Talk:Save Our State

message: Like Wikipedia, they have an "open publishing" process in which anyone can submit an article. I notice they are referenced a lot in this and other articles. Is this appropriate? Panfakes 12:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IndyMedia as a Source

message: When I found this article it was a stub and extremely POV.  In my rewrite, I have used the terms "illegal immigrant" and "undocumented worker" interchangeably, despite the fact that the latter is the preferred, politically-correct term (my attempt at balance).  Most of the info is from newspaper articles about SOS activities, some of which I have saved on my hard drive, others of which are still out there on the internet.  I have yet to cite my sources, provide external links, or finish the article--there are still a few important aspects of the group and its opposition that merit inclusion.  I hope that once the article is finished it will not attract so much vandalism and POV-pushing, but until then, might I make a passioned plea for calm?  Can I also ask the non-registered contributers to register an account, or at the very least sign their comments on talk pages and include edit summaries on changes?--Rockero 00:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  terminology, etc 

message: Why was this page tagged as miscellany for deletion.  It's an article, so the tag should be .Bjones 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever tagged it did so incompletely and incorrectly.  This page has suffered severe vandalism ever since I made my first batch of edits.  Maybe we should get it protected (or semi-protected) until we can hammer out a final, complete, and NPOV version.  I might know an admin who could carry out such protection...Care to collaborate, Zuzim?--Rockero 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am philosophically opposed to getting pages "protected."  However, if you think it's worthwhile, go for it. Zuzim 21:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mfd? 

message: === Stop The Bias ===
Just the facts please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.241.196 (talk • contribs) .
=== A Lot of GUilt By Association Crap ===
This really is garbage although I will leave it in. 
I quote:
After SOS announced their intention to return to Baldwin Park, notice was placed on the Stormfront website, an "online white nationalist community" headed by former klansman 
BIG DEAL
Does the Indymedia entry in WIkipedia state
After IMC was established, terrorist cells in Iran scanned for information on Israeli sympathizers.
Or does the wiki article on Peace Movement Groups  say
"RCP members- Maoists -  regularly attend ..."
Get the picture?
It is REDBAITING in Reverse.
:SoS has a great deal of association with white nationalist and supremascist groups.  That deserves to be mentioned.  Once you get past the family friendly facade of their website and visit their forums, the purpose behind SoS becomes a whole lot clearer. Mosquito-001 15:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And La Raza ("The Race"), MEChA and their ilk are openly racialist hate groups, as opposed to the multi-ethnic composition of SOS.  As I read SOS's forums, the purpose becomes clear: immigration reform.Wheatabix 06:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: La Raza isn't a group or at least one that I can find information on.  MeCHA's latest big project was a tamale making workshop on a couple college campuses.  The workshop was open to everyone.  There have also been many white, black, and asian members of MeChA campus organizations since the group tends to attract anyone with an activist personality. You should check out the MeCHA wiki, it's pretty NPOV Mosquito-001 17:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other coments

message: This really is garbage although I will leave it in. 
I quote:
After SOS announced their intention to return to Baldwin Park, notice was placed on the Stormfront website, an "online white nationalist community" headed by former klansman 
BIG DEAL
Does the Indymedia entry in WIkipedia state
After IMC was established, terrorist cells in Iran scanned for information on Israeli sympathizers.
Or does the wiki article on Peace Movement Groups  say
"RCP members- Maoists -  regularly attend ..."
Get the picture?
It is REDBAITING in Reverse.
:SoS has a great deal of association with white nationalist and supremascist groups.  That deserves to be mentioned.  Once you get past the family friendly facade of their website and visit their forums, the purpose behind SoS becomes a whole lot clearer. Mosquito-001 15:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And La Raza ("The Race"), MEChA and their ilk are openly racialist hate groups, as opposed to the multi-ethnic composition of SOS.  As I read SOS's forums, the purpose becomes clear: immigration reform.Wheatabix 06:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: La Raza isn't a group or at least one that I can find information on.  MeCHA's latest big project was a tamale making workshop on a couple college campuses.  The workshop was open to everyone.  There have also been many white, black, and asian members of MeChA campus organizations since the group tends to attract anyone with an activist personality. You should check out the MeCHA wiki, it's pretty NPOV Mosquito-001 17:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Lot of GUilt By Association Crap 

message: Please delete this article, because what you have up now is an inacurrate article with several external links that have nothing to do with Save Our State. You people would have done great doing propaganda for Nazi Germany.
:Are you referring to the current version or the sandbox version?--Rockero 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Would Be Preferred  

message: Hello? I am commenting on this article.
:Could you please comment on User:Rockero/Save Our State? That version is being edited to replace the current version. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure it out genius 

message: I didn't think it was possible but the other article has less to do with what SOS is about that this article. You guys just keep topping yourselves when it comes to bias bullcrap articles.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.241.196 (talk • contribs) 
::That's nice but could you actually give us a real reason why don't like the prototype? What specific things don't you like about it? What would you add? The article needs as many points of view as possible to get to NPOVMosquito-001 15:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there's an objection, let's unprotect the page and copy in the "other" article. -Will Beback 12:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the SOS supporters have responded to my request to read or comment on the sandbox version yet. Another day or two?--Rockero 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the "other" article 

message: "Viva Zarqawi the Gringo Killer" is AT LEAST as relevant as the absurd "White Nationalist" connection.  
The truth about the bitterly racist, Reconquista movement seeking special rights for foreign nationals living in California goes directly to the issue of the environment in which SOS operates.  The hatred the majority of this lot feel for whites and for America is central to understanding SOS.
This hideously slanted article tars SOS with guilt-by-association with "white supremacists," in spite of everything Joe Turner and others have done specifically to disavow and discourage these relationships.  Also, a patronising and frankly racist portrait is painted of SOS trying to involve African Americans in the movement.  
On the other hand, critical information about the opposition is suppressed -- in an obvious attempt to tilt the article even further -- so that it appears that SOS are a bunch of crackpots.  The truth is that the rabid race hate projected by the opposition justifies SOS's means and ends. Wheatabix 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I wonder why a traditionally oppressed group ,that often had to defend their rights with violence, would hate white supremacist groups like SoS.  I just can't figure out why.  Anyway, I don't think this "lot" hates whites, they just hate white supremacy groups and recognize SoS's thinly disguised attempts to make themselves a legitimate immigration reform organization.  Why does Joe Turner protest American monuments that don't fit into "white culture?"  Also I'll support the "Viva Zarqawi" thing if you'll support putting in the SoS members throwing Nazi salutes at counter protestors thing.  You should also check out SoS's forums sometime. Mosquito-001 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! "Traditionally oppressed."  Sorry, but if you break into a country, tough crap if you don't like it.  Invaders have no right to claim "oppression." And I think the SOS people threw a Nazi salute at the racists of Indymedia to parody the IM people's thuggish adherence to Nazism. BulldogPete 15:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the info about Brown Supremacists taken out? 

message: The second event at the monument is refered to as BPII.  Please see the SOS page http://www.saveourstate.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2255&hl=balwin%20park%20II&st=80
This title was also used on indymedia but unfortunately the links may no longer exist or are inaccessible at the moment.
The article also does not mention the Garden Grove Protest. The event was not officially held by the SOS, members were in the audience (old preach).  During this event a driver allegedly ran over members of the pro-immigration group.
digitalronin 01:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baldwin Park II (BPII)

message: Their members are content spouting 9-11 conspiracy theories instead of being involved with politics on any level.  I was just banned from their forums for poking fun at their conspiracy theories, by one big tinfoil hat moderator.
A super-majority of their forum trollers also deny that Democrats in both houses of Congress almost unanimously voted against border enforcement, unanimously voted for amnesty, and have a voting record that goes decades back which mirrors this same open borders pattern.  SOS members are content to just bash Bush 24/7.  I think allot of them are Democrats In Denial, so they create conspiracy theories in an attempt to grab a hold of the many paradoxes that jumble around in their brains.  The SOS guys are going nowhere fast, and they are completely harmless. If you are an open borders freak, I wouldn't worry about them.  The worse thing you can do to them, if you wish to retaliate with all your hatred you can muster, is to ignore them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuggsy (talk • contribs) 
-----------------
Check it out. SOS members are conspiring to harass a human rights activist by mocking his dead son, who died on the battlefield in Iraq.
http://www.saveourstate.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=17054
::This doesn't surprise me at all.  The SOS wiki has long ignored what goes in the SoS forums in favor of the SoS "company line."  Talk about race wars, race bashing, and "immigrant" harassment are a common occurence on these forums.  It's not even limited to random forum visitors either.  I've seen Joe Turner, himself, participate more than once in these conversations.  Too bad actually quoting joe from his own forums counts as original research. Mosquito-001 14:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per discussions at WP:RS, I'd say that using comments by the forum owner to characterize the nature of the forum would not be original research. -Will Beback 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOS ranks are filled with conspiracy theorists. 

message: I have removed a section that was insifficiently sourced under WP:RS.  Blogs are not acceptable sources to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The second section sourced by the blog should also be removed unless the youtube citation provided can independently confirm the info.  I will be looking into it.  Happy editing, TheKaplan 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a second thought, mosquito is also correct above.  The problem is not just WP:RS but also WP:OR.  TheKaplan 00:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also absolutely no evidence they actually went through with what they planned.  Just as a suggestion though, SoS might have to be evaluated on their deeds instead of only their words in future versions of this wiki.  As an example, the KKK have also claimed to be a peaceful activist group but their actions have led people to think otherwise.  SoS seems to have the same deal going and they're also getting more radical by the week.  I think if there's video footage of SoS and apparent victims, it should make it into the wiki. Mosquito-001 02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficently sourced assertions 

message: This section was 100% Original Research.  BulldogPete 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the links is active, and the passage is very obviously the ham-handed interpretation of anti-SOS observers.  Moreover, the "controversial" comment in the opening passage is POV and adds nothing.  Any activist group is "controversial." BulldogPete 10:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If relaible sources can be found to write a neutral account then the subject matter would be OK, but the deleted material is niehter neutral nor properly sourced. -Will Beback · † · 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy and Internal Strife" 

message: Some of the sources used in the article fail short. See WP:V and WP:RS. For example, forum postings are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: :Image:SOS-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SOS-logo.png

message: I believe this reference is incorrect, and that Turner is unmarried.HedgeFundBob (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Turner's "wife" 

message: Old text:
:In March of 2008 a high school junior was threatened with pepper spray by an adult supporter of Save Our State during a protest of a day labor site in Ojai, California.   Both sides claimed the other had acted confrontationally.  This protest attracted a fair amount of local attention and was not well received by some in the community.
I've removed this for a number of reasons. "Was threatened" is a vast mischaracterization of what the reporter said in the first story. If anything, it should say that an adult supporter of SOS wielded pepper spray in self defense over a perceived threat; neither party is reported as directly threatening the other. The second reference is an opinion piece and makes no mention of SOS. Finally, what is really added to the article by mentioning that a member drew pepper spray in self defense at a rally? —C.Fred (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible that your version is correct but in order to add it we really need to be able to cite it from 3rd. party sources. - Schrandit (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ojai, California section removed from article

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 17:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Save Our State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822200242/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=CA&m=4 to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=CA&m=4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117010244/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=16 to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=16
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified