Talk:One People's Project

message: The One People's Project is a group composed of two people that have attracted public attention to themselves.  There are currently featured in "The Nation".  Their accusations against white activists have been challenged in court, and they have lost, thus there is no reason their accuracy cannot be questioned.
This page was recommended for deletion by an anti-racist activist who, without any factual knowledge or basis, has attacked numerous well-documented posts.
:Besides the fact that this is EXTREMELY POV, it falls under the speedy delete category for lack of notability and information. If you have any other information to add to make this more encyclopedic or refrences to notability, please add them. Otherwise, this is a speedy delete and shall remain so. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Additional sources were added and the "delete" was removed.  Anti-racist activists apparently do not like attention being focused on them, and are BSing "speedy deletes" for some of my pages as a result.  I am not 100% familiar with Wikipedia etiquette, but if there was some better way to resolve this, I would appreciate knowing about it Baxter2
I'd like to point out that I nominated this article for deletion because, at the time, it had no verifiable information and it was terribly POV, until it was fixed by Baxter2. I'm certainly no anti-racist activist, whatever that means :) Sarg 18:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If you're reading this, I'd like to take the opportunity to let you know that we take personal threats and the publication of people's public information on this website very seriously. We have removed this information about yourself as soon as we saw it. If you see it again, please let me know on my talk page or on WP:AN and we'll sort things out as soon as we can. 
P.S. on a personal note: if you're against racism, you're cool with me! :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 05:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Daryle Lamont Jenkins  

message: I have removed all reference to Mootstromfront because that fragment of the OPP article was untruthful. OPP was not the birthplace of the Mootstormfront discussion board.RichardLangford 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference removed  

message: Hmm, this page is propaganda.  Make it neutral please.  OPP is a hategroup... daryle lamont jenkins incites violence against law abiding americans by using incendiary pavlovian flags like 'nazi rally' and 'kkk anti-immigrant rally'.
:If the subject has been called a "hate group", or whatever, in a reliable source then we should include it. However we shouldn't call it a "hate group", or whatever, just because we think it is. Strong opinions should be attributed to a speaker. (You can learn more about the project in the welcome message on your talk page.)  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abject nonsense. Words have real meanings. Just because some members might dislike something. Doesn't mean its a 'hate group'. The catholic church 'hates satan'. Is the catholic church a hate group? Of course it is not. Mahattma Gandhi hated opression. Was he spreading hate? Of course he has not. Mother teresa hated poverty. Was she spreading hate? Of course she wasn't. And OPP hates racism. Are they spreading hate? Of course not. Duckmonster (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just an opinion of the material. We can cite material on the website to describe it, or even give a few characteristic quotations from the site, but we can't just make up stuff about it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Provide a single example of "calling for violence". No, some random posted on a chat board doesn't count. This is a bog-standard smear thrown at anti racist activists, even where its almost hilariously wrong (For instance rock against racism in the UK (Organises educational concerts), and FDB in australia (researchers) have both been smeared like this, even though in both case demonstrably wrong). Cut it out dude. Duckmonster (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: How is a rally , protesting against immigrants (illegal or otherwise) NOT an anti immigration rally? This is puzzling to me Duckmonster (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've trimmed the parts of your edit that weren't neutral or which made assertions that weren't sourced. Also please sign your talk page contributions.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the part about "declaring someone a Nazi" because it's just a personal opinion. The "some people think" parts were neutral, but unsourced. I didn't check the date, if it's wrong it'd be great if you can fix it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda

message: First off, of course elyrad editting the article for his own project is very biased.  
Saying something is vandalism, and censoring it, isn't the same thing as coming to a neutral consensus.  It is, in fact, biased.
I can see why my entry was editted down to what it was by willbeback, and so I have left the page alone since then, except to correct the date cited. For some reason, elyrad had to edit that neutrally agreed state to fit in with the advertising point of view for his website.  That is not neutral.  Also, stormfront is not at all related to the one peoples project, so the link to that page is irrelevant. Several people were angry about the violence at the rally, and some people attributed the inflammatory remarks to the One Peoples Project.  Including the police forces there who made the arrests.  Those aren't mentioned, why mention a chat forum? It's obvious that it's easier to portray yourself as some sort of freedom fighters if you point the finger at those you have already declared to be nazis, even though they had nothing to do with Abraham and Co. being arrested.  The legitimate police forces, combined with the illegally aggresive actions of Abe's crew, led to the arrest and charges.  I didn't mention either, because they were irrelevant. Neither incited these activists to commit this violence.  I alleged that O.P.P. incited this violence, and the 'npov' editors decided there wasn't enough proof of this, but came up with what seemed to me to be a fairly neutral statement about the incident. Probably because Willbeback has no personal stake in the subject of the entry, and is therefore, far more neutral that 'elyraD'.  It's a very simple matter to make, at least the last paragraph of the entry, neutral again.  Revert it to august 19th, and block Elyrad from editting this page. Block me too, either way I'm not interested in an edit-war, just the neutrality. Tellthetruthplease 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third Party Opinion - Rejected
As this article contains or is about some pretty contoversial subject matter, the fact that it remains entirely unreferenced is startling.  There are no citations, so there is little to no basis for any argument over what should or should not be considered factual information or outright vandalism.  Prior to reconsidering a 3PO requent, there should be at least some substantiated information in this article.  As it stands, the article can, should and will be deleted in 5 days henceforth should these issues not be dealth with.  Do your best to keep cool in your dispute until after one or both of you can substantiate the reason for this article's existence.  Don't be insulted -- just trying to keep this article up to Wikipedia standards. :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to reintroduce a proposed deletion tag, possibly using an update rationale, I won't automatically object. FWIW, I personally believe the article should be kept and stubbed. Addhoc 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my place to recommend deletion...I really despise it when random editors make it their duty to patrol random articles and make decisions on things like "subject notability" and "article deservability" when they have nothing to do with the articles and do not understand their focus, drive, objective, point and/or slant.  I really just picked up on this from the 3PO request, and was trying to get this article properly sourced.  If no one minds, I'll just go back to minding my own business.  Have fun! :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have never suggested deleting this article.  Somehow, it has been decided this organization is notable. My issue was entirely with the advertisement aspect.  The owner of the subject of the entry making daily edits to the entry severely compromised the integrity of this entry, and wikipedia as a whole.  I love the concept of a free online encyclopedia with a npov.  As I've seen more and more stories on the news in the last few days of the corruption of the 'anyone can edit' policies, it just seems that this resource isn't going to maintain any sort of respectability much longer unless there is some discretion practiced, and a truly neutral point of view on EVERY article, not just the ones that a majority of editors feel can be neutral. As I said, on a whole, it seems to me that people try really hard to be neutral with their submissions.  At times it can be tough, that's why I haven't tried to edit anything I actually care about anymore.  Someday I may get the neutrality in writign down enough that I feel I can excercise an even hand on subjects that even are very personal to me, but not yet.  However, self editting organizations making advertisements for themselves on wikipedia are just, plain, wrong. Tellthetruthplease 11:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: An 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 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on One People's Project. 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/20070927041653/http://onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1211&Itemid=2 to http://onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1211&Itemid=2
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 06:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified