The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
When did the change occur? Was it a blog at the time it reported on Ngo? I think the Ngo article is from 2020. Here is a Rolling Stone article from 2022 that still says Hatewatch Blog [1]. Here is a CMU researcher working for SPLC talking about working for the Hatewatch Blog [2]. Here is a Jan 2024 SPLC article that calls it Hatewatch blog [3]. This is a 2021 Atlanta area news article that calls it a blog [4]. 2021 BI [5]. June 2020 SPLC article [6]. The Grayzone in 2021 [7]. For what it's worth, the Grayzone article talks about a Hatewatch writer who's work was retracted by the SPLC for various issues. That would suggest they aren't putting much oversight into those reports. I think it's fair to say at least at the time of the article "Hatewatch" was described as a blog. If it's no longer described as such when did the change occur? Springee (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given what Dlthewave has written above I would suggest the setnence should read:
In August 2020, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch said ...
An alternative is that we go with something along the lines of what Springee has suggested:
In August 2020, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch, which at the time was described as a blog, said ...
However I think that would make for a less readable sentence, but I'm not going to die on a hill over it.
I've left a message on PackMecEng's user talk requesting that they revert their last edit, in light of the detail provided by Dlthewave, and per the active arbitration remedies at the top of this page. TarnishedPathtalk08:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to know what Hatewatch really is. Looking at The Grayzone it seems somewhat like Forbes contributors vs Forbes where the masthead publisher doesn't really exercise proper editorial oversite over the content unless there is some level of pushback. For a long time it's been called a blog. If SPLC hasn't said why it's not I would presume it still is. If it's not something like Forbes contributors perhaps it's more like a NEWSBLOG. I feel like the combination of BLOG+activist organization is going to be problematic from a RS POV. Springee (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat hard to prove a negative in that Hatewatch is simply described by SPLC as a "resource". There is no page that says "this is not a blog" but, then again, there's no page at New York Times that says "this is not a blog." Springee's claims above seem to be a personal opinion ungrounded in fact. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a view shared by a number of sources. You don't share that view but that's also your opinion. That so many sources, including the SPLC, called it a blog does suggest that, at least at some point, SPLC viewed it as such. However it would be consistent with your view that non academic sources should be treated with greater scrutiny. I believe you are argued that even normal media sources should be treated more like yellow vs green sources. Springee (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do hold that opinion. However I also think you are degrading the quality of the SPLC more than you would other advocacy groups. I will, however, always advocate that academic sources are preferred. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence of that claimed inconsistency? I've been clear that I think all advocacy groups should be no better than yellow. When such groups make contentious claims about blp subjects I think the standard should be higher. That applies to all advocacy groups. I've also argued that it would be best if we only use advocacy org info after it's referenced by a RS. You might feel I'm to strict but where is the evidence of inconsistency? I am sympathetic to the academic source view you have so long as the academic source is provided with the evidence that supports their claim. When I published work my claims (and methods) were either backed by my own arguments or sources. If something in one of my articles appeared without either I would consider it no better than the author's opinion (my opinion). Springee (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SPLC has been discussed 15+ times at RSN and there's clear consensus that it's reliable, so we're not going to relitigate that here. On the other hand, Grayzone was deprecated a few years back due to publishing false information. Is there a better source that describes Hatewatch in detail? Based on our current knowledge, we should consider it to be under the editorial auspices of SPLC. –dlthewave☎12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a clear consensus that it's reliable. The RSP entry has limitations and disclaimers. It doesn't specifically mention hatewatch but if it is operated without full editorial oversight (as the Grayzone article evidence suggests) then it should likely be reviewed separately. That would be a RSN topic. Springee (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't if SPLC is reliable it is if the Hatewatch section of SPLC is a blog. The most recent dicussion at RSN, from just a couple years ago, agreed it was a blog. So unless something has changed, and I see no evidence of that, we consider it to still be a blog. PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the page does not say it is a blog and it does appear to have a lot of hallmarks of at least *some* editorial control. I think, especially considering discussions at Talk:SPLC and apparently WP:AN/I (under the heading of "that escalated quickly") I would suggest that we should take it to RS/N for a centralized discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
