Category talk:Neo-Nazi organizations in the United States

Why is the EURO organization being labelled as a "Neo-Nazi" organization?
If the operative definition of "neo-Nazi" is a person (or people) who like to dress up in mono-color uniforms, and wear badges with weird geometric patterns, that would be one thing. Myself, I don't know anything about the EURO (European-American Unity and Rights Organization) WP:European-American_Unity_and_Rights_Organization, except what I read on the Internet and Wikipedia. But it certainly isn't clear to me that just because an organization holds views distasteful to various minority groups, it would qualify as being "Neo-Nazi." Could somebody, therefore, explain exactly why EURO is "Neo-Nazi"? Frysay (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This source mentions Neo-Nazi affiliations and there seem to be more, so I'm guessing that's why it's in the category. Categories are navigational aids. If it's been described as neo-Nazi or having neo-Nazi affiliations, that's probably why. I note you are also trying to keep out descriptions of it as white nationalist or white supremacist, and there are quite a few reliable sources calling it that. 13:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)


 * Wildly insufficient. If anything, I think EURO has been careful to avoid any allegations of this.  As for "affiliations", the very source you cited contained only once incidence of the text string "Nazi", in the following sentence:
 * "But the adviser said the congressman didn’t know at the time about the group’s affiliation with racists and neo-Nazi activists."
 * Notice that I am quoting the article here; the article itself did not directly quote Scalise on this matter. So, this would hardly qualify as any sort of definitive reference to 'Neo-Nazi affiliates'.
 * In another quote I take from that source:  "Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a leading conservative in the House, said in an interview Monday that he stood by Scalise and believed that many conservatives in the House’s hard-right bloc would do the same.  “Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners,” King said."
 * In any case, since listing EURO as being a "Neo-Nazi organization" is libelous, and because EURO clearly does not claim to be "Neo-Nazi" (and would presumably strenuously deny it if asked), WP needs to do far more to document this alleged 'fact' than what is currently present here. I will delete this reference.  WP policy clearly states that violations of WP:BLP should be immediately deleted, so I will do precisely that.  It states: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
 * While technically, EURO (being an organization) is not a "living person", living persons make up the membership of EURO. Each of them would have an excellent libel claim, should they choose to pursue it.  Also, don't try to pretend that this, my post, is a violation of WP:NLT.  As is stated in that page, "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly." _I_ am not threatening YOU, nor anyone else using WP, with litigation.  (For one thing, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member or associate of EURO:  I first heard of EURO in late December 2014, when most everyone else did, from the news reports.)  I am making a polite report of a legal problem, in this case defamation.  I am doing precisely as WP:BLP directs.  Reverting this deletion would be as serious as the action of the person originally adding the libelous cite.  As stated in WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Frysay (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)