Talk:NumbersUSA

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011162557/http://www.numbersusa.org/forms/irs_form_990.pdf to http://www.numbersusa.org/forms/irs_form_990.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060624045739/http://www.splcenter.org:80/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=72 to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=72
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091007132838/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/nativist_numbersusa.jsp to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/nativist_numbersusa.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091018002339/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/nativist_lobby.jsp to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/nativist_lobby.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'd say it is. The SPLC says it's the most reaasoned of such groups but still calls it anti-immigration. There are other media sources, one of which is this one. The book Anti-immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia by Kathleen R. Arnold This books says it pushes racist policies. Again there are more. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should say it's "anti-immigration", not "immigration reduction" (which the article currently says). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The organization itself does not describe itself with such a term. The SPLC is not a reliable or unbiased source, and it faces numerous lawsuits for defamatory claims. That book listed is just one source, again with its own political and ideological skew or bias. Its claims of "racist" and "anti-immigration" are highly subjective, biased and tenuous. To discuss matters of ethnicity and race in immigration is not "racist". And to advocate lower or reduced immigration is not "anti-immigrant" or "anti-immigration". 76.69.3.70 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-immigration 

message: The previous discussion on this wording was archived, with all those participating in the discussion agreeing it does not belong in the lede.
Let me add my voice to them - this is undue for the lede, and not even supported by the source, which makes no mention of "monitoring" by the SPLC.  Editors are encouraged to read WP:ONUS and see who needs to establish consensus for adding disputed content to an article. Here come the Suns (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not, it is not supported. One can comment that "Group X is a member of  Y" without monitoring it. Monitoring implies an on-going close scrutiny, and we have no evidence of that in the source provided.  The body of the article can mention that the  SPLC considers them one of the big 3 of anti-immigration, but absent a source that says the SPLC is monitoring them, we can't state that. Certainly not in the lede. Here come the Suns (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Here come the Suns, will you declare that you are not the same user as ModerateMikayla/Daryl.jensen and that you are not professionally connected to NumbersUSA, the Center for Immigration Studies, or John Tanton?--Jorm (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not  ModerateMikayla/Daryl.jensen . I wasn't even aware that they had previously removed this same content until you drew my attention to the previous discussion, I just happen to think they are correct about this being WP:UNDUE. I am  not connected to NumbersUSA, the Center for Immigration Studies, or John Tanton in any way, professionally or otherwise. Here come the Suns (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Here come the Suns, yes one can comment blah blah blah but that is not how the SPLC works. Yes, they are applying ongoing scrutiny. No, that is not explicitly stated in the source, because people who know the SPLC knows that etc. Sheesh. Drop it already. You got a couple of hundred edits here, don't act like you know everything. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that's how the SPLC works, perhaps not. For the article to claim "monitoring", we need a source that says that, explictly. We're not going to go by your say-so. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's... not how it works.--Jorm (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? How does it work, then? According  to WP:V: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" and "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. " Here come the Suns (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording in the lede is perfectly acceptable , The fact that the SPLC issues reports on NubersUSA means that they are actively monitoring them.  We are allowed to understand the common English meanings of words and phrases without providing a reference, and that is the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect, read what I wrote  above. One can comment that "Group X is a member of Y" without monitoring it, and one can issue reports without monitoring. Per WP:V: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" and "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. " - this wording was challenged, and you are required to provide a source that says the SPLC is monitoring. Alternatively, if you want to say the SPLC "issues reports" on NumbersUSA, you need a source for that, too. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, your vast experience, with your hundreds of edits, has not lead you to the correct interpretation, as every other participant in this discussion has told you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do explain, then, what is the correct interpretation of "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged "? I wish to learn. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Beyond My Ken and others, the argument made by Here come the Suns is a weak one at best. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPLC "monitorng" 

message: Regarding your edit which undid my edit, please see WP:CRITS. Article sections dedicated to negative criticism of a topic should be avoided. The section title "Reception" avoids the negative connotation. Plus, a description of an organization as "anti-immigration" or "nativist" is not necessarily negative, making the "Criticism" section title misleading. feminist (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" section