Talk:Center for Immigration Studies

Evidence and findings (edits required)

Hi, I was looking in to the matter of the dispute about the founder. I found this document and uploaded it to Flicker https://www.flickr.com/photos/186863271@N08/ for he verification purpose. It clearly displays the names of the people involved in the foundation of the organization where Tanton is not mentioned. I think this is a result of the 1 source that is misleading.KristenKT (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That is not remotely an acceptable source, sorry.

I hate to ask this, but are you currently employed by, or editing on behalf of, any individual or organization associated with the Center for Immigration Studies or the estate of Tanton or one of his previous employers? If so, you must declare your conflict of interest.--Jorm (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ad-hominem attack in the form of a "question", nice. We all know that "reputable sources" rule is abused to accept only the sources that the majority of editors approve of, no matter the caliber of the source. Now in this case it doesn't meet the requirement, but the petty insult afterwards is uncalled for.

If I post a reliable source that lists the founders of the org that do not include Tanton, we all know what will happen. You won't even mention that the foundation other sources dispute the claim about Tanton, you'll just have a reason why that reputable source is not allowed; while sources openly hostile to the organization are allowed to claim who its founders are. But, as the founder of Wikipedia has stated, that's what's become of his NPOV and Reptuabls Sources system - in hindsight he realizes now that such a system was ripe from capture and abuse. 99.75.147.243 (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you. No I'm not associated with the organization or it's people. I'm a researcher in the immigration field. I found that incorrect and then found that doc, here are 2 more links and even its on CIS own Website https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/Center-for-Immigration-Studies-Founding-Articles-of-Incorporation-Founders.pdf where Tanton isn't mentioned as founder and its quite misleading. Here's another on GuideStar and its an authentic source I guess https://www.guidestar.org/ViewEdoc.aspx?eDocId=1860878. KristenKT (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, it seems notable that CIS itself disputes that Tanton was the founder. GeauxDevils (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn’t. I wouldn’t want to list a white nationalist and eugenicist as my co-founder, either. We have been over this many, many times and the result will continue to be the same. Toa Nidhiki05 13:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn’t about how you feel personally. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a left wing opinion site.75.76.157.33 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct, which is why we go with what reliable sources say. Glad we're in agreement!--Jorm (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

How is that not notable? That's just absurd, and you know that. If a third party describing a a person or an entity contradicts that person/entity themself, that is the epitome of notable. In fact you do this on most organizations pages where they have accusations where they refute the claims. Literally look up "controversies" section for any organization on Wikipedia, and it will state if the refute the accusation. That is incredibly relevant, and you know this - which is why it's included in all left-leaning organizations controversies sections that have accusations (though admittedly accusations from third parties are almost never allowed in left-lean8nf organization pages, and definitely without some questionable source's counter-claim appended to the statement, along with the organization's denial).

Anyone objective can see what is happening here. He may well be a founder of the Org, but the fact the Org and other sources don't list him as a founder IS relevant. 99.75.147.243 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

We cannot form any conclusion from the articles of incorporation. It could be that the organization chose to have the bare minimum number of initial directors and incorporators or that Tanton was unavailable to sign because he was in California. Or maybe that didn't want his name on the document. You would need a reliable secondary source to explain it. You could contact the SPLC with the information and see what they have to say about it. TFD (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"It could be that..." you are negating the primary source of the article because of a hypothetical what-if situation. You are being the opposite of objective here to not plate least mention that they do not recognize the man as a founder. You are willfully breaking rules for articles about existing organizations to meet your biases. Pleae allow the mention that they refute the statements of third parties. 99.75.147.243 (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Edits to Lede

I've reverted several WP:BOLD edits to the lede by user Nmi628, aside from tense changes. While the attempt to contribute is appreciated, the lede was heavily disputed around this time last year and is what lead to the article becoming semi-protected. As such, a consensus needs to be reached on the talk page prior to further such edits. I know you may have missed this since it has since been cleared from the talk page; please discuss here and get approval of the other editors who have been regularly contributing to this page before editing further, in order to avoid inadvertently causing another edit war and admin intervention on your edits. Thank you. --TheMiddleWest (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the lede, again, twice. And would suggest we take this discussion here before trying to mute the criticism of this hate group. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You have decided this Org are "hate group", so I am sure you are being completely objective and neutral. The fact that you disagree with their stance on immigration should not change your editing (I know that won't happen of course, this Wikipedia). We all know what will happen. This entity will be slandered, and even they were take someone, like the SPLC, to court for libel and win, Wikipedia will STILL keep the mention that they were, "AT ONE TIME labeled as hate group" - without such as mentioning that a court of law ruled against this, because of "relevancy" usually. So Wikipedia will leave it as that, as it's TECHNICALLY not wrong, but is a LIE by omission. I am on a tangent, but enjoy your slander-fest. You people making factual edits improving the article don't stand a Popsicle's chance in hell of having your edits survive.

THE EFFECTIVE RULE IS: conservative people & organizations are not allowed objective articles - only articles that Portray them negatively.

This is universal in EVERY article about conservatives or right-leaning people/organizations on ALL of Wikipeda. The talk sections are hilarious once you accept this rule is unbreakable - you then can see people trying to make important, highly-pertinent, and insightful editsl, in GOOD FAITH, left PUZZLED why their clearly important, well cited, and relevant edits were immediately deleted.

They don't realize you can't add ANYTHING the portrays ANY CONSERVATIVE organization in a positive way unless you immediately cite something else after it that refutes that same claim. If an undeniably positive-attribution towards the Conservative entity is cited, it will NOT BE ALLOWED - a "reason" wil be "found" to not alow it - that 100% guaranteed.

Though tragic for Wikipedia, once you accept that Wikipedia does not allow positive information about anything/anyone right-leaning, the articles & tlak-sections quickly become HILARIOUS.

The "rules" used to remove positive, well-cited, andgood-faith edits are so BRUTALLY CONTORTED that the rationale used is often self-contradictory or oxymoronic.

Funnier yet, when you look at the editors' changes to left-leaning articles, their rationales are COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY to the rationale used when they edit right-leaning subject's articles. I suggest others chck thiz with the editors here, I have already spotted two editors that used a rationale to disallow something here, but in the a left leaning article they staye the the same rationale is invalid there! Hillarious, keep it up editors. Endless hilarity. (Not proofreading) 99.75.147.243 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

unexplained reversion

Snooganssnoogans, please provide an informative explanation for your reversion, per WP:REVEXP —thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Your edit makes it seem as if the Senate subcommittee was behind CIS's false claims. Per FactCheck.org, the Senate subcomittee listed these as foreign-born suspected terrorists, whereas CIS described them as convicted. It's also too in the weeds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Your edit implies that the CIS claim was true although it was false. TFD (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! A few things:

1. Snooganssnoogans, you still haven't explained why you reverted my addition of the link to the actual report—is there some reason to exclude it?
2. My intent by including the subcommittee as the source wasn't to "imply" that the CIS claim was true—indeed, the sentence ends by saying that "several fact-checking agencies debunked" the report. And not sure what you mean by saying the subcommittee "listed these as foreign born suspected terrorists"—the actual Senate data includes numerous convictions for terrorism and terror-related crimes, and there's no suggestion that the 72 people listed by CIS weren't found guilty of crimes; Factcheck.org claims CIS mischaracterized some of their very real convictions as being "terror cases". Although I don't think the reasons given for reverting the edit make much sense, I also don't believe it's essential to include the source of the CIS report.
3. "Debunked" is the wrong word here, as it implies the report was found to be completely false—but the Factcheck.org article makes clear: "Of course, some citizens of the seven countries covered by Trump’s ban were convicted on terrorism charges." The Washington Post article comes to the same conclusion (although it's really about "Miller’s use of this list to defend Trump’s executive order"). That being the case, the first sentence would be better ended with: "a number that several fact-checking agencies assert was grossly exaggerated."
4. Despite searching the Snopes website, I cannot find any source to support the uncited Wikivoice claim that they "mirrored the assessment" of Factcheck.org regarding the CIS report—unless anyone can provide one, that should be omitted.
5. The fact that "none of the 72 people were responsible for a terrorism-related death in the US" is irrelevant and WP:UNDUE in the instant article, as it's not criticism of the CIS report (which made no such claim).
6. Instead of the above, I'd suggest that the last sentence be: "Factcheck.org found that only 28 of the 72 from the seven countries were convicted of actual terrorism charges, with most of those found guilty of financing terrorism, and only three convicted of attempting attacks within the US."

Appreciate your input! Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I would ust give up on seeking objectivity in this article, and know that seeking balance or factuality is a futile endeavor on Wikipedia when trying to improve an article about a right-leaning source.

Any right-leaning source will not get equal application of Wikipedia's standards/rules to their articles. The rules will be bent and broken to hurt the subject of the article and there's truly nothing you can say/cite that is logical, rational, objective, rule-complying, or even undeniable, that will change this.

Any link, citation, or source, that is beneficial to a conservative organization WILL be purged; and you will only see in then citation section sources that are opposed/critical to the conservative organization ( sadly, this also applies to even living persons).

Unspoken Rule:

Sources that are perceived as beneficial to right-leaning organizations are not allowed as an unspoken rule that will quickly notice when you view talk sections on any such entity's article. The rules will be contorted to exclude any beneficial or critique-refuting information.

You can readily observe this phenomenon by perusing thr talk section of ANY conservative person/entity. You can also readily observe this in sources for evey right-leaning entity or person.

A good example:

Compare two opposing candidates for an election side by side, and you will see the conservative has close to zero sources allowed to be cited to substantiate their claims, refute their criticisms, or to even say anything thing positive about them. You will see source after source backing up attacks against the Right's candidate - All while the Left's candidate, in the same election, receives the exact opposite treatment (see the talk sectionsfor THIS unspoken rule). NO critical sources are allowed (unless they are tacfically planted as easily refuable clams), only beneficial sources allowed. And any selectively-allowed criticisms of the Left's candidate are appended with sources refuting the criticism, and the eponymous source themselves will be usually be quoted refuting the criticism (whichis not being allowed 9n this article by the way, shocker). On the Right's candidate, refutation of criticisms from the eponymous source is now allowed as biased, and every third party source will be removed using some manner contortions the rules of NPOV or Reliability to do so. The Left's candidate often will get even obscure blogs opinions as NPOV reliable sources. And even being "mainstream" is not enuogh to be allowed as a source (if beneficial) for the Right's candidate in the same election. I have even seen cases where the same Media outlet is allowed for one candidate and not for the other in the same election - just so long as the use of the source benefits the Left's candidate or hart's the Right's.

These unspoken rules are always present in any person with pubically known Right or conservative leanings. Even actor's who come out as Christian or conservative have these double-standards enforced on them - and ita so obvious that, other than the left, most people know that you can't trust Wikipedia outside of the hard science* anymore.

• Even some of the sciences are being subjected to the double-standards when it comes to the human-sciences psychology, psychiatry, and biology, when the science doesn't fit "the message". Also anthropology and sociology have been taken over. Truly sad.

99.75.147.243 (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

I made two careful edits—here and here—which were summarily reverted, without a shred of substantive response, by Toa Nidhiki05 (and in less than 2 hours, a prima facie violation of the 1RR rule). While I've taken up the conduct issue on Toa Nidhiki05's Talk page, I think this is the appropriate forum for content. That said, I'll begin by responding to what Drmies has subsequently written to me on Toa Nidhiki05's Talk page (emphasis mine):

Ekpyros, it seems to me that the citation to Jacobson is at the least somewhat deceptive. It took me a while to figure out what was going on since there was an error with the named references, but the Politifact article indicates that the quote you put into the article is cherry-picked and one-sided: "On the other hand, Cornell Law professor William Jacobson, author of the conservative Legal Insurrection blog, has criticized the hate-group list for years." So, Jacobson, whom you cited without any designation other than "Cornell professor", is actually a virulent right-winger who, says Politifact, has been going after the SPLC for years--in other words, what's his opinion worth? I note that in your lengthy edit summaries, and your very lengthy post here, you do not address that matter. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

In response:

• There's nothing the slightest bit "deceptive" about my adding two quotes from a Politifact investigation. I thought my reason for doing so was self-explanatory: to specify the nature of the criticism in our eponymous section, while retaining WP:BALANCE. The investigation is a WP:RS which had already been cited in our article, and just a mouse-click away. That's hardly "deceptive"—and such a baseless accusation not only fails to WP:AGF, but skirts the line laid down by WP:NPA.
• Comparing Cornell law professor Jacobson to a disease and suggesting his opinion is "worthless" would seem a potential WP:BLP violation. There's certainly nothing you've cited—nor in his Wikipedia biography—to support such disparagement.
• Politifact does describe Jacobson as "conservative", but surely that view—shared by a plurality of Americans over the last decade—doesn't in any way make his criticism any less valid or valuable.
• Politifact does also note that Jacobson "has criticized the hate-group list for years"—but, as above, I hardly see why you take this to means his opinion is worthless. On the contrary: in that very same phrase, Politifact links to material appearing to show that Jacobson's past criticism resulted in a correction by the SPLC (after they were forced to acknowledge they'd erred in designating neurosurgeon and former HUD Secretary Ben Carson as a hate-fueled "Extremist", their category for KKK and neo-Nazi leaders). In other words, Jacobson has been not just a longtime, but both an accurate and effective critic of SPLC.

In the interests of brevity, I didn't think it necessary to include the fact that Jacobson is politically conservative, that he's criticized SPLC in the past—or, for that matter, that his criticism has been effective and resulted in a significant correction being made by the SPLC. I'm sure there are perfectly legitimate arguments for including or excluding all of the above. But to call an Ivy-League law professor "virulent"—apparently based on nothing but his political beliefs—and to suggest those beliefs mean his persistent (and previously accurate) criticism is "worthless"—well, that's clearly your personal opinion and would seem a terrific example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Politifact considered Jacobson's opinion to have enough value that they included it in their investigation—and while that obviously doesn't mean his instant criticism is necessarily correct—it does mean that, by Wikipedia standards, it's "worth" at least considering for inclusion. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 20:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Drmies. You are trying to give weight to Jacobson's opinions beyond what policy allows. I felt like I had been click-baited when I looked to see who these "experts" were. Also, no idea why you changed "anti-immigrant hate group" to '"anti-immigrant" and a "hate group"'. Anti-immigrant hate group is the term used by the SPLC. TFD (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

In case it's not already clear, I've put considerable thought and effort into my contributions to our article, and insist that any reversions to my editing are similarly grounded. Frankly, I'm getting none of that from the thin, opinionated, largely fact-free commentary here, which is a disappointment. To respond in more detail:

1. I'm not giving Jacobson any more "weight" than did the Politifact investigation I cited. What "policy" prohibits that—your "feeling" of being "click-baited"? Did you get the same "click-baited feeling" from reading the Politifact article? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to elaborate, as, based on my understanding of "click-bait", I'm baffled by the term's application to this situation, let alone what it would "feel" like if it did indeed apply. I responded thoughtfully to the complaint, such as it is, from Drmies, who declined to reply—and a similarly thoughtful and reasoned response is in order. If there's a need to identify Jacobson more thoroughly, then please work toward consensus as to how—because suggesting that a tenured law professor's criticism is "worthless" due to an opinion that he's "virulently conservative" and "has been going after the SPLC for years" isn't serious input for an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure why Jacobsen's blog and its purported political bent is relevant here—the blog is neither his occupation nor qualification in his capacity as a critic—but it makes sense to me to include (as I've suggested above) that he's a longtime SPLC critic whose criticism has resulted in the SPLC making significant corrections; doing so seems the most complete, accurate, and NPOV. But I'm also fine with describing Jacobson simply as a Cornell law professor, and would still appreciate a coherent explanation of how doing so is the slightest bit "deceptive" or an example of "click-bait".
2. While "anti-immigrant hate group" is a phrase "used by the SPLC", on their own website they note that CIS is a "SPLC DESIGNATED HATE GROUP" and that CIS purportedly has "Ideology Anti-Immigrant [sic]". My admittedly limited understanding—and please do correct me if I'm wrong—is that the SPLC may well have begun describing CIS as "anti-immigrant" prior to 2016, but that this was the year they officially designated them as one of their official "hate groups". As with all my other edits, my motivation here was nothing more or less than a desire for an accurate encyclopedia.
3. Am I really the only one to take issue with an editor obviously violating WP:BLP, by casually referring to a law-professor as a "virulent right-winger"? All claims about living persons on Wikipedia must be carefully sourced—including on Talk pages. And, in addition to the BLP issue, doesn't such a comment, at minimum, raise a red flag in terms of WP:NPOV? I sincerely hope I'm not alone in saying that I would be no less concerned had an editor written: "He's a diseased left-winger infected with progressivism who's been promoting the SPLC for years, so what's his opinion worth?" Isn't this type of partisan, politicized rhetoric completely outside the pale?
4. I'm also disturbed that no one has responded to my concern that the entire beginning of the paragraph I edited was lifted almost word-for-word from the SPLC website, yet put in Wikivoice (see below). It's utterly beyond my comprehension why anyone would revert the addition of a secondary-source RS to language copied verbatim from the organization's own website—let alone defend that reversion. I'm raising the issue for a third time—and hope that anyone genuinely interested in the quality of this article would at the very least respond to this.
5. Even worse than the plagiarism is what was deliberately omitted and misrepresented. Our article currently states that SPLC accuses CIS of having "repeatedly published" unsavory writers—when in fact all that SPLC actually alleges is that articles by those writers were "circulated"—i.e., linked to in CIS's weekly listserv "newsletter". This is pure misinformation—and remarkably odd, given that everything else here was essentially cut-and-pasted from the SPLC website. The fact that my correction was reverted is, to me, an obvious and indefensible error that only serves to continue perpetrating that misinformation.
6. I also cannot understand why my identification of Jason Richwine was reverted—he's unambiguously the "commissioned policy analyst" who is alleged to have "embrace[d] racist pseudoscience". (This "racist pseudoscience" is an apparent reference to his then-more-than-a-decade-old Harvard thesis, which CIS neither commissioned nor ever published. And despite Richwine having been paid to write for outlets such as Forbes to, ironically enough, Politico—the SPLC hasn't seen fit to tar any of them as "hate groups" solely for having once given him a byline.) Is there some reason Richwine's name needed to be reverted here—and if not, why didn't the reverting editor follow the WP:REVONLY guidance and leave at least that part standing?

In conclusion: as I've pointed out before, and specifically cautioned against in my original edit summary, the reverting editor's complete lack of explanation—either when reverting my edit or subsequently—as well as his or her failure to follow WP:REVONLY makes it impossible to know the basis, if any, for that reversion. Post hoc justifications by Drmies and the TFD similarly contain no substantive bases which I can discern—just the slander of a Cornell Law professor and a "feeling of being click-baited"—hardly solid rationale for reversion.

I hope that this will lead to some honest reconsideration. Not one of the issues with my edits raised thus far appears to be rooted in actual facts, and—absent any genuine attempt to work toward consensus and improve the article—I intend to reinstate them. The kind of slapdash, ill-considered, and patently politicized reversions and responses I've received thus far are incredibly frustrating to the editing process, and I implore everyone involved to uphold some minimal intellectual standards as we work together on the important business of building an encyclopedia.

Thanks in advance for any thoughtful response! ElleTheBelle 22:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

PS: here is the comparison of the SPLC site to our Wikipedia article, with the almost identical portions in bold—and the serious factual error I've pointed out in #4 above underlined. This is shoddy editing, nowhere near Wikipedia standards, and I cannot fathom why my use of a secondary reliable source to eliminate the plagiarism and correct the error was reverted:

SPLC: ...what precipitated listing CIS as an anti-immigrant hate group for 2016 was its repeated circulation of white nationalist and antisemitic writers in its weekly newsletter and the commissioning of a policy analyst who had previously been pushed out of the conservative Heritage Foundation for his embrace of racist pseudoscience. These developments, its historical associations and its record of publishing reports that hype the criminality of immigrants…

Wikipedia: In 2016, the SPLC began describing CIS as an anti-immigrant hate group. It cited CIS's repeated publication of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, its employment of an analyst known to promote racist pseudoscience, its association with John Tanton, and its record of publishing reports that it said hyped the criminality of immigrants.

Looks like there is a rough consensus against these edits, which I endorse. There is no requirement that an editor in the minority be satisfied. If there are in fact legitimate copyright violation concerns (point #4 above) those should of course be addressed immediately, but in isolation from the other issues which are clearly matters of POV. Generalrelative (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BALANCE carefully. It says, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable." sources. What you were referring to was WP:FALSEBALANCE, giving equal weight to significant and minor views in reliable reliable sources. The reality is that the SPLC is considered an authoritative source for classifying hate groups, while the CIS and its supporters are seen as uninformed and intolerant extremists.

You should be more civil in discussing other editors. In editing this article they are not expressing their views but reporting the views expressed in reliable sources according to their degree of support. While this article should not copy the SPLC, it should read very much like their article.

TFD (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I attempted twice this week to edit the article to remove from its opening sentence mention of the SPLC's designation of the CIS as a hate group. Both times the edit was reverted (once in seeming violation of the article's page-specific revert limit), so I'll try to explain here why I made the change.

The opening sentence of a Wikipedia article is meant to identify the subject of the article in broad and objective terms. The first part of this article's opening sentence, which characterises the CIS as an "anti-immigration think tank," comes close to that (although it's still an oversimplification, given that the CIS doesn't support eliminating immigration). The second part of the sentence does not. The SPLC is free to consider the CIS a hate group, and it's a sufficiently prominent organisation to justify inclusion of that designation in the article and even in the article's lead section, but it's still an activist group that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources describes as "biased and opinionated." Giving undue weight to a biased and opinionated source by including its judgment of an entity in the opening sentence of that entity's Wikipedia article is inappropriate and compromises Wikipedia's neutrality. Oooooooseven (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)