Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Clearly a hotly-contested debate, but both the numbers (around two-thirds) and strength of arguments seem to be weighted in favour of deleting the category. The comments of Victor Chmara are probably the best argument put forward - "According to WP:Categorization, a category should represent an essential and defining characteristic of the topic so categorized. I don't see how the opinions of this particular organization could be such essential knowledge." Number57 15:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think a category like this certainly needs some discussion. It's an inherently POV category with a lot of questionable points from a real world standpoint, and from a Wikipedia standpoint I'm not sure if this is something we should be encouraging. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose deletion The SPLC is recognised by academics and others as a reliable source:
Note: There are certainly other categories that we consider reasonable even though they reflect the opinion of a single group - consider Category:Best Actress Academy Award winners, for example. One practical problem I'm running into with this particular category is that it is being applied in articles that do not list the supposed hate group listing, which creates WP:V problems. It is a category with negative overtones, and thus needs to be applied with care if it is to be used. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. If the category stays, I will make sure all articles have the SPLC listing with a source in the body of the article. LordFixit (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, only caught this now. I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the the categories you've listed, and I'm not versed enough in categories to really make a statement at this point except that I saw this one get added to a page I follow. I do, however, think there's a definite difference between a governmental designation and a designation by an advocacy organization. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thargor Orlando: In either case we have a group of people making a subjective judgement about another group of people. Both will of course use objective criteria as part of their assessment, but the uses by govts of the concept of terrorism are heavily value-laden. I do hope that we are not going go down the highly POV path of suggesting that the assessments of govts carry an objective truth unavailable to others. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:, you may be swaying me in the direction of looking into those categories as well, then. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV clearly states: "Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.". Categories do not contain citations. As such, categories cannot satisfy WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. aprock (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the article contains a cited claim by the SPLC that the group is a hate group, it is allowed. LordFixit (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note If this category stays, I will ensure that all articles listed in the category have the SPLC claim within the body of the article, with a citation. LordFixit (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It is a hugely noteworthy and academically verified group. As long as it is applied to groups that SPLC have explicitly designated as a hate group, then articles will not be incorrectly categorised as an organisation designated as such. It's also one of the references that come up most on Wikipedia when referring to a group as a potential hate group so it goes slightly beyond being POV. Furthermore, it isn't saying that these articles are hate groups, just that they are designated as such by the SPLC --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument suggests that you meant to "strong oppose", as in "oppose deleting it". If not, my apologies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless we're going to start creating oodles of other similar categories, such as 'states considered terroristic by Hamas' and 'organizations considered in violation of god's law by the westboro baptist church', etc. this is a terrible idea for a category because it is the opinion if one organization which has a very particular POV. This is best treated in the article itself but as a binary category it's not a good idea - I seriously doubt the SPLC does an annual review - can one be removed from the list or is the designation permanent? If you are a terrorist group per uS government this has specific impacts on your ability to receive international financing and limits movement across border of your people, but being called a hate group by SLPC results in... What exactly? It's just a label and one we'd best avoid in our category system, again unless we're willing to create a lot more of these even for orgs that we don't like and labels we disagree with.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the SPLC does do an annual review and in addition 'The FBI has partnered with the SPLC to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems'. So it does have genuine effects. The SPLC is considered a reliable academic source - the Westboro Baptist Church is not.LordFixit (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As a matter of fact, the SPLC does review their list of active US hate groups each year, as indicated at their hate map, although it may be more for checking that they are active rather than checking that haters still be hatin' (not that the American Nazi Party or Aryan Strikeforce are likely to change their stripes.) However, it is a separate question whether groups that fall off the current list should fall out of the category, or whether it should be worded "Organizations that have been designated", as it would seem to me that someone researching hate groups would want to include closed or evolved groups in their research (much as Jimmy Carter is still included in the category Presidents of the United States even though he's not one of the current presidents.) The SPLC branding is not minor or trivial; it is quite frequently included in mainstream coverage of the organizations that they tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - appears to be a legitimate and useful category. LordFixit makes a sound argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the reasons stated above; this is a respected organization--respected by all except the hate groups. Hmains (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete According to WP:Categorization, a category should represent an essential and defining characteristic of the topic so categorized. I don't see how the opinions of this particular organization could be such essential knowledge. The SPLC's hate group designations have no legal basis, and they are not subject to outside review, so they're arbitrary. Moreover, [c]ategorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate", so clearly this category is inappropriate.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Victor Chmara. There are already several more general characteristics which server this purpose. For example, Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights, Category:White supremacist groups in the United States, Category:Opposition to Islam in North America, etc. It's not clear at all how this category is useful beyond promoting the SLPC in particular. If multiple sources characterize an organization's essential aspects, then that aspect might be listed in the categories. The controversial views of on controversial organization are clearly undue, and do not merit a category. ::aprock (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. The SPLC is highly respected, regarded as a reliable academic source and works with the FBI. LordFixit (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The SPLC is partisan and highly controversial (see the article). This is a partisan classification by a privately run political organization. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2014 (UT
That is not true. The SPLC is highly respected, regarded as a reliable academic source and works with the FBI. LordFixit (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep The quote "categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate" is inappropriate here and taken out of context. That sentence is preceded by "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles." There should be no controversy whatsover about what articles are in this category as all should be referenced (and will be) to show that they are actually on the list. Editors can't decide that they should or should not be in this category based on anything else than the SPLC website. Membership of the list is an objective fact, which I don't think can be said for some of the categories mentioned above with approval. I think that applies to where a category is both controversial and where an article's addition to the category could be controversial. The fact that people don't like the SPLC shouldn't influence whether this category exists. WP:UNDUE doesn't apply here either. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating "categorization should be uncontroversial" with "categories should be uncontroversial". These are two different issues. As noted above, this is not an essential trait of the pages being labeled. As there are other more essential categories that apply, this category only serves to promote the SLPC, contrary to WP:PROMOTION. aprock (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it is clear there is no consensus in favour of deletion. Can you clarify how this category breaches WP:PROMOTION?LordFixit (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell, this category contravenes various promotional categories. Advocacy: SLPC is an advocacy organization and promoting their views advocates for them. Opinion: SLPC's opinion of an organization is only their own opinion, unless backed by other sources, in which case more general categories apply. Scandal Mongering: being a hate group is generally considered scandalous. It's not at all clear why you think the SLPC view should be highlighted over other views, or why the general categories that apply should not suffice. aprock (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Major concerns about the SPLC"s blatant political bias not to mention some of the consequences of their over-use of the hate tag. It's unfair for so many right wing groups to have this label on Wikipedia while the SPLC's clear biases allow equally hateful groups from the left to avoid the tag. I quote: "The SPLC is not just far from an ideal source because it’s an anti-hate activist group, but because it’s a leftist anti-hate activist group. They definitely don’t regularly say this (they do acknowledge themselves to be activists), but they eventually admitted as such to NR’s Charlie Cooke back in 2011. Not only does the SPLC have a liberal stance, they actually just do not consider or research leftist domestic-terror or hate groups (except those that are otherwise specifically racist, such as black nationalists). When Charlie asked them about whether, in light of a serious bomb plot uncovered at Occupy Cleveland, they were going to cover the Occupy movement, an SPLC rep told him, “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”[1].--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh, I'm sure an unnamed SPLC rep just coincidentally told a conservative paper exactly what it wanted to hear and never said anything similar to any reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shakehandsman, you are letting your own personal right-wing views get in the way. SPLC is not a left-wing group. You have failed to cite any policy, and you are relying on an anonymous 'source' which spoke to a right-wing magazine. The SPLC is a highly-respected and reliable academic source and works with the FBI. It didn't cover Occupy Cleveland because...guess what! It's not a hate group! It may be a terrorist group or have planned terrorist acts - but it is not a hate group. LordFixit (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a start I don't have any "personal right-wing views", its UNDUE and NPOV that are the concerns though i thought this was obvious. I'm not suggesting SPLC was so politicised way back when it was founded, coverage point to it as begin something that has developed and worsened over time. If the organisation is as neutral as people claim then where are all the left-wing hate groups? Where are the far-left groups, Islamists, extreme eco-groups, and radical transphobic feminists? As far as i can tell the SPLC only seems interested in very particular victims of "hate". I'm sure they'd easily miss a few of these groups and that would be fine, the concern is that they have missed pretty much all of them yet somehow had the resources and time to target what seem to be pretty innocuous Conservative groups.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find aprock's arguments "this is promotional" and "it can't be sourced" utterly ludicrous, and he's more or less admitted that this is not about policy but about personal views. Obiwankenobi's argument that we'd have to create comparable categories for the views of fringe groups also doesn't hold water because...surprise, they are fringe groups. SPLC is a source with the weight of expertise and trust behind it; even if its designations aren't wholly uncontroversial, whose are? Certainly not governments' designations of terrorist groups. Most of the opposition to SPLC hate group listings comes from hate groups and their supporters; the controversy is not nearly as large as some users like to claim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to suggest you strike your comments about my personal views. This is about policy and what constitutes a legitimate category. I don't think this is a legitimate category. I have not stated my personal views regarding the topic at hand here, but if you're really interested I'll point you to WP:ARBR&I where I had the misfortune to wade far too deep in this. Suffice it to say, using controversial groups like the SPLC, when there are better categories which can be developed from a broader set of sources, is a clear sign of someone attempting to insert their POV. I don't see this gross misuse of categories ending well. aprock (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. When you say "policy doesn't provide a reason to delete this, but it should," it's pretty clear that you're not arguing for policy-based deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that. I'll thank you for striking that comment. aprock (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know what they mean. You said 'If this category doesn't violate policy, then policy should be changed so that it does.' -pretty much the same thing. Don't waste time with word games. LordFixit (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is inherently POV. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what...so are many categories. The SPLC is recognised as a reliable, academic source and it works with the FBI. LordFixit (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give up yet? It's pretty clear there will never be a consensus to delete this category. The majority of those who are calling for its deletion are doing so for their own political agendas - ignoring the fact that the SPLC is widely respected and regarded as a reliable academic source. The SPLC also works closely with the FBI. It is shameful that so many editors are allowing their own radically right-wing political views to cloud this matter. LordFixit (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being rude may indicate that you are not discussing in good faith. I would suggest you strike your comment. aprock (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention you. However, I believe the editors calling for the deletion based on their right-wing views in defiance of policy are not acting in good faith. LordFixit (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not violate WP:NPOV because it does not endorse the listing - it simply states that an academically reliable source that works with the FBI has designated them as a hate group (subject to annual review). It's not different to Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights or Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT hate-crime legislation LordFixit (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Itis different. Opposing LGBT rights is a viewpoint, whatever you think of it. Simply Hate is not. Maybe you can change the category in something like: "Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC-FBI-cooperation." It would at least take away my main objection that no governmental body is involved. Otherwise, I think we can bring this dispute to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. If the experts over there believe a WP:POV is present, (and, more precisely, WP:UNDUE) we can see what needs to be done with this category. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, categorization guidance tells us "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." - I think this conversation is evidence of controversy.
There is plenty of controversy in the outside world about SLPC's designations. True, such controversy comes from the conservative side of the aisle, but that is only because SLPC has a tendency to ONLY register as hate groups those which are conservative vs leftist. See a recent analysis on this which disputes the so-called "objective" nature of SLPC's hate group list: [2]. Of course, this analysis was then blasted as partisan. It's a tendentious area.
Finally, as mentioned above, of course governments aren't free of bias (remember how this administration sent the IRS after the tea party?) - but the only other category we have of this type, Category:Organizations designated as terrorist has real legal implications.
Ultimately, this category is too problematic. We have deleted Category:Hate groups in the past, and this cat should be deleted as well, much better to keep a sourced list where disputes about inclusion or rebuttal from the groups in question can be captured vs a binary in/out category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not true to suggest that the SPLC only lists right-wing hate groups. It also lists Islamist and Black supremacist groups. LordFixit (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a matter of opinion, this category just presents the facts, and the facts are is that these groups that have been labled hate groups by the SPLC, the SPLC is an important organization organization, the fact it's a controversial organization is besides the point, I agree about Category:Hate groups, that was a POV category, but this is strictly about facts. Charles Essie (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can be right. However, it could easily be seen as a détour to get the Category:Hate groups in Wikipedia after all. I have asked the Neutral point of view-Noticeboard what the people over there think of it. If those specialists think the category is all right, I'll have to change my stance over here. I just hope that that discussion will not be poisoned by the lobbyists who already pushed their POV over here.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Victor Chmara. Charactzerizations by one single organization. Nope. One could try to make a WP:POINT by creating category 'organizations designated as anticonstitutional by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution' and see how much time it takes before such more official characterization gets eliminated. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LordFixit:, this is completely uncalled for, and I suggest you strike it. I don't think anyone would be justified in holding against you your membership in leftist organization X as reason for defending this category, and you are wrong to critize someone from calling for this category's deletion based on their own identification with a right-wing organization. You have continued to make personal attacks on people here and you should stop.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Go ahead and create it, Lokalkosmopolit - put your money where your mouth is and we'll see what happens. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a simple indisputable fact that the notable and widely respected SPLC has designated certain organizations as hate groups. There's nothing inherently POV about allowing readers to locate articles and navigate Wikipedia based on this fact. I could understand the arguments against if the category carried no attribution to SPLC but that is not the case. It's verifiable and it complies with NPOV via attribution. My only concern would be whether the designation qualifies as a "defining characteristic...that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having", but that question could in principal presumably be addressed by content in the article that relates to the SPLC designation, and whether it has been reported by secondary sources. I don't really follow the arguments based on the notion that governmental bodies have a special place as designators of labels, using terrorism as an analog. It's unclear why that would be the case. SPLC isn't any old organization when it comes to hate groups in the US. As for the terrorism analog, the reality in the case of the terrorism label is that it is Wikipedia editors rather than governments that have a special place as designators of unattributed labels for use in categorization e.g. Category:Palestinian terrorism, Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups, Category:Terrorism in Israel (and all of its subcats), and that's just a few examples of many instances where editors routinely assign these kind of unattributed labels in the voice of the encyclopedia for use in categorization. Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC actually appears to comply with policy and it's useful, unlike many, many categories. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This argument appears to rest heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFF instead of addressing the policy issues raised above. aprock (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. That comment is either dumb or dishonest, possibly both. Read what I wrote again, properly this time, and don't misrepresent what an editor has written again in any discussion based on how things appear to you. It addresses the 3 point decision procedure described by Wikipedia:Category#Articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument aprock above was ' If this category doesn't violate policy, then policy should be changed so that it does.' so you can hardly talk. LordFixit (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete as per User:Victor Chmara to quote him, "According to WP:Categorization, a category should represent an essential and defining characteristic of the topic so categorized. I don't see how the opinions of this particular organization could be such essential knowledge. The SPLC's hate group designations have no legal basis, and they are not subject to outside review, so they're arbitrary. Moreover, [c]ategorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate", so clearly this category is inappropriate" .-- Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is, at best, a series of "contentious claims" about individuals (many subject to BLP - I note that where individuals are listed in a subcategory, they are effectively in the primary category, and if they do not belong in the primary category, then the subcategory in itself does not belong in the main category) and groups ,using the sole criterion the opinion of a specific political group. This is not in any way akin to the "worst movie" lists which generally do not affect individuals, nor are such "awards" generally considered "contentious" per WP:BLP so that sort of position is not policy-based. The "FBI uses them so they must be usable here" has a major problem: The FBI does not list them as a resource because the SPLC is not under any Federal aegis. The FBI is free to use psychics as a "resource" (and does), but it is not an "official resource" at all. Heck, the FBI used Al Sharpton as a "confidential informant" but that does not make him a "reliable source" for Wikipedia <g>. So scratch the "FBI likes them" as not being valid nor policy-based. I find the comment Most of the opposition to SPLC hate group listings comes from hate groups and their supporters to be exceedingly argumentative, and improper in this discussion, and it is absolutely an improper argument and unfounded in any policy here. The majority of those who are calling for its deletion are doing so for their own political agendas also, to me, diminishes the value of such an editor's opinions about the policies involved at all. So we have attacks on other editors given as a reason(?) for keeping, and policies as a reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it proper to claim that the SPLC listings are controversial and improper to point out that they're...really not? Neither are about policy; is it that one conforms with your own views and one does not? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a stinker. It's not labeling individuals. Hence the name hate group. LordFixit (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider: People seem to be getting sidetracked. The points to consider are these:
The SPLC is recognised as a reliable source be academics and other:
As long as the article of each page listed in the category contains a cited claim by the SPLC that the group is a hate group, I cannot see how it violates WP:NPOV
We are not endorsing the listing. We are simply reporting on it.
As another editor stated above 'It's a simple indisputable fact that the notable and widely respected SPLC has designated certain organizations as hate groups. There's nothing inherently POV about allowing readers to locate articles and navigate Wikipedia based on this fact'
The issue is more that the SPLC, in simply designating something, is very controversial. It's one thing to report such a claim in an article, it's another entirely to consider it a defining point that needs to be categorized. Whether they've partnered with the FBI, whether they're referenced by some academics, none of that is relevant to whether it's a defining characteristic and whether we should be sorting articles based on that point. That so much of your claims rely on significantly partisan resources is a key point against it as well. Yes, we perhaps have a lot of bad categories based around terrorism designations as well. We should take a closer look at those, but the existence of those should have no bearing on whether this is a good idea regardless. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify how 'So many of my claims rely on significantly partisan resources'? LordFixit (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This paranoid attitude in the United States, that everything and everyone is politically partisan and cannot be trusted is so tiring. LordFixit (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much of your justification comes from claims made by Media Matters. Much like claims made by National Review Online should be considered in context, so too should this. Neutrality matters. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the claims on the Media Matters site are relying on a statement by the FBI, the FBI website and other credible sources. LordFixit (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The SPLC is considered by scholars an expert on hate groups. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the section Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Academic_assessment, and it does not support your claim. The relevant content looks to be: Rory McVeigh, the chair of the University of Notre Dame Sociology Department, wrote that "its outstanding reputation is well established, and the SPLC has been an excellent source of information for social scientists who study racist organizations.", which is a bit more narrow than hate groups. If you have other sources which indicate that it's hate group list is of high academic quality, they would be welcome, both here and in the article. aprock (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The SPLC is more of a racist hate group than some of the organizations on the list. The list is just name-calling by a political advocacy group. Roger (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Roger Schafly has a COI in relationship to the SPLC - he's been named there[3]. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete being designated a hate group by the SPLC has no real-world ramifications, being designated as a terrorist group by the US or EU, etc., has real world consequences such as giving them aid and money can land you in a *&%!-load of trouble, but giving money to the Westboro Baptist Church just costs you your donation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A fair portion of the above is, I'm afraid, off-base. E.g. "We are not endorsing the listing. We are simply reporting on it". Firstly, although categorization requires V, it is primarily for navigational, not educational, purposes; educational content should be presented in articles. Secondly, we are not reporters, though we might summarize reports for encyclopedic purpose (bearing in mind NOTNEWS etc.). The perceived worthiness (or otherwise) of the SPLC's views is not directly relevant: encyclopedic categorization is determined according to whether the potential members of the category have the defining characteristic(s) embodied by the category. For this category, look at reliable, secondary sources (mainstream press, for example) and assess whether they commonly refer to each organisation as having the characteristic (not just in reports relating to the SPLC). A useful check is if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining—merely being mentioned in the article is not generally sufficient. See CAT & OCAT for further details. Note that there is no guarantee that this will yield the complete list within the category; that, in itself, is fine: a category is not a list. If the number of qualifying items in the category is few, the category may not be appropriate (in which case perhaps consider a less-specific categorization). —Aquegg (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify First, problem with this being a category, since it is entirely a cross-posting on Wikipedia of (a) PRIMARY sources. The analogies to the Academy Awards, etc. are misplaced; those categories are, or could be based on extensive secondary sources, as required. Correct analogy would be something along the lines of "Candidates endorsed by [insert pundit]". Is this a defining characteristic of the Candidate, or the pundit - almost always of the pundit, and while it's usually a list of marginal WP:N, it allows putting on WP, without cluttering the Articlespace. A list might be a useful link on the SPLC article (though perhaps redundant, if the exact same information is also in a web link), but a category is not. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure why you think that the SPLC labeling could not be based on secondary sources; the SPLC labeling is frequently referred to in news coverage of the groups it has labeled "hate groups". (In fact, in my experience here, the bigger problem is that secondary sources sometimes claim that the SPLC has labeled something a "hate group" when it has merely turned some attention on them as, say, an "anti-gay group"... but that's no different than the fact that award nominees have occasionally been miscategorized as winners.) And Aquegg, the SPLC labeling is certainly mentioned in the lead of some articles here; whether it is appropriate may be subject to debate. I don't have a stance on whether this should be a category or not (I'm not even sure what people use categories for on a practical basis, besides being something for editors to argue about)' if a list is done, it should be limited to notable entries... i.e., all blue links. Otherwise, it is too large and unwieldy. --13:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Category#Overview -『The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.』I can't speak for other people, but that is exactly how I use categories. They are intended to be purely functional. They provide a simple method to navigate between articles that share a common attribute (of interest to the reader because they clicked on it) from a simple essentially content free/clutter free page. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The FBI "partners", "establishes rapport", "shares information", "addresses concerns", and "cooperates in solving problems" with hundreds of organizations besides the SPLC. There's nothing special about the SPLC's relationship to the FBI. Moreover, the FBI does NOT endorse the SPLC's (or anyone else's) hate group designations. This whole FBI business is an attempt to give undue official credence to the views of a private advocacy group like the SPLC.
As an example of how problematic this category is, let's look at the case of the Pioneer Fund, which is one of the articles on which User:LordFixit slapped the category. With a quick search, I found the following seven mentions of the Pioneer Fund in The New York Times during the last two decades: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. In none of these articles is the fund's status as an SPLC-designated hate group mentioned (the SPLC is not mentioned at all). I also looked at the references to the Pioneer Fund in Slate. In the five articles where it is mentioned ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), the SPLC does not come up once.
According to WP:Category, categories must represent essential and defining characteristics of the topics that they contain. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. As the SPLC's views of the Pioneer Fund are never discussed in reliable mainstream sources like The New York Times and Slate when they describe the fund, the category is hardly applicable. And this is in all likelihood a general problem, applying to most if not all of the organizations on the SPLC's list. It's very difficult to establish that this controversial categorization is an essential characteristic of any given group. The category functions as an advertisement for the SPLC's views, but does not serve its expected function as a navigation tool.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneer has been on the SPLC’s list at least since 2003[16], i.e., before many of the articles linked above were published. Considering that Pioneer was founded in the 1930s and has never changed its modus operandi, it may have been on the list since the 1980s when it was apparently first compiled. Then again, the SPLC appears to keep loosening its criteria for a hate group every year so as to expand the list, so perhaps Pioneer didn’t qualify at the outset.
As to the other groups, I don't think the NYT ”commonly and consistently” refers to the SPLC’s description of them, e.g., see [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. If the NYT or other reliable sources occasionally mention the SPLC’s view of an organization, that does not mean that the SPLC's view is an essential and defining characteristic of the organization.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But data about an instance and arguments over whether it is a member of a set don't tell you anything useful about the validity of the set itself as a category in the way that Wikipedia defines category. There may be instances where there is data that supports membership of the set according to policy and instances where the data is lacking, assuming of course that SPLC designations are not treated as inherently notable even without secondary source coverage. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Chmara has it right. WP:DEFINING is the key test here, as well as the fact that categories should not be controversial per policy - this is one of the reasons individual "racists" have been purged from Category:Racism and Anti-Jewish politicians was deleted by a landslide. These sorts of charaterizations are excellent material for a list and for dealing with in the context of an article, but they simply don't work as a category. If this one is kept, we would per NPOV be obliged to create and keep lots of other similar categories of "Organizations deemed X by entity Y" or "People considered Q by entity Z"- for example, Category:Organizations deemed ecoterrorists by the ADL[22]orCategory:Catholic organizations not in communion with the Catholic church, and pretty soon the vast majority of organizations would have tags imposed by their enemies. All of these make for lovely lists (and all those who say "this is useful", I say "A list is JUST as useful, if not more, so stop complaining!"), but as soon as we create a category we lose the ability to provide contextual information which is so essential in these cases.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Defining is one of the 3 tests, yes, but it's a test that can actually be carried out by looking at evidence in secondary sources. A fact is not controversial, it's just a fact. A category that contains attribution within its name is different from a category that does not and a category whose name describes an objective fact is different from a category whose name does not. A category name that includes attribution and is a statement of fact is about as well defined as a category can get, as well defined as Category:Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting winners. It's the who and what. The only thing missing is the when. If a category allows readers to navigate based on a fact, it works as a category because that is their function. We aren't obliged to create anything, but some categories along the lines of "Organizations deemed X by entity Y" would both comply with policy and be useful, and some already exist of course. Contextual information must be in the article or else the category can't be added (again assuming that SPLC designations are not treated as inherently notable even without secondary source coverage). I should add that I understand why there are concerns about categories like this, but I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with them from a policy perspective. Each case will be different depending on the context and the weight RS give to the organization's views, no matter whether it's a government or something else doing the labeling. We all know categories can be abused in creative ways, particularly when they are both poorly defined and use the voice of the encyclopedia without attribution (e.g. hate group). That's something everyone here can probably agree on, but well constrained categories are useful. People seem to forget that this is primarily about the readers and providing them with methods to access information. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That the category's inclusion criteria is well defined isn't the issue here. Being listed by the SPLC isn't (generally) WP:DEFINING of the organizations being categorized. DexDor (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right but you haven't indicated how you came to that conclusion. If you provide the evidence that led you to make that statement, the people who !voted to keep may change their vote. Also, "isn't (generally) WP:DEFINING" implies that there will be instances where it is defining. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is fairly straightforward. Could the organization exist if the SPLC didn't make note of it? If so, then how the SPLC views the organization isn't an essential or defining characteristic. aprock (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could Howard Hodgkin exist and produce work if he hadn't been awarded the Turner Prize ? Of course, and yet he is a member of the set Category:Turner Prize winners. What is "fairly straightforward" about that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The SPLC has become quite politicised and a de facto part of the Democratic Party coalition. While I once respected the group more than I currently do, I do not denigrate it entirely nor do I disagree with the groupings in question. But there is a subjective quality to this list, i.e. if the SPLC says it then it must be true. The articles for the groups in question, which have been referenced as hate groups by the SPLC, can be updated themselves to reflect this fact (it they have not been already; I suspect they have). Thus, the list is not essential to making the point. Quis separabit? 11:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP:POV is that they are 'a defacto part of the Democratic Party coalition'. Your opinion is not relevant to this discussion. Policies and guidelines are what counts. LordFixit (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as not defining. This is basically a weasel-worded category of hate groups, with the implication that the SPLC's judgement is definitive. Perhaps forty years ago this was true, but there is simply too much controversy around the edges to accept that POV today. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely negative category privileging one particular organization's view. StAnselm (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't making any points. LordFixit (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am; I made two. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:LordFixit has added template messages to the talk pages of a number of editors who voted delete, implying that the users in question were merely voting, and not providing arguments.[23][24] This is clearly false in my case, and it strikes me that this sort of templating is a form of negative canvassing. StAnselm (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That there were once, four years ago, a group of somewhat similar categories is hardly proof that the same person is involved now. The comments that had been being stricken were largely done before the second account involved in this was even created. There was no established basis for striking these comments. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any more information available concerning this? I was involved in the blocking of Exposed101 and their editing pattern was hugely different to that of LordFixit Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that I have previously been falsely banned for a supposed sockpuppet account, only for it to be later proven false. Either way, it shouldn't affect the arguments that the user made Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read it. Now what is your point? AIRcorn(talk) 08:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you didn't actually say anything about the categorisation, just "Per Mangoe". This isn't a vote and Mangoe already made their argument Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well-argued by Mangoe and Peterkingiron. Regardless of the status of the organisation it is still a POV categorisation. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That the category is linked to an institution is not the question here. The question is, if the judgment of this institution on other groups/organizations/websites is worthy and neutral enough to stay as a category. As I explained above, I am not convinced (yet) that that is the case here , but feel free to think otherwise. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, so nobody has a problem with them being an institution. I must have misread some of the comments here. Well, the institution in question describes themselves on their website as existing to do the following:
"The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the Center works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality."
They go on to say that they do this through the following:
"We track the activities of hate groups and domestic terrorists across America, and we launch innovative lawsuits that seek to destroy networks of radical extremists."
"We use the courts and other forms of advocacy to win systemic reforms on behalf of victims of bigotry and discrimination."
"We provide educators with free resources that teach school children to reject hate, embrace diversity and respect differences."
I don't see the issue of neutrality here? The project exists in order to try to support the vulnerable and prevent prejudice. I don't know how such a group could possibly be seen as holding bias? Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is all right if you do not see a problem. I do, but that's me, and I already told my view on the issue above. And as you said above, WP:NOTVOTE applies in matters like these. So I hope that an administrator will see whose argument is most solid. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, and I also read your posts. I feel poisoned is a pretty strong word in the context that you used it. I think you should consider changing that Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is all right if you think that. I don't. I prefer to express my fears in my own words. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's irrelevant if you agree with the SPLC's designation or not. What matters is that the category satisfies WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and it does if it is added to articles where the designation is sourced. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I initially closed this as "delete", but I discovered that I had participated in the previous discussion where this category was deleted, so I have withdrawn my close and will comment instead. I find the arguments for deletion far more persuasive in this case. We're not debating whether or not this information should exist in WP, we're debating whether a category is an appropriate means for communicating that information. Because the designation is a controversial issue, is at least somewhat POV, and in most cases is not defining for the organizations involved, I believe that the guidelines suggest that categorization is inappropriate here and having a list is the preferable means. Also, because this is re-created material that was previously deleted via a CFD, I think deletion would be appropriate here when we have users favouring deletion at over a two-to-one rate. I would have voted to listify the information but a list already exists. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Back then the category was deleted per WP:OC#OPINION. While reading it, I believe that WP:OC#TOPTEN fits here as well.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's true. There are quite a few guidelines-based reasons for deletion, I think. In this case, I think that the arguments in favor of deletion are much stronger than those in favor of keeping. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've struck my keep !vote - I'm on the fence so I don't think I should !vote. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have read the comments by Aprock, Dougweller, and Victor Chmara here, and think they are thoughtful and helpful to the discussion, as they are policy-oriented comments. I also note for the record that as I have observed the editing history of those productive editors, they are by no means clones of one another in their approach to the issues related to this category. Each is speaking thoughtfully and independently on the basis of Wikipedia policy, and they are each to be commended for that. All of that said, I am persuaded by LordFixit and others here that the identification of groups fitting the category is verifiable, based on actual common characteristics that the organizations have that are relevant to Wikipedia articles about the organizations, and useful as one more navigation tool in browsing the encyclopedia. I certainly respect differing opinions, but after slicing and dicing the rationales here, I support keeping the category in place. (P.S. I come here today because some articles that have long been on my watchlist have been edited with this category in mind during the last twenty-four hours. Looking specifically at those articles, I think the category is helpful.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I mainly work on articles that involve hate and fringe groups, many of which have self-promotional or friendly POV articles on Wikipedia. I urge those who look at this as an editorial discussion ("is it appropriate to have categories like this") to set aside those concerns. The hate group designation means that these are dangerous groups, and they hurt people. They are dangerous actors. SPLC is a reliable source and they do not give out this designation lightly. It is important to warn users about dangerous groups, and I think the public service duty here outweighs other concerns. -Sigeng (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that's an extremely bad reason to keep a category; we are not here to right-great-wrongs, and in any case, a well-sourced list serves the exact same purpose. I also note that the ADL maintains a list of hate groups and anti-israel groups [25], and the Simon Wiesenthal center releases a top 10 list of anti-semitic slurs (which is broadly seen as a list of top-10 anti-semites, at least as determined by them) every year. The ADL also publishes a list of ecoterrorists [26]. Shall we create categories for all of these as well? These are all potentially reasonable as lists, but they fail spectacularly as categories, since categories are supposed to be objective and non-controversial. If we start down this road, I would love you to provide me with other categories that you would support, per NPOV, of organizations that you happen to like with nasty labels by organizations that you may disagree with. If you're not ready to do that, then you shouldn't support this cat...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a group in a category that clearly names the organization responsible for handing out the designation is a statement of fact, so it's NPOV. Perhaps some of the other categories you mentioned should exist as well, provided the organization giving out the designations can be considered a reliable source on the topic and if the designation meets notability criteria – in other words, use the same tools that keep Wikipedia articles focussed on good content can apply to deciding on what categories make sense. As you say, a well sourced list serves useful purposes. -Sigeng (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or to put more succinctly: SPLC's designation means that they think these groups are dangerous and that they think they hurt or might hurt people, for their definition of what constitutes 'danger" and "hurting". The disagreements around the edges of whether some groups do hurt and are dangerous show that their objectivity is questioned. Being dangerous cannot be presumed to be a property of these groups, even if the SPLC says it is. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That uncertainty you reference is already implied by the category being named "Organizations designated as hate groups by SPLC". -Sigeng (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sad thing is, although you are completely right, that isn't what Wikipedia functions for. Yes, most of these groups are dangerous, offensive, and hateful, and the presentation of Wikipedia means that, whilst simultaneously not adequately criticising them, it also often acts to give them good publicity. However, it would mean a fundamental change in how the website is run to right wrongs in society. I would sincerely hope most of the editors who are voting Delete do not support these hate groups. Rather, that they believe that Wikipedia does not exist to help oppressed groups due to its nature as an encyclopedia. All that said, I think SPLC is definitely a notable group, and the category is useful for navigation purposes. Furthermore, all of the articles I have seen in the category are notable hate groups, and being categorised as such by the SPLC does define them. The category is not NPOV, it adequately defines the articles within them, and helps hugely with navigation --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should we create a category of "leftwing groups dedicated to weakening, and in many cases eliminating, all regulations and controls on immigration into the United States, and to blurring the distinction between citizens and non-citizens."? Or how about a category of TeaPartyNation's top 5 liberal hate groups (where the SLPC features as #1!) - or how about groups that profess a commitment to protecting the natural environment and all its living species, but in fact are committed to advancing anti-capitalist agendas? These "discoverthenetworks" guys have oodles of such groupings, and I'm sure they'd love to have their own sets of categories to hate-tag liberal organizations. I'm sorry Drowning, wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source, and if we have only ONE category, by an admittedly-left-leaning politically active organization whose labels of "hate groups" have been widely disputed, especially by conservative media outlets, is simply not acceptable - especially as a category. I'm quite sure most editors, myself included, are not fans of the KKK or other such organizations and I'd personally love to see the Westboro Baptist church wiped off the face of the planet, but I also am a strong believer in NPOV, and the existence of that category violates that by privileging the POV of one particular organization. The label of "hate" group is never one a group would give itself, and categories in a way act as labels in a way that "lists" do not - categories just sit there at the bottom of the article, uncontested, sometimes unsourced. Their purpose is NAVIGATION, in other words, to group LIKE articles together. Grouping right-wing groups together is fine - they identify as such. But grouping the very small subset of such groups that happen to have, at one point in the past, received the label of "hate" group is not. Just as we wouldn't create a category of "World leaders called anti-semitic by the Simon Wiesenthal center", we should not create this category here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one, I think the comparison between the SPLC and Discover the Networks is peculiar, as DtN seems to be, from the few times I have encountered it, badly researched and propagandic, whereas SPLC has legal precedent and governmental ties. I also don't think they are as widely disputed as you think, particularly outside of conservative bubbles. It definitely does help with navigation, these articles are aalike in that they all were designated as such by the SPLC. That is indisputable --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but, again, governmental ties, in my mind, mean nothing. They have no power, and such designation has no legal bearing, unlike Terrorist designations by national governments. One might say of DtN "I also don't think they are as widely disputed as you think, particularly outside of liberal bubbles". Again, wikipedia must not take a stance on whether conservatives or liberals are right, even if maybe most wikipedians have a liberal bent. We don't have any other pejorative (added) category groupings I can think of, besides the terrorist designations, where a private, non-governmental group assigns a label and orgs are grouped uncritically according to said label. This category is thus unique. Unique categories are often a bad idea, especially partisan ones like this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't mean they have power, but they definitely make the group more notable. It is the same as sources, that is to say, it is the difference from sourcing an article from academic sources rather than blog posts. Most organisations don't have that reputability. The SPLC does. I'd also argue that most Wikipedians have a conservative rather than liberal bent, but that's probably just experience from the areas that I edit in and is entirely against the point. What exactly is it about the SPLC that makes their categorisation non-reliable? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can start by reading some critiques, from the left and from the right. In any case, again per NPOV, if you claim SPLC is neutral and authoritative source for hate groups, presumably they are authoritative for "racist skinhead" groups and "anti-immigration" groups and "anti-LGBT" groups? Thus, shall we create Category:Organizations designated as anti-LGBT by SPLC and Category:Organizations designated as racist skinheads by SPLC, or what about their long list of anti-government "Patriot" groups - should they get a category too? If not, why not? After all, they have a large catalog of groups that don't quite make the really nasty "hate" list but which are still on their watch list. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, if we take on one SPLC designation why not take many more? More importantly, since you are defending this category, would you defend a category by a conservative organization that created a list of anti-american liberals who are destroying our country, if it was sourced and if journalists cribbed it - and would you do so willingly and gleefully? NPOV is key here, but given the tenor of the "keep" votes above, my guess is that if one of those other categories from the other side of the aisle was created, they wouldn't spend their time defending it. That's the heart of the problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I personally didn't find either article particularly convincing, but I respect you for posting both. Possibly, I wouldn't be against the notion, if you could find a suitably notable group. I'm also quite surprised you would make such an accusation, considering the edit history and tenor of many voting "delete", as well the actions of the two members who decided I was a sockpuppet to a banned user because I had a similar argument to him, and felt it was necessary to bring me to ANI for it, despite said user having hours before gone through an IP check. There is no "problem". People have different opinions and that's okay, and you may have some point there, but it's naive to think that there aren't people voting "delete" based on their personal opinions of the organisation either --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I've just seen this sort of thing before and have a guess at how it might play out, so perhaps I'm a bit cynical in my old age. Here's a few examples - how would you feel about Category:Countries designated by Turkey as supporters of State terrorism? Or should we only have such a list generated by the US? How about Category:Organizations designated as Anti-Israel by the Anti-defamation league, which would include the rather soft and cuddly sounding Code Pink? Should we just open up the taps and let flow the creation of hundreds of these, and debate each one one by one, or should we draw a line in the sand? I prefer drawing a line in the sand, right here, right now.---Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: "We don't have any other category groupings I can think of, besides the terrorist designations, where a private, non-governmental group assigns a label and orgs are grouped according to said label." Actually, we do. The Nobel committee, while appointed by the Parliament of Norway, is a private group, and we have the category for Organizations awarded Nobel Peace Prizes. We also have categories that include organizations as well as individuals that bear private labeling, such as Grammy Award-winning artists. And both those groups have certainly made controversial choices at times. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should correct that comment - I meant to say "pejorative" labeling, obviously. An organization would never complain about being given a Peace Prize nor having such a category, but I could image a number of these orgs might complain about being tagged as a hate group. In the running text of the article, we can put the SPLC claim, then we can put the defense/response by the org itself - you can't do that with a category. Thus, this is a false equivalence. We regularly categorize people and groups by positions they espouse and with labels they give themselves, but we very rarely assign such labels when the org or person in question does not identify in that way, or is not defined accordingly by a majority of reliable sources per WP:DEFINING. We don't, for example, tag people as racists or homophobes or sexists or anti-semites, even if lists of such people exist and RS use such terms. Using categories for such pejorative labeling leads us down a bad path.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow User:Obiwankenobi, so well stated within en guidelines, I agree completely, supporters of this will open a floodgate of opinionated groupings Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hereby designate, let's say, Jimbo Wales a hate group. Should then he be added to Category:People designated by Konveyor Belt as a hate group? The SPLC is notable, yes. But so is the Taliban and Hitler. And whatever designations those three may arbitrarily place are not suitable subjects for an article, because none of them are RS's and all of them are POV sources. KonveyorBelt 18:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy renameWP:C2D after RM. – FayenaticLondon 09:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 23:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment The target Category:Orthopedic problems states: "Generally, diseases outlined within the ICD-10 codes M00-M99 should be included in this category". While there are already articles in the target category that are not included in ICD-10 codes M00-M99, most of the articles in Category:Orthopedic problems are not so included. Wouldn't this merge just make a bad situation worse? Hmains (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Middlesbrough F.C. chairmen and executives[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. Going up even further, Category:Association football chairmen and investors is largely chairman and investors but the above that, at Category:Association football executives it's titled executives (but Ireland and Australia use officials). Above that, at Category:Sports executives and administrators you get almost all executives and administrators (with officials being the referees, not officials as businesspeople). I suggest an RfC at the Football wikiproject on the international level and then down to the English clubs (maybe notice Sports and Business). Going from the bottom up will always be inconsistent. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. No others in Category:Directors of football clubs in England mention executives in the name. Others in that parent use "directors and chairmen" but as chairmen are directors, that seems unnecessarily long. Keith Lamb was probably an exec for longer but then became an NED, so he will still belong in the renamed category. – FayenaticLondon 12:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just think there should be consistency for all British FCs. They all have the same hierarchical structure. Quis separabit? 15:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Chelsea also has the word "investors" presumably because Abramovitch is an owner but not technically a director; even then, in company law he is pretty obviously a shadow director. I have not looked into Liverpool. "Directors and chairmen" is the main usage at the club level, but Category:Association football chairmen and investors is the pattern at the national level. That is part of both "executives" and "owners"; I wonder whether these should be separated. – FayenaticLondon 15:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree we need a uniform name for all English/UK/world clubs, similar to Category:Chelsea F.C. non-playing staff and similar, but covering the Board and other businesspeople associated with the club. I'm stuck for a name, however. GiantSnowman 18:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
American sports use "executives" in one category and "owners" in another. e.g. Category:New York Yankees executives and Category:New York Yankees owners. Executives is a subcategory of personnel, which is also a parent category of all players and coaches. I think that logical structure works quite well, although the terminology may be slightly different. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think two categrories is overkill. Why not just have the broadly named Category:Team F.C. executives, with the scope to cover all business people associated with the club? GiantSnowman 16:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It addresses the problem, mentioned above, where you have owners that do not adopt a formal position within the team. You also have cases where a team is owned by a corporation, rather than an individual (e.g. Fenway Sports Group and Liverpool FC). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
rename per correct information provided by nom Hmains (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Moveable holidays (nth weekday of the month)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 12:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Awkwardly named category; I don't see why these need separating from the parent. Tim! (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Inclined to oppose, because Category:Moveable holidays has sub-cats for various other ways of deriving the date, e.g. relative to Easter or Labor Day. If not kept, it should be listified first. – FayenaticLondon 13:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you happen to know if Category:Moveable holidays should only contain subcategories? It looks like many of the articles included there are also in one of the 2014 categories. I'm tempted to tag as a container category and empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The articles directly in Category:Moveable holidays have more complex move patterns than any of the existing subcats contain or perhaps ever could contain. Hmains (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing every year is not complex. They are either in the we have a date or we don't choice of categories for the year. Why do they need to be in the parent? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The 2014 categories are actually different from the others:
2014 date missing highlights articles with key gap of the article: the date hasn't been added yet (please help out!).
manual dates for 2014 is for those where the date is defined, but manually, i.e. not in the code of the infobox, so it could work for "all" years in the future. For those looking to do some LUA calendar programming, it would be great if they would do some of these.
Articles where the date is calculated by the infobox have no specific 2014 category.
Hope this helps. -- 签名 sig at 18:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose These articles in these categories fit a simple describable pattern; the articles directly in Category:Moveable holidays have more complex patterns. There is no good reason to get rid of this category. Hmains (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those in the top cat have more complex patterns; some at least are set relative to a nth weekday, e.g. Election Day (Tuesday after first Monday) and Ely Eel Day (Saturday before a Monday holiday). How about combining those with the nominated category as Category:Moveable holidays (weekday based)? – FayenaticLondon 10:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Except for those in "Fixed on a non-Gregorian calendar", wouldn't that apply to most moveable holidays? -- 签名 sig at 05:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; if that suggestion is approved, the categories based on e.g. Labor Day or Thanksgiving would become sub-categories of the new one. – FayenaticLondon 15:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: The 2014 categories are actually different from the others:
