* Your comment is objectively false. SPLC is NOT reliable. SPLC lost a very large defamation lawsuit, paying out over $3m for falsely labeling another advocacy group as a racist hate group. {{cite news|url=https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-981879|title=Southern Poverty Law Center Settles Lawsuit After Falsely Labeling ‘Extremist’ Organization}} {{cite news|url=https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/06/20/southern-poverty-law-center-pays-3-4m-to-resolve-defamation-case/|title=Southern Poverty Law Center Pays $3.4M to Resolve Defamation Case}} {{cite news|url=https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation|title=SPLC statement regarding Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation}} The Southern Poverty Law Center argued that its designations of "racism" and "hate groups" were opinions, not assertions of fact, but the court expressly rejected this. The court expressly ruled that labeling someone racist or a hate group is not an opinion, it's an assertion of fact, and thus subject to defamation. There are another 60 defamation lawsuits starting to make their way through the court system against the organization, and another 200 in preparation, all alleging defamation. {{cite news|url=https://pjmedia.com/trending/about-60-organizations-are-considering-a-lawsuit-against-the-splc-following-3m-nawaz-settlement/|title='About 60 Organizations' Are Considering a Lawsuit Against the SPLC Following $3M Nawaz Settlement}} {{cite news|url=https://pjmedia.com/trending/update-on-the-60-separate-defamation-lawsuits-against-the-splc-under-consideration/|title=Update on the 60 Separate Defamation Lawsuits Against the SPLC Under Consideration}} The Southern Poverty Law Center is a [[WP:BIASED|biased and factually incorrect source]]. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/4.34.50.170|4.34.50.170]] ([[User talk:4.34.50.170#top|talk]]) 08:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)</small>

:*It's worth noting that for Maajid Nawaz, the SPLC issued a retraction ''before'' the case went to trial, and apparently before it even went to court at all. This wasn't a lawsuit, this was the threat of a lawsuit, and the SPLC paid as part of a settlement, not as damages or anything. While this mistake was hardly commendable, retractions are exactly the kind of behavior we want to see from reliable sources which make a mistake. Not great, but very far from the death-blow its detractors make it out to be.

:While there is an all-you-can eat buffet of accusations and conspiracy theories that the SPLC is a financial racket, so what? When did we start caring about [[WP:FRINGE]] nonsense like that? Neither being well-funded, nor being an advocacy organization, make a source any less reliable. They are still experts for the subject of their advocacy. As I've said elsewhere a bunch of times, we do not expect doctors to be "impartial" when discussing cancer, or government agencies to be "impartial" when discussing crime, but for some reason this specific organization is treated as a special case outside of normal standards. Expecting sources to be neutral when discussing this kind of bigotry is false neutrality. As an encyclopedia, we should use direct language to describe these things, and if that means saying "the SPLC has labeled this group a hate group" so be it. Fussing about ''exactly'' how many independent sources cover it in ''exactly'' how much weight it has... it starts to look like we're trying to find an excuse to downplay important information just because it makes some people uncomfortable. Why are we making that the reader's problem? [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 09:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

:*"considering" is not "starting to make their way through the court system", at least not in this universe. Oh, and these 60 different butthurt organizations were "considering" back in August: are they still thinking? And what's your source for "another 200 in preparation", since I don't see that anywhere in the stories -- from Pajamas Media, oh, quite the reliable source there -- that you link to? So, apparently, you're unclear on the meaning of "objectively". --[[User:Calton|Calton]] &#124; [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 09:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)