Talk:Center for Security Policy

Page-specific consensus

1. There is consensus to include the BBC's description of the CSP as "not very highly respected" in the article lead. (RfC, June 2016, July 2017)
2. There is consensus to opt for a syntax similar to "version B" in the following RFC to avoid a "too disparaging" lead. (RfC, Dec 2016, Jan 2017)
3. The "Controversy" section should include that the Center has been criticized for propagating conspiracy theories. (Feb 2017, Feb 2017)
4. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a reliable source for factual information on Wikipedia. (June 2018, WP:SPLC)
   

Last updated (diff) on 25 October 2022 by Shibbolethink (t · c)

RfC Wording of Lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In this RfC it was determined that the specific description of the CSP as "not very highly respected" must be included in the article's lede. A previous RfC on this topic was held, but only attracted four !votes and, since it closed, there has been additional disagreement as to where it should be placed in the lede between two alternate versions. Which of the two contested versions should be used?

Version A: The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a "not very highly respected" Washington, D.C.-based national security think tank that has been widely accused of engaging in conspiracy theorizing by a range of individuals, media outlets and organizations. Its activities are focused on exposing and researching perceived jihadist threats to the United States. The Center has been described as "disreputable" by Salon and the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the CSP as a hate group in 2016. It has faced strong criticism from people across the political spectrum, but has also had its reports cited by political figures such as Donald Trump and Michele Bachmann.

(sources obfuscated for ease of reading but viewable here: [1])

Version B: The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a Washington, D.C.-based national security think tank whose activities are focused on exposing and researching perceived jihadist threats to the United States. The Center has been widely accused of engaging in conspiracy theorizing by a range of individuals, media outlets and organizations. They have been described as "not very highly respected" by BBC News and "disreputable" by Salon. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated the CSP as a "conspiracy-oriented mouthpiece" in 2016. It has faced strong criticism from people across the political spectrum, but has also had its reports cited by political figures such as Donald Trump and Michele Bachmann.

LavaBaron (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Version A reads clearer and less choppy than Version B LavaBaron (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Version B is better. It starts with a strictly descriptive first statement and then proceeds to give qualitative judgements. My only criticism of version B is that it should state "US President Elect Trump". He is certainly more than a "political figure" and his endorsement of the center is quite strong.--Nowa (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Version B - is less POV, without losing the criticism of CSP, and reads better. I don't believe he was President-elect when Trump cited CSP, so putting that in would give the reader the wrong idea. If he cited it while running for President, "Presidential-nominee" would be appropriate, otherwise "political figure" is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Version B The first version is derogatory and not encyclopedic. I agree with Nowa that it should state "US President Elect Trump." TAG (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

How is it derogatory? LavaBaron (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Version B – From the get-go the lede is expected to summarize the article and not be opinionated using WP's voice. By starting off saying "not respected" version A ignores the fact that CSP has gained respect from certain very influential political figures. – S. Rich (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Far right

Is this source reliable for the contention that the CSP is far-right? I honestly don't know.

• O’Donnell, S. Jonathon (December 19, 2017). "Islamophobic conspiracism and neoliberal subjectivity: the inassimilable society". Patterns of Prejudice: 1–23. doi:10.1080/0031322X.2017.1414473.

Here is a short bio of the author. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not an issue. I found three decent sources that corroborate it: HuffPost, BuzzFeed, Business Insider. There are probably more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

BuzzFeed is not a reliable source. 2605:A601:A95A:3100:68C1:6D37:9A79:FFC1 (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That statement is actually a clear and gross violation of WP:NPOV, as it's 1) stated as a fact, without attributing to its sources 2) provides only single point of view. -- A man without a country (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood pamphlet

TheHomeofBaku, re this edit, Gaffney did indeed verifiably write the pamphlet. What I couldn't verify is whether the CSP published it. And the description you added may not have been reflective of the available reliable sources. (The Washington Times description was charitably vague.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was a little misleading who the publisher was, but seems it was written by Gaffney. In time I hope the description can be improved, The Washington Times wasn't ideal so will keep looking. TheHomeofBaku (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

SPLC sourcing issues

I have absolutely no doubt that SPLC does indeed label them a "hate group". The problem is that this revert restores content which is not secondary sourced. The bbc.com source does not repeat the "hate group" label for this CSP. The label and quote are taken directly from the SPLC website without secondary source verification. No matter how much of an "expert" they are, we still require secondary verification. Beyond My Ken, I suggest you self-revert until you can find better sources that repeat this label and attribute it to SPLC, not quote SPLC itself. No organization is so privileged by "expert" status that Wikipedia sets aside our basic verification policies and cites them unchallenged. If they are such experts, such secondary sources should be plentiful. -- Netoholic @ 13:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Our "basic verification policies" do not require two sources for every fact, one is sufficient. The SPLC is a reliable expert source for what is and isn't a "hate group" and there is no requirement that an additional source be provided to back them up. Your insistence that there must be one appears to stem from a personal political POV, and not from Wikipedia's policies. I will not be self-reverting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s not like a lot of organizations exist that classify hate groups. Pretty much we have the SPLC and ADL. The ADL tends to focus on Judaism, although they do state that CSP promulgates anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, which amounts to the same thing. [2] The SPLC is the recognized expert in the field, and it is attributed in the text. Looks OK to me. O3000 (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a second group to confirm it - I'm asking for a secondary source to verify what SPLC said about this group, rather than only relying only SPLC's self-published opinion. Its the same as how we shouldn't use the Academy Award website as the only source for who won a Best Movie award, but we'd use Variety as a secondary source for their report on who won it. In this case, we need a source which says something like "SPLC classifies CSP as a 'hate group'". This is basic secondary sourcing, and if found or not found, tells us if SPLC's label of them has become accepted or mentioned. Using a raw quote from the SPLC page is problematic because it could be cherry-picked, but a secondary source which quotes them demonstrates its relevance/importance. -- Netoholic @ 15:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Like this Wall Street Journal article?[3] Doug Weller talk 16:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Added a WaPo cite.[4] O3000 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree with Netoholic. Secondary sourcing is not a requirement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. @Netoholic:, where can I find WP:NOTSPLC2.0? Doug Weller talk 18:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• SPLC designations are both primary and self-published (they are secondary for factual information like names/events related to the CSP, but primary for their opinions especially their designations like "hate group"). As you can see above, if the particular designation is noteworthy, then it can be easily found in secondary sources. These are the kinds of sources we have to use, not the SPLC directly, unfiltered. Secondary sources are what demonstrate that any information is relevant, and its so odd to see an arbitrator claiming otherwise. -- Netoholic @ 20:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The list is relevant according to innumerable secondary sources. Therefore, items in the list are relevant., But, I added a source anyhow. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Notable is not a relevant term here, although the list is in fact notable. I'm arguing that inclusion in the list is significant per se. It's obvious if only from recent events that inclusion in the list is a big deal. And I'm still in the dark about WP:NOTSPLC2.0 which I can't find. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTSPLC2.0 is still in beta testing. O3000 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Is the implication that we should, without limitation and without secondary verification, include this controversial classification in the articles of every subject this organization lists? It seems to me that requiring at minimum a secondary source which repeats the label should be necessary, considering some recent problems (and what may be coming). A reliable, secondary source which significantly mentions a particular classification is a safeguard. -- Netoholic @ 20:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should. Safeguard against what? The reliability of the SPLC's classification, or its noteworthiness? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Primarily, a safeguard for WP:Verifiability. SPLC can edit their list anytime; they can remove designations or add them, or change the justifications. A secondary source which repeats information that it sees as significant, is the very basis of our sourcing guidelines. Such a controversial label is defamatory, it means we should be cautious, since it often involves BLPs as well as organizations, and so its also a safeguard against potential WP:LIBEL to use secondary sources. -- Netoholic @ 20:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's attributed, not in WikiVoice. And their ratings are not made by some random guy somewhere. But, you can bore the folk at WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we're good on verifiability. Verifiability doesn't require secondary sources. Primary sources are expressly allowed by our policies. And the SPLC is widely cited by reliable media for these sorts of designations, falling squarely into WP:USEBYOTHERS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used with care and WP:USEBYOTHERS even says particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them. - considering that these labels are surely highly contentious, I think it warrants the extra verification afforded by secondary source mentions. This should be a low impact thing, as almost any significant label should appear easily in several secondary sources, just like in this article's case. This should also apply to quoted passages from SPLC - we should only use quotes that are cited in secondary sources as significant, otherwise editors may tend to cherry-pick the most damning or highly-charged passages for inclusion. -- Netoholic @ 09:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC is not a primary source - it investigates, evaluates and reports its findings. That makes it aa much a secondary source as any newspaper. So, the house of cards you build on that false premise just won't stay up. Thanks for playing, please enjoy the home version of our game. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

For factual information such as names, etc. I agree it is a secondary (though biased) source. It is a primary source for its conclusions and recommendations with regard to these organizations though, including labels such as "hate group". The comparison to a newspaper it funny though. Can't get that in the home game. -- Netoholic @ 20:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY would disagree with you. It states, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like the SPLC list. The SPLC has a staff of lawyers that look at primary sources, including hate group publications and websites, individual and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports, evaluates them and publishes their analysis, synthesis and pertinent facts on each group. O3000 (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)