Talk:Center for Immigration Studies

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Center for Immigration Studies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 3 months

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: District of Columbia Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American Start‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Template:Findnote

Really, who is the founder?

I think the issue of who exactly is the founder of the CIS is legitimately unclear: Otis Graham or John Tanton. I know lots of socks have been posting screeds about this issue but I think it should genuinely be looked at to make sure we are identifying the correct founder. CIS claims it was founded by Graham, [1] while acknowledging that Tanton was "one of several individuals who were instrumental in starting the Center for Immigration Studies". [2] The New York Times states that Tanton "played a lesser role" at the CIS compared to Numbers USA. [3] PolitiFact acknowledges that Tanton "helped found CIS", and Tanton states that "I also helped raise a grant in 1985 for the Center for Immigration Studies, but I have played no role in the center's growth or development". [4] I suspect that it may not be a good idea to unequivocally describe Tanton as the founder of the CIS. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit discussion[5]. For what its worth, my preferred language was that of PolitiFact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the article to say that Graham and Tanton founded CIS (in the lede), and that Graham was the founding chairman and later founding board member, and that Tanton was "instrumental" in the foundation (in the body). I have added the Times and PolitiFact citations from above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some possible context for why so many new users are flocking here to dispute the connection to Tanton. Just something to be aware of.--Jorm (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting!

I don't think there's any doubt about a connection to Tanton, only about the nature of that connection. It's certainly possible that Graham was acting (knowingly or not) as Tanton's "beard" in the founding of CIS. Perhaps the papers in those boxes might shine a light on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: I find the University's position in this rather odd. What difference does it make if institutions subject to the FOIA get fewer donations of documents of possible historic value if they seal those documents and no one can see them? Unless, of course (I don't think the article says) they're sealed for X number of years). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo explicitly describes him as a founder: To gain even more authority, Tanton founded CIS to act as an independent-seeming “think tank” that could produce research with a “greater appearance of objectivity,” in the words of FAIR President Dan Stein.. So does the SPLC. This recent article from the NYtimes also sheds some light on Cordelia Melon Scaife's involvement in funding the group. Both articles make it pretty clear that the ambiguity surrounding the founding of the group was intentional, but Tanton was the primary force behind it. Nblund^talk 14:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edit On closer reading, I think that Washington Post piece could reasonably be called an op-ed by a noted historian, but the Politifact article also describes him as a founder, and the distinction between "helping to found" vs. "instrumental in starting" seems inconsequential. Nblund^talk 15:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure--I initially found this page through the reddit discussion above. To IntoThinAir's point, I do think it is legitimately unclear enough that we probably should not definitively call Tanton the founder, but I'm unsure the current language in the lead where we simply list both Graham and Tanton is any better. I'm going through the sources above and occam's razor says that Tanton is probably the real founder and CIS has an obvious reason to want to hide this, no? But can we say that in wikipedia's voice? Rather than get into the nitty gritty, I'd propose just shifting the debate to the history section, while noting the strong sourcing indicating Tanton's role. If editors think Graham belongs in there as well that's fine. GeauxDevils (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to circle back to this as this appears unresolved. GeauxDevils (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's resolved, just not the way you, Reddit, Tanton's estate, or the CIS wish it to be. Someone should close this section. Question for GeauxDevils: do you have any conflict of interest regarding this page, are you being paid or otherwise compensated for your work here, and have you ever edited under a different account? --Jorm (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.GeauxDevils (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanton is dead

He died according to his Wiki bio. That needs to be corrected in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that he is alive? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12: 58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Funding

Here is a recent article that talks about where some of the funding comes from. I'm not sure what's usable in it, however.--Jorm (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could be useful to mention May directly, rather than just Colcom, which is apparently her vehicle. Thoughts? GeauxDevils (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC Lawsuit

CIS sued the SPLC for calling them a hate group. A federal judge threw out the complaint. I can't find any coverage of this (yet) but someone else may.--Jorm (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't either, but this is a situation where primary sources are actually useful. The opinion can be cited for the status of the legal case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kunzelman, Michael (September 16, 2019). "Judge tosses lawsuit over law center's hate group labels". Associated Press. Retrieved September 16, 2019. AndroidCat (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd added it to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by GeauxDevils removing Tanton's Description

GeauxDevils has been attempting to remove information that describes Tanton as a white supremacist in the lede without discussion. They have been told to obtain and get consensus for the edits. Here is a place where they can attempt to do so!

I believe that this information should remain in the lede. --Jorm (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to GeauxDevils, I am a profoundly unintelligent person, so that should be pretty much all we need to know about this.--Jorm (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Err, yeah. I think that's a good spot to put a pin in that discussion. I don't necessarily have a problem with saying that CIS has disputed the extent Tanton's role in the organization, but I don't think anyone denies that he was involved in some capacity. Moreover, the edit gave the impression that there were historians or independent experts that dissented from the view that Tanton was a founder. Nblund^talk 18:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been repeatedly rude and snarky, I simply matched your tone. Perhaps that was inappropriate of me, but it's hard not to be frustrated with your attitude. Personal jabs aside, I have no issue mentioning that Tanton is a white nationalist. Because, well, he is. That's quite well documented by the splc among others. 'But' if the organization disputes that, or Tanton disputed his role when he was alive, that clearly belongs in the article. In fact, it appears that it used to be int the article for quite some time, so I'm not sure when exactly it was pulled. I think during the edits subsequent to the banning of sock accounts. It's weird that this material was all wiped from the body.GeauxDevils (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out to me where I've called you stupid or made a personal attack. If you can't, I'm going to ask that you strike your comments.--Jorm (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I struck them. Please don't accuse me of hiding Tanton's white nationalism when I specifically added that back to the lead, and when it's not relevant to the question of whether he and CIS disputed his involvement. GeauxDevils (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved reliable sources have been cited for Taunton's role and a consensus discussion on this talk page confirmed the use in the article. Please do not change to information again without getting a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least regarding this edit, the WaPo source cited there is an opinion piece (and not one by Tanton, so we can't cite it for his opinion). We can't cite it for statements of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should Tanton's description go before his name? It makes Graham sound like a eugenicist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underinflation (talk • contribs) 18:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "eugenicist John Tanton" reads better, yes. It's also consistent with how we put historian before Graham's name.GeauxDevils (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently five sources (of varying reliability) being used to justify the white nationalist label. Curiously, the only two of those five sources that actually call Tanton a white nationalist are Wired and the SPLC. The other three--Politifact, The Hill, and the NYTimes, don't actually use the term, or if they do, they attribute it to the SPLC. Per WP:RSP the SPLC is considered "biased or opinionated" as an advocacy group and should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Under no circumstance should wikipedia's voice be using such a contentious label like "white nationalist" without attribution and strong sourcing. GeauxDevils (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been decided before when Taunton was alive. Given he is now dead, there is no BLP issue and even less issue given the variety of sourcing on the topic. Toa Nidhiki05 21:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP or not, you've deflected. What sourcing indicates that he is a white nationalist? GeauxDevils (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wired and the SPLC, but here’s more:

I can gather more. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd set of sources to include, since they prove exaxtly my point--they are citing the SPLC, not calling him a white nationalist themselves. Both WaPo and DFP attribute the phrase to the SPLC. NPR doesn't specifically him a white nationalist--but it says he went in that "direction." And Daily Beast is far from a highly reliable source. I appreciate you digging these up, because they further confirm my point. GeauxDevils (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker carlson a "white nationalist"

I undid this edit adding a parenthetical calling Tucker Carlson a white nationalist. There has already been plenty of discussion on this topic on Tucker Carlson's talk page, so I won't beat a dead horse. But I'd point you to the RfC to see where editor consensus is. Regardless, it's a blatant case of WP:COATTRACKING to add it to this article, since it's not relevant to the subject at hand. At most, we could add a paranethical calling him a conservative journalist, as his own page does. But even that seems gratuitous. GeauxDevils (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that this is gratuitous. But the repeated undos need to stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. GeauxDevils (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, do not make this change; attempting to interact with you is pointless.--Jorm (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an appropriate response. You suggested we move this discussion to Talk. I did, and the only feedback I got was someone agreeing with me. After a week, you said nothing, so, given the lack of disagreement to consensus, I reverted the change to the long-standing version of the page. Regardless of your apparent disdain for my editing, if you have a substantive reason for wanting to include this, I'd encourage you to share. Because from my perspective, this appears to be a cut and dry case of coattracking and obviously not relevant to CIS. GeauxDevils (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]