Talk:League of United Latin American Citizens/Archive 1

Characterization as a hate group

Those are pretty strong accusations - could we have some documentary evidence? (Mmartins 09:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I have already begun linking descriptions of their hateful activities; and I believe you should be removed from any editing privileges for these sites because your own profile demonstrates you are far from being able to arbitrarily make judgments about these organizations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.241.16.5 (talk • contribs)

I believe he or she was addressing me, not Mmartins. In accordance with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, I have changed the lead assertion that LULAC is a hate group to an NPOV statement about accusations of racism. Also, please refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you, --Rockero 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Rockero,

I would like to know how you claim to have a neutral point of view in light of statements made in your profile? I have not attacked you in any way I simply do not understand how you can in any way have a neutral point of view. I think you should be honest in how biased you are in these matters and refrain from contributing to any pages that are in any way political in nature, including those about interest groups.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.241.16.5 (talk • contribs)

I do not have a neutral point of view, nor do I claim to have one. My point of view is stated explicitly on my userpage for all to see. The point is to write from a neutral point of view (did you read the NPOV link?). That is, your edit changed the lead to introduce LULAC as a hate group. This presents a POV. I placed the criticism of LULAC in the mouth of the critic, which is much closer to a neutral point of view.

Furthermore, if you would have read the link I provided on personal attacks, you would have realized that in WP, a personal attack is any comment made on an editor as opposed to a comment made on his or her edits.

If I have written with any bias, I thank you to point it out and help to minimize it. But I will not refrain from editing articles on topics about which I am knowledgeable. Up to this day, no editor has ever shown me proof of any bias in my writing. The only ones to accuse me of writing with a bias or from a POV are people who insert their own POVs such as that LULAC, etc. are hate groups.--Rockero 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing I found bias in was your characterization that all groups that object to some of the activities of LULAC or Council of La Raza are right wing organizations. Both LULAC and La Raza openly support government funding for both Spanish language programs as well other programs that would benefit Hispanic organizations; and by definition would have to be called left wing because they want to increase government involvement in public affairs. In the interests of fairness I would implore you to at least label both LULAC and La Raza has left wing organizations since you seem so reluctant to label them hate groups.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.241.16.5 (talk • contribs)

If there are non-right groups that criticize LULAC, I've never heard their criticisms. I suppose reformism is in itself non-conservative, and LULAC would fit your government-involvement definition of left-wing. But they are not particularly radical and don't advocate socialism. I suppose the reforms they seek and the activities they engage in do fall closer to the left end of the spectrum, but it is a bit of a convoluted way to label them. LULAC ought to be defined as precisely what it is: an ethnically-based political advocacy organization. If there is some way to include that their politics lean toward the left, I will do it.--Rockero 21:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this discussion interesting since someone above has defined left wing and it does seem to be a generally agreed upon definition can Rockero define right wing since he seems very ardent in labeling groups as such?--71.198.22.73 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Concerned Party

See the article Right-wing politics.--Rockero 15:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hate Group Publishing used as source

In what can only be called a supreme irony, the source used to document that Lulac is a hate group is actually considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center John Tanton's network

We would definitely not have the KKK Journal sourcing the article of the NAACP, would we? Why would we have the same for a Latino civil rights organization?

I am erasing the whole section with this nonsense. Unless a respected anti-racism organization such as the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center declares lulac a hate group, this kind of information doesn't belong in the article. --Hugo Estrada 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would propose a different approach. Rather than trying to suppress discussion of whether or not LULAC is a hate group, it would be better to say something like

"Some groups have characterized LULAC as a hate group on the grounds that (whatever)."

Then, refute the charge of "whatever" preferably with a sourced statement from LULAC or someone else.

Part of the refutation might include the information that the source of the original criticism comes from a group identified by the SPLC as a hate group.

--Richard 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection of this page

I have protected this page to encourage resolution of disputes through dialogue on this Talk Page. When you feel you have reached a consensus, you can have the page unprotected by either leaving a message on my Talk Page or making a request at WP:RPP.

--Richard 16:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable Supporters

The addition of some supporters seem to be those that attended the most recent convention of this organization. Independently, no references exist citing these individuals to support LULAC. It is careless of us to place these names with no citations, and may be disputed later on. Can we do something about it? --- Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 05:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)