Talk:One People's Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The One People's Project is a group composed of two people that have attracted public attention to themselves. There are currently featured in "The Nation". Their accusations against white activists have been challenged in court, and they have lost, thus there is no reason their accuracy cannot be questioned.

This page was recommended for deletion by an anti-racist activist who, without any factual knowledge or basis, has attacked numerous well-documented posts.

Besides the fact that this is EXTREMELY POV, it falls under the speedy delete category for lack of notability and information. If you have any other information to add to make this more encyclopedic or refrences to notability, please add them. Otherwise, this is a speedy delete and shall remain so. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Additional sources were added and the "delete" was removed. Anti-racist activists apparently do not like attention being focused on them, and are BSing "speedy deletes" for some of my pages as a result. I am not 100% familiar with Wikipedia etiquette, but if there was some better way to resolve this, I would appreciate knowing about it Baxter2

I'd like to point out that I nominated this article for deletion because, at the time, it had no verifiable information and it was terribly POV, until it was fixed by Baxter2. I'm certainly no anti-racist activist, whatever that means :) Sarg 18:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Unuseful links[edit]

I cant' find the OPP mentioned in the transcript. Also, the court case information system isn't showing much of anything on them either. Are these the correct links? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Questionable entry[edit]

The One People's Project website has the following commentary on its front page:

PROOF THAT BILL WHITE NEEDS A LIFE Many of us who trapse about the internet have found our way to an online encyclopedia called Wikipedia. This encyclopedia allows visitors to publish and edit entries on a person, topic, etc. Of course, this policy lends itself to abuse, and the operators of the website have often deleted entries that are questionable. That may need to happen soon.

This week, a few entries that a user named "Baxter2" seems to have a hand in authoring were published. One of them is for Bill White. Another is for Erica Hardwick, another for Chuck Munson of Infoshop.org, yet another for Tad Kepley of Anarchy! Magazine and then one for One People's Project. All of them put a negative light on all of their subjects, except one - Bill. In fact, the negative things said about each of the other subjects are exactly the same charges and same spin that Bill puts on these subjects on his own site, Overthrow.com. In his user info page, "Baxter2" notes that he had came to Wikipedia to "flesh out" the article on Bill White, and while he was there contribute to the other entries. He listed the entries he had also contributed to, which included the above as well as one for Jennifer Adams, who White lived with for a spell in Missouri (we think it has since been deleted). It should be noted that Bill was bitching earlier this week about a Wikipedia entry on him, and it is very curious to us how "Baxter2" has the same writing style and talking points that Bill has. Based on this, we think that Bill is the actual author of all of these entries, and is basically trying to use Wikipedia to give credibility to the BS he normally posts on Overthrow that has long been discounted as a credible source.

We have contacted the folks at Wikipedia and asked them to investigate the matter, and we hope to hear from them soon. As much as we would like the entry, truly there are better authors than Bill--we mean "Baxter2". We are posting this to let our readers know not to trust the current entry on us or any that "Baxter2" is associated with.

Oh, and Bill? Get over yourself. With the ongoing investigations of HUD and the FBI (no they did not drop them, you idiot), one would have thought that something would have broken past your dellusion that you are accomplishing something.

To Daryle Lamont Jenkins[edit]

If you're reading this, I'd like to take the opportunity to let you know that we take personal threats and the publication of people's public information on this website very seriously. We have removed this information about yourself as soon as we saw it. If you see it again, please let me know on my talk page or on WP:AN and we'll sort things out as soon as we can.

P.S. on a personal note: if you're against racism, you're cool with me! :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 05:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia entry doesn't even pretend to be NPOV. It reads like a self-serving autobiographical release from the organization. It should be completely rewritten or deleted.--PW1000 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PW1000 This is ore like an advertisment than a NPOV. Can somebody please re-write this entry and amke it Npov? RichardLangford 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited, but if others should go over it and see at it is not as NPOV as it originally was. Elyrad 02:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partly Rewritten[edit]

The article was extremely (favorably) propagandistic and bloated. I have revised the first three paragraphs. I do not have the time to finish right now, but may later.

Reference removed[edit]

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

As the owner and primary admin of Mootstormfront, I have to disagree - OPP's forum was in fact where virtually all the principal founding staff members of MSF - Descendant, Rach, Otter, myself and a number of original members not on staff - met and joined forces, although some others were culled from the Opposing Members section of Stormfront.

I'm therefore reverting. I was there, and unless I'm mistaken, you weren't.

Kamandi November 20th, 2006

I have looked through MootStormront and can find no evidence that what you claim is true. The OPP has it's own forum. I believe you are trying to latch onto the OPP to advertise your website. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. RichardLangford 00:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I have also removed the redirect from mootstormfront to here, and bagan a new artilce for mootstormfront. Edit that one and tell people about your forum and stop hijacking others for advertising puposes.RichardLangford 00:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry for taking so long to address the above ridiculous points, Rich, but let me do so now:

1. If the OPP didn't have its own forum, how could we have met there? Great use of logic, Richard. *rolls eyes*

2. Our forum is far more active than OPP's and hardly needs any advertising from it. We certainly have the blessing of the One People's Project to mention MSF in the article, and, in fact, we were advertised by Darryl when we began several years ago.

3. Of the flagship principals of MootSF; that is, myself, Descendant, Rach, and Otter, all were originally OPP members on its first discussion forum (long since crashed). How exactly do you explain that fact?

I'm reverting the reference for the above reasons, as your MootSF page seems to have been eliminated.

Kamandi 21 March 2007


Propaganda[edit]

Hmm, this page is propaganda. Make it neutral please. OPP is a hategroup... daryle lamont jenkins incites violence against law abiding americans by using incendiary pavlovian flags like 'nazi rally' and 'kkk anti-immigrant rally'.

If the subject has been called a "hate group", or whatever, in a reliable source then we should include it. However we shouldn't call it a "hate group", or whatever, just because we think it is. Strong opinions should be attributed to a speaker. (You can learn more about the project in the welcome message on your talk page.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abject nonsense. Words have real meanings. Just because some members might dislike something. Doesn't mean its a 'hate group'. The catholic church 'hates satan'. Is the catholic church a hate group? Of course it is not. Mahattma Gandhi hated opression. Was he spreading hate? Of course he has not. Mother teresa hated poverty. Was she spreading hate? Of course she wasn't. And OPP hates racism. Are they spreading hate? Of course not. Duckmonster (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source is the opp website, linked to on the opp entry. Not that I would really call it a reliable source, but it certainly illustrates the hateful intentions... calling for violence by labelling peaceful events with the most inflammatory rhetoric available. We all know the quickest way to incite the largest crowds is words like 'nazi' the hategroup being directly fed from this page, is reliable enough I hope.

That's just an opinion of the material. We can cite material on the website to describe it, or even give a few characteristic quotations from the site, but we can't just make up stuff about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a single example of "calling for violence". No, some random posted on a chat board doesn't count. This is a bog-standard smear thrown at anti racist activists, even where its almost hilariously wrong (For instance rock against racism in the UK (Organises educational concerts), and FDB in australia (researchers) have both been smeared like this, even though in both case demonstrably wrong). Cut it out dude. Duckmonster (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of citing material on websites, There is a guy who posts on a page for white nationalists named "Vic_tory" who said he came here and edited the entry, then complained that his edits were deleted because they weren't neutral. You can find that post [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/our-brother-and-sister-attacked-407055p47.html here]. That wouldn't happen to be you, would it? Elyrad 15:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Elyrad[reply]

Well as a matter of fact it is. So let's make this entry neutral. My efforts are being attacked, so one of you please see to it. As it stands its offensive to see this hatemonger described as he is.

As a side note, the thread that links to is an example of the violence incited by this website, thanks for the reminder... because dlj labeled this guy as 'anti-immigrant kkk' even though he was at a legal, mayor sponsored event to deputize law enforcement to help deal with ILLEGAL immigration concerns, some boneheads were incited to attack him and his wife. All thanks to the one peoples project. The fact is, just because opp calls something 'anti-immigrant' doesn't change it into something 'anti-immigrant' but for the people just looking for an excuse to commit violence, that's all it takes, and adding 'kkk' to the end of it is just the kind of careless pavlovian trick that will set it into action. That one link on the opp entry has it all... declaring the next step is someone will die?

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

But you need a more reliable source of the hate produced by this 'organization'

So in the meantime, write something that is neutral, not something that is just some rant because you're upset about something that happened at a rally. It is going to be blown out of the water pretty quickly if you don't.Elyrad 00:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Elyrad[reply]

What I wrote is absolutely neutral. I am only going by what I have read on the O.P.P. website. If I were to rant it would be very obvious. Going by what suggestions were made at the top of this topic, I cited straight from the O.P.P. website. Please don't delete my contribution and call it vandalism. What you are doing is censorship. My contribution is entirely neutral.


Side note, I have to ask, what is going ot be blown out of the water, if I don't write something that you feel is neutral? Honestly you aren't exactly an impartial observer being the main contributer to the website in question, so maybe you should just step back and let others make a truly neutral article about what you are promoting on your website. My only interest is the truth. But seriously please expand on what you are referring to about blowing out of the water... I am truly mystified.

Please also note I never once tried to remove your article, and have never attempted to mess with your site. Only trying to add an impartial observance to an impartial 'wikipedia'


Well, thanks for playing, guys. I could swear I read somewhere about wikipedia being 'neutral' and wanting impartial articles... But if you have 'ELYRAD' (go ahead see if you can spell it backwards...) editing the article about his own page, it honestly just makes it into an ADVERTISEMENT. I've been trying to add my impartial quote TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE PAGE IN QUESTION but for soem reason, 'ELYRAD' keeps censoring my contributions, declaring it 'vandalism'.

If you want to maintain ANY integrity as an unbiased source, you will NEED to block him from that. Or is this Daryle-pedia now? Why not have his banner on every entry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tellthetruthplease (talk • contribs).

I've trimmed the parts of your edit that weren't neutral or which made assertions that weren't sourced. Also please sign your talk page contributions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not entirely deleting my contribution this time, but honestly the main point behind the quote is the fact that him declaring someone a nazi doesn't make thema nazi, and it was a lot worse than 'slapping around'. I understand this is probably as neutral as this wil get though. also, the correct date is 7-28-07 for the rally, I may have typoed it myself, not sure, but I'll keep my text off the page for now. Tellthetruthplease 10:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the part about "declaring someone a Nazi" because it's just a personal opinion. The "some people think" parts were neutral, but unsourced. I didn't check the date, if it's wrong it'd be great if you can fix it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing all phrases like "white nationalist", "racist" or whatever terms were used to "pro-white" is the very opposite of being neutral and non-propagandistic. The only people who use the phrase "pro-white" are individuals in the white nationalist movement. Wikipedia is not i the business of promoting that, or any other poitical agenda.Spylab 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never used those phrases, spylab. Only thing I can figure, maybe when my entries were being deleted, the page reverted to an earlier page?

I know full well that phrases like 'pro-white' are not going to last long here. I kept every bit of my editing seperate from what was already posted, every time.

I considered deleting the entire thing and rewriting it, but only for the briefest of moments, the way someone might consider eating an entire pie before realizing the one slice is a full serving.

As far as I can tell wikipedia claims to be entirely neutral, so I have tried to be entirely neutral with what I have edited.

For what it's worth, I don't think this site is factually neutral, but I can't think of anything that is, no, not even Switzerland. I am not deluded enough to think that I can effect any sort of true neutrality being waged on this site, but I have tried, at least in this instance.

As for the declaring someone a nazi... The quote from the o.p.p. site I included, was in reference to the only people being 'slapped around' at the event, and since he called them nazis in that quote, I assumed he was calling them nazis.

As far as I'm concerned the phrase 'white nationalist' is actually neutral, at one point I did notice that all of those were phrased 'white supremacist' which, while there is definitely some crossover between the two groups, are actually not at all the same thing. But, as I said, I didn't change anything except to add, entirely seperately, what I tried to add every time I laid my keyboard across that page.

Ok, I am changing the date in the entry now. That's the only thing I'll bother changing. 22:16, 2 August 2007 Tellthetruthplease 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the "Rally Response" portion of the entry, as opposed to deleting it altogether. It should be noted that it involved a recent event that is still playing itself out. Elyrad —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:21, August 20, 2007 (UTC).


Daryle, please stop trying to make this page into a commercial for your website. I fixed your attempt to vandalize the entry. Tellthetruthplease 06:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I just put back what you took out because it is you that vandalized the entry. This time there will be a third party involved, because the reference that you deleted was to where the Stormfront poster Vic_tory said he was coming here to alter the entry. You are the one not being neutral, and my name is not Daryle. Elyrad 12:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you look at the history you'll see that 'willbeback' trimmed down my contibution to a neutral state. Afterwards, I corrected the date. nothing more. So, adding your point of view is in fact adding your own bias. Thanks for the goof though daryle. I'm not touching this entry, I've reported your vandalism and attempts to make an advertisement for your site, so it's in the hands of the third party now. Tellthetruthplease 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not touching this entry, but I really, really want to correct your horrendous grammar. I'm sure the neutral third party can handle it though.Tellthetruthplease 22:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the truth that brecht forum supports OPP. Opp even states that on their site. This is clear use of extreemist leftist propaganda. User:Edward Nyhouse 16:00, 5 March, 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

First off, of course elyrad editting the article for his own project is very biased. Saying something is vandalism, and censoring it, isn't the same thing as coming to a neutral consensus. It is, in fact, biased. I can see why my entry was editted down to what it was by willbeback, and so I have left the page alone since then, except to correct the date cited. For some reason, elyrad had to edit that neutrally agreed state to fit in with the advertising point of view for his website. That is not neutral. Also, stormfront is not at all related to the one peoples project, so the link to that page is irrelevant. Several people were angry about the violence at the rally, and some people attributed the inflammatory remarks to the One Peoples Project. Including the police forces there who made the arrests. Those aren't mentioned, why mention a chat forum? It's obvious that it's easier to portray yourself as some sort of freedom fighters if you point the finger at those you have already declared to be nazis, even though they had nothing to do with Abraham and Co. being arrested. The legitimate police forces, combined with the illegally aggresive actions of Abe's crew, led to the arrest and charges. I didn't mention either, because they were irrelevant. Neither incited these activists to commit this violence. I alleged that O.P.P. incited this violence, and the 'npov' editors decided there wasn't enough proof of this, but came up with what seemed to me to be a fairly neutral statement about the incident. Probably because Willbeback has no personal stake in the subject of the entry, and is therefore, far more neutral that 'elyraD'. It's a very simple matter to make, at least the last paragraph of the entry, neutral again. Revert it to august 19th, and block Elyrad from editting this page. Block me too, either way I'm not interested in an edit-war, just the neutrality. Tellthetruthplease 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Looking at the history page I'd have to say I was wrong, I guess August 17th was when the vandalism started so reverting to the 19th wouldn't help. It seems August 2nd, when I corrected the date cited, was the last state of non bias. So, trying to understand this... where the entry mentions what the O.P.P. call a rally, which is relevant in an article about the O.P.P., why did you decide to add 'robb pearson's' take on it? Who is that, and what does he have to do with O.P.P.? And why not cite his declaration? The only time I've read the name is when you mention how you won't lose sleep if he feels like someone keeps calling him a racist. What is his connection with O.P.P.? Tellthetruthplease 05:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Opinion - Rejected

As this article contains or is about some pretty contoversial subject matter, the fact that it remains entirely unreferenced is startling. There are no citations, so there is little to no basis for any argument over what should or should not be considered factual information or outright vandalism. Prior to reconsidering a 3PO requent, there should be at least some substantiated information in this article. As it stands, the article can, should and will be deleted in 5 days henceforth should these issues not be dealth with. Do your best to keep cool in your dispute until after one or both of you can substantiate the reason for this article's existence. Don't be insulted -- just trying to keep this article up to Wikipedia standards. :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted. In this case I'll remove all tags - you all can update any disagreements that might remain as you like.Jjdon (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on One People's Project. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_People%27s_Project&oldid=1213763098"