Talk:Save Our State

IndyMedia as a Source
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)

NPOV
Attempted to correct outrageous NPOV issues in the article, such as removing references to "undocumented workers."

I believe the article is much closer to neutral now.

Also attempted to correct usage issues, such as "SOS'".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.130.92 (talk • contribs)

terminology, etc
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)

The term used in the text of immigration law is "undocumented aliens". Use that as the neutral term. 66.245.214.251 21:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "political correctness" should be changed to "fear of charges of racism." "Political correctness" is a biased colloquialism. 66.245.214.251 21:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Undocumented" worker/immigrant etc. are absurd colloquial neologisms. The term used in US law is "illegal alien." Use that as the neutral term.

Here's a page with terminology: http://uscis.gov/graphics/glossary.htm

mfd?
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)

I am removing the tag, as there is no discussion page about it, and thus no discussion. Zuzim 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

The miscreant who is vandalizing this article is someone who hates SOS. The edits he puts in are incorrect and his opinion, not factual.

71.116.241.196 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the two Indymedia links because the pictures in both those links WERE NOT of Save Our State members. Same thing with that "anti=immigration" link. If you are going to post links that are supposedly of SOS, please make sure they are correct!! Thank you very much. Happy Bunny 15:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment
This "article" is completely biased and racist and needs to be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.201.252 (talk • contribs)

The first edits that were made that are being called "vandalism" were factual and from the perspective of someone that has observed Save Our State's racist behaviours on over 10 occasions. They were then immediately deleted by Save Our State members. The article is severely slanted even if the language has been modified. Any site that refers to Save Our State as a "civil rights" organization is bizarre. Elzia 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How can we improve the neutrality of the article? It doesn't have the "civil rights" category anymore. As for racism, we, as editors, cannot engage in original research, or provide eye witness testimony. All we can do is summarize verifiable information from reliable sources, using the neutral point of view. That means that we can report that Critic A said "X", and that SOS has said "Y" in response.  The best way to write Wikipedia articles is to find sources, and then work up from there.  We've got the SOS site itself, there should be a number of news reports on their activities, and there are some opposition groups, and perhaps some fan sites or blogs (though we can't use them for sources). What can we find? -Cheers, -Will Beback 03:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I will add the article back to the civil rights category -- where it belongs -- as soon as the lock is removed. Zuzim 14:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See prior links for further information. SOS keeps removing the links.
 * These are all I could find that were fresh and from mainstream sources:, ,and . There were more detailed reports on their origins etc around the time of the protest/counterprotests now called BPI and BPII (against/for the monument).  Is it possible to cite articles whose links have died?--Rockero 05:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks, that's a help. Let's see, they cover the Home Depot protests in Glendale and Burbank. all the article says now is:
 * SOS's first campaign was in December 2004, when, after launching a website with a forum, they attracted media attention by protesting Home Depot's funding for day labor centers where illegal aliens go for employment.
 * It looks like we can add some more specifics to this. Maybe that the protest have continued through January 2006, at a variety of locations in SoCal, sometimes outnumbered by counter-protesters. The protests are held to keep the topic at the forefront of public awareness and along with promise to make it "costly" for the store and the cities. Some of that is already in there.
 * We should get some specific sources for the Metrolink protest. I think I saw something recently about how the city had totted up the bill for crowd control, which was substantial for a small city. This is good. So are there any parts that editors want to remove, or fix? Speak up. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, the page is protected now so that we can discuss the matter here without revert warring. Can editors bring their issues here and tell us what needs to be done? Thanks -Will Beback 05:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop The Bias
Just the facts please. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.241.196 (talk &bull; 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The Inmates Are Running The Asylum
I was warned that this site was unfair and not open to true factual articles, instead preferring leftist diatribe. I see those warnings were correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.241.196 (talk • contribs)

Nonfactual articles and Inappropriate links = Wikipedia SOS article
I Have nothing further to say. I find this entire situation unacceptable and wikipedia is absolutely not interested in the truth. I really could care less what you do with this article and all the inappropriate links. No one who matters reads this site anyway. Hasta lavista baby. I won't be back.

I am so glad I didn't donate any $$ because wiki isn't worth one red cent.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.241.196 (talk • contribs)

Facts about the SOS/fascist connection
The SOS group is an online political action group, so, they're going to hide any information that's unflattering to SOS. The SOS are not the nazi groups, but, nazis have shown up at nearly all the SOS-organized demonstrations. Some of the earlier SOS demonstrations became focal points for people on stormfront.org, who decided to piggyback their own organizing efforts (as National Vanguard) onto the SOS event. At the second Baldwin Park demonstration, prior to the demo, the fascists had a picnic gathering at a nearby park.

At all times, the SOS leadership have said "we can't control who comes to our demonstrations." I think this is veiled language that indicates that they are content to have fascists support the SOS demonstrations. From the posts on the SOS bulletin board, it is clear that some individuals in SOS are sympathetic to the fascists.


 * And it's much MORE clear that the Open Borders nuts who oppose the SOS Freedom Marchers are racist kooks. There is a widespread video of an Open Borders enthusiast at an SOS protest screaming "VIVA AL ZARQAWI, THE GRINGO KILLER."


 * In addition to this call for murder, a common feature of the bitterly racist Indymedia and other counterprotestors is calls for Whites to "go back to Europe." Zuzim 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to rely on sources for these types of assertions (for either side), preferably news accounts. Can anyone find some references to the Baldwin Park demonstrations? Are there any other isses with the article that we need to address to get consensus? -Will Beback 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have attended the last 3 SOS protests and there have been no "Nazi's." The people who make such claims are anarchists, communists, and violent socialists. I have videotapedracist organizations counter-protesting SOS such as the Mexica-Movement and Mecha. The "race card" is played against SOS as an attempt to draw in controversy and smear those who oppose illegal immigration. The people who make such claims are most often racist. - TheWatchdog


 * There is an extended, ongoing flame war between people who post on LA Indymedia and the people on the SOS site. Watchdog and I are involved, as are around a dozen other people.  I'm one of the sysadmins of LA Indymedia, and have a bias.  I think the article should be trimmed down to increase readability.  I don't see the point in bringing an existing flamewar/political fight to Wikipedia.  - johnk1


 * I have attended five demos, and at two, there were people who were probably affiliated with the National Vanguard (or Alliance -- I don't know the difference. Also, I'm a late riser and generally catch the action late.).  I surmised this from clothing, like NV t-shirts, but, verified it by reading the "opposition" websites, where they would discuss the event.  The fascists were at most of the SOS events, and organized in parallel with the Victorville event (which SOS claims was not an SOS event), the second BP event, and the OC events.  People more deeply involved than I can actually identify individuals, and have photos that can demonstrate fascist support.


 * Also, none of the events I attended were the ones where the fascists, Nazis, and others were waving their flags. The reason they were waving flags in OC was to rebel against Joe Turner, who asked that these supporters keep their racism hidden.  It seems that they were not amenable to this suggestion, given that the facsist support for the SOS constituted a significant fraction of the demonstration.  After these demonstrations, membership in SOS declined, as people offended by tolerance for fascists and Nazis quit the SOS.


 * As for opposition group participation. Several of the core groups organizing against the SOS are communist or "brown power" groups, with a constant participation by "regulars" who are unaffiliated.  There are also other groups involved, like student groups (MEChA), human rights groups, churches, Democrats, dance groups, day laborer groups, and many others who have been involved at different times. - johnk

Race Hatred, White Nationalism, and the Struggle for Aztlan

from

http://www.soychicano.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=811

"AMERICANS ARE TIRED OF FEELING LIKE A FOREIGNER IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY." [sic] – Joe Turner, "leader," Save Our State


 * source material snipped by Will Beback 08:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's correct. We certainly are tired of it. BulldogPete 15:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil Rights etc.
1) SOS is no less a Civil Rights organization than is the SPLC. In this case, SOS advocates for the civil rights of those legally present in the United States.

2) That Prop. 187 was "struck down" is not the entire story. The administration of Gray Davis abandoned the legislation: He did not appeal the ruling, which was the demise of 187.

3) The links provided, calling a radical, wingnut separatist/racialist outfit an "anti-racist" group are absurd.

This article is truly an unfortunate example of the leftist slant that taints wikipedia scholarship. Zuzim 14:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I am well aware that SOS claims to be a civils rights group, but how can protesting against day labor sites and monuments be consider fighting for people's civil rights? Wikipedia policy on categorization is that if a category is controversial (which Civil rights is in this case), it should not be included.  If you can make a case for its inclusion in the category, please do it here, so a consensus can be reached rather than simply adding it in, which has resulted in much of the edit-warring on this page.  2. The details about how 187 was not enacted should go into that proposition's article, not here.  The reference of the origin of the group's name is sufficient.  3. And is the "radical wingnut" site you refer to the "La Tierra Es de Todos" Coalition's website?  They are one of the main opponents of SOS and have even been cited by the media (David Horowitz's Frontpage mag, among others, so their link should be at the bottom.  Maybe we can split up the links between for/against, as we do with other controversial topics?--Rockero 19:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: #2 Rockero is correct, we should avoid too much detail about other topics in this article. Re: #3, The link should probably stay, but we can modify the description. Any other objections? -Will Beback 19:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Will Beback: I intend to lodge a protest against your inappropriate and biased participation in this article. Rockero has already claimed you are a "buddy" of his, and you have left (no pun intended) this article in a slanderously POV state.  My objection is this:


 * 1) SOS is a Civil Rights organization, plain and simple. That "soychicano" and other separatist/"brown supremacy" hate groups see it otherwise is irrelevant.  (Were the "soychicano" group named "I am White" you would go into paroxysms of revulsion).


 * 2) This article is currently a work of open borders/hispanic supremacy agitprop.


 * 3) Presumably the article was locked in an attempt to improve it. You have done nothing to improve it.

Zuzim 13:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he's trying to prevent an edit war. He could have just deleted the whole thing and then locked it.  I predict the amount of whining that would cause would be unbearable though.  Of course I think it would have been more fair.


 * 1) Civil rights organizations do not seek to limit the rights of others. SOS have shown that they are more than willing to go after anything that doesn't fit their narrow definition of American culture.  Thus one can argue that SOS only seeks to limit the rights of American citizens.  BTW some people consider chicano a political term.  There is no equivalent of the term "chicano" so it's hard to draw examples but it is certainly not a racial category of the equivalence of "white."


 * 2)The article should have con sources as well. SOS is arguably another form of a supremacy group that is struggling for mainstream acceptance.  They should not be grouped in with groups that truly care about immigration reform.


 * 3)I think the discussions we're having now are helping to improve it. Sooner or much later a compromise will be reached.  Mosquito-001 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What's in a title?
How does a group that spends its time protesting historical and cultural monuments along with spanish billboards, fall under the title anti-illegal immigrant or pro-secure borders? It also can't be called a civil rights organization because it does not look like SOS is trying to protect anyone's rights when they hang around with aryan supremacy organizations. So why not strip any and all of these "titles," when they don't have citations, from the article once it becomes unlocked? They don't have to be called a nativist group or anything of the sort but neither should they be grouped in with genuine secure borders or immigration reform groups. Mosquito-001 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Watchdog's links should definitely remain because they have footage from actual SOS events. And unfortunately, some of the most complete articles on SOS protests are on Indymedia (which is obviously not the best news source since anyone can publish there. But maybe we can use some?)  And I really object to people drawing me into this debate personally. I have never wanted anything but a good article here. That said, I have a SOS article in the personal sandbox User:Rockero/Save Our State. I'm going to add to it a bit more as soon as I get home from the swapmeet, and then I'd like all interested parties (from ALL SIDES) to take a look.--Rockero 18:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the distinction between a source, which is governed by reliable sources, and an external link, which is governed by external links. We shoulnd't use Indymedia as a secondary source for anything, but it may be a primary source, or an external link.
 * If editors won't jump back to disrupting the editing process we can remove the protection. -Will Beback 07:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm pretty much done. It will still need tweaks and refinements, but I can at least submit it for community approval: User:Rockero/Save Our State.  Please read and make comments/suggestions on the talkpage.--Rockero 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That version looks good to me. -Will Beback 22:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Getting back to a serious discussion, I think we can do better about including the viewpoint of the organization itself, for instance they probably have a list of principles that we could summarize. "Stay-at-home dad" sounds pejorative and isn't necessary. "Neo-Nazi" is too inflammatory a term to put in a heading, maybe "extremist groups" wouild be more NPOV and generic. But the article is coming along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)
 * I put "stay-at-home Dad" because people are often identified by profession, and that's what he professes. Would "stay-at-home Mom" or "homemaker" be pejorative? I agree that Neo-nazi label may be too inflammatory for a heading. And I also think that some of SOS's concerns should be addressed. For example there is no mention of the numbers of undocumented immigrants.--Rockero 17:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If he calls himself a "stay-at-home Dad" then we can use it, but if he does not have an occupation then we shouldn't assign him one. We don't have to make SOS's case, but we should explain their position neutrally and completely. -Will Beback 21:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We could also call him a former stock trader if we have to assign him a profession. Of course I don't think there's anything wrong with being a stay at home dad.  They both sound like alright professions to me but if someone is irked by it...  Anyway here's the source http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-profile27jun27,1,2108930.story?coll=la-news-politics-california
 * -Mosquito-001 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good source we should add to the article. If we need to describe Turner, perhaps "former equities trader and stay-at-home dad" would be NPOV, since the LAT calls him that. -Will Beback 23:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Would Be Preferred
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)

Figure it out genius
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)

Comments on the "other" article
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)


 * Unless there's an objection, let's unprotect the page and copy in the "other" article. -Will Beback 12:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Unprotected
Article unprotected. Happy editing. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @

Why was the info about Brown Supremacists taken out?
"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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Baldwin Park II (BPII)
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)

SOS ranks are filled with conspiracy theorists.
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)


 * 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)

Insufficently sourced assertions
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

-- Wasn't the "insufficiently-sourced blog" SaveOurState's own message board?

In regards to YouTube, the user gent2222/AmericanPatriot77 (his latest incarnation is JumpAroundWeird), had all his 400+ videos removed. He, a guy named Dennis, was the videographer for SOS. He/SOS has moved their videos to http://americanpatriot77.com/forums and those videos include the ones banned by YouTube.

For instance, one video is even called "Video of the day laborer that I chased and got his ass arrested!! LOL." The SOS members also include Minuteman members, as they admit in the videos. MM's SOP clearly states that they are not to engage in dialogue or otherwise confront illegal aliens. >:) 68.33.185.185 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC) --

Lets not prevaricate folks.

I just edited out some comments from this article. The reason I did that is someone added comments that were supposedly mine, when in fact they were NOT comments from me.

I would appreciate it if whoever keeps writing false things that I supposedly said would knock it off. I am the one who left SOS and I know what I said when I left. I have edited the comments to reflect the reality of the situation. I am no longer affiliated with SOS but I wish them well. They are not racists. There maybe are a couple of misguided folks there but for the most part they are sincere Americans whose number one concern is the damage being done to our country by the glut of illegal aliens invading the USA.

So if you are going to edit this article please stick to the facts and the truth.

Thanks, Sandy B.

"Controversy and Internal Strife"
This section was 100% Original Research. BulldogPete 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:SOS-logo.png
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 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)

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

wikiwashing?
Someone just deleted my edit that was sourced from the Southern Poverty Law Center with the rationale "sorry no blogs", even though the source was not a blog but the SPLC talking out the SOS blogs. This poster also deleted a link to a news article regarding SOS activities in Ojai, California, with no rationale given. I strongly disagree with this kind of editing unless this poster is willing to provide *very* specific links to the Wikipedia policies in question, as none of the sources quoted in my edit were from blogs, and my understanding is that it's okay to source something from an accredited article that talks about blogs. And I'm not aware of any policy that prevents linking to local news coverage. 76.203.149.212 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be me. The "No blogs" comment was in reference to the section sourced at ojaivalleynews.blogspot.com and I apologize for it.  Wikipedia does not view blogs (in so much as blogs are personal, anonymous commentary and observation) as legitimate sources and I don't believe it was irrational for me to look at that URL and think "blog", now that I've given it a second look see that it is tied to a legitimate news organization.  If that story was published on the newspaper's website (which it sounds like it was) it would probably be for the best for you to link to it there to avoid such confusion.  Your material sourced at the SPLC was not deleted and it is somewhat disingenuous for you to claim that it was. - Schrandit (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, onto the content of the article.
 * -The title "Alleged ties to extremist groups" was changed to "Alleged extremist, racist and white supremacist ties". This seems highly unnecessary, why was this done?  How is this more encyclopedic?
 * -Currently it states "The group is known to carry pepper spray and/or other weaponry to their protests, and to adopt an aggressive attitude." Says who?  The article notes that one lady carried pepper spray one time.  Where does this other weaponry charge come from?  Who says they adopt an aggressive attitude?
 * -Why was Turner's quote about being unable to expunge extremists from his organizations removed? Why was the bit from the SPLC article about many extremist posts being removed taken down? - Schrandit (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ojai, California section removed from article
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)

I was there that day and that's not what happened. The SOS people lied in the street, threatened people with no provocation, and generally acted like thugs and domestic terrorists. Sorry to burst your bubble. 76.175.151.187 (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

RfC
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)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
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)

External links modified
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)