Talk:European-American Unity and Rights Organization/Archive 1

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 16:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge

Please read WP:MM This article does not need it's own page.

This article was taken nearly verbatim from both New Orleans Protocol and David Duke. 205.188.116.67 10:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• When I started this article I did lift it verbatim from the two entries. However I did so only as a starting point with the intention of expanding it later. The organisation is distinct from the NOP and deserves its own entry. I have rewritten and expanded it a bit today and will continue to look in on it from time to time, whilst hopefully others will add to it as well. I understand why you recommended the merger in the first place but hope you wont mind me removing the tag now that the article is expanding. Thanks. Keresaspa 15:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a "Nationalist" organization.

I have said I would be editing this article to change the reference to "white nationalist organization". The main problem is that the term "nationalist", by definition, states or implies a nation-level arrangement of people. A list of the objectives of the EURO organization in this article, far from advocating any kind of separatism or supremacy, actually states "Equal rights for White Americans, particularly through an end to affirmative action." Where, exactly, is the "nationalism" in any of that? The article "Black Nationalism" says, in contrast, "There are different indigenous nationalist philosophies but the principles of all Black nationalist ideologies are unity and self-determination—that is, separation, or independence, from European society.". I attribute the distinction to be PC, or "political correctness": Whites are obviously being held to a higher, and discriminatory, standard. In a medium that claims WP:NPOV, that is clearly not being "neutral". But the question is, what else should be said, if not "white nationalist"? A few days ago a person tried to edit the article to (as I recall) refer to it as a "white civil rights" organization, but that was quickly reverted, without explanation. The problem with edits without explanation, and especially reverts without explanation, is that nobody gets closer to a solution. My chosen solution, initially, is simply to remove the word "nationalist". There is simply no indication at all that EURO is advocating anything other than equal rights, and is clearly not advocating racial separation or supremacy. Even so, I think the term "white civil rights" organization is highly defensible: After all, the article claims that one of their positions is "Equal rights for White Americans, particularly through an end to affirmative action." The term "affirmative action" was originally used in the Eisenhower administration, as being a practice to verify equal treatment. Later it became a code-word for unequal, discriminatory treatment, done by or forced by governments. Alternatively, the solution might be to call it a "white rights" organization, but to use that might imply that the organization had no or even negative opinions of non-white rights, which according to the list of positions is not true. How do we actually refer to an organization which has a truly non-discriminatory position on rights, in contrast to the traditional "civil rights organizations"? (Not to imply that EURO is necessarily such an organization, of course.) Once this change is made, we should decide how to refer to EURO, consistent with how black and other minority organizations, and especially "civil rights organizations", are labelled. Frysay (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't use definitions in this way, as you've been told we go by what the sources say. And your comment that this organisation has a " a truly non-discriminatory position on rights" is simply original research - many people, most I hope, would disagree. In any case no one has called it nationalist. "White nationalist" is something different. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You haven't helped very much here. You said, "we go by what the sources say.". But which sources? We certainly cannot simply choose a single source that happens to agree with your position. You would respond that we need consensus. But I have already demonstrated a problem with that: "Consensus" can't merely be a large number of them saying the same thing. I've shown (merely by using Google-search) that virtually nobody referred to EURO as being "white supremacist" prior to December 27, 2014, and in contrast there are hundreds of references on and subsequent to that date. But fortunately we know how that came about: One organization took the time to send out a press release to hundreds of organizations, claiming that EURO was "white supremacist". If all the organizations which received that press release did their "due diligence" and checked Google-search (as I have done) they would have discovered that virtually nobody had called EURO "white supremacist" prior to December 27, 2014. They would have refused to label EURO as white supremacist since (from their perspective) the word of a single press-release isn't sufficient, unless it actually explained and justified the label.

"White nationalist" is only little different. The SPLC, at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/white-nationalist states: "White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of non-whites. With part of that, I don't disagree: _SOME_ organizations which would be called "white nationalist" also exhibit white supremacist and/or white separatist ideas. But what if that isn't necessarily always true? Can we imagine a white organization that DOESN'T "espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideolog[y]"? EURO doesn't seem to advocate either. Or, can we interpret the SPLC's statement to mean, something like, 'If a white organization does not exhibit white supremacist or white separatist characteristics, it cannot be true "white nationalist"? No doubt SPLC didn't intend it to read that way! Indeed, the SPLC labels EURO not only to be a "white nationalist" organization, but also a "hate group". http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/white-nationalist/active_hate_groups . But, I suspect that this, SPLC's labelling, is merely a knee-jerk reaction by SPLC to any organization that: 1. Is primarily composed of white people. and 2. Who don't toe the PC (politically-correct) line.

Why don't you start by admitting that people sometimes apply the term "white nationalist" in situations that appear to be inconsistent with reality? They sometimes label organizations "white nationalist" when those organizations don't either advocate racial supremacy or racial separation? At that point, we will have to decide how to deal with this difficult situation. Frysay (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not White Supremacist

White Nationalist != White Supremacist. Removing the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.44.88 (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but LOL. Hairhorn (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I read, on here, this does not sound like a white supremest group. If you have evidence on hate crime, and list them here, that would justify the "supremacist" tag. Based on the eight listings, it sounds like a pride of European history and promotion of complete racial equality -- and giving no man extra, federal interest solely based on the heritage they happened to be born into.

Unless there is true justification that this group is considered "supremacists" it would be best to eliminate that tag or encourage more discrimination. --173.18.176.209 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the reference to "white supremacist" in the first paragraph is a clear violation of the NPOV policy. Some people might agree with the use of the term "white supremacist", but others would not. And according to the WP article, "Supremacism", "Supremacism is the world view that a particular age, race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, class, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not." The second paragraph in EURO goes on to list various positions taken by EURO, none of which denote a "supremacist" position. (None of which assert that it would "entitle[] those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.") This claim ('EURO is white-supremacist') is not helped by referring to organizations that would, themselves, label EURO as "white supremacist", because of the Reliable Sources policy: Those organizations are simply reflecting their own biases. Indeed, the first line in the Ideology section states one of their positions is: "Equal rights for White Americans, particularly through an end to affirmative action.", which would appear to explicitly disclaim any assertion that they feel entitled to "dominate, control or rule those who do not." It strongly appears that there are people monitoring the EURO article who really, Really, REALLY want to call EURO "white supremacist". They also seem to be used to getting their way. I suggest we follow WP policy. Frysay (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

We are following WP policy - WP:SOURCE. CNN and MSNBC are the definition of reliable sources. You're effectively arguing that because you don't believe this group to be white supremacist then any source that calls them such is inadmissible to Wikipedia as non-neutral. Therefore you're simply reflecting your own biases and the last time I checked what the community has defined as reliable sources take precedence over one user's opinion. Keresaspa (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That is quite wrong. I have no objection to someone stating, within the article, that some people or organizations label EURO as being "white supremacist". I have not expressed my own opinion on this, contrary to what you claimed. But that's not what's being done: Instead, the EURO article started out saying that EURO _IS_ "white supremacist", as if there was no legitimate dispute on the subject. But clearly there is a dispute. (Other people have posted the fact of the dispute on this TALK page.) But I also went further, and showed that WP's own definition of "supremacist", in the article of the same name, includes "...is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.". I've asserted that I see no indication from the rest of the EURO article (including a list of EURO's positions) that this condition is satisfied. Thus, it does not appear to be "supremacist", white or otherwise. Anybody who disagrees with this is free to make their own case, either using WP's own definition of "supremacist" or a definition of their own choosing, but so far nobody has done that. Further, citing CNN may itself be misleading: CNN staff might refer to WP, see the "white supremacist" reference, and echo that in their broadcast, as if it is undisputed truth. We have an obligation to ensure that the media is not merely some echo-chamber. Incidently, while I think most people would (still) accept CNN as a generally-reliable source, even leftists are frequently embarrassed by MSNBC. Frysay (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the group as white nationalist. I think a reasonable compromise in this case would be to leave white nationalist in the lead, but acknowledge (with sources, such as this one) that they are also widely regarded as a white supremacist group.- MrX 16:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, don't forget that this article has, itself, described EURO as being "white supremacist" for 3+ years. If any organization were asked about its position, it might claim something like "We see that Wikipedia calls EURO "white supremacist", so that's our source!". An echo-chamber. The answer is simple: If any given organization calls EURO something (including "white supremacist") we should investigate what is given as the basis for that label. Further, when I changed "supremacist" to "nationalist" a few days ago, I neglected to determine if EURO would actually have qualified for the "nationalist" label, either. For example, the WP article Black Nationalism says, "There are different indigenous nationalist philosophies but the principles of all Black nationalist ideologies are unity and self-determination—that is, separation, or independence, from European society." If the equivalent standard were employed for the label "White Nationalist" (or any other kind of race "nationalist"), an individual or organization would only qualify as "Nationalist" if he or they advocated national separation between races. We are hampered by the fact that the EURO website apparently no longer exists, so I cannot determine whether its position qualifies as "White Nationalist". (Is it currently mirrored somewhere?) But the positions listed as being advocated by EURO in this article do not seem to qualify even as "nationalism". I agree that we can make citations where another individual or group refers to "white supremacism" of EURO, but I think that should only occur if that individual or group justifies that label with some credible explanation, applied consistently across the political spectrum. Otherwise, we are merely giving credence to name-calling. I see that an IP-editor changed EURO's label to "civil rights organization", which was quickly reverted. (neither change was explained in this TALK page). But if EURO doesn't actually qualify as being a "white nationalist" organization, how else are we to label EURO? Frysay (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It turns out that I misinterpreted the history of this article. No, it HASN'T been calling EURO "white supremacist" for 3 years. In fact, that edit was only a few days old, by Keresaspa (sp?). He claimed, in his comment, that due to recent references in the media, "now a bunch of references describing it as "white supremacist" included so talk page debate no longer relevant." I disagree: The talk page debate is just as relevant as it ever was. The term "white supremacist" remains unsupported by the references to EURO's positions on this EURO WP article. It would still be appropriate to figure out why some news media organizations are labelling EURO "white supremacist". Most likely, it is strongly related to the fact that it was a _Republican_, Scalise, accused of speaking at their meeting, and calling them "white supremacist" could have been predicted to give the greatest political "mileage". See http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/225378-3-louisiana-blogger-claims-gop-whip-spoke-white-supremacists-media-frenzy-ensues-right/ . I've looked at many references to EURO in the media, and I don't see any one of them which explains why it is "white supremacist". I think anyone who supports the idea of labelling it white supremacist should make their own case, rather than merely referring to media cites that don't, themselves, explain and justify the label. Frysay (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is an archived version of their website from 2014: [1] and another from 10 years earlier: [2]. You can find more by going to archive.org. I agree that the label white supremacist may be related to the Scalise controversy. Unfortunately, we can't conduct original research ourselves, so we have to follow reliable sources. I would trust the SPLC's label, which is a little less inflammatory that the label used by mainstream news sources, and probably better researched.- MrX 00:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the recent (2014) archive. Frankly, I don't see any hint of "white supremacism" there. You said, "I agree that the label white supremacist may be related to the Scalise controversy." Huh? "Related"? The 'related'ness is simply that news media organizations are claiming that EURO is a "white supremacist" organization. Apparently quite without any evidence at all. Further, I don't see any suggestion of "white nationalism", either: In fact, the banner headline clearly says, "Equal Rights for All -- Even European Americans!". I find your reference to "original research" perplexing: What we are finding is that there appears to be absolutely no justification at all for a label of "white nationalist", let alone "white supremacist". And unlike you, I would NOT "trust" SPLC's label: SPLC has been described as a "left-wing hate group" (see http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/100325 ; also http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/if-youre-not-left-wing-youre-a-hate-group/ ; also http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/the-splcs-ridiculous-hate-group-list/ each found with Google; Even the left has to confront the controversy: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/11/what-media-outlets-should-know-about-the-bogus/198440 ), so what they say about EURO must be taken with a few pounds of salt. I feel certain it would be absolutely improper to accept these labels, especially when their conclusions are so greatly at variance with observed reality. After all, other organizations might come to very different conclusions, although they haven't weighed in on the matter simply because they have (in the past) found EURO's page to be so innocuous as to be ignorable. Frysay (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"I looked at the recent (2014) archive. Frankly, I don't see any hint of "white supremacism" there." That's original research of a primary source. Secondary sources, preferably scholarly books and journals, are what we should use when determining how to describe EURO. The sources that you cited for discrediting the SPLC are risibly bad.- MrX 12:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you are quite confused. Looking at a website does not constitute original research when I'm not using it to support a position in an article. Quite the opposite: I am merely noticing that NOTHING within EURO'S (archived) article seems to justify the conclusion (ostensibly made by other organizations) that EURO is "white supremacist". So, how did they come to that conclusion? I am concluding, therefore, that it would be highly improper to use those organizations' conclusions to support a direct statement that EURO is "white supremacist", because they clearly appear to be displaying their biases. If, instead, this article said, "These organizations have claimed that EURO is white supremacist", THAT would be okay, because it was the truth: Those organizations have, indeed, claimed that EURO is white supremacist. However, even then, I think equal weight should be given to people and organizations who have, themselves, read the EURO website and who declare that they don't see any indication that EURO is displaying white supremacist beliefs.

I decided to do a Google search to find out who, if anybody, was referring to the EURO organization as being "white supremacist" prior to 12/29/2014. Who out there is suprised to learn that I didn't seen virtually any such reference?!? What does that mean? Some of you would like to claim that there is some sort of "consensus" for claiming EURO is "White supremacist". Well, I say that if any such "consensus" is valid, it would have been just as valid in the days, weeks, months, and years prior to December 29, 2014, as on or after that specific date. But without examples of actual usage, I think we have no choice but to decide that no such "consensus" existed or exists today. What I think actually happened was a coordinated sham: A leftist group decided they wanted to smear Scalise, and to do that EURO had to 'become', retroactively, a "White supremacist organization". But, they were unable to fake 12 years of Google-search results, which is why there is essentially no history of calling EURO "white supremacist." Those of you who have tried to edit this article to say EURO is and was a white supremacist organization have a lot of explaining, and apologizing, to do. You were apparently backed-up by a number of mainstream-media organizations, but they too couldn't explain why they didn't refer to EURO from 2002 through late-December 2014 as "white supremacist". The fraud is over. Frysay (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In a search of the first twenty (20) pages of Google-search results for 'EURO white supremacist', limited to results dated prior to 12/27/2014 (before the recent artificial controversy), I only found ONE (1) result in which the organization EURO is referred to as being "white supremacist". (I will not cite it, in part to force anybody who still think there is a 'consensus' to seek it out himself, and thus find any other such cite.) I take this as being clear evidence that there is no "consensus" for the idea that EURO is "white supremacist". Quite the opposite. Those who would take the dozens of pages of results dated on or after 12/28/2014 as amounting to being a "consensus" are obviously trying to play a trick on WP and its readers. Some of those people have already shown up at WP, trying to re-edit the article so say that EURO is "white supremacist". These media references are clearly not "grass roots", they are purely "Astroturf": They are far more evidence of sloppy MSM (mainstream media) gullibility or even a conspiracy. Clearly hundreds of separate organizations took their rhetorical cues from one source, the way each musician in an orchestra takes cues from a single conductor. So if anything, the results after 12/28/2014 should be taken as evidence of a fraud: Virtually every organization which referred to EURO as being "white supremacist" (with the possible exception of organizations which independently justified that label) have demonstrated their participation in and assistance of that fraud.

But some have advocated using the term "white nationalist" as a fallback position, even claiming that this is a "compromise". Problem is, a "compromise" with a fraud is still a fraud. Study the WP article, "Black Nationism", and you read: "There are different indigenous nationalist philosophies but the principles of all Black nationalist ideologies are unity and self-determination—that is, separation, or independence, from European society." I think any definition of "white nationalism" that does not contain equivalent wording is clearly evidence of bias, a double-standard which is unfortunately common in today's double-standard world. A look at WP: White Nationalism reveals no such equivalent requirement. This, I suggest, is bias which explains why some people still want to refer to EURO as being "white nationalist": They don't want to condition such a label on the requirements clearly present in the label "black nationalist". A look at the list of positions of EURO already included in this WP article clearly don't include any indications of "separation", or "independence", from other races. Therefore, EURO cannot qualify as being "white nationalist" based on any even-handed definition of "white nationalist"; the corollary is that anybody advocating labelling EURO as being "white nationalist" must be advocating a biased, stilted definition of "white nationalist" different than WP's definition of "black nationalist". Therefore, within 48 hours (giving anyone an opportunity to challenge this) I plan to remove the reference to "white nationalist" from this article. Frysay (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Irish Republican Army, among many similar groups, is often described as terrorist, but the article on it is not in the category terrorism for NPOV reasons. Why would the principle apply there but not here? 211.31.198.118 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't answer that, but it has no bearing on this article. WP:NPOV actual requires that we dispassionately describe things as they are, according to the preponderance of sources.- MrX 12:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

However, citing SPLC doesn't qualify as a "preponderance of sources". As I pointed out elsewhere, the SPLC is more-than-occasionally called a "left-wing hate group", whose main activity is labelling right-wing organizations with which it disagrees as being "hate groups". If you cherry-pick SPLC and a couple of other left-wing groups, and they all say "EURO is white supremacist", that doesn't constitute a "preponderance of sources". Is there a general consensus that EURO is white supremacist? If there are 100,000 separate organizations in America, big and small, and only 5-10 call EURO "white supremacist", what about the rest? Most will have no interest in speaking out, of course, but those that have already spoken out will tend to be those self-selected biased organizations. Frysay (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify: The SPLC DOESN'T label EURO as being "white supremacist", merely "white nationalist". And SPLC itself claims "Beyond hosting a website, whitecivilrights.com, and staging an occasional conference, EURO is a paper tiger, serving primarily as a vehicle to publicize Duke's writing and sell his books.". In other words, EURO is not functioning as a "white supremacist" or even "white nationalist" group, it is merely a publicity and marketing organization. In this specific instance, the SPLC is probably quite correct. So, what is wrong with calling it that? Frysay (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is why leaving it as "white nationalist" seems to be a good compromise. The other option is to follow the preponderance of sources that describe it as "white supremacist", as required by WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SPADE. The fact that they were a "paper tiger" with a website, and that they don't actively torch synagogues and burn crosses on lawns, does not mean that their purpose is not to promote a white supremacist/white nationalist ideology.- MrX 14:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess you didn't bother to read my comments above, on 08:45, 9 January 2015: Using Google-search (which is itself a secondary source), I found that prior to about 12/29/2014, virtually nobody referred to the organization EURO as being "white supremacist". And I mean for many years. Very shortly after that date, dozens and quite possibly hundreds of media organizations suddenly began referring to EURO as being "white supremacist". Does this mean that on 12/29/2014 these organizations suddenly and independently re-evaluated EURO, and each independently came to that conclusion? NO!!! By that time, EURO was so insignificant that even its website was down, and we had to evaluate it from archives! It means that somebody wrote a press-release, naming Scalise, and calling EURO "white supremacist", and each of those media-fellow-travellers began to march in lockstep with this newly-created sham. It was, I think quite literally, properly referred to as a "conspiracy". And then, many dishonest, self-appointed people began trying to back up and fill out that effort: One of those tasks was to modify WP to change reality. Look at the history of this article, and you will see further evidence of this fraud. Does the fact that hundreds of media organizations, probably mostly leftist, suddenly began to refer to EURO as "white supremacist" mean that there was a "consensus"? NO! It simply means that they have all decided to participate in a sham, an electronic Kristallnacht as it were. These organizations' separate expressions cannot be considered independent, because they were and all clearly dependent on a single press-release, issued on a date less than two weeks ago. And, even THAT press release certainly wouldn't have occurred unless some biased person discovered that Scalise had spoken to that organization in 2002. In other words, this was a complete and total fraud, and most of the crooked media went along with the trick. The fact that you now want to "compromise" doesn't fix things. There is no "preponderance" of sources calling EURO "white supremacist", because it is simply a conspiracy. Your call to a "compromise" ignores the fact that it would be improper to label an organization "white nationalist" if it is neither "white supremacist" nor "white separatist". If it is neither of those, what is it? So you need to remove the "nationalist" label, and what do you have then? It's a "white" group. That's it. Frysay (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a fairly good explanation of what actually happened. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/06/what-we-know-about-steve-scalise-attending-white-p/ There is indication of a great deal of misrepresentation. Studying by Google-search I have noticed that frequently, since 12/29/2014, headlines like "Scalise admits speaking at white supremacist organization" are used in articles. But that seems to be a lie: It would be far more accurate to have said, "Scalise admits speaking in 2002 at the meeting of an organization, an organization which has been labelled since 12/29/2014 as being "white supremacist"." There, that's better! Without a long history of media organizations referring to EURO as a "white supremacist" organization from 2002 through late 2014, it is quite clear that this whole episode has been a concocted sham. And the collective behavior of seemingly hundreds of news media organizations, acting as in lockstep, exposes the sham. At least, to those who aren't already IN on the sham! Frysay (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources simply describe the organization as white supremacist, in the context of when Scalise's gave his speech (2002). WP:OR does not permit editors to conduct original research to come to a conclusion that is not plainly stated in reliable sources. In other words, we have many sources that describe the group as "white supremacist"; some reliable sources that describe it as "white nationalist"; and very few sources that describe it at all before December 28, 2014. We have to use whatever sources are available, in proportion to the coverage of the subject. We are not allowed to make our own conclusions based on an arbitrary criteria that only considers sources from a certain time frame. From the policy "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." If you still disagree with my argument, then I recommend taking it to WP:OR/N. I could be completely wrong about my interpretation of policy, but I doubt it.- MrX 02:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I will clarify what you said: Sources, in late December 2014, describe the organization as "White supremacist", although virtually none seem to have done so between the times of 2002 and late December 2014. Very few, and perhaps none, explain the reason for the label. And, this occurs only after those media organizations had received some sort of press-release announcing that Scalise spoke in 2002. How credible is their conclusion, in this extremely-odd situation? Not very, I think. I've explained that the mere fact that dozens, or even over 100, of media sources use the term "white supremacist" is VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS when all suddenly adopt and publish this "conclusion", over a period of less than 3-4 days, as if on cue. (If, however, the website for EURO had been modified on December 27, 2014, to say "We are a white supremacist organization!!!" _that_ would constitute new facts which would certainly justify a change in label. That did not occur, however.) Also, you do not explain why you think I'm doing "original research": At most, I am consulting secondary sources (archive backups and Google-search). You are simply wrong to claim, "We are not allowed to make our own conclusions based on an arbitrary criteria that only considers sources from a certain time frame.": I am not only considering sources from a certain time frame. Rather, I am employing the fact that virtually nobody referred to EURO as "white supremacist" over the period of 2002-late 2014 as evidence that there WASN'T any sort of genuine consensus that EURO was "white supremacist". And nothing happened subsequent to December 27, 2014 to justify any change in their positions. And I explicitly discount any subsequent change in their statements, because it has become quite obvious that these organizations did not adopt that position due to any genuine, independent analysis: They were merely copycatting the conclusion given to them by what amounts to a single, trigger source. As for your thinking that you are somehow following "policy", I'm sorry but I have to laugh! I think it's virtually inconceivable that "policy" anticipated such an amazingly fraudulent situation as what has happened: One individual discovering that Scalise (may have) attended a meeting 12 years earlier, of a group that virtually nobody had called "white supremacist", and then they send a biased press-release out, claiming that said organization was "white supremacist", and suddenly all these organizations acted in lockstep, each parroting the label, that previously none had used. What do you think we are, stupid?

And yes, you are indeed wrong: This is from WP:OR/N: ""Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia." Virtually by definition, the results from a Google-search aren't "unpublished facts": They are, in fact, derived from automated computer search of millions, and in fact BILLIONS, of already-published facts. When I say that virtually nobody called EURO "white supremacist" during 2002-late 2014, Google-search is simply the tool which allowed me to do that readily. If the facts were otherwise, and 100 different organizations had referred to EURO as "white supremacist" during 2001-2013, I have absolutely no doubt that you would readily find that, and you would have no hesitation citing that to prove a "consensus" existed. Having found that a "consensus" existed, you would edit the article to call EURO "white supremacist", and you would do so with a straight face. Say it isn't so. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. My goal is to show that no "consensus" existed prior to December 27, 2014. Your counter is to claim that a "consensus" existed after December 27, 2014, proven by the large number of citations to media organizations that label EURO as "white supremacist". In other words, you are trying to do precisely what I am doing. My counter is that the facts showed that the large numbers of organizations referring to EURO as "white supremacist" after that date were not arrived at by any genuine "consensus". Frysay (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'd be happier if the article simply said that it has been described as white nationalist and white supremacist. Nothing of what you say can hide the fact that it was founded by David Duke to foster white supremacism. This book[3] certainly calls it a white supremacist organisation and was published in 2011. There seems to be a few other books that do but there are only snippets. I note that [4] says "After his release from prison, Duke’s organization, EURO (European American Unity and Rights Organization), held a major rally in New Orleans, May 29 - 30, with the goal of promoting unity among white supremacist groups." That's May 2004, and the lead mentions the statement that came out of that rally. EURO organised it and was a driving force behind it. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You continue to attempt to use what other people say to support a conclusion, in the voice of WP, that EURO is "white supremacist" or "white nationalist". To try to do this for "white supremacist" is utterly laughable, given that virtually nobody prior to December 2014 called it that. I have previously said that you have the option of reporting that some organizations have called EURO these things, but you keep insisting (it would seem) on putting it in the voice of WP, rather than merely quoting other sources. What I will have to do is to do the edits you so far have failed to do: Cite in the article that other organizations virtually never called EURO "white supremacist" prior to December 2014, but began to do so when the opportunity arose to discredit Stephen Scalise. Frysay (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight given in last paragraph of Ideology section.

I will be editing out the last paragraph of the Ideology section, as it appears to give WP:UNDUE weight to a small paragraph of an article, years ago, which cited one opinion on a very specific issue not of general interest. The material edited out does not explain why this item is somehow significant, or is representative of the overall content of the online publication. Frysay (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Further, the citation that I removed didn't even identify the author who wrote the section, or his or her relationship with the online newsletter. If you cite the archives of a typical newspaper, it might contain material (such as letters-to-the-editor) which were not even written by the editors themselves. And, since this material is not easily available for a user of WP to view now, he cannot determine who said this or in what context it was said. Frysay (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

10 days later, I see that nobody has disputed the point that I made: There are major problems with the inclusion of this paragraph in its current form, unattributed, not established that it is WP:Due Frysay (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Activities section contains only references to activities of an ex-member, not any then-current member.

If the only "activities" this article can cite are those of ex-members after they left EURO, that isn't at all satisfactory nor representative. This is particularly true because some seem to look down on this organization, calling it "white supremacist" and "white nationalist", etc. This organization has apparently lasted for about 15 years: Surely they have actually done something more noteworthy than the activities of its ex-members? If they have not, what is the significance of Stephen Scalise's almost-but-not-quite attendance at one of their meetings, 13 years before? Frysay (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

10 days later, no one has yet challenged my assertion that there is a problem with the existence of a paragraph in this article, claiming to be "activities", but in fact only listing the actions of a single ex-member after he left the organization. If nobody can find even a single action by then-current members, why have such a paragraph? Frysay (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Those of you who are edit-warring against me...

1. Are failing to use the Talk page to come to a consensus. AND 2. Probably violating the 3-revert rule. AND 3. If you think you're NOT violating the 3-revert rule, then it's probably because two or more of you are "tag-teaming" me, splitting your reverts just to avoid that. I consider that to me thoroughly dishonest. Shall I start counting the reverts to determine the members of your tag-team? Frysay (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

DougWeller appears to be violating the 3-revert rule. Actually, he _did_ violate it: I made numerous edits, he reverted many at a time. If that doesn't constitute multiple reverts, in violation fo the 3-revert rule, it must be because he thinks it's a slick move to wait for many edits to be made, and then revert a bunch of them at a time. But even that trick doesn't work forever. Then, EvergreenFir came to his rescue: He claimed I was "pushing POV". Actually, I think it could be more accurately claimed that HE is PROTECTING POV. I'm trying to remove POV. Further, and astonishingly, EvergreenFir claimed that I wasn't using the Talk page!!! Amazing! I sometimes feel like I'm the only person posting on the Talk page! Sheesh! I'm going to be excruciatingly detailed and specific, in order to prove that those who have been edit-warring against me are trying to PROTECT POV that exists in this article. Item 1 first. 1. Should the article say EURO is a "white nationalist organization". I say that there is no consensus that EURO should be called a "white nationalist organization". First, EURO doesn't call itself "White nationalist". I'm not claiming that's dispositive, of course. But EURO neither advocates "white supremacy" or "white separatism". Very, very few media-organizations (prior to December 27, 2014) have referred to EURO as being "white nationalist". One prominent one is SPLC, of course, but tellingly it also calls EURO a "hate group", inconsistently with its definition (which I have already cited.) Very very few others. And SPLC has truly enormous POV problems. While it might be appropriate to mention in the article some references to EURO as being a "white nationalist organization", that should only occur if those references are from media organizations which consistently and accurately apply a definition of "white nationalist". And such a label should not be put in the voice of WP: At most, it should cite the organization(s) itself. Frysay (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to describe it as white supremacist group as most of our sources do, but white nationalist is a fair compromise. Calling it a "white" organization is not acceptable. The SPLC is a widely recognized and respected civil rights organization. - MrX 01:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You are obviously making a joke about the SPLC. It is, instead, a deeply distrusted organization, except for someone on the far left. I've seen it referred to as 'America's biggest hate group'. Watch this, and try to stop making people laugh at you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdXXPaakJX8&list=PL6MYwdZRr1pfQ9UU6On0AKE1FHqV_1ceA

And NO, I will not "compromise" on "white nationalism". We can "compromise" by listing NEITHER "white supremacism", "white separatism", nor "white nationalism" or any other unsupported label that we do not reach through consensus. What I will do, and in fact have done, is to include a citation (YouTube) identifying the SPLC as a left-wing hate organization. That's fair game: If you call on the opinion of SPLC that EURO is a "hate group", I can call on another organization that calls SPLC a "hate group". And if you challenge that, I won't stop at just one such reference. Frysay (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another: http://www.splcreport.com/ Frysay (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/the-splcs-ridiculous-hate-group-list/ Frysay (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/17741-anti-christian-hate-group-splc-becoming-increasingly-discredited Frysay (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/28/editorial-the-fbi-dumps-a-hate-group/ Frysay (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/southern-poverty-law-centers-criteria-naming-hate-groups Frysay (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-poverty-law-center-biased-in-labeling-family-research-council-a-hate-group-academic-study-argues-115612/ Frysay (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=16654 Frysay (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/03/fbi-quietly-cuts-ties-with-anti-christian-hate-group/ Frysay (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/who-is-the-hate-group Frysay (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/04/02/msnbcs-cupp-raises-frc-shooting-splc-rep-who-doubles-down-hate-group-l Frysay (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://topconservativenews.com/2014/12/splc-writer-slaughtered-in-racial-hate-crime-murder/ Frysay (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/splc-spreads-more-hate-this-time-with-a-twist/ Frysay (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://americanpolicy.org/2014/10/10/new-attacks-by-the-splc-hate-machine/ Frysay (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/southern-poverty-law-center-drops-nation-of-islam-from-list-of-hate-groups Frysay (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.centerforimmigrationtruth.org/splc-inventing-new-racism Frysay (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/a-cnn/item/84-splc-declares-itself-a-hate-group (Spoof Alert!!!!!) Frysay (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://polipundit.com/?p=44713 Frysay (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360968/splc-and-hate-groups-alec-torres Frysay (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-southern-poverty-law-center-splc-and-its-so-called-hate-groups Frysay (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/06/cnn-already-back-to-credulously-citing-splc-hate-group-lists/ Frysay (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://newsok.com/splc-hate-group-listing-merits-a-dose-of-skepticism/article/3763388 Frysay (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://autismwomensnetwork.org/is-autism-speaks-a-hate-group/ Frysay (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6989 Frysay (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/130409 Frysay (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/king-fearmongers_714573.html Frysay (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: http://www.americanclarion.com/time-for-the-splc-hate-and-hate-group-labeling-to-end-19845 Frysay (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And another: https://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/splc-2014-the-hate-group-bubble-pops/ Frysay (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you think Alex Jones is an acceptable source you have no business editing Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you think I thought Alex Jones ALONE would amount to a sufficient source, you have no business communicating with any other human being. Frysay (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the junk what you added to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant, "That's the junk WHICH you added to the article.". Are you lower-class British? Or are your English skills just poor?

I meant, and still mean, that there are PLENTY of references to justify totally discrediting the SPLC organization. I just listed a few of them. They didn't, and do not, all have to be cited in the article itself. I just intended to fully destroy "Mr.X"s stated opinion that "The SPLC is a widely recognized and respected civil rights organization". As for your foolish comment that this is "Fringe", anyone aware of the criticisms of SPLC would certainly not believe those criticisms are truly "fringe": He might disagree, on the whole, with them, but he would recognize that those criticisms were and are valid. Frysay (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The far right hates the SPLC. Of course they do. Most of your sources above fail WP:RS. And a quick check shows you are misrepresenting at least one. The National Review article doesn't call the SPLC a hate group, it is complaining that the SPLC, according to the author, believes that calling "homosexual activity sinful is “hate” and “bigotry.” and lumps "together truly hateful groups with groups it finds offensive" - from what it says I suspect they'd agree EURO is a hate group. One article really slams David Duke[5] - hm, interesting, besides calling Duke's anti-semitism and racism odious, it calls EURO a white supremacist group. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The "far right" hates a lot of things, but do you believe that you must love anything they hate? Or hate anything they love? Also, I did not claim that all, most, or even many of these articles "[calls] the SPLC a hate group". These articles generally are very critical of SPLC as being a credible, unbiased organization. The SPLC has, for example, a serious blind-spot for left-wing hate groups, including (of course) itself.

I agree with NeilN. If you think sources like this, which makes statements like "The SPLC and the “White Privilege” industry is totally silent about their murdered friend.", are legitimate criticism of the SPLC for Wikipedia's purposes, then you have no business editing here. The Weekly Standard, while a reliable source, certainly doesn't call the SPLC a hate group.- MrX 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As I stated above, I did not claim that all or even most of that list of references "call the SPLC a hate group". These articles challenge the SPLC's consistency and reliability. Frysay (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph in Ideology section is WP:UNDUE, and its significance and representation is unsupported.

The last paragraph in the Ideology section quotes a small segment of an article in a 2007 issue of a web-page about Germany. The author of the quotation is unidentified; the relevance of this quotation is unestablished. For all we know, it could have been an letter-to-the editor. Was it representative of the rest of the months in 2007, or was it representative of years other than 2007? We don't know! I believe that this quote was probably cherry-picked so as to be unrepresentative, and therefore to cite it amounts to violation of WP:UNDUE weight. In any case, the reader is completely kept in the dark as to why this text was quoted. (Although he might conclude it was quoted to discredit the organization EURO.) I attempted to remove it, carefully explaining my view of the problem. My edit was rudely reverted, without any explanation given on the Talk page. Frysay (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You mean it shows evidence of Nazi sympathies, and you can't see why that is significant. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The (claimed) fact that "it shows evidence of Nazi sympathies" explains why you WANT to see that paragraph in place (That's called POV), but I notice that you continue to ignore my points that the author of that material is unidentified, and whether it was actually representative of the online newsletter. (it was merely one paragraph of what was probably one article, in one issue, of (perhaps) 12 or more per year, of perhaps a total of 14 years of such newsletters.) You also ignore my complaint that my edits were reverted without discussion on the Talk page. WP policy WP:BRD includes "discuss" among its requirements. Frysay (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Activities section contains only references to activities of an ex-member, not any then-current member.

I have previously explain that the "Activities" section contains only references to activities of a then-ex-member. I carefully explained that this was a problem, then edited out the offending text. My edit was rudely reverted, without explanation on the Talk page. It really looks like somebody wanted to further discredit the organization EURO, but couldn't find anything they actually did wrong. Their only 'success' was to cite the activities of 'Stan Hess', activities done after he left EURO. What, exactly, is the relevance of that? Can't they find even a SINGLE activity of a SINGLE then-current member to cite? And why revert my edit, given that I had given what must be a satisfactory explanation? Frysay (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's truly amazing that nobody is willing to challenge this. Frysay (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Section "2014 Controversy" is being kept deliberately false and misleading.

At one time, about December 29, 2014, it might have been briefly believed that Stephen Scalise actually attended a meeting of EURO. Shortly (2-3 days) after that, however, it began to be realized that Scalise probably simply attended a group meeting at the same location, and hours before, that meeting of EURO. Adding to the confusion, of course, was that Scalise's office clumsily (yet, we now realize, falsely) "admitted" that he had attended the EURO meeting, not realizing that he had actually attended the earlier meeting. The problem is that this paragraph "2014 Controversy", is being deliberately maintained so as to be misleading: My attempts to correct these events to reflect newer and more accurate and complete information are being rudely rejected with reverts that are not explained nor justified on the Talk page. Can we call this anything other than "fraud"? Other editors are trying to maintain a false and misleading position that Scalise didn't "understand" that EURO was very controversial, when by now it is obvious that EURO is no longer relevant: Scalise didn't actually attend the EURO meeting. Other editors of WP, therefore, are engaged in fraud. Frysay (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Scalise admitted attending a EURO meeting, that he regrets it, and that he does not hold EURO's views. Sources also report statements that suggest that he may hold some of those views. For example, he's notable for voting twice against creating a state holiday honoring Martin Luther King. He has also been quoted in statements that could be considered racially charged. To my knowledge, he has not retracted his statement that he spoke at a EURO meeting. Please provide a source for his office falsely admitting that he attended the meeting.- MrX 13:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Scalise (or perhaps his office?) made a MISTAKE. He (they) did so 12 years after the meeting, which happened to be on the same day and at the same location as the EURO meeting, he (or his office) falsely recollected the specific identity of the group he addressed. But that was an error that was identified after a few days. While under this false impression, Scalise made a reasonable statement: that he regretted the meeting. He then stated, presumably accurately, that he does not hold EURO's views. If being "against creating a state holiday honoring Martin Luther King" is somehow wrong, I suspect tens millions of Americans share the same opinion. Myself, I think inventor Nikola Tesla was far, far more worthy of a national holiday than MLK: Tesla did vastly more for America (indeed, the entire world) than MLK ever dreamed of doing. As for making statements that are labelled "racially charged", I have no doubt that MLK, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and many others have made statements which were "racially charged". Frysay (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about personal opinions, this is about sources. The articles about King, Jackson, and Sharpton all mention race, so that comparison is flawed. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User Mr.X was the one who claimed "[Scalise] has also been quoted in statements that could be considered racially charged", as if that was somehow negative. I countered by pointing out that people make "racially charged" statements all the time: Why would something that Scalise said is somehow different in kind that those "racially charged" statements by King, Jackson, and Sharpton. Oh, I forgot! The latter have a LICENSE to say "racially charged" things. The license is usually printed up, and to display it is called "playing the race card". Frysay (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

POV Problem. SPLC reference. WP:UNDUE weight

The article now includes the statement: "As of 2015 [EURO] is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[3]" Well, who died and made the SPLC king? Above, in this talk page, I've cited numerous media references that individually and collectively heap scorn upon the SPLC, as far as calling it itself a left-wing"hate group". So, citing the SPLC position is problematic. This is particularly true, because that is amounting to WP:UNDUE weight on what SPLC says. And that is even more true, because there are evidently many organizations which view the SPLC and biased and unreliable. The SPLC is apparently the only organization that catalogs what it calls "hate groups", but that does not mean that we could or should cite it as being authoritative. It's simply biased, in part because it uses its list of "900+" "hate groups" to scare donations from terrified liberals. Further, in the context of EURO, despite the fact that SPLC calls EURO "white nationalist", no aspects of "nationalism" are present in EURO's statement of principles, cited under Ideology. (There DO exist REAL "white nationalist" groups, ones that actually advocate separation of the races, or "white supremacy", but EURO does not do either.) Similarly, while the SPLC calls EURO a "hate group", SPLC's own definition of hate group appears to be unsatisfied in that list of 8 principles listed in Ideology. (If anything, its positions appear to be written to advocate only "equal rights".) In brief, I believe that WP cannot take SPLC's position as being credible and unbiased, since it is obviously inconsistent with the SPLC's own definitions of reality. Reverting my edits that cast aspersions on the SPLC's credibility was rude and uncalled-for. Frysay (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the SPLC is a respected organization and have been deeply involved in exposing white supremacist groups. They were instrumental in dismantling the KKK. Here are some sources that reflect SPLC's credibility vis-à-vis EURO:[6] [7] [8] [9]- MrX 14:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting choice of sources -- first one: The most fleshed-out history comes from Knight. In that telling, Scalise may not have attended the actual conference, but he spoke to a group at the hotel on the same day at the invitation of Knight, second one: since you seem to aver the single self-same article is two separate sources, I am a trifle bemused. Third one: "I don't think Steve Scalise has a racist bone in his body," Richmond, who is black, told the Times-Picayune. "Steve and I have worked on issues that benefit poor people, black people, white people, Jewish people. I know his character." and your last "source" presented here is an editorial column, not one to be used for claims of fact. Clue: The "Southern Elections Fund" is a political organization per se, and specifically allied to one particular political party. Editorial comments from an overtly partisan group may sometimes be deemed to be overtly partisan. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect, looks like he made the same error I did, copy and paste the same thing twice. As for the SPLC, it's your opinion that it is a political organisation, not a fact. And it is not specifically allied to one political party unless I've missed something - where do you get that from? If you don't think we can use the SPLC as a source, go to RSN. And do you really support Frysay's sources above? And maybe you can justify the use of Human Events at Steve_Scalise to dismiss the whole story. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reread my post. I stated that the "Southern Elections Fund" was a political organization. It directly supported specific candidates financially. To me that is "political." I did not say anything whatsoever about the SPLC here. Is that clear enough? Collect (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. That was very careless of me. I agree they are specifically allied to a political party. You haven't answered my question about Frysay's sources though, and I'm not clear what you are getting at in any case. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My post dealt with MrX's choice of sources -- the first (two) do not state that Scalise spoke at a "white supremacist" event - it includes "or right before it" in simple English in fact. In short - it is an equivocal source and not a specific one. The USAToday source states "supremacist" not at all. Period. Thus not a great cite for asserting the RS sources call the group that Scalise spoke to as "white supremacist." The final admittedly partisan editorial does not use the term either, although it appears to assert that whatever group Scalise spoke to is a "hate group." As an editorial column, it is a weak source for claims of fact, as everyone here knows. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect, I think you're confused. I provided those sources to demonstrate that there are sources that discuss EURO, and that cite the SPLC's description of the organization. For example the Tampa Bay Times says "The group, identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group with anti-Semitic and racist writings, was headed by David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and prominent Louisiana politician."—That's not stating an opinion; that's stating a fact. Here's another

Boehner's statement was the strongest show of support for Scalise, who has been trying to tamp down controversy surrounding his appearance at a 2002 conference of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), an organization founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. The Southern Poverty Law Center says EURO, which claims to fight for "white civil rights," is a hate group.

Scalise's appearance at the event, while in his capacity as a Louisiana state legislator, was first reported Sunday by CenLamar.com, a liberal blog. Scalise was first elected to Congress in a 2008 special election.

The revelation that Scalise spoke to a hate group comes as the GOP prepares to take control of both chambers in Congress and as Republicans try to make strides with minority voters.
— USA Today

There are plenty of sources that state that Scalise spoke at a white supremacist meeting, but what were talking about here is the SPLC's credibility, according to our sources.- MrX 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if you actually read what I post. That is where your "confusion" lays. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: Plenty of erroneous information was pushed, especially during the period of late December 2014. But most of it was eventually corrected. It seems to now be agreed that Scalise spoke an _A_ meeting, at about the same location and hours before a meeting of EURO. And perhaps hundreds of news organizations issued articles referring to EURO as being a "white supremacist" meeting. But they did so because they were probably merely copying the content of a press-release that claimed the same thing, a label which was remarkably absent prior to mid-December 2014. As for SPLC's 'credibility', it is clearly a highly biased organization. No doubt it includes many genuine "hate groups" in its lists; the problem is that it seems to stretch its definitions to include names of organizations that are simply conservative in orientation. Frysay (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

My Complaint to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I have filed a complaint with the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, against DougWeller, EvergreenFir, and NeilN. They are clearly attempting to preserve and protect POV which has long occupied this article. While I would prefer to correct this POV, I would be satisfied to remove this POV. I have attempted to initiate Talk-page conversations to accomplish that, with essentially no cooperation from the others. Two of them (DougWeller and EvergreenFir) have clearly "tag-teamed" to assist an ongoing violation of the 3-revert rule: DougWeller reverted far more than 8 edits, and when he could not longer act, EvergreenFir 'rescued' him by coordinating yet another revert. I was also threatened with language by EvergreenFir that even if I continued to edit, I might be falsely sanctioned by the 3-revert rule. Frysay (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted twice in the last 24 hours.[10] and [11]. I count 4 series of reverts by you - WP:3RR says " An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Then identify those reverts, specifically. I presume you are claiming that I made a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions". So does that "count[] as a revert"?"

Also, I see a problem. If I make four edits in one day to a given article, and none of those edits merely added new material, doesn't that automatically mean that I have violated the 3RR? After all, any such edit "undoes other editor's actions". Even if that material I am changing was originally placed weeks, months, or even years before? Right? Yet it's not called the 3ER ("Three edit rule"). Frysay (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller: I notice that you are not defending your original assertion that I somehow violated the 3RR. What I made, as I understand it, was "a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions". As you can see, I am merely quoting you, and you were quoting the 3RR. So, my "series of consecutive edits" undid other editors' actions. As far as I can see, that amounts to a SINGLE 'revert'. Uh, maybe you made a mistake? Or are you taking the position that my "series of consecutive edits" should count as MORE than a single revert, if it's an opponent who is doing those edits? Frysay (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Section "2014 Controversy" is STILL being kept deliberately false and misleading.

Although it is apparently necessary that I point out WHY that is true. First, I suggest that you start by reading the article http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/06/what-we-know-about-steve-scalise-attending-white-p/ Then, read Section "2014 Controversy". What do we see? Actually, it's what we DON'T see that is most apparent. That existing section very carefully avoids mentioning why, exactly, the "2014 Controversy" began. Reading just the latter, the reader wouldn't know who "liberal Louisiana blogger Lamar White, Jr." is. (quoted from Politifact.com.) (Redacted) The reader wouldn't understand that Scalise's attendance at some highly obscure neighborhood meeting, 12 years prior, didn't just pop back into the news on its own. The reader wouldn't understand how White made the error of thinking that Scalise attended the EURO meeting, instead of a different meeting. The reader wouldn't understand how press and why press-releases were issued that labeled the WRONG organization (the one Scalise DIDN'T attend), EURO, as a "white supremacist" organization. (Use Google-search and set the time searched from 2000 though November 2014 and look for "EURO" and "white supremacist", to see virtually nobody calling EURO that.) That's because only if the organization he was (falsely) claimed to have attended was labelled as "white supremacist" would it be a sufficient smear. Do you see the problem? the Section "2014 Controversy" is highly misleading, not primarily for what it includes, but for what it fails to include. This section is clearly intended to conform to the desires of the people who want to smear Scalise; such people want to carefully avoid mentioning the background information explaining why the 2014 controversy became the 2014 controversy. That Section may very well include some facts, but it is primarily the facts it fails to include that keep it from being unbiased. Frysay (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody has overtly objected to the inclusion of the actual history of the 2014 initiation of this controversy, I have begun a series of edits, mostly based on the content of the Politifact article of January 5, 2015 and others subsequent. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/06/what-we-know-about-steve-scalise-attending-white-p/ Those who wish to conceal how this controversy actually arose in 2014 won't like this, but I intend to re-establish NPOV in the article. Note: Since I am very new at this, I don't know how to make footnotes. My material shouldn't be removed merely because the footnote is not (yet) properly formed. If you know how to form the footnote, please do it. Frysay (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect: "Ask on Talk page" "If the only tool you have is a hammer..."

My attempt to add a paragraph, admittedly lifted from Politifact, was reverted by Collect. Have you ever heard the saying, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails". ("Revert" = "hammer") I was not trying to suggest that this edit was 'final'. Quite the opposite. But one of the major problems of WP, as I understand it, is that it is way too easy to "revert" , to the extent that few people actually IMPROVE articles, they primarily REVERT the process of editing. Follow me? I hope you don't disagree that the section "2014" is unacceptable and biased as is, in violation of NPOV. At that point, the question is, "How do we fix it"? Notice that I have extensively written, above, on why this section is biased due to lack of material. Okay, that means that my solution is to ADD material. But that will take time, and I wanted to start with material from a comparatively unbiased source. (Politifact). Perhaps you can explain why it was better to revert that text, than to further change it, perhaps turning it into a quotation. Or add yet more. Hmmmmmm????? Frysay (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

After some edits by another, I think paragraph 1 in this section (2014) is still misleading. For instance, it contains the sentence, "A CNN report said that "Scalise, 49, who ascended to the House GOP’s third-ranking post this year, confirmed through an adviser that he once appeared at a convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, or EURO." That may very well have described the situation December 29, 2014 (approx), when an assistant preliminarily acknowledged that Scalise had attended a meeting 12 years earlier. But to the extent that this "confirmation" may very well have been an error on the part of Scalise (or his assistant), I feel confident that an "encyclopedic" publication such as WP shouldn't rely on this statement in this way: It looks more like a "GOTCHA!!!" on the part of the (original) editor, as if he had said, "Because you, Scalise, made a mistake within a couple of days of the report coming out, we are going to 'ding' you forever with the consequences of this error forever." If it turns out that Scalise actually attended the other meeting, and not that of EURO, shouldn't this article include "Attempt to smear Scalise in 2014", or something similar? After all, in that case it would have been merely the "liberal Louisiana blogger Lamar White" who made the initial mistake of mis-attributing Scalise's attendance at EURO. Tempest in a teapot. Had White believed from the beginning that Scalise attended the OTHER group, not EURO, he wouldn't have pushed this story as if it was some sort of scoop. There would have been no controversy. Frysay (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming so tendentious. Can you please be a bit more terse? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oooooh!!! There's that word "tendentious" again. Googling the definition, I see: "expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one. "a tendentious reading of history"" (end of definition) Isn't that what we're SUPPOSED to do in the Talk page. Maybe the real problem is that you don't want somebody DISAGREEING with you! (Or, more precisely, disagreeing with people whose opinions you agree with.) Have you forgotten already that you LIED a few weeks ago, falsely claiming that I hadn't been using the Talk page to discuss these edits? (when in reality, I was almost the only one actually using the Talk page for its intended purpose.) NOW, you are applying a diametrically-opposite opinion: You seem to claim I am using the Talk page TOO MUCH!!! So, which is it? If I stopped using the Talk page as much as I have been, you'd be able to go back and (again) falsely claim that I am not using the Talk page. If you don't like discussions of facts, WHEN YOU AREN'T EVEN EXPRESSING YOUR OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT, maybe you ought to simply go away and let people get back to following WP policy. Yes, that's right: I notice that after a careful search, the only prior edits you made to the subject (before I showed up) were three on 11 July 2014. And even more astonishingly, I count a total of only seven (7) edits on the Talk page after Oct 2006 and before Dec 2014! (NONE of which were yours!!!) No wonder you and your buddies think of this article as being your little fiefdom, and you (and they) are so wildly inexperienced at discussing the content of the article. This is clearly abuse of a WP Article by a cabal. Who brought you in here? Frysay (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede: " Quin Hillyer in the National Review as white supremacist.[3]"

See the Lede to this article: I still object to the use of the term "white supremacist" in regards to EURO, even if done by quoting a (non-thinking, in this case) author Quin Hillyer from the conservative National Review. It's really quite simple, isn't it? There is no dispute that many dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of media organizations and authors have used the term "white supremacist" with EURO...since late December 2014. But there also should not be any dispute that virtually no media organization called EURO "white supremacist"...PRIOR TO December 27, 2014. It is as clear as glass that what changed was simply that a press release (or series of them?) intending to smear Scalise was issued, and merely on the strength of that release's use of the term "white supremacist" the recipient news organizations BEGAN using that term. Anybody who thinks that this means that Wikipedia, supposedly an "encyclopedic" publication, should properly refer to EURO as being "white supremacist" could not possibly have taken Debate class in high school or college. The fact that National Review is "conservative" changes nothing: I think that Hillyer simply assumed that this label was acceptable, and proceeded to write his article. If anything, WP:UNDUE applies: to cite ONE conservative writer as if he is somehow representative is focussing on an extreme outlier. If your response is, "Nyah nyah nyah!! It was CONSERVATIVE National Review!!!", this should be considered a NPOV problem. No doubt that the vast majority of people (and sources) who want to call EURO "white supremacist" are liberal. The fact that you can find ONE conservative organization that may have, unthinkingly, said the same doesn't change that. Thus, the article suffers from violation of NPOV. If anything, I get the impression when I read the EURO points is this: They have tried to demonstrate a point, by showing that there is a major double-standard in action. They can remove all overt references to white supremacism, even white nationalism, and yet they will still be tarred by those labels! It's really quite grotesque. Frysay (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, there are sources calling it white supremacist long before 2014. The fact that EURO had so little media attention prior to the Scalise event probably explains why they didn't call it white supremacist - they weren't writing about it. But that's irrelevant. To quote myself, "This book[12] certainly calls it a white supremacist organisation and was published in 2011. There seems to be a few other books that do but there are only snippets. I note that [13] says "After his release from prison, Duke’s organization, EURO (European American Unity and Rights Organization), held a major rally in New Orleans, May 29 - 30, with the goal of promoting unity among white supremacist groups." That's May 2004, and the lead mentions the statement that came out of that rally. EURO organised it and was a driving force behind it. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)" Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Weeks ago, I found (after very extensive searching) only a SINGLE source referring to EURO as "white supremacist" prior to December 2014. You found a book. It would be an extraordinary case of [[WP:UNDUE] weight to use a single (or a very small number) of citations in the way you suggest. To cite an assertion by an uninvolved author, attributing the motives of Duke, seems to be far beyond the legitimate use of such a source. Further, I think we must further recognize that the eight cited positons (they are actually quoted, but the fact they are quotes aren't revealed) do not show any suggestion of "white supremacism". I think it's clear that by virtual definition, "white supremacism" must contain a statement that whites be "supreme" over non-whites. (In the same way that "white separatism" must contain opinions advocating the separation of the races.) The EURO material we've seen so far mentions NEITHER. It is clear that "white supremacist" organizations (and individuals) do exist, and they clearly identify their "white supremacist" nature in their writings. No such opinion is present in the EURO cited material so far. I think that if you really want to justify using some otherwise-undue-weight author to support those allegations, you should first read the material posted in the website over 12+ years, and find out if they (as opposed to guest-writers, equivalent to letters-to-the editor) display actual white-supremacist or white-separatist positions. Once you do that, maybe you can find "activities" of actual then-current EURO members which can be used to replace the material currently in the "Activities" section. Further, it is my opinion that to be properly labelled "white nationalist", an organization must advocate either white-supremacist or white-separatist opinions. So far as I've seen, EURO has done neither. Frysay (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are sources prior to a particular date at issue here? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Could somebody with an IQ above 100 explain to EvergreenFir the issue? I thought I wrote it precisely, using Standard English. I have very carefully alleged that there was a sham attempt to smear Scalise (which nobody should deny; although they might claim Scalise SHOULD be smeared), and a major portion of this smear would have helped immensely by calling the EURO organization "white supremacist". Problem is, very very few sources called EURO "white supremacist" at the point (Redacted) (I use the label from Politifact quoted from Politifact.com.) In other words, before about December 27, 2014. Yet, it is equally clear that SOMEBODY wrote the press releases citing the claims Lamar White claimed, and moreover used the label "white supremacist" to describe EURO. It is even more clear that at least dozens, and probably hundreds, of news organizations almost blindly used that label, without any appreciable checking on this point. How do we know that? Any news source doing "due diligence" would have first checked the allegation that EURO was indeed "white supremacist". On that date, they would have done a Google-search, perhaps something like Google-search 'EURO white supremacist', and if they had the patience, they would have discovered (or, more precisely, have FAILED to discover) virtually any applications of the term "white supremacist" to the EURO organization. They should have been much more careful: Libel laws and civil suits exist, and they could reasonably be expected to to a certain minimal level of research prior to copying the story to thousands or millions of people. (Redacted) They were therefore fully warned. Is anything else not clear? Frysay (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on European-American Unity and Rights Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.whitecivilrights.com/?p=989

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is misleading.

This article includes this statement: "But Scalise has admitted he spoke to the group and has not denied other details published by White, while also claiming he does not remember attending" and "From the evidence, we know Scalise attended ... something. Whether it was a gathering of white supremacists or a civic meeting right before is unclear."[18]"". Scalise initially admitted attending a meeting; however, later facts made it clear that there were a number of meetings at the same location, over 12 years previously, and Scalise might have mistakenly thought it was a EURO meeting, rather than something else. It is improper for this Wikipedia article, which claims to be encyclopedic, to take advantage of what might have simply been Scalise's temporary error in remembering something, over 12 years before. Updated information, as early as around a week after this initial recollection, should be used, rather than being obstructed. See: http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/07/the-scalise-ordeal-shows-the-media-will-bury-facts-to-fit-its-narrative-about-racist-southerners/ 67.5.250.152 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

this article also has a bias source - the southern poverty law center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.202.197 (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Being designated a white nationalist group by The Southern Poverty Law Center is noteworthy. Calling it a bias source doesn't change that. Grayfell (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a single, unchallenged definition of "white nationalist group"? Probably not. The SPLC is a left-wing hate-group, that expresses that hate by the listing of other groups as being "hate groups". It tends to have a blind-spot for hate groups on the left. 67.5.250.152 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

And some people think Jews rule the world. They're both wrong. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)