback 21:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You should be aware that the SPLC article that you referenced in the article claims or, to be generous, insinuates very strongly that FAIR is in bed with Neo-Nazis. By then linking CIS with FAIR, they are seeking to damn CIS by association. The SPLC article is an attack piece plain and simple and it provides no source for any of its claims for CIS.Psychohistorian 16:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't require that our sources provide sources. -Will Beback 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We require that our sources be reliable. An unsourced claim by a left wing political activist group who has been accused by other, third party, sources of working to overinflate the number of political racist groups is hardly a reliable source.Psychohistorian 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The SPLC is considered a relaible source under WP:RS. -Will Beback 23:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources are incredibly fuzzy and you can't say 100% that a site is reliable or not (with very few exceptions). However, considering the SPLC has a bias and that it has run into trouble before with the kind of misrepresentation that I think is going on here, it fails on at least two guidelines for determining reliable sources in the policy.Psychohistorian 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The SPLC is used as a relaible source in many articles. If you assert that a source is unreliable because it has been accused of bias by others then CIS and FAIR are not relaible sources either. Anyway, is there any dispute over their claim that CIS was founded by John Tanton as an offshoot of FAIR? If so we can include that viewpoint too. -Will Beback 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence given to prove or disprove their claim. If I posted on the page for Abraham Lincoln that he had come from Mars and posted as a source a web page written by the National Enquirer, it would meet the same standards as a reliable source that this claim by the SPLC is meeting.Psychohistorian 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The source for saying that CIS is nonpartisan is Time magazine's Special Investigation "Who left the door open?" dated Sept 12, 2004. I don't know how to reference it in the article, however.Psychohistorian 18:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Time Magazine list the source for calling CIS non-partisan? -Will Beback 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Two third party sources, Harper's Magazine and Montgomery Advertiser, have independently shown that the SPLC, though it claims to be about ending racism, practices insitutionalized racism. One of those investigations was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. That makes the SPLC unethical. They also (among other sources) showed that the SPLC, despite being a non-profit, is highly profit driven. That not only makes the SPLC unethical, it makes the SPLC money-grubbing. The SPLC provides no support for its claim written here. That claim is supports the SPLC's agenda. So, we have an unethical, money-grubbing organization making a statement which supports its agenda. Do you really want to make the claim that it is anywhere near the same level as a reliable source as a third party neutral source?Psychohistorian 20:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Time magazine is profit driven, even "money grubbing", as well, and also accused of bias. -Will Beback 20:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Time magazine is profit driven and not a not-for-profit. That's different from being a not-for-profit which is profit driven. As for being accused of bias, what third party neutral source has accussed it of bias? Name a Pulitzer Prize finalist level investigative piece which has shown Time magazine to be unethical.Psychohistorian 21:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So they're both profit driven, at least according to some sources. The desire for profit is not a component of WP:RS. I don't see that we're going to have a resolution between the two of us to this issue. If you like, we can file an RfC to invite other editors to add their input. But since the assertion isn't disputed by anyone I don't see the need. -Will Beback 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The issue isn't whether they are both profit driven. The issue is that the SPLC, by at least two independent neutral third party sources (one of which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize) is unethical and, despite being a not-for-profit, is profit driven. An unethical organization which makes an unsupported claim which supports its agenda is not a reliable source. As for an RfC, I think that would be a good idea.Psychohistorian 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethics are not really the point either. TIME/Warner AOL has done unethical things and lost many lawsuits, I'm sure. I've read numerous articles complaining about various aspects of that entity. The magazine itself was cited for shady dealing on subscriptions a while back. But that doesn't effect the quality of TIME's reporting. The point at hand is reliability. Has the SPLC proven significantly unreliable in their reporting? -Will Beback 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethics does factor in since the SPLC has a horse in the race regarding illegal immigration. Time Warner doesn't have a horse in the race on that issue. The fact that you've read of someone somewhere making some sort of ocmplaint about Time Warner really doesn't compare to two neutral third party sources doing an investigative journalistic article (one of which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize) discussing how the SPLC, which let's remember, has a horse in this race, is unethical. I recommend that anyone who wants to comment on the RfC read the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center first.Psychohistorian 23:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

<-- What "horse" does the SPLC have? Do they have an economic interest in illegal immigration? I've never heard before. It seems more likely that TIME/Warner would have a conflict there, due to its many businesses. The Advertiser article addressed the SPLC's fundraising, as I recall, not its reporting. All we're concerned about is the quality of their reporting. Anyway, the actuality of what they are reporting is not disputed, so I'm not sure why there is such resistance to using this source. -Will Beback 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the SPLC article? I suggest you read it so we have some baseline common unerstanding.Psychohistorian 00:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the horse the SPLC has in this, they were identified as "the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker of the civil rights movement" (that's a quote from Millard Farmer, the famous death penalty defense lawyer). They stir up fear, get millions of dollars in donations, and spend two-thirds of that money on "administrative expenses". For more on the SPLC's "horse" in stirring up fear and riding the donations to fight it all the way to the bank, the Harper's article is [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3e5cb925c4.htm here]Psychohistorian 01:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the SPLC reporting on CIS? Is CIS an anti-civil rights organization? FreeRepublic is hardly an unbiased source, why are you linking to them? -Will Beback 04:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a Harper's article at the FreeRepublic site. If it were FreeRepublic's own words, I wouldn't be linking to it. Please read the SPLC's article on Wikipedia. The SPLC accusses groups of being anti-civil rights so that it can artificially inflate "the threat" so as to get more money to fight it. If you read the SPLC's article on Wikipedia, you'll see that it shifted its focus from domestic racism to illegal immigration.Psychohistorian 11:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The information you're referring to comes from an article in the paleoconservative magazine Chronicles written by Kevin Michael Grace. Grace also writes for VDARE, a leading anti-immigration website that is far more extreme than the Free Republic site. If you don't think he's biased in this matter then that's indicative. Every group that the SPLC investigates tries to rebut the reporting by claiming that the SPLC is unethical. The neo-nazis and white nationalists hate the SPLC, and unfortunately many editors with those associations have edited the Wikipedia article. -Will Beback 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically what informaton are you referring to when you say it comes from Chronicles?Psychohistorian 23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming that it was your source for the SPLC's interest in immigration since that is the only mention of immigraiton in the article. -Will Beback 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The SPLC's interest in illegal immigration is clear enough by the simple fact that it has articles on the subject on its website.Psychohistorian 00:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In the message above you asserted that, "If you read the SPLC's article on Wikipedia, you'll see that it shifted its focus from domestic racism to illegal immigration." After I pointed out that the source of that assertion is an extremist magazine you now say that you believe it because of your own review of their website. Sorry if I don't find this pair of arguments to be convincing. The SPLC is a perfectly reliable source for this fact, despite what the neo-nazis, white nationalists, and other opponents may say. -Will Beback 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First you say that I'm the one saying it, then you say "despite what the neo-nazis, white nationalists, and other opponents may say". Why don't you just come right out and make your accusation directly?

It is objectively true that the SPLC has many articles on its site regarding illegal immigration. They wouldn't have them if they weren't interested in illegal immigration.Psychohistorian 11:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

• Should reporting from the Southern Poverty Law Center be acceptable as a source for Center for Immigration Studies? 23:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, isn't this about how the "reporting" (or claims) should be labelled not whether it's included or not? The RFC is supposed to be stated "briefly and neutrally". Please do so. JASpencer 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shameless POV pushing by CIS

CIS has shamelessly worded the article to push their POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.163.233 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

There is no source given for the statement that its director is Mark Krikorian. There is no source given for it having roots in FAIR. The SPLC is not a reliable source (a fact which has been amptly demonstrated by Harpers and the Montgomery Advisor. In the future, cooperate with other editors. Blindly reverting other editors work is non-productive and hostile. You should strive to work -with- other editors, not against them. That means that it would be more productive to discuss reverts you want to make in the discussion page before making them. -198.97.67.57 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The SPLC is indeed a reliable source, used for scores of Wikipedia articles. Whether or not they raise too much money is irrelevant. If you want to work with other editors I suggest you get a username, rather than using a variable IP which makes it hard to communicate or follow your edits. I don't recall you discussing this edit, and I don't see you seeking consensus. If you'd like to add some rebuttal from the CIS to the SPLC charges I think that would be appropriate. Deleting it entirely is inappropriate. As for the director, let's find a source for who runs the thing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not other articles use the SPLC as a source is irrelevant to whether or not the SPLC is a reliable source. Those other articles aren't perfect - that's why they are constantly being improved. I didn't discuss this edit because it didn't look like anyone was presently working on this article. Do you have some set of articles that you squat on to make sure they say exactly what -you- want them to say? I mean, I was surprised at just how quickly you came out of nowhere to blindly revert my edit. It was as if I had intruded on your private property or something.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The SPLC isn't the only source for the assertion that CIS was founded as an offshoot of FAIR. I've added additional sources to support that assertion as well as sources for the director and for the overall appraoch of the organization. As for pages that I watch, yes, I have 9,594 pages on my watchlist including this one. It isn't my proivate property but I do watch for users, especially anonymous users, who delete sourced info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You also, as in this case, blindly revert edits when unsourced content is pruned. Incidentally, the source you provided for the claim that CIS was an offshoot of FAIR doesn't say that. I'm sure that was an oversight on your part and I expect it will be corrected shortly. For now, I'll put a {fact} tag there and wait a week before removing it if a source isn't provided in the meantime.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This source, among others, seems to give clear support for the assertion.[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to conceed on the SPLC *if* you are willing to identify the source using the same standards you are trying to use on IIUS (I don't know why you are trying to use different standards in each case - the only difference I see is it depends on your politics - another word for that is "hypocritical", but if there's another reason, you should mention it). That means identifying the SPLC as "the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker of the civil rights movement" (with a source for that identification, of course). -75.179.153.110 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source. However since the assertions about this subject can be found in many sources there's no need to fight about it. If we wanted to use the most derogatory quotations about every group then some groups would be identified with epithets perhaps more negative than the one you mention. Rather, we should use the most common descriptions of groups found in reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you this once. Now I'm repeating myself. If you stopped treating Wikipedia as your private property and started working as a member of the community, maybe you wouldn't be acting so careless (I can only assume you're acting careless because you are stressed out and you are stressed out because you are treating over 9,000 artices as your personal property). Like I said, now I have to repeat myself. The reason I removed the statement in the topic sentence that CIS is connected to FAIR is that the source provided (labelled [2]) does -not- say that.

Wikipedia can only stand to benefit if people stop trying to guard over 9,000 articles from being worked on by others. -75.179.153.110 (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you just removed a source on the IIUS article on the grounds that it was, you claimed, an op-ed. The definition of an op-ed was subsequently provided and it was pointed out that the source does not meet the definition. However, the Salon article you've readded here as a reference for the statement that CIS is connected to FAIR -does- meet that definition. So, you removed one source on the grounds that, you claimed, it was an op-ed - you readded another reference that does meet the definition of an op-ed. I'm sure this was an accident on your part and not an attempt to enforce a double standard. I expect you'll fix it shortly. -75.179.153.110 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

^[1] is an opinion piece by a non-notable individual published on the website of an advocacy organization.

i'ts hard to follow your indendations. Why did you delete Salon.com? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You've already established in the IIUS article that you, Will, remove articles for being Op-Eds. While the Grayson article does not meet the definition of an Op-Ed, the Salon article does. Therefore, in line with your own practices, the Salon article was removed. To do otherwise would be a double standard. I'm sure you don't want to be guilty of upholding a double standard.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Salon can be considered a partisan source the same way that CIS is. It is a reliable source for c=facts. The CIS quotation you added is mostly opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is non-constructive and rude for you to be digging your feet in the sand here while giving only a small fraction of your mental capability to the issue. Focus, please. The definition for an Op-Ed doesn't have anything to do with partisansip, so whether Salon is partisan is irrelevant to whether or not the Salon reference is an Op-Ed.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you deleting it? What's your evidence that it is an op-ed piece? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] non-notability of right-web

Seeing as how Will has already established that he removes sources for non-notability and seeing as how this site is from a non-notable source (the author isn't listed and I can't even find a bio on the editor anywhere on the web, let alone one that highlights his notability, in line with Will's standards, this source is being removed for lack of notability. Incidentally, I remain puzzled as to why he'd remove one source on the grounds that it was an Op-Ed and then restore another source that he knew to be an Op-Ed. That looks like he's trying to exert a double standard, but (assuming good faith) I'm sure there's a legitimate reason-75.179.153.110 (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The issues are not comparable. In this case, we are asserting a simple fact - the founder of this organization. We are using reliable sources to do so. With the other article, an editor is seeking to add a long block quote of opinion published by an advocacy group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What we need here is an objective standard on which to base the claim of reliability of source. Instead of providing one, you've made the assumption that if it agrees with you, it must be a reliable source and if it doesn't agree with you, it must be an advocacy group. That is not how to write NPOV. Grayson's claim about "princely lifestyles" and Mexico's failure to invest in social welfare for its poor is fully supported by the sources which come before it regarding corruption and economic disparity. On the other hand, there is no neutral third party non-partisan corroboration for this Right-wing watch claim. Grayson is a notable source, whereas the writer of the Right-wing source is not even identified. The Right-wing source is clearly a partisan advocacy group no matter how much you wish to gloss over that fact.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The material about the founding of this group is sourced to several separate sources. Salon.com is a reliable source. So is the SPLC. The continued deletion of properly source, neutral material is disruptive. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already been through this, now you're just trying to get us going in circles. Salon is an Op-Ed. Your reinserting it establishes that you have no problem using double standards for articles, but if Op-Eds don't belong, then it should be removed. The SPLC is not a reliable source. The continued reinsertion of improperly sourced, POV material is disruptive. If you feel that this is incorrect, feel free to create an RfC.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that the Salon article is an Op-ed. It appears to be a piece of investigative journalism. Nor have you provided any evidence that the SPLC is not an unreliable source. Please do so before deleting them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)