Talk:Laird Wilcox

Revisionism article

Guy, can you say what your objection is to including this link? He did write the article for this organization, so far as I can tell. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

John Birch society quote

William Norman Grigg (of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society and "New American") writes that Wilcox is "considered by many academics to be one of the nation’s foremost experts on 'fringe' political movements. A longtime member of the ACLU and veteran of the 1960s Civil Rights movement, [he is] a forthright critic of professional anti-right activists ..."[4] I have three problems with this part. 1. It seems misplaced in the lead, as the opinion of one person. 2. The link for the citation fails, and is not in the Internet Archive, nor is the article on the New American site. 3. In an interview, Wilcox refers to the John Birch society as extremists [1]; so the statement that he is a critic of anti-right activists seems unbalanced. Fences and windows (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a cached copy:[2]. Fences and windows (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20070221062829/http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/11-08-99/vo15no23_police.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.24 (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

This article seems quite bland for someone who works in a controversial area. I had a look, and in an article in the Washington Times (copy here), he was referred to as follows:

"Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter," he said. "He simply can't tolerate people who are his competition in this field." Chip

SPLC spokesman Mark Potok said Mr. Wilcox has "had an ax to grind for a great many years. He spends his time attacking other people who do anti-racist work, calling them everything from Communists to opportunistic slime." Mr. Wilcox's criticism has been "used by right-wing extremists very frequently as a vehicle to attack us," Mr. Potok said.

This seems like notable criticism, even if they would criticise him, as he's criticised them... Fences and windows (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote is from Mark Potok of Southern Poverty Law Center. It's no longer at that link but it is at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61963980.html Going to do a little updating from that article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there hasn't been much criticism? Or if the groups he's written about have criticized him, it's been in their own newsletters which haven't been scanned to the web? Just looking quickly, all I found was Christenfeld, Timothy (15 November 1992). "Nazis, Communists, Klansmen and Others on the Fringe [book review]". Library Journal . 117 (19): 89. ISSN 0363-0277. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |month=, and |coauthors= (help) which completely savaged that book, but Wilcox himself isn't singled out for criticism therein. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just adding something I kept running into in articles in wikipedia last couple days. You could include one of the "savage" sentences, but if the author has some clear POV, like belonging to one of groups criticized, that should be mentioned. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The LJ review is actually online at Amazon: [3]. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RSN has found those unreliable (unless someone can find the original) per [thread] and I believe others. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I gave the citation for the original above, which I accesed through EBSCO: Academic Search Complete. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Must read more carefully. Anyway, text reads:

This survey of American extremism, right and left, cries out for editing. The authors have seemingly thrown in all the material that was at hand, some useful and much tangential and distracting. Meaningful details and research are intermingled higgledy-piggledy with feeble history, banal analysis, and outright sloppiness, and the result is a shapeless mass of information. The bulk of the book is a series of descriptions of specific extremist groups, and its selling point would be that it includes both ends of the spectrum. But the book's digressions and scattershot quality undermine its value both as reference work and as reading material. Libraries would do better with books treating either end of the spectrum more systematically--for instance, Mari Jo Buhle and others' Encyclopedia of the American Left ( LJ 6/15/90) and the Anti-Defamation League's Extremism on the Right: A Handbook (A.D.L., 1988). - Timothy Christenfeld, Columbia Univ.

I guess two sentences to replace current that says something like "The book is a series of descriptions of political extremist groups of the far left and far right in the United States. It has been criticized as having too many digressions and a "scattershot quality."<Second ref for this source> CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Something like that, I guess, though it might better be placed at Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe. I think a better summary would be along the lines of "The Library Journal found it had details and research that were meaningful and useful, while criticizing the quality of the history, analysis, and the inclusion of tangential material." I saw another review on EBSCO which was more praiseworthy, but which I believe criticized the analysis to a degree; I can go back and check. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do. I might do a search for any updated info on him, since he does seem to be a more sensible person in dealing with these issues than other groups criticized for being profiteering or just nasty for the fun of it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:02, 31 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 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)