Talk:Federation for American Immigration Reform/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Office of Immigration Review Letter

This has been added and reverted twice. The material is added w/o context. In the first place, it was written with the expectation that it would not be leaked. It also ignores the relevant information from the Washington Post article that described the circumstances. The Post writes:

Barnes [who wrote the letter] asked the lawyers to keep the letter confidential, and did not open a formal disciplinary proceeding. The lawyers said they took the letter as an informal reprimand. ...

The four lawyers targeted by the foundation’s complaints to the appeals board said Barnes never notified them about the criticism or gave them a chance to respond. The foundation also filed state bar complaints against the four lawyers. Cohen [from the SPLC] and the other lawyers said the bar complaints were dismissed.

Of further note, the Post places the rebuke in context:

None of this language was related or relevant to the underlying factual or legal matters or FAIR’s amicus briefs, and its sole purpose was to denigrate FAIR and its staff,” she [Barnes] wrote, using an acronym for the federation. “Such language is not appropriate in a filing before the Board.”

This whole story is about the immigration court’s disciplinary counsel's opinion about attorney conduct and says nothing concerning the accuracy of the charges made by the SPLC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the letter was written with the expectation that it wouldn't be leaked is irrelevant since it's public information now. I suppose, using this logic, WikiLeak's entire page should be removed.

At issue is the SPLC's classification of FAIR as a "hate group." When the specific term "hate group" was used in the motions, the DOJ considered it "derogatory name-calling," "unprofessional," and "uncivil." This stern, government-issued rebuke, regardless of context, does not lend merit to the SPLC's classification of FAIR as a "hate group." Additionally, unless the court welcomes legal opinions from "hate groups," the decision to allow FAIR to continue filing amicus briefs further discredits this definition. For these reasons, the citation is relevant.--Irishman555 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I indented your response as is the custom. As egregious and significant as you want to make this, the fact is that all your quotes are the opinion of one government official written in a letter that was not intended for public consumption. There was no disciplinary followup and attempts by FAIR to obtain bar association sanctions failed.

You've got nothing except a finding that calling FAIR a "hate group" that is "white supremacist," "eugenicist," "anti-immigrant," "anti-Semitic" and "anti- Catholic, is inappropriate in one limited circumstance in the opinion of one government official. Nowhere do I see Barnes questioning the accuracy of the claims.

The Washington Post article that covers this incident is titled "Newly released letter shows growing battle between groups in immigration debate." The fact that FAIR and the SPLC disagree with each other is already covered in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

PS The following posting [[1]]from the SPLC seems to also be relevant here. It is dated 6-15-2015 (after the SPLC amicus brief with the questionable language was submitted) and states:

"On June 22, days after the amicus brief was filed, the board announced it will no longer request briefs from FAIR. The group will still be allowed to submit briefs to the board as a member of the public, but they will be considered unsolicited briefs that the board is free to ignore."

It seems like on the issue of whether it is appropriate to solicit FAIR's opinion on immigration issues, the SPLC carried the day. Has this change in policy been changed back? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Crime database from FAIR

FAIR compiles a database of crimes by illegal aliens. That is a fact. I think to FAIR's web site along with citation from mainstream media news articles. Lefts continue to remove that. Please stop your POV edits.

Zrh168 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The existence of the list may warrant one sentence. You decided however to remove important info from the lead and add irrelevant opinion about the news media. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The database only belongs if it has been covered by reliable sources. The description of the database has to reflect that of the RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition, saying in Wikipedias voice (without attribution) that the media downplays crimes by immigrants, and calling the SPLC a far-left organization is not neutral per Wikipedia standards. Sjö (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

People..

Wikipedia talk pages are not soapboxes or places to assert your feelings on an issue (outside of improving the article, etc.) There's forums to do that all over the internet.. Panfakes 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly apparent that WIKIPEDIA cannot be trusted as 'encyclopedia', a unbiased reference on anything. The article on FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM" is another example of the shoddy and biased work we see constantly on WIKIPEDIA.

The assumption of the entire article is that anyone who opposes immigration restrictions is racist and wrong. Shades of white well-to-do highly education liberal elitism!!!

I'll be adding MY voice to the growing movement to destroy this dumb website, and remove it from the search engines as an 'encyclopedia',...it's joke. And articles like this prove it!!!

You're funnier than most comedians. Wikipedia does a better job than most encyclopedias at criticizing all organizations. here it merely states the facts. if the stats seem to prove that a person's statement is inocorrect, justice has been done. the truth has been discovered. oh, and there are 2 ways to deal with neutrality of pages: 1, edit it yourself 2, insert a questionable neutrality icon. Whining about how an article doesnt just say that your side of the argument is correct helps no one.

p.s. you must really like restrictions if you think a coalition of people can remove a website from the internet?! Porvida 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You both are MISSING THE POINT on this one; there is nothing racist about opposing ILLEGAL immigration. That is not a matter of opinion, or subjective or whatever, because border security is based entirely on matters of national law (one's personal feelings on race or whatever don't enter the picture in any significant way; only the legality of a particular immigrant or immigrants entrance on domestic soil).

This article could definitely use some serious expansion, as well as balance. I am going to attempt to remedy the situation, and welcome whoever wants to help. TheKaplan 02:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How is someone that opposes restrictions racist? That doesn't even make sense ... --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 16:07,February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, I think the fact that FAIR advocates for immigrant restriction alone doesn't make them racist. Rather, their documented ties to the white supremacist and eugenics movements do. I hope wikipedia can continue to act as they always have, as arbiters of information. The idea is to provide a mosaic of different sources. Currently, FAIR needs more non-FAIR-created sources. I think that's the main issue, right?--TheSilverRiver (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the website

The text on the FAIR website is not an encyclopedia article, it is, like any such text, a promotional view of themselves. It isn't appropriate for us to just quote their "About Us" as our intorduction. This article is inteded to provide a neutral viewpoint, not simply repeat verbatim what is on the subject's website. We already provide a link there for anyone who wants to see that material. If we want to create a section to quote their "mission statement" that'd be ok, though awe already have one for their "principles". -Will Beback · † · 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"The text on the FAIR website is not an encyclopedia article, it is, like any such text, a promotional view of themselves." *sarcasm* No, really?

"It isn't appropriate for us to just quote their "About Us" as our intorduction." Again pointing out the obvious. "This article is inteded to provide a neutral viewpoint" three-for-three on the obvious-ometer. Now here's what's apparently not so obvious.. To create a neutral piece on FAIR (which gives them a fair shot (no pun intended) at representing themselves as well as gives critics a fair shot at presenting their position) we need to include FAIR's statement about themselves (and the mission statement is the best place to get that) as well as statements by critics and other parties. To leave either side out is not neutral (wow, another obvious point). The issue is not whether copying and pasting FAIR's mission statement into the intro of this article is sufficient, but whether leaving it out harms the article by taking away NPOV. Let me be clear on this, noone is arguing that we should just quote their 'about us'.-Psychohistorian 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"there is nothing racist about opposing ILLEGAL immigration."-You do realize FAIR is opposed to Most LEGAL immigration as well? So please keep race out of this, or you'll end up kicking yourslef in the but. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwishbonetoy (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A) They don't have a mission statement. That's just a description of themselves. B) We already give their principles, which are equivalent. C) We don't have to quote anyone to have a neutral article. D) Long quotes don't belong in the intro. The intro should establish the notability of the subject and give the key facts. -Will Beback · † · 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The key facts include what the organization says about itself. It is assanine to say that we can have a neutral article about a group when we don't include what the group has to say about itself.-Psychohistorian 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call other editors' remarks "asinine". Most (no, almost all) of our articles on groups do not start by quoting their "About Us" pages. (Can you point to any?) We already quote the organization on their principles. We cannot trust the "About Us" part to be neutral, so it should appear later in the article. -Will Beback · † · 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the article for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Right at the very top of the article it tells you how they describe themselves (where it says "their stated purpose.."). This is no different. The argument isn't about whether the 'About Us' is neutral. That's a straw man.-Psychohistorian 14:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not objection to us paraphrasing the aims of FAIR for the intro. Would you object? -Will Beback · † · 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of general principle, I don't like paraphrasing other peoples' comments on Wikipedia. "Paraphrasing" means "interpreting it and putting it into our own words" - our interpretation is original research. Paraphrasing gains us nothing except an opportunity to filter someone's words through our own biases.-Psychohistorian 18:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Another example of an organization whose article begins with a quote by it about it is The American Prospect.-Psychohistorian 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Writing an encyclopedia is an effort that involves summarizing what other people have written. If readers want to see the exact wording then they can follow the provided links. We should fix the The American Prospect article, which I note has a much shorter quote. -Will Beback · † · 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit does summarize. It reduces FAIR's statement about itself to one sentence. If readers want accuracy, they need direct quotes. Let's try for accuracy, okay? As for shortening the intro, I'm working on that. Criticism belongs in the criticism section. You don't see criticism in the American Prospect into and that's why its shorter.-Psychohistorian 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the robust discussion. Can we cite some more sources here that weren't written by FAIR? There are plenty of them. I think that would solve the issues both of you are talking about, right? --TheSilverRiver (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

What "weasel words" are in the article? Please point them out without reverting a lot of other material. -Will Beback · † · 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jason Riley

Who is Jason Riley? Why should we care what he has to say? -198.97.67.57 11:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mr. Riley is a senior editorial page writer at the [Wall Street] Journal."[2] -Will Beback · † · 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutraliy

I tried to make this much more neutral, as well as clean up the cites. Ronald King 08:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but let's keep the baby when we throw out the bathwater. I undid a few of your changes, as you may not know all Wikipedia policies or the history of this article or topic. External links are those that aren't used as sources but which will provide the reader with more information or a different POV on the topic. See [WP:EL]]. If sourced material is under an incorrct heading, then the best repair is to move or rename the heading, not to delete the material. The criticisms regarding the funding from the Pioneer Fund have come from various sources, so it shouldn't just be described as the criticism of one magazine article. I suppose we could list all of the groups instances in which that connection has been criticized, but that isn't really necessary. The reference to the Contra Costa Times article by Michele R. Marcucci is momentarily in limbo. The link doesn't have to work for a newspaper reference to be valid. Thanks for cleaning up the references- they're much better. -Will Beback · † · 09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if your baby may look like bathwater to others. I don't think the goal of an article on a group like FAIR is to include every criticism lodged by every opposing group, no matter how obscure. The accusation that FAIR has founded minority "facades" needs to be from a reliable and credible source, and I don't think the "courtesy link" you supplied is one. Nor can I substantiate your assertion that the "courtesy" article's text is partly the same as in the Contra Cost Times article. I searched for the Contra Costa Times article in their online archive but got no hits. If their archive is temporarily broken, maybe you should remove this particular criticism at least until it comes back. The section on Prop 200 is even more puzzling. You don't describe Prop 200 at all, or FAIR's role in the campaign, including the internecine conflict it had with Protect Arizona Now (PAN). Why is this one effort, out of the hundreds that FAIR has engaged in over 25 years, singled out for mention? It's all very obscure, and the sources don't look very credible either. Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of leaving questionable and extraneous material out, since our goal is to achieve and maintain neutrality?

Ronald King 10:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That Contra Costa Times article has been refered to by several other writers and bloggers, so there is really no reason to think the article wasn't published by them. I cn't answer for the problems with their archive.

As for the PAN 200 material, I didn't write it and I think it was poorly written. FAIR did receive considerable attention for their involvement in that proposition, so it's appropriate to includ but that material didn't proerly sumamrize the issues and included a long and unhelpul quotation. I'll start from scratch with a fresh version. As for the front groups, it has mutliple sources and concerns FAIR projects. If you doubt that CBA is a FAIR project then just visit their sparse website and look at the bottom.[3] Furthermore, the articles that are cited specifically criticize FAIR over them, so it's directly relevant. I'm going to restore that material and, as I said above, write new material on PAN. Lastly, I see you complaining about non-neutral sources. Obviously fAIR is a non-neutral source about itself, yet we use that. If you look at our core policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR, I don't think you'll find any prohibition on using non-neutral sources. What's important is to have a neutral articel, and that means presenting all significant viewpoints in a non-judgmental manner. Although we report on criticism (and praise) we don't endorse any of it. That's NPOV. -Will Beback · † · 05:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

---

<Alex talking (first time)> When I first started reading through this article I felt it was being presented positively (rather than neutrally). As I look back and try to determine exactly what gave me that sense, it's the positioning of their self-declared purpose (as others have mentioned). I think anybody would object to an encyclopedia article on, say, the democratic party starting with, "The Democratic party is an organization that ultimately seeks to 'Make the world as fair, productive, and good as possible.'"

Secondly, the very first adjectives (which aren't the most important adjectives) are positive characteristics (non-partisan, non-profit, educational). I'm not sure saying "in the United States " is necessary when four words later it says "advocates reforms of U.S. immigration."

Their self-description is a waste of space; if they consider themselves non-partisan I don't need a 32-word quote near the top that does nothing but reiterate that in political-speak. I'd rather get some content in the top (i.e. what distinguishes them from other organizations that believe in changing the way we enforce illegal immigration). What means do they propose?

I would propose a start something like this:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, abbreviated FAIR, is a non-profit 501(c)(3) U.S. immigration reform organization. The organization is known for its studies on the total economic influence of illegal immigrants and its relatively strong approach opinion (such as support for immigration detention centers) [Correct me if I'm wrong; the possibility that I am wrong is why I'm putting all of these suggestions in talk and not doing any myself].

The organization, with a membership is roughly _______ {Do we care what members+"supporters" is?}, was started on January 2, 1979 by John Tanton. The current president, Dan Stein, is a staunch anti-immigration activist who has written many articles and appeared before congress 50 times {the article was unclear, did he appear before congress 50 times and news programs 50 times, or a total of 50 between them?} as well as on {cable}/{national} television.

[I have removed the central offices remark. I don't see why it matters where they are, if it's truly important then I would want useful information (e.g. address). ] [At this point I think our wikipedia article on Dan Stein needs to be adjusted similarly]

```````````````````````` I have not found a way to integrate the following [see next paragraph], but I find it biased. Firstly, I think the word "Needed" should be in quotes (what is considered a need versus benefit is an opinoin) or it should be replaced with the term "beneficial," (or ideally economically befenifical or a more specific term, if that's what their true aim is). So, either clarify or make it into a quotation.

--FAIR seeks a moratorium on immigration by anyone other than refugees and the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, until it can be shown that higher immigration levels are needed.[2]

''''''''''''''''''''''

</Alex talking> AlexRohde 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FAIR History

Would it be a useful/good idea to include more of the history of FAIR? I only noticed one sentence that describes when they were founded and by whom. I think it might be good to go into greater depth about FAIR's history and why it was started. Any thoughts?Sushilover boy (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Go for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, excellent idea. You may find some material on the Sierra Club talk page has useful references. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to work on this wiki for a class, I agree with the point of including history, also think it may be important to say why FAIR believes what it does, I feel as though sometimes the page isn't explicit enough (besides giving the seven points which may need a brief explanation?). At one point it says "environmental, economic.." or whatever but doesn't give specifics. Also, maybe what FAIR's impact has been on policy, etc.Gbraham522 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What is Missing

FAIR's board, their identities, their political leanings, their views on other cultures as well as their own take on America are all missing in this piece.

Personally, I am totally against the organization and I believe that its association with the Pioneer Fund is proof enough of its racism, but that case can be sustained only by bringing out the facts on them along the lines in the paragraph above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to work on this Wiki page as part of class project and I think these are important things to include, some are briefly discussed but a few board members here and there. If you have any suggestions, let me know.Gbraham522 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR Media Contact Info

moved from User talk:Will Beback.

The paragraph identifying FAIR's media director as the media contact for two organizations that were started by FAIR seems to be unnecessary detail. Currently, it is also incorrect in the case of one of the two organizations cited (CFAW). This level of detail is not necessary to get a better understanding of FAIR. Anyone interested in finding the YDSM media contact can go to its website. However, if your real point is that FAIR still provides material support for YDSM, then I would suggest revising to clarify. Also, the professional history of the media contact (Mehlman) seems really down in the weeds and is available on the FAIR website for anyone so interested. So you could boil this down to: "The media contact for You Don't Speak For Me is Ira Mehlman, who is also FAIR's media director." Ron (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FAIR is a prt of a group of organizations with overlapping leadership. I'll rework the material to better reflect that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be off-topic of this section, and actually off-topic of the article. All major non-profits have overlapping leaderships. Unless you plan to edit every article in WP to show their overlapping leaderships, then it would appear you are non-neutral with regard to FAIR. I will make the change I suggested above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald King (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Category

Category:Anti-immigration organizations was deleted as incorrect.[4] Doesn't the organization advocate reductions in immigration? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Favoring immigration reduction is not the same as being opposed to immigration. FAIR is not opposed to immigration. Therefore, FAIR is not "anti-immigration". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald King (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• When a group wants to reduce taxes, we say they're "anti-tax", and so on. It's standard usage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• In fact, that is not standard usage. For example, Wikipedia has not categorized National Taxpayers Union or Americans for Tax Reform as "anti-tax" organizations, even though they both want to reduce taxes. Wikipedia should provide accurate information above all. FAIR is an immigration reform or immigration reduction organization. Ron (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Seems pretty evident from their website that FAIR is anti-immigrant, with the possible exception of white European immigrants. In fact, FAIR seems rather proud of it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing categories without adequate discussion and documentation. The relevance of Categories in a Wikipedia entry should never be held to the opinions of one side of an argument. The reason for the discussion or talk pages, is the solution to the issues of editing relevant content on a Wikipedia entry. The Federation for American Immigration Reform and its members have a plethora of documentation supporting their ethnocentric, anti-national sentiment. The trail of paperwork implicating the ideology of a FAIR in the area of white nationalism goes far beyond the blogs of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The following categories are up for dispute and should not be removed until an adequate amount of discussion has been enacted in regards to their viability for the article: Category:History of immigration to the United States, Category:Anti-national sentiment, Category:International relations, Category:Discrimination in the United States, Category:Latin American caste system, Category:Linguistic discrimination, Category:Ethnocentrism NativeFaith (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Each one of those should be discussed in the article, using reliable sources. I don't see anything int he article about the Latin American caste system, for example. Also, some topics are implicitly connected to others. All immigration groups have some connection to international relations in that immigration is an international activity. But if that's the case then we should apply that category to the immigration category, not to this group alone. So if we can support these categories with sources then we can keep them. Until then they just clutter up the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by two users "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [5] [6]" and may be used as a Reliable Source on issues within their investigative reporting areas, including hate groups, white supremicist, nativist, and "patriot" groups. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources II

WP:RS says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources...if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." FAIR website is NOT WP:RS concerning its funding of research by individuals at universities. Moreover, this information is trivial under WP:UNDUE. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrallity 2

Relentless POV pushing by Mervyn Emrys and others has resulted in an article that attempts to paint FAIR and its hundreds of thousands of members and supporters as racists, despite the complete lack of any evidence -- that would not be laughed out of court or any responsible newspaper -- of FAIR ever advocating racism, performing a racist act, or taking a racist, bigoted, nativist, or xenophobic position on any issue. The article mentions under both "Activities" and "Criticism" a small amount of funding for general operations received from the Pioneer Fund many years ago. Even assuming that the Pioneer Fund at the time of that funding was a racist organization -- which is contradicted by statements from the fund itself -- this is guilt by association that McCarthy would be proud of. It should be removed from "Activities" and the unsubstantiated claim that the Progress Fund was or is racist or neo-Nazi removed from "Criticism". FAIR is not "anti-immigration" as its opponents consistently call it, yet that inaccurate label continues to be re-inserted in this article. There are polls of the American people showing a desire by the majority to reduce immigration numbers to more traditional levels and crack down on illegal immigration, and if you believe the majority of Americans are racist, then you're welcome to your opinion but it does not belong here. The article in several places treats critical assertions by advocacy groups (e.g., SPLC) and newspaper editorials, which by definition are NPOV, as RS, and rebuttal information from the organization itself as not RS. This is obviously unfair and unbalanced. In fact, any organization would -- in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary -- normally be considered the most credible source of information about its positions and activities. The members and supporters of this organization are users of WP too, and whether you agree with their views or not, they deserve to be treated with a modicum of respect and without having to continuously defend their organization against non-stop recycling of ad hominem and innuendo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald King (talk • contribs) 06:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are reliable sources in the article supporting statements there, but you provide none in support of your rant here. Anybody can check them. FAIR is an anti-immigrant organization pretending to be a mainstream policy advocate. Nobody is fooled by them, or by your comments. If you wish to discuss this, please sign your posts. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FAIR is an organization dedicating to reducing immigration, not an "anti-immigrant" organization. "Nobody is fooled by them", what kind of snide crap is that. The fact is that any attempt to have a rational discussion on immigration is immediately attacked as "hate talk" by advocacy groups. Nobody is fooled by your attempt to find some obscure link between the group and some objectional individuals in order to avoid discussion of fact and policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.160.162 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiments of the above user, and of Ronald King. FAIR has been called to testify in front of the United States Congress on immigration-related bills more than any other organization. Those who have helped FAIR on its projects, advertisements, and development include:

- legendary civil rights advocate and former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)
- liberal anti-war icon Eugene McCarthy (D-MN)
- women's rights activist Bonnie Erbe
- liberal essayist, distinguished book writer, and environmental activist Edward Abbey
- liberal religious leader Theodore Hesburgh (who was appointed to chair President Jimmy Carter's blue-ribbon commission on immigration)
- former Congressman Anthony Beilenson (D-CA), who represented the Los Angeles area, and had an over 80% (liberal) rating from Americans for Democratic Action
- prominent Florida conservationist Dorothy Blair
- "business hero" Henry Buhl, the founder of the Association of Community Employment Programs for the Homeless
- democracy activist Joel McCleary (who was the Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee before serving as White House Assistant to the President in the Carter Administration, before becoming a personal advisor to the Dalai Lama)
- TIME Magazine publisher Henry Luce III
- distinguished civil rights leader, diplomat, and environmental advocate Frank Morris, Sr., the former Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation
- environmental luminary Edward H. Harte
- and the recently-passed physicist and activist Alan Kuper, known as the "voice of the Sierra Club."

FAIR has also worked with government security agencies, and has been cited as a reliable source by the U.S. Department of Justice, and current members of the U.S. Congress from both major political parties. It has strong flaws, but certainly has more mainstream credibility than the SPLC.

Including criticism of FAIR in this article is great (and absolutely necessary), but the way this article was revised was in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV (though some of that biased editing has rightfully now been removed). The main body of the article needs to be amended though, with information on FAIR's activities (which have been taking place, for decades), its leadership, and its national advisory board.

Also, if the SPLC is going to be relied on so heavily, within the FAIR article, then the publications of FAIR and other organizations that are critical of the SPLC should perhaps be cited, within its article. (There were other critical pieces of the SPLC in its article, from sources such as The Washington Post and CounterPunch, but they were removed; even the famous Harper's expose was deleted (but fortunately restored). The Montgomery Advertiser's expose series is still mentioned, but only insofar as the SPLC's fundraising controversies; there was a lot of other notable material in that series. Pacificus (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your allegations are not supported by any citations to reliable sources on this page. Merely dropping names and providing a link to an article about that person is not sufficient to verify the accuracy of your statements. We've heard all this before. Accusing others of doing what you are doing (POV pushing) will not change any minds here. Try a new tactic, like, tell the truth and cite reliable sources. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the above comment was not to provide formally-cited material (that is what the Wikipedia articles themselves are for), but rather, to quickly express concurrence with the underlying point of the NPOV dispute, which the above two commenters (and many other users, on other Wikipedia pages that you have attempted to slant or censor), have made.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacificus (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 April 2009

"Conservative"

• On Tuesday, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group, gathered the radio talk show hosts, including Dobbs, for a set of broadcasts to push Congress to do something about illegal immigration.
  • Sept. 16, 2009 Partisan Heat Shows No Sign of Cooling Washington Post: On Capitol Hill, There's Anger -- and Then There's Anger About Anger. Joel Achenbach.

• "I think it's probably a combination of both of those things," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform. The group has suggested that "McCain didn't want the public to understand how horrific" the "McKennedy Bill" was.
  • Immigration Issue Gets Little Attention On Convention Floor Ben Pershing. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Sep 4, 2008. pg. A.25

• While the Center for Immigration Studies defines itself as nonpartisan, some liberal groups say it is a thinly-veiled Republican group started 20 years ago as a spinoff of the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform.
  • Immigration report spurs questions about size of undocumented population Dave Marcus. McClatchy - Tribune News Service. Washington: Jul 30, 2008.

• Bob Dane, spokesman for the conservative national group Federation for American Immigration Reform, said Carcieri "will be in good company."
  • Immigration order draws praise, fire Karen Lee Ziner. The Providence Journal. Providence, R.I.: Mar 29, 2008. pg. A.1

• Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform, said immigration enforcers should have more discretion when it comes to protecting national security.
  • Acquitted in Liberty City Seven terror case, suspect might be deported Vanessa Blum, Ruth Morris. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Dec 21, 2007.

• Although some conservative groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform lauded the decision, saying it would be welcomed by a population tired of watching illegal immigrants and their employers go unchallenged, labor experts and others warned of economic devastation.
  • U.S. targets illegal workers Javier Erik Olvera. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Aug 11, 2007.

• Alvarez also is one of 10 people helping to launch a Phoenix chapter of You Don't Speak for Me, a coalition formed through the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform.
  • Hispanic backs tough Pearce stand: Border enforcement backer seeks others who share views Sarah N. Lynch. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Dec 20, 2006. pg. 1

• The measure that did pass, he said, is in the best interests of Colorado, supported by what he called a strange coalition of people from prominent Democrats to Congressman Tom Tancredo and the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform.
  • EDITORIAL Colorado advances immigration reform Bipartisan bills passed in the legislature's special session may be a model for other states but enforcement must be handled carefully and fairly.; [Final Edition] Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Jul 12, 2006. pg. B.06

• Bilbray, who served in the House from 1994 to 2000, long has been a national leader on the issue, both inside and outside of government. He takes a very strong stand against illegal entry into the United States, and since his departure from Congress he has worked on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a conservative group that wants to limit both legal and illegal immigration.
  • Bilbray for Congress | Illegal immigration is key issue in hot race; [R,E,S,C Edition] The San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: May 17, 2006. pg. B.8

• His supporters, such as spokeswoman Susan Wysoki, of the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform, say Tancredo is "one of the few congressmen with the guts to stand up on this issue."
  • Immigrants send a resounding call Crowds rallied and workers stayed off the job to protest lawmakers' proposed crackdown. Anti-amnesty: A passionate politician presses on. Steve Goldstein. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: May 2, 2006. pg. A.1

• "This is not victimless. Americans are being displaced," said Susan Wysoki, a spokeswoman for the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform.
  • Deportation fear a continuous nightmare; [ALL Edition] Shaun Sutner. Telegram & Gazette. Worcester, Mass.: Apr 16, 2006. pg. A.8

• "Clearly if people got into a (temporary worker) program like this, they're not going to change their intentions to remain here indefinitely," said Dan Stein, executive director of the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform. " ... This whole thing is academic fantasy land."
  • Mixed reaction to migrant survey / Poll seems to suggest that many would be receptive to a temporary worker program; [3 STAR Edition] KIM COBB. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Mar 3, 2005. pg. 3

• The battle between the red shirts and the work shirts has attracted the attention of the politically conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform, based in Washington. The federation sent Jupiter Mayor Karen Golonka a 13-page letter warning that the town would violate federal law by approving the employment center, claiming it would be used by undocumented workers.
  • POSSIBLE JUPITER LABOR CENTER GENERATES OUTCRY; [FINAL Edition] PAMELA PEREZ Palm Beach Post Staff Writer. Palm Beach Post. West Palm Beach, Fla.: Dec 12, 2004. pg. 1.C

• Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform, said that it is important to have laws that "inconvenience' professional smugglers, and that people like Wilson will get caught, even if they didn't know they were breaking the law.
  • Good deed turns sour at border BRAD A. GREENBERG. The Sun. San Bernardino, Calif.: Dec 3, 2004.

• The Arizona measure drew strong criticism from moderate Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, as well as Democrats. The initiative's biggest backer was the conservative group Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, based in Washington, D.C.
  • The Bush Victory Arizona Limits Illegal Immigrants' Access to Benefits Miriam Jordan. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Nov 4, 2004. pg. A.4

• Dan Stein, the executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a conservative lobbying group in Washington, D.C., said seasonal work should go to Americans, not foreigners.
  • US FIRMS: INCREASE VISAS FOR WORKERS CONCERNS RAISED OVER SEASONAL JOBS; [THIRD Edition] Diane E. Lewis, Globe Staff. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Apr 7, 2004. pg. F.1

• Nationally, the opposition against issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, led by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a conservative Washington group lobbying to restrict immigration, has also been vociferous. The organization contends that the practice poses serious risks to the national security.
  • Illegal Aliens Travel to Other States for Driver's Licenses Yilu Zhao. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 2, 2003. pg. 14WC.5

• Dan Stein, executive director of the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform, complained that northern-border lawmakers acted at the behest of business interests to water down the tracking provisions of a 1996 immigration reform law.
  • SECURITY VS. COMMERCE: GRIDLOCK AT THE BORDERS? ; As Washington seeks to quash terrorism, many officials worry about impeding trade.; [Final Edition] BART JANSEN Staff Writer Library assistant Julia McCue contributed research to this article.. Portland Press Herald. Portland, Me.: Sep 26, 2001. pg. 1.A

• "Opposition is pretty strong in the House," said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a conservative group opposed to high levels of immigration.
  • THE NATION; THE FOX VISIT; NEWS ANALYSIS; Political Realities Intrude on Promise of Change; [Home Edition] RONALD BROWNSTEIN. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 7, 2001. pg. A.1

• David Ray, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a conservative Washington think tank, said amnesty programs in the past have created a self-perpetuating cycle that rewards immigrants who break the law.
  • Amnesty debate still unresolved ; Proposal may condone crossings, yet it frees immigrants from fear.; [METRO Edition] Jaime Castillo, Dane Schiller. San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, Tex.: Jul 23, 2001. pg. 1A

These are sufficient and diverse enough references that I think we can say that FAIR is "widely described as conservative".   Will Beback  talk  18:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are some newspaper articles that label FAIR as "conservative" - but isn't it more important what the truth is? The leadership of FAIR is mostly left-of-center, and its Advisory Board does include some conservatives, but also includes leftist luminaries in the environmentalist, civil rights, and labor movements. (See my comment above, in the "Neutrality 2" section, for some examples.)

Accuracy should be our primary aim. Pacificus (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Blogs aren't reliable sources. The clippings above are. But if there are reliable sources that say the group is left-of-center then we can report that too. There are conservatives in those fields. For example, Charlton Heston marched on behalf of civil rights, and the Teamsters are a politiclaly conservative labor union. Further, the composition of an advisory board does not determine the actual character of an organization.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't using the blog as a source - but rather using the points of fact that that blog entry makes, about FAIR's leadership. Many of the people I referenced are self-described as liberals and Democrats.

Of the two National Co-Chairmen of the Advisory Board, one, Richard Lamm (D-CO), is a liberal Democrat (and focuses on those aspects of immigration, and the other, Brian Bilbray (R-CA) is a Republican, but known as a "moderate," being affiliated with organizations such as the Republican Main Street Partnership and Republicans for Choice.

Famous left-wing leader Eugene McCarthy (D-MN) was very-involved, before he passed away... For other examples, see my post in the "Neutrality 2" section above.

And the person listed in this article as FAIR's founder, Dr. John Tanton, is recognized as a leftist, and someone with "strong liberal credentials" - Among those sources that have pointed out that many of the leaders in the immigration-reduction movement are left-of-center include the Wall Street Journal newspaper, the Rocky Mountain News, published books, and those such as then-U.S. Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT), the latter of whom is a staunch conservative, and a supporter of illegal immigration (just as the Wall Street Journal, the CATO Institute, the Club for Growth, and many other influential conservatives are, due to economic reasons).

The sources you have cited above are all secondary sources (and most of those listed are themselves liberal publications, which could go towards bias and weight). Also: You most likely did a web search, for "conservative" along with FAIR's name, to pull those up. So, your results would naturally omit all news articles (some of which may be from the very same publications mentioned in your list), which don't refer to FAIR as conservative - One could easily pull up other news articles, like from the NCTimes, from Human Events, from the Associated Press, from the Washington Times, and from other publications, which cite FAIR, but don't refer to it as "conservative," but simply as an advocacy group (since it is, indeed, non-partisan, and not positioned on either side of the ideological divide).

But instead of relying on secondary sources, why not take a first-hand look at who the leaders of FAIR are? As you can see, many of those leaders have strong ties to groups such as Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the organized labor movement (and Teamsters is moderate, not conservative, nor liberal), the populist movement, and the Democratic Party. There are some conservatives there as well, but it is pretty-much divided.

FAIR is neither a liberal organization, nor a conservative one. The immigration issue is so multi-faceted, that there are deep divisions on both sides of the ideological and partisan divide. Being the most-major of the immigration reduction organizations, FAIR has long been reflecting this division. Pacificus (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not saying that FAIR is a conservative organization. We're saying that it is widely called that, which is a verifiable fact. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. If there are reliable sources that call FAIR "liberal" then we should include that too. Also, according to WP:V, articles should be based mainly on secondary sources, not on our interpretations of primary sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the sources that refer to FAIR as an "advocacy group" or similar labels, without the partisan or ideological tag? As mentioned above, when doing a selective search, one will come up with selective results. Multi-faceted issues, and the major organizations involved in them, create intra-political cleavages.

There is a great deal more than just "conservative" and "liberal." Pacificus (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're correct that I searched for articles that used both terms in proximity. A similar search for "advocacy group" brings up half as many hits, but still dozens. We can add that too. "Non-partisan" brings up far fewer: only about four usable entries. We can still say that they call themselves non-partisan though. "Partisan" can mean related to political parties, but it can also mean related to a cause. On the issue of immigration, FAIR is a partisan group advocating for only side of the debate.   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What I was saying above, is to look how many media mentions there are, describing FAIR as an immigration-related, immigration-reduction, advocacy, etc., etc., organization - without the "conservative" or "liberal" adjective. The citations that say "conservative" (which you've selectively searched for, as we discussed above) make up only a small fraction of the overall citations of FAIR. In other words, the overwhelming majority of reliable-source citations of FAIR do not regard it as a conservative organization. It is not widely called a conservative organization, but occasionally called that.

And insofar as presenting only one side - If anything, FAIR presents arguments, from a left-of-center (or "progressive") perspective, based on labor-related, populist, and environmentalist issues. But that is neither here nor there (it's beside the point) - The bottom line is that FAIR is neither a liberal nor conservative organization, and most reliable-source citations of FAIR do not refer to it with either of those labels. Pacificus (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that most of the assertions in this article are not included in the majority of the sources available, if we had any way of determining that fact (which we don't). The sources above are all reliable. I don't recall seeing any sources that call it "left-of-center", though that's possible too. But most of your argument appears to rely on original research.   Will Beback  talk  05:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, FAIR is also called "conservative" in a number of books.[7][8][9][10][11] Here's one that says it is viewed as an "extremist group by many".[12] We could add that too, perhaps to the body of the article.   Will Beback  talk  06:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "left-of-center" - Once again, we're getting into the false dichotomy; Major organizations that are issue-focused (and on an issue that is so multi-faceted) often don't fall into a simple right/left paradigm - That is reductionism.

Do a news search for "Federation for American Immigration Reform," and you will see that almost none of the results that come up describe FAIR as "conservative." What is the basis for the "widely described in press reports as conservative" characterization? FAIR is one of the most-cited organizations, insofar as immigration-related issues; your selection of "conservative"-label citations are a tiny fraction of the total (and frequent!) citations; that is begging the question (as mentioned above), and also, giving undue weight to an extreme-minority of reports. One could pull up many more reliable-source press reports, parallel to the ones you've cited (insofar as the subject matter covered), but which do not characterize FAIR as a partisan (i.e. - ideologically-tilted) organization. Most reliable source mentions do, however, describe it as an anti-illegal immigration (or anti-immigration) organization.

The "widely" adverb is original research, and unsupported. "Occasionally" would be more accurate, but why include this misleading characterization at all? Pacificus (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who mentioned "left of center", so if you want to drop it that's fine with me.

The basis for saying that it is "widely described in press reports as conservative" are the numerous sources listed above. Deleting that many sources is inappropriate. This assertion is better sourced than anything else in the article.

We do have a source that explicitly says it is viewed by man as being "extremist". Since you are wanting sources that make such explicit claims, let's add that to the lead, then we can list all of the sources which all FAIR "conservative" in the body of the text. Is that preferable?   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Using the Google test that you suggest, there are roughly 5770 hits in all, excluding press releases.[13] Of those, 649 include the word "conservative".[14] But only 54 include the phrase "non-partisan".[15] So it appears that FAIR may be called "conservative" in hundreds of news reports. If you can find a term that is used more often then we should include that too. But the phrase you deleted is accurate and well-supported by reliable sources. That test also calls the use of "non-partisan" into question.   Will Beback  talk  04:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The listing at the top of this section includes 20 news citations that refer to FAIR as "conservative", and later on there is a list of 4 links to books that refer to it the same way. Hence "dozens". I suppose to would be more accurate to write, "It is described as conservative in dozens of press reports and books". Otherwise it seems entirely accurate.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

partisan, non-partisan

I like how it's worded now in the lede. Much more NPOV. :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV says we must include all significant points of view.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why FAIR was designated a "hate group"

SPLC began listing FAIR as a hate group in late 2007, saying its position on immigration was “rooted more in its anti-Latino and anti-Catholic beliefs than in policy concerns.” SPLC also noted that FAIR has promoted racist conspiracy theories about Mexico’s secret designs on the American Southwest.” See: Waters, Rob. “Funding FAIR.” Intelligence Report. Winter 2009. pp. 31-32.

The Southern Poverty Law Center lists FAIR as a hate group, “because of its acceptance of $1.2 million from a racist foundation, the Pioneer Fund; its hiring as key officials men who also joined white supremacist groups; board members who also write regularly for hate publications; and its promotion of racist conspiracy theories.” See: Southern Poverty Law Center. “Intelligence Briefs,” Intelligence Report. Winter 2009. p. 10.

Intelligence Report has previously been identified as a reliable source on the Wikipedia notice board. Check it out. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the discussion pertaining to the neutrality tags? Here's SPLC's claim: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/11/fair-crossing-the-rubicon-of-hate/ Scribner (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe after recent events the center does not contribute as a reliable source and should be stricken for NPOV. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

FAIR was designated a hate group by the SPLC because the SPLC, however noble its stated intentions, has become a politicized, hyper-partisan piece of garbage which refuses to include Antifa on its list of hate/domestic terrorist groups or to explain why. Quis separabit? 16:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight

Why is the view of a one professor (Wroe) considered undue weight, but not the view of a columnist (Geyer)? [16]   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've posted a request for opinions about the Geyer source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Uexpress. It's not clear if that is a proper secondary source.   Will Beback  talk 

If there's no discussion I'll remove the new tags.   Will Beback  talk  05:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained changes

A one-time editor swept through in October and substantially re-wrote the article without sufficient explanation. I've reverted that edit (there haven't been any significant ones since then). If anyone wants to discuss the changes collectively or individually then let's work towards improving the article.   Will Beback  talk  09:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

smear/scare words violates NPOV

The use of an opinion piece self-published by the left-wing group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting violates NPOV. The use of the [[ WP:SCAREQUOTES|scare term]] "white nationalist" in scare quotes violates the rules on cherry picking and the use of quotes.

Self-published left-wing blogs should not be used as sources. The SPLC is different.

-- Callinus (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Section was also pretty SYNTHy and COATy. Left SPLC remarks intact, although I notice no RS mentions so there could be possible weight problems, depending on how much attention the claim received. Not bothering to check this right now. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted text

The following text was deleted by veteran editor User:Rms125a@hotmail.com User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com who humbly self-describes as having "strong deletionist and immediatist instincts" :). Thank you for your many contributions Rms125a@hotmail.com However, the edit summary, "Undid revision 778668907 by Oceanflynn (talk) undo unsourced text, OR" is not valid here.

The deleted paragraph, which includes details about FAIR's focus from 2009-2015, has two citations with fully detailed reliable sources. I am currently contextualizing FAIR's work by adding significant and relevant legislation with wikilinks, for example, the effects of legislation on immigration in the United States and FAIR's responses. It is particularly relevant as there are a number of related Wikipedia articles that could link to FAIR and current conversations on immigration policies.

I will wait a sufficient time before reverting the deletion unless there is discussion on the talk page reflecting a consensus that it should not be reverted or it is edited by others. Thank you for volunteering to edit Wikipedia. Kind regards Oceanflynn (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• "During President Obama's tenure, FAIR's President Dan Stein was particularly critical of Eric Holder as Attorney General (2009-2015), calling Holder "the chief dismantler of laws this administration found to be politically inconvenient, notably all those related to immigration enforcement and the law's administration." In 2014 in a FAIR press release, they strongly challenged Holder's lawsuits against Arizona, South Carolina and Alabama, states that opposed sanctuary cities' protecting illegal immigrants. In an interview with Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman, Dan Stein had warned that the United States was at "the verge of 'civil violence' thanks to "Holder and immigration reform advocates". Kaufman shared Stein's concerns that President Obama had "done nothing but destroy everything my country represented."

References

At the same time User:Rms125a@hotmail.com also deleted this because there was no citation. In this case, justified, although a timed citation needed template would have sufficed. I have the sources which I can add later. So I will leave it here until I can locate the exact page number. One was in an encyclopedia and the other in Tanton's papers on the Southern Poverty Law Center. I was hoping to find another source.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"After the negative publicity about Pioneer Fund donations to FAIR, including an article in the Los Angeles Times, FAIR stopped soliciting Pioneer donations and issued a denunciation of eugenics in December 1994. Tanton disagreed with Pioneer's critics."

REPLY

A) The only text I deleted was this small paragraph which was not sourced as far as I am concerned:

"After the negative publicity about Pioneer Fund donations to FAIR, including an article in 'the Los Angeles Times', FAIR stopped soliciting Pioneer donations and issued a denunciation of eugenics in December 1994. Tanton disagreed with Pioneer's critics."

If you wanna restore it, source it. Quis separabit? 16:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

B) As far as my "deletionist instincts", that refers primarily to non-notable articles, NOT validly sourced text. Quis separabit? 16:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)