Talk:Oath Keepers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nonpartisan

This is an outgrowth of the previous discussion, but I'm creating a new topic to keep this separate from Mary Wilkes' other concerns. Can we please see if there's a consensus to put the "nonpartisan" label in our own voice, per this edit? We have multiple reliable sources supporting it, and we routinely include labels like this in the first sentence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a thread. I note that both the proposed references [1], [2] juxtapose the "nonpartisan" terminology with mission statements - the underlying source still appears to be the subject itself. Whether that should inform a decision about how to use the term, I do not know.

More importantly, the term is rather ambiguous. Our own bluelink starts with a definition that closely matches the dictionary: "Nonpartisanism is a lack of bias and lack of affiliation with a political party." OK verifiably meets the "lack of party affiliation" part of the definition, the "lack of bias" portion seems an antonym of "right wing".

WP:LEADSENTENCE suggests that we should neutrally define the organization in the first sentence. I do not see the org's lack of party affiliation as being so defining that it needs to be mentioned immediately. Given the ambiguity of the term, I do not think the sources provided are adequate to use the term in Wikipedia's voice anywhere in the article, and I do not think the adjective is of adequate importance to warrant mention in the first paragraph of the lead. I have no objection, however, to noting the lack of party affiliation in unambiguous terms and in Wikipedia's voice in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm with VQuakr here. It may say that it's non-partisan, and it doesn't seem party affiliated, but I definitely don't think we can suggest that it isn't biased, which we'd be doing if we stated this in Wikipedia's voice. I also don't see its being non-partisan as a defining characteristic, many political groups have no party affiliations and this is a political group. (Even if you argued it isn't, that doesn't make the lack of party affiliation particularly relevant). Yes, we can say it has no party affiliation the way VQakr suggests. And whatever it says, it's a partisan group. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources saying in their own voices that the group is nonpartisan, and we haven't found any conflicting reliable sources. So insisting the group is partisan without sources is contrary to our to our verifiability policy. No offense but that's Wikipedia 101. (I just rediscovered that you're on ArbCom. The fact that you would be bucking policy so blatantly without invoking WP:IAR is troubling, to put it mildly.) Also, saying that a group is nonpartisan doesn't necessarily imply that it's unbiased. Lots of organizations have explicit ideologies and are still described as nonpartisan, both in the news media and in Wikipedia. To put it another way, OK is verifiably nonpartisan, whatever that means. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Who is suggesting that the article say the group is partisan? Despite your unwarranted criticism of me, that is not what I was suggesting. Oddly, depending on your definition, a group could be partisan and nonpartisan. But whatever we write, we need sources. Your comment about me is wrong and not conducive to good dialogue. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "it's a partisan group" even though we have two reliable sources saying it's a nonpartisan group. Pardon me for thinking that your statement that the group could be both partisan and nonpartisan is wordplay. By that logic, your argument that the group is partisan should have no bearing on the decision of whether to describe it as nonpartisan. Take a step back and look at what you're saying. You look an awful lot like someone who is trying to keep reliably sourced content out of an article. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I made a personal observation here, original research, which is allowed on talk pages. As you can see below, VQakr agrees with me. I have not asked to keep reliably sourced content out of the article. I am trying to discuss how we should word the use of the word "nonpartisan" and arguing we should not use it in Wikipedia's own voice. It is a confusing word has it has two meanings. Somehow we have to make it clear that when this group says they are non-partisan this means that they are not affiliated to any one party. They are of course partisan to a specific cause which they say is obedience to the constitution. I don't understand these continued personal comments, as you know about "good faith". Doug Weller talk 11:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't share this concern, but since you do, do you have any counter-proposals that would solve the problem? VQuakr proposes using "a different word or phrase to convey the non-contentious definition." I don't know what that word would be, or how it would satisfy WP:V. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I can think of at least two wordings that I would find acceptable. One would be, 'The group describes itself as a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."' That's the phrasing currently in the article as written by MelanieN though as I said before, as a mission statement I think it should be at best 3rd-paragraph lede stuff, not 1st.

Alternatively, we could say something like, "The group is not affiliated with any political party." That's a non-contentious, unambiguous statement of fact that can be presented in Wikipedia's voice. I still don't think it's relevant enough to be in the 1st paragraph, but I could be convinced of any editorially favorable location for that or a similar sentence.

Either phrasing is easily verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I could probably live with one of these. It's frustrating that there aren't more experienced editors here. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It is verifiably nonpartisan in one sense of the word, and verifiably partisan in another sense. So, we should select a different word or phrase to convey the non-contentious definition. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Does everyone concur with Dr. Fleischman's assessment, that they are verifiably nonpartisan? Mary Wilkes (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: no one disagrees with the statement that the group has no party affiliation. But we also have multiple reliable sources that point out that the group is right-wing, which is the antonym of one of the definitions of the term "non-partisan" (and fitting of the term "partisan"). So saying "we haven't found any conflicting reliable sources" isn't particularly accurate, and hence my opinion that we should use an unambiguous term instead. I haven't seen any argument presented for having this in the first sentence of the article, either. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Doug, you say they are right-wing partisan. And I can see why you would believe that. But here are published videos that I think show otherwise. The first one is of Rhodes (founder/president of Oath Keepers) in Berkeley on 4/15 giving a speech. At 3:18 in the video, he states, "We will be here anytime any American of any color, of any ideology is under threat of violence [for exercising their freedom of speech] ... Our Oath is not to a president, not to Bush, not to Obama, not to Trump. Our Oath is the Constitution." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI8eKV8JCl8

The second video is of an LA Times interview of Rhodes at Berkeley on 4/27 at the recent Ann Coulter event that was ultimately canceled. At 0:20 Rhodes states, "It's not about her, its about the American right free speech and assemble." At 2:39 the report asks, "If you say a member of the Antifa was being kicked to death in the streets [would you defend him?]" to which Rhodes replies, "Yes, I would. Absolutely. At 6:20, Rhodes states, "If [Antifa] were only beating up Richard Spenser, I really would not care. ... But they are not. They are calling everyone a Nazi who is not them, and beating them up." (Richard Spencer is a white supremacist) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XNdBVPXybk&feature=youtu.be

The 3rd video of interview of Sam Andrews, who was in charge of the most recent Oath Keepers Ferguson operations. At 0:30, Andrews states, "Black lives matter, and anyone who says different is full of it." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vrzZR0PBOI Mary Wilkes (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

None of that shows that they aren't right-wing. Their actions certainly don't. But let's stick to the sources. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mary, you are conducting original research, and I would like to keep this discussion focused on "nonpartisan" please. If you want to talk more about "right-wing" or "far-right" the place for that is the preceding discussion, or start a new one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I support calling them both "right-wing" and "non-partisan", as Dr. Fleischman suggested. I would say it is pretty well accepted in American that "partisan" and "non-partisan" refer to party politics. The idea that non-partisan means "lack of bias", independent of politics, is well outside of current American usage IMO. (Note that Partisanship redirects to Partisan (political).) There are many, many organizations that feel passionately about particular issues but are nevertheless nonpartisan. As for "free of bias": Where is your evidence that the Oath Keepers are biased? --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr's contention that "right-wing" and "partisan" are antonyms is undercut by the fact that a multitude of undisputably reliable news outlets have described various organizations as "right-wing nonpartisan," "right-leaning nonpartisan," "conservative nonpartisan," "left-leaning nonpartisan," "progressive nonpartisan," etc. etc. It would be tedious for me to gather examples, but go to Google News and check for yourselves. We're talking about media outlets like Reuters, McClatchy, the L.A. Times, etc. etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you could provide examples, but that wouldn't change the connotation of the word or demonstrate that it is either unambiguous English or common. FYI, I get 11 GHits (web, not just news) for the string "right-leaning nonpartisan" and 2 for "right-wing nonpartisan" so the phrases may not be as common as you believe. "conservative nonpartisan" gets thousands of hits on web and 20 on news, but at a glance many of those include qualifiers such as "self-described" that would rather nullify your theory. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Off topic. Like I said, this thread is devoted solely to the issue of "nonpartisan" (and any proposed alternatives). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I added a reference that discusses right-wing vs. left-wing regarding the Oath Keepers. Per Dr Fleischman's request, I have added it to the previous thread. May I suggest that the opening paragraph read: Oath Keepers is an American organization that describes itself as a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."[6] It encourages members – some of whom are current and former U.S. military and law enforcement officers – not to obey orders which they believe would violate the United States Constitution. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the group as "an anti-government right-wing fringe organization." The organization claims a membership of up to 30,000.[7] Mary Wilkes (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC) That is much too focused on how the organization describes itself as opposed to how reliable, secondary sources describe it. The Wiki-essay WP:MISSION summarizes why this is not ideal. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have changed my opinion. They are not nonpartisan - not even under my preferred, narrow description of "partisan" as meaning affiliated with a political party. The link provided by Dr. Fleischman below, and similar articles, show that the Oath Keepers specifically tried to intervene in the recent election on the side of the Republicans. Here they are in their own words, telling their members how to poll-watch: [3] The instructions are entirely from a Republican viewpoint: "we have seen blatant unlawful voter intimidation this year, in the form of numerous physical attacks on Trump supporters, the fire-bombing of a Republican Party campaign headquarters in North Carolina, with a nearby building spray painted with the message “Nazi Republicans leave town or else,” and the vandalism of several homes located across the street from the home of Sen. Pat Toomey in Zionsville, Pa. with threatening anti-GOP graffiti spray painted in red, such as “Nazi, Slavers, Rapists, Cross Worshippers = GOP,” “Look Out Toomey And You Neo Nazi Republicans,” and “#Americans Against The Republican Party.” " "There were also some incidents of assaults against anti-Trump protesters at Trump campaign rallies, but as the Project Veritas hidden videos show, many if not all of them were orchestrated by Clinton operatives." This group is not nonpartisan, even thought they claim to be, and we should probably add some of this material to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The simple fact there are left wing members and centrist members in significant proportions would indicate that they aren't partisan. But keep in mind there was a landslide move to oppose legacy politicians born of the purple in the last election too. But you're definitely right we should be adding in the fire bombings and attacks and faked 'hate crime' campaign. That's significant notable stuff that the Oathkeepers became first responders at and provided aid and relief at. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Listing by SPLC

Hey Neutrality, I think I need to object to this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oath_Keepers&type=revision&diff=781598835&oldid=781595855

It reduces the description, it also is inconsistent with other groups that are listed by the SPLC as I have gone looking around. Pages on this list generally have a description in their page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups Morty C-137 (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit is about the ADL list. I would suggest reading the discussion, before objecting. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion again, I still think that an ADL listing is notable and should be included, even if Wikipedia doesn't keep a mirror of their listings. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: introducing the term "terrorism" as a descriptor of an organization is the sort of thing that needs to be well-sourced. The source provided groups OK on the ADL website under the section "extremism, terrorism, & bigotry" but the source provided doesn't say, "OK is a bunch of extremist, terrorist bigots." We need to be cautious in our attribution of contentious labels in a case like this. The diff you linked doesn't have anything to do with SPLC. VQuakr (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the term "terrorism" is so fraught that we would need really strong sourcing (for example, being identified as terrorist by an official government source) to apply it to any group. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN on this. We are normally very cautious about using the word. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Libertarian" and "veterans" categories

Is OK verifiably libertarian? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not that I could find. Some sources have wording to indicate that Rhodes self-identifies as libertarian sometimes, but not the group. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman, Morty C-137 - I agree and have removed both the "libertarian" category and the "veterans" categories - I simply think they don't apply.

As to the "libertarian" - the only sources cited by Seraphim System that indicate "libertarian" are this opinion piece, in the Colorado Independent; this opinion blog post by a master's degree student at the Huffington Post; this Mother Jones piece (which calls Rhodes "a libertarian" but says nothing about the group); and this opinion piece in Reason by Radley Balko (who calls Rhodes "libertarian" and asserts that "Most of [the Oath Keepers] members are conservative or libertarian" but never ascribes any label to the group). None of these sources (three of which are opinion pieces, and the fourth of which doesn't verify the claim) are sufficient for is to categorize the group as libertarian. And even if there were some isolated, non-opinion, reliable sources that did identify it as such (there's none that I can see), it still wouldn't be a suitable category because it's not WP:DEFINING: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having").

As to the "Veterans' organization" categories, that's just as contentious. There's no evidence that the group's membership is primarily made up of veterans, nor that the group verifies claims of veteran status by would-be members. No does the group advocate for veterans - they are a political organization. It's undisputed that some members of the group are veterans, but that doesn't make it a "veterans' organization." Again, categories should be limited to when they are an appropriately WP:DEFINING characteristic.

Neutrality^talk 22:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the group's membership is primarily made up of veterans, nor that the group verifies claims of veteran status by would-be members. - And further there's evidence that at least one journalist created a fake identity and got in, to affirmatively show that the group does not verify claims. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Libertarian is at least as defining as "militia movement" which is only supported by SPLC, and denied by the founders of the organization. Does anyone have any sources, independent of SPLC, that support it? It's only media organizations that are using SPLC as a source. I think Vice has high standards for independent and investigative journalism and they have called them "libertarian leaning" - their stories probably have been more in-depth and used different language, because they do real investigative journalism (which is rare these days). Most news organizations do little more then copy and paste press statements, which is why all the articles sound exactly the same, and can be followed back to one source - which we are not supposed to be treating as multiple sources under our policies - Since when is it irrelevant that the two founding members on the Board of Directors are libertarian, or that they supported a libertarian candidate in 2012, one of them even serving as a delegate at the Republican convention. We don't usually disregard the statements an organization makes about itself entirely, in favor of one advocacy source that has been repeated by multiple news sources - I need a break from this article, but I think the WP:RS in this article need to be checked for adherence to WP:NEWSORGS and outside WP:RS from the same wire service can not be allowed as adding weight in future discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

[4][5][6][7][8][9].- MrX 00:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System: As MrX has posted, it simply wrong to say that no other sources identify it as linked to the militia movement - that characterization appears in many, many reliable sources, up to and including university-press-published books. As for "libertarian," you've still not shown me any reliable, non-opinion sources that clearly identify the group as libertarian. No, we can't do original research and label a group on the basis of what some members of the Board did or were. Neutrality^talk 02:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Yes, it would be wrong to say that, which is why I didn't say that - I asked if anyone had sources, which User:MrX posted. Good, we can move on. I have posted many sources that identified them as constitutionalist - which you ignored. I also posted a number of sources at the DRN, which you have also ignored - including Vice, which identified them as "libertarian leaning" - the fact that they have been covered by Libertarian sources - including Reason, also supports that they are libertarian leaning. It is not WP:OR to say that a group whose founders are libertarian, who was involved in Ron Paul's campaign, is a libertarian organization - they are non-partisan in the sense that they have open membership but that is being rejected also. In fact, any source that disputes the ADL/SPLC account is being ignored. To the extent that this means we are denying veteran's their own voice, and also discounting any sources that may be supportive of them, in favor of sources that are unfavorable of them is something that I can't support. Maybe my personal feelings are getting in the way here, but I definitely need to at least take a pause from this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC) @Neutrality: 5 of the Board Members are veterans, that does make it a veteran's organization, though more properly a veteran-run organization, to distinguish it from veteran service organizations. It may also fall into other categories. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"5 of the Board Members are veterans, that does make it a veteran's organization" - I think that's "Original Research", not to mention fallacious logic. By that logic, any organization that happens to have a couple of women on its board is instantly a "women's organization." Morty C-137 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR - it's a primary source, but that doesn't immediately make it WP:OR - when looking at organizations like these, we make sure that the primary source material isn't overly promotional or favorable, but we don't completely disregard it. This is because of your subjective opinion that the group can not be used as WP:RS - if that is the issue, you should post it on RS/n. It's not a "couple" of veterans - it's five. If women were the most represented group on a board, and if both founders of the company were women, I would have no objection to calling the organization an "organization that was founded by women" Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If OK explicitly describes themselves as a "veteran's organization", then we can say that "Oath keepers describe themselves as a veteran's organization" somewhere in the article. In no way is such a self-description adequate for categorization unless multiple reliable sources confirm its factuality. Policy forbids us from concluding that they are a veteran's organization on the basis of their membership, as explained quite clearly by Neutrality and Morty C-137.- MrX 12:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is already covered in the Membership section - I wasn't trying to add anything to the article, only the category, including veteran's organizations against the war in Iraq. This is not the IRS defined Veteran's Organizations - it was started in 2009 at a time when vets had just returned from the war and it was part of the Ron Paul "conservative backlash" - Ron Paul himself being very critical of the war and policies of the Bush administration. I don't think this can be a decent encyclopedia article as long as editors continue to willfully discount the (many) news articles that have tried to present more balanced views on the organization - this seems to be the consensus for the time being. The SPLC's view seems to be that all pro-second amendment organizations are extremist groups - in fact, this seems to be part of their definition for extremist group. That is not a widely held view - there are general academic criticisms, but those sources don't mention every organization this applies to by name, so we are stuck with this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"The SPLC's view seems to be that all pro-second amendment organizations are extremist groups " - Bovine Fecal Matter. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: You are a new editor, but you have already been warned about inappropriate comments and WP:FORUM by an editor other then myself. I have also mentioned this to you several times. I would advise you to read WP:FORUM and heed that warning. We are not interested in comments like the one above. Here is a Routledge source that supports what I said: you are wrong. - yes, opposition to gun control and a strong belief in the second amendment is actually part of how the SPLC define the "militia movement" and then call these groups "extremist." They are anti-2nd amendment and are pushing for surveillance of American citizens who are legal gun owners - they have done legitimate work opposing hate groups who actually have been involved in violent crimes, but that does not excuse riding on their reputation to push for adding lawful American citizens to federal watchlists for having non-violent ideological views that they oppose (and claim "could" become violent in the future). It is ironic that they suggest Americans should be added to federal watch lists because they oppose gun control, while denigrating persons who believe the federal government would take such an action as paranoid. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, you misrepresented the source you cited for your claim that the SPLC is anti-second amendment. Not only does the article not say that, the author actually writes "I support the right to own guns, but we don’t need 30 rounds in a semi-automatic weapon — or a well-armed militia — to bag a deer. I draw the line when my fellow citizens turn their homes into armories and begin training for insurrection. We used to call that treason." In fact, you also misrepresented the SPLC when you wrote "pushing for surveillance of American citizens who are legal gun owners"- MrX 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too happy about the gaslighting comment they left on my talk page demanding that I not respond to them or quote their words when they say something ridiculous, and claiming they told me repeatedly not to respond to them. Demanding that someone not respond when they say things that need challenging is not how dialogue works, such a demand is just demagoguery. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

We may disagree about interpretation and that's fine but here is what I see However, I am against vigilantes and those, like the NRA leaders, who encourage them. - so saying "I support the right to own guns, but we don't need 30 rounds" seems like a reference to the Assault Rifle ban, which has been one of the most discussed issues recently - and despite the claim to "support the right to own guns" the author uses the term "vigilantes" (presumably referring to those who oppose the Assault Rifle Ban because they are plotting a violent overthrow of the government), then he tells an anecdotal and entirely irrelevant story about the KKK, follows up with "proliferation of armed hate groups" and then mystically connects this to the militia movement, then goes back to hate groups (with the hopes that the reader did not notice) and then makes a statement about the Second Amendment that the SPLC is, frankly, not qualified to make (and they do so without citing a single case.) They thus conclude that anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of a constitutional amendment is part of an armed hate group, on their own authority (which no one cares about). I've studied law - from where I'm standing, they are way out of line. And they follow this pattern in article after article about this particular subject. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's calm down and stick to what we know. They do encourage veterans to join, but they are not a veterans' organization. They do encourage current and former peace officers and first responders to join, but they are not a peace officers' organization. They, or their founder, supported a libertarian candidate in 2012 and urged members to act in support of the Republicans in 2016; that does not make them libertarian or Republican (although it does indicate they are not nonpartisan). I don't see any evidence that they are "conservative" in any well-understood sense, and I don't see Reliable Sources using that term. They do encourage their members to show up, armed and highly visible, in situations where there are or may be confrontations between protesters and government agents; that may meet the definition of "vigilante" but we would need good sourcing to describe them that way. A group (like the SLPC) which wants to have controls on certain types of guns or ammunition (bazookas, anyone?) is not "anti-Second Amendment"; that is just an NRA talking point. "Far right" and "anti-government" are supported by many reliable sources as well as by their actions so it is appropriate to use those definitions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: No, not bazookas :) - but I think it is more then an NRA talking point. They are making claims about some of the most complex and controversial areas of Constitutional Law, like sedition, and they are doing this without citing any cases or legal authorities for the claims. In large part, their advocacy and definition regarding the militia movement, in particular, is based on their own interpretation of the Constitution. When we talk about articles for specific organizations that the SPLC has been very vocal about, where other secondary sources are sparse - the effect is problematic. The fact that we have very few sources beyond SPLC for this organization essentially makes this article a platform for advocacy for the SPLC's view because we can not introduce critical views about SPLC like this encyclopedia article - this is not good. I could get into the details more, but I don't think it's necessary? Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This comes up over and over again on groups described by the SPLC. There's broad consensus that the SPLC is a reliable source but that its assessments can't be cited without in-text attribution. We can't possibly neutrally describe SPLC's controversies in the articles in which it's cited without creating a coatrack problem. The solution is to provide a wikilink to Southern Poverty Law Center so that curious readers can learn more. This is how we handle pretty much all reliable but controversial sources. I believe this is off-topic. We are discussing the libertarian and veterans categories. If you wish to have the militia group category removed then please start a new discussion about that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Militia movement is ok, and sourced to several books. Per MelanieN, going with what we know, maybe an add that the two founders are libertarians who supported Ron Paul in 2012 in the lede (one worked for Paul's campaign and the other was a delegate for Paul at the Convention.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem lead-worthy to me, but I could see it going into #Organizational history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree with adding it to the history section, which needs expansion. In fact it only mentions one founder. Seraphim, what do you mean by two founders? And although they supported the libertarian candidate in 2012, they supported the Republican viewpoint in 2016, so I don't think we can say that they "are" either libertarian or Republican. But we can show the history. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we can say Rhodes is libertarian, at least - Rhodes is identified as such by a the majority of WP:RS and the truth is, we don't know who he voted for, and even if we did - it wouldn't matter because we are not here to argue over whether you lose your libertarianism by voting for Trump. The sources say he is a libertarian - that should be enough. Jim Ayala was a delegate for Ron Paul in 2012, but that is all the sources say about it. I haven't seen any sources that discuss his ideology more in depth, or any published quotes from him about it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of source.

It has also been described as extremist or radical by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[6]

The SPLC literally call anyone who isn't an extreme Marxist a radical 'extremist' group. I'm a socialist and even I'm 'right wing' by their standards. I don't think using them as a source is providing a fair, neutral, or honest representation of the group in question and their inclusion makes me hesitant to the quality and integrity of the rest of the article. I would remove it pending discussion, but this article appears to be protected - which makes me think it's neutrality is even more in question if it's being guarded by a watch group of editors. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source since it has an excellent reputation for fact checking and accuracy, as reflected by the fact that it is almost universally cited by reliable news sources as the authority on hate and extremist groups. Reliable sources need not be unbiased. (Every source has some bias; if we excluded all biased sources, we wouldn't have any articles.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In the past they've reported at least one fake group listed on a parody website as a real group. If they're very reliable, I'm Santa Claus and I'd like to sell you some land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.160.57 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2017‎

There is broad consensus across Wikipedia that SPLC is reliable for these sorts of claims. But, if you want to contend that they've made those sorts of mistakes, then you should provide links to reliable sources addressing them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably virtually all the sources we consider reliable have made a mistake, maybe more than one, at some time. And it's completely untrue that they "literally call anyone who isn't an extreme Marxist a radical "extremeist " group. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Judge still needs to hear... then we'll do it

The Miami Herald is a reliable source and has the same quote[10] from the video.about 2:30 minutes in. The video is partially transcribed at which includes the threat/criticism/whatever, is at The Daily Kos. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm commenting on text that was removed. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Kim Davis: Criticism or threat?

Rather than continue to revert each other over these two alternative terms, I suggest that we actually discuss them. To me, the quotation in question, "this judge needs to be put on notice that his behavior is not going to be accepted and we’ll be there to stop it and intercede ourselves if we have to" is clearly a threat to intercede. Others have termed this "criticism", although I don't know any other context in which a group saying "needs to be put on notice ... we'll be there to stop it" would be termed "criticism". Please discuss. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly not criticism, it's stating that action is going to be taken if the judge does or doesn't do certain things. That's a threat. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's POV, it doesn't say what action is going to be taken. Writing it up like this is sensationalist tabloid style writing, it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. For all you know they are all going to hold hands in a circle around Kim Davis and sing Kumbaya. "Threat" has a very specific meaning and it is not that "action will be taken" — you need only look it up in the dictionary to confirm this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a threat. An armed militia group telling a judge "his behavior is not going to be accepted and we’ll be there to stop it and intercede ourselves if we have to" is nothing short of a threat of violence. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The source doesn't say threat and I'm not even convinced the source we currently have for this is WP:RS, it seems to be an opinion blog. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: The discussion has only been open for 20 minutes or so, please do not resume your old pattern of disruptive editing and edit warring. I am going either going to post this to NPOV/N or start and RfC if the regular editors here insist on continuing this pattern of POV editing, WP:UNDUE representation of advocacy group source opinions, etc. It's been an ongoing problem on this article and I've had enough of it. This consensus discussion is not closed and the stable version should stay up until there is an RfC. Another reason is we don't have a clear alternate proposal yet, so the discussion should be left open for a while until we have something specific for RfC. Should the RfC be limited only to the use of the word threat, or should we include Morty's unattributed SPLC primary also? (My position on SPLC is if it has not been widely reported by secondary sources, it should not be included.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, User:Seraphim System, the stable version was "threat", until yesterday. So could you revert to that, please? Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert back to it because 1)There are BLP issues. I have seen an MSBC source attributing the quote to Rhodes, personally, so BLP applies. None of the sources say "threat" they clearly speculate on what it may mean using language like "perhaps" — this is not appropriate for BLP. 2) DrFleischman has since changed it to "said" and has noted WP:SYNTH isues in the discussion below, which I agree with. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Which is fine, but then don't pretend you are preserving (or reverting to) a "stable version". Your statement was disingenuous. Newimpartial (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I will strike out, I didn't notice that it had only recently been changed. My main point was that 20 minutes is not long enough to declare that consensus has been reached (see below), and I didn't want this to turn into an edit war. At this point we have pretty much agreed that "threat" should be removed as a BLP issue and have also pretty much agreed on including the "they'll do it" quote. My main concern was unsupported use of a negative-POV term like threat (especially in a BLP context), so I don't really want to keep going back and forth about this ad nauseum now that this seems to be resolved Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You can cut the passive-aggressive BS. You came in to reinsert language by an IP sockpuppet, your habit of POV-pushing on pages like this. And we all know you have right wing POV issues and a hate bordering on irrational for the SPLC despite their being a well respected WP:RS. if the regular editors here insist on continuing this pattern of POV editing? - It's pretty clear that you are far outside the consensus, which is the whole problem. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It hasnt been that long since you were blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing, keep it up and you will only find yourself back at AN/I. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh good, threats. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to file a complaint, but if you continue like this, someone else will. There are admins who have noted it already. Obviously you are under more scrutiny coming off a recent block, I suggest you tone it down. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that you just went to an admin and demanded that I be "indef'ed"? Morty C-137 (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Glass houses and all. Let's move on please, leave the conduct disputes on user talk and focus here on content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Neither a criticism nor a threat against the judge. This is not a criticism because there was no critique; simply saying the ruling was "unacceptable" is not pointing out any problems with the ruling. And this is not a threat against the judge because the OK were not suggesting they would go to the federal courthouse and hurt the judge; rather, they seem to have been suggesting that they would stop the police (federal marshals?) from arresting Davis, presumably at her work (Rowan County clerk's office) or home. How OK would do that is unclear; it could have been by peaceful protest, handcuffing themselves to Davis, etc. Whatever the means, that cannot be called threatening the judge. My suggestion is that stop trying to interpret this ambiguous language and simply say, "The Oath Keepers also said..." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree that it wasn't a threat against the judge, but it was certainly a threat to take extra-legal action of one kind or another. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. When a group known for armed and violent confrontations says they are going to "be there to stop" something or that "he's still going to be held accountable", there's no question that it is a threat of violence if they don't get what they want. The entire purpose of marching around like weekend-wacko militias with guns is to intimidate and threaten. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be correct, but this is classic improper synthesis. You are combining the source with your prior understanding OK (based on other sources) and suggesting we express a conclusion not made by any of them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither threat nor critiscm should be used because those words are not in the source. Threat certainly should not be used in a BLP situation, which this is because the quote does not come from the organization, it comes from a Sheriff according to the source. The source does not even say the Sheriff is a member of Oathkeepers, only that they posted the video online so that quote should probably not be included in this article at all. The only thing I could see in the source about the organization is that they would put "boots on the ground" to protect her from being arrested. Let me know if I missed something, I am on my mobile which is not ideal for thoroughly searching an article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't use threat, but there's no BLP violation in using just the quote as long as we get it right who said it. Rhodes clearly said the bit about "then we'll do it", I've linked to the video and transcript below and checked the video. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This MSBC source (using rightwingwatch as their source) attributes the quote to Rhodes so I think we can this article as the secondary source for the quote [11] Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This wording is clearly a threat. "boots on the ground" is a military term for an active conflict. Use of that term is a threat of violence. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/boots_on_the_ground Morty C-137 (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, "boots on the ground" does not necessarily mean military action. It is often used by peaceful protester groups. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Source, DrFleischman? Morty at least provided a source. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Really? Come on, easy to verify. Amnesty International doesn't advocate for military action; nor did the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters; nor did the January Women's March protesters. There are many more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you just made my point for me. The AI post? Bangladesh protests that turned into mass arrests. Dakota Pipeline protests? They came in expecting and planning for violence - and violence was had, even extending to attacks on journalists. Women's March? They knew full well that police brutality was coming. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a cheeky straw man argument, totally irrelevant. The question is whether the statement was a threat of violence. Peaceful protests anticipating a violent response (not even implied by the term, feel free to lift a finger and look for more references) are not threats of violence. You know this; hence this discussion is no longer constructive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"It is often used by peaceful protester groups"... who are expecting to get into a confrontation involving violence, such as provoking arrests. And again, that would be assuming that one could somehow pigeonhole the OK's into the category of "peaceful protester groups", which can't be done given that they literally show up with guns to threaten government officials and police. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps DrFleishman means peaceful black bloc protesters. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong both. Please don't play dumb, and don't speculate on what I meant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear the term "boot" refers to a person, so it literally means nothing more then they will show up. They can resist passively, they can hold hands, they can handcuff themselves to her, etc. You can't assume they are threatening violence and if they were it would be a crime so we certainly can't assume it and write it into the article without much stronger secondary source evidence. It's been used by CBS to refer to protestors at Occupy Wall Street [12], democratic voters [13] we can't assume it means a threat of violence. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So, Seraphim, you literally just cited business writer Alain Sherter, and Heritage Action for America CEO Tim Chapman, in documenting that "boots on the ground" can reference peaceful protesters holding hands. This is an interesting perspective on what counts as a WP:RS. I think the Urban Dictionary fares better lol. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Reliability has nothing to do with it. The question is what OK meant by "boots on the ground," and evidence from both reliable and unreliable sources indicates that they could have meant any number of things. Please cut the snark. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If all of the contextually-reliable sources treat "boots on the ground" as referring to situations carrying the potential for violence, then I think that has everything to do with it. No snark. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

...except they don't. Even if you don't want to do a little research, you could at least click through the links that were provided in this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If I hadn't clicked the links, how could I have called out the actual "authorities" behind Seraphim's two examples? I have also clicked through all of yours, and I don't see how an Amnesty International facebook post endorsing a local "direct action" protest says anything meaningful about the kind of conflicts "boots on the ground" references. "Direct action" carries the potential for violence (as seen at Standing Rock, another of your examples) and I see no justification in any source you or Seraphim have produced for an alternative context. I'm not sure what frame of reference you are bringing to this, but to me it seems bizarre. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Boots on the ground" is a military turn of phrase representing deployment that has been co-opted by any number of organizations, such as [14]. That being said, we are talking about a militia movement and in this context "boots on the ground" can be seen as representing an actual deployment of manpower akin to a military operation.SamHolt6 (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure it can be seen that way, but it can also be seen another way too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Under WP:NPF, Rhodes is not a public figure, if every newspaper said "threatened", under our policy we probably still aren't supposed to add it to the article. But in this case, it is even worse because we would not be repeating what the newspapers have published, because none of the media sources have used the phrase "threatened the judge."Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The idea that Rhodes is "not a public figure" is laughable. Quick check: 12,600,000 results on Google for his name, 53,300 if you restrict it just to the News category. And he meets ALL the qualifications of a High Profile Individual.

• Seeks media attention? Both online and radio/tv? CHECK.
• Voluntarily participates in self-promotion "such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee: CHECK.
• "Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage. May have produced publications (books, DVDs, etc.) or events that at least in part are designed (successfully or not) to self-promote and to attract favorable public attention. CHECK.
• "Has sought or holds a position of preeminence, power or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere or other area of human endeavor, usually at more than a locally-significant level. - Running a high-profile militia operation, and claiming to be a "constitutional expert" in his TV appearances again: CHECK.
• As of the writing (or review/editing) of the article (or as of the article subject's death) is (or was) engaged in high-profile activity, as described above, with or without a lifelong history of such activities. CHECK.

Rhodes does not fall under WP:NPF, he is clearly a high-profile individual. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You can try to Wikilawyer this, but these things usually come down to common sense and if it is even borderline we have to err on the side of caution because the policy here is very strict and for good reason. This policy is in place to protect the encyclopedia. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to discuss the facts or not? Morty C-137 (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say no, he is not a public figure. I think this checklist is here to give guidence for very clear cases, about which there would not be much argument like the CEO of Coca Cola — he is not a household name, I don't know his name, but I am confident that he would be considered a public figure. But for someone like Rhodes, this checklist can be misleading because it's not particularly meaningful without the cases in front of me. Am I going to look those up? No. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You have asserted he is not. One need not be "a household name" to be a public figure by the policy: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.". I have gone down the checklist: THAT is the policy on who is, and is not, a public figure (e.g. a "high profile" or "low profile" individual), linked directly from WP:NPF. Please discuss without throwing around insults like "wikilawyer" when people are addressing the facts. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I looked it over again and all I see copy and pasted guidelines with check written in bold caps lock next to each one. Is Rhodes preeminent? No. Preeminent sounds serious. Is his significance national? I would say mostly local. Oathkeepers is a big group, a lot of people are involved. I've never seen any evidence that Rhodes has national significance. Promotional? Well, there may be money involved, but it is a non-profit so I'm not 100℅ sure this promotion, if there is promotion it is for the organization, so I'm not sure it is self-promotion. I have never seen any articles about Stewart Rhodes, not one, in mainstream media that I would consider promotional. In fact I havent seen any articles about him at all, only about the orgabization. So I do think this is Wikilawyering, using caplocks and bold and citing the policy without explaining why check. Please dont consider it an insult, it is a word I use very rarely. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So your argument is basically "I didn't hear that"? Morty C-137 (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Rhodes is a HPF. Even if he were the language can not be sourced to media sources, so we are responsible for the particular language. I think there is currently rough consensus to exclude the statement, both because of the WP:BLP implications, and because there are no sources supporting inclusion. I have only returned to this discussion because I saw an unsourced negative-POV language that implicates BLP. As soon as this issue is resolved, whether through RfC or reaching a stable consensus through discussion here, I will step away from this article again. It is not very high on my priority list. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Even if he were the language can not be sourced to media sources" - Persons other than myself have offered Reliable Sources, so this claim does not pass the fact check. Also, demanding "media sources" is an inappropriate way to try to change the criteria. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• My !vote is to remove these two quotes entirely. They put undue emphasis on this subject and are redundant with the first sentence. Both quotes essentially say OK said it would interfere with enforcement of the contempt order, which is what the first sentence says. We effectively have 3 sentences all saying the same thing in different ways. We should stick to the one that adequately tells the story in our own voice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• My !vote would be retain both quotes and the intro sentence. Together they tell the story as well as it can be told, while establishing WP:NPOV, which has tended - on this page - to be lost the more editors paraphrase. I believe the current discussion shows this amply. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest keeping just one quote, the "then we'll do it" quote that Doug Weller and I are discussing above, since we have an MSBC source for it that tells us Rhodes said it and Doug Weller has checked and confirmed the video source for the quote, as well. I think two quotes about the same relatively minor point would cross the line to WP:UNDUE. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with including that quote, as it's not summarized by the first sentence, as long as we explain what the speaker was talking about when they referred to "just because they let her out." It's confusing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Watching tv, haven't read it all, but I don't think of "boots on the ground" as automatically meaning anything aggressive. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Both quotes should be kept - SPLC is clearly a WP:RS. The fact that the SPLC coverage was removed is getting lost here, when it absolutely is notable. It's also less than honest for anyone to claim that Peyman is unassociated with the OK's or is "just a sheriff" when: "Rhodes on Wednesday broadcast a conversation he had with his “boots on the ground” in Kentucky – notably, a “constitutionalist” sheriff named Denny Peyman from Jackson County, KY...Peyman sounded a threatening note in Bunning’s direction: “I think the judge still needs to know that he’s not out of the woods just because they let her out. He’s still going to be held accountable.”"[15] Morty C-137 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Recap

There is a lot of back and forth above; can someone do a brief, neutral recap on what is still in dispute? VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, earlier today there was no DS warning on this page. Now there is...but I don't want to restore what I think is a BLP violation unless there is consensus and then I would not object to another editor changing it to the consensus language. The language "threatened the judge" was recently added by Morty C-137. The language is not supported by any WP:RS. It used to say "attacked the judge". This was changed to "criticized" then to "threatened." None of this language can be sourced to WP:RS as far as I know. Doug Weller and I figured out it was Rhodes who said it, and I think we are agreed to keep the quote and simply say "Stewart Rhodes said [quote here]." I think BLP violations are exempted from revert restrictions anyway, but my entire interest in this page is addressing the BLP issue, so if we could get clear consensus on this, that would be enough for me. I don't think anything else is still in dispute. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I would not revert to the "threatened" language again (I reverted it once before opening this section), and I don't think there is more than one editor who would bring the verb back. The current reliance on direct quotation in this section seems preferable to me than some of the weasel language that had been inserted earlier.

Also, it seems to me that the main outstanding issue is whether to re-introduce into the article some of the critical commentary sourced from the SPLC and other sources that were removed in a previous bout of enthusiasm. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim is leaving out that the SPLC has more in depth reporting, including text direct from a video Rhodes published with one of his lieutenants that uses stronger threat language. I worked to include that, but Seraphim removed it from the article due to a... "novel"... viewpoint regarding the SPLC and a bizarre claim that the "splc viewpoint is covered enough already" and that their coverage of the public declarations by Rhodes and his lieutentant somehow becomes "undue". Seraphim is also claiming that Rhodes somehow qualifies as not being a public figure, despite Rhodes meeting all the criteria of a "high-profile individual" according to Wikipedia policy. Morty C-137 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh and when Seraphim claims that the word "threatened" isn't supported by "any RS", we're back to that bizarre claim that the SPLC are somehow not an RS - which goes against the consensus here and elsewhere. When you search the history on this page we show clearly that SPLC are WP:RS. It seems to be only Seraphim that believes otherwise (as well as occasionally casting aspersions on them with edit summaries like "...it has been publicly denied by the founders of the group and repeating these rumors started by ADL and SPLC is a BLP violation". In reality, "Not only are the ADL & SPLC respected authorities on extremist groups,...", as stated by @Neutrality:. I also suspect that Seraphim is either seriously misrepresenting or misreading the WP:BLP policy, since multiple reliable sources cover the incident even if they have some difference in coverage focus (which is natural given different reporters), and "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Morty C-137 (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NPF I will defer to Doug Weller, since he is on the Arbitration Committee and presumably would knows these policies more in depth then the average editor. When it comes to making poetntially actionable negative/defamatory statements about a graduate of Yale Law School I advise restraint, which is what our policy asks of us as well. Not a legal threat, I'm not affiliated with the organization, I'm not affiliated with WMF and I have no personal interest in the outcome here. I'm just stating what my understanding of our WP:NPF policy is―I have already expended more energy on this then can be reasonably expected from a volunteer editor, no? I'm not affiliated with WMF, I'm not affiliated with Oath Keepers, and I have other things I would like to do tonight. I feel I have made this point sufficiently and will leave it to other editors to decide what is best. If no one else thinks it is a problem, then by all means, restore it. Regarding SPLC, I don't think our articles are meant to be written as attack pieces with WP:UNDUE emphasis on the viewpoint of one advocacy organization. I'm not sure what is bizarre about WP:UNDUE it is a fairly standard policy, the SPLC content should be cited in secondary sources. There have been many attempts here to explain WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Maybe other editors will have more luck here. I am concerned about the pattern of editing on this article, but I'm not its guardian. I have done all I can and it's up to the community now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparently Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. is a thing ("limited-purpose public figures"). According to my research from the Digital media law foundation a Playboy playmate for purpose of a parody is a public figure, but a Penthouse Pet for purposes of a parody is not. This is more or less what I expected. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The WP:NPF question seems an excellent simple query for WP:BLPN. I think that if there is still disagreement on that front, BLPN would be the way to go. As for "threating", from the SPLC source linked above, [16] I see 'Peyman sounded a threatening note in Bunning’s direction: “I think the judge still needs to know that he’s not out of the woods just because they let her out. He’s still going to be held accountable.”' For a contentious claim I do not think paraphrasing this quote as "The Oath Keepers also threatened the judge" is the best we can do. Direct quotes of the Oath Keepers' statements or quotes from secondary sources analyzing those statements would be much better if there is consensus to include. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Since the SPLC might actually be sued for defamation soon, shouldn't we maybe wait for the outcome of that before continuing to use them as WP:RS for possible WP:NPF or for statements that have not been published in the news? I think non-profits can sue as well, btw, though the rules may be different for statements published by journalists (or reliance on them). I don't know―I'm not an expert on defamation laws, but the potential damages can be huge, like astronomical. Anyway, I know the SPLC lawsuit hasn't been filed yet, but WP:NPF policy is pretty clear about this―maybe I will post to BLP/N, I think we need to discuss this as a community instead of on different talk pages. Seraphim System ^(talk)

No, I do not think the status of any pending (or current, if that occurs) litigation against SPLC would or should directly affect how we use them as a source. Also, I'd let WMF worry about legal risks to the foundation; if they have a concern here or in similar locations they they can ignore consensus. I do agree that your "big picture" concerns seem better suited for a noticeboard or village pump. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I just posted there. I assume, at this point, if it is an issue, someone will bring it to WMF's attention. That concludes my participation in this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

What a left/center-left group describes as "far right" might not be seen that way by others.

Right now, the article describes the group as "far right", in Wiki's voice first thing in the lead, based on at least some assessments by groups that are nearly as far to the other extreme (at least in USAnian terms.) A neutral lead would note directly examples of who makes the claim, and might position that somewhere other than the first sentence. Anmccaff (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed. Maybe we should add a FAQ? VQuakr (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Discussed" is not the same as "settled." What is seen as far left or far right changes constantly depending on what is taken as the center point. Pitcavage's ideas from twenty years ago, for instance, might not be the best guide to 2017. Anmccaff (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There is broad consensus across Wikipedia that Slate, and Chicago Tribune, are reliable sources. The alleged political bias of a site doesn't disqualify it as a reliable source. This is built right into our reliable sources guideline. I don't see any problem with the current sourcing for "far-right." I'm going to "demote" the article-level POV tag to an in-line tag to reflect the stated concern. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" here is, of course, a wikish term of art, not something that is necessarily "reliable" in common parlance. WP:RS sources can, an often do, disagree with each other, sometimes quite radically. The fact that Wiki considers something RS is a starting point, not a destination. Noting that a source guideline mentions something but ignoring it in practice looks a bit like lip-service and Sunday truths. WP:BIASED says Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...", which would seem a better way of using the sources here. Finally, the POV tag was for the article; a single in-line tag on a set of references isn't "demotion", it's more like "gelding." Anmccaff (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You've lost me. I don't understand your point about how you see Wikipedia working. I see it as, if reliable sources say something, then we can generally say it as well. Of course reliable sources sometimes disagree; in this case they do not, do they? As for your tag concern, article-level tags are for article-level concerns. You only raised a concern about a single word. If you have article-level concerns, then please articulate them (preferably in a separate thread to facilitate resolution). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources universally state something as fact, sure. Looking at the Trib, out of a dozen or so articles, it seems to say "right", "alt-right", and "far right," or " ". (The most common approach appears to be leaving the space on the political question unchecked.) Now, "right", "alt-right", and "far right," all kinda suggest we ain't talking about Trotsky here, but they aren't the same thing at all. The Trib doesn't even agree, exactly, with itself on this...and there is nothing very remarkable about that. Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, what terms do you believe we should use in this case, "online hipster magazine Slate says", or "according to the stodgy Chicago Tribune"? Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Has been described as Bleah, al-bleah, New-Bleah...by So-and-so, and as Blerg and Antidisblergh by Suchandsuch. For Slate and the Trib, I don't think belaboring their places on the political spectrum is needed. Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I have my doubts about the reliability of Slate for these sorts of political labels. But ChiTri is untouchable. It's one of the most-read, mainstream, repuable newspapers in the country and it has been making these sorts of assessments for decades. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So why was Slate used for this? Why Raw Story? Why the multiple cites all centering on SPLC..i.e. incestuously circular? Why a consistent pattern of inaccurate use of cites? Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea. You'd have to search through the contribution history and figure out who added what, and then ask them. Wikipedia isn't some monolithic big brother organization. We are volunteers from all around the world, just like you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Or, we could look at the end result, agree its a bit of a hatchet job, and label it as such, yep. Anmccaff (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There's an app for that. VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right is a trendy term, but it doesn't appear to be the most broadly used WRT this organization. I generally care very little about hyphenation, so I suppose I'm fine with either far-right or far right. Anyone have a preference between those two? VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources tend to use "far-right" when using it as an adjective (as it is here) and "far right" when using it as a known (e.g. "so-and-so is a member of the far right"). "Alt-right" does not appear to follow this pattern and always uses the hyphen, probably because "alt" is not a word. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

Aside from the other issues -innaccuracies, sourcing, authorship - the column was not a "column exploring how "America's Scariest Police Chief" Mark Kessler was able to join the group" on several levels. First, a "column" in the context means a regularly published work; the author is, at very best, a part-time writer. Next, Kessler may have been "America's scariest" something-or-other ("Police chief" is a little grandiose for a one man force) but there is no evidence he was a member of Oath Keepers, just someone who was given a t-shirt. (Kessler is a member of a different kookgroup, the Constitutional Protection Force. The Salon.com piece notes that Oath Keepers have explicitly denied he is a member. More importantly, though, Leon's piece is a hypothetical. He claims that if he were in charge, he would have a stringent process to vet the membership, and that his obtaining a membership disproves that. There's a two-word phrase for setting up a weak hypothetical in someone else's name and attacking it, and it isn't honest argument. Anmccaff (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh good heavens. Are you really making yet another new section to continue silly attacks on a journalist because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT that he actually investigated the claims of the organization? Morty C-137 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Leon is not a journalist; Alternet is not a good source, Rawstory has its problems as well. As mentioned above and elsewhere, there's a pretty wide consensus that Kessler isn't a member of the group: he doesn't claim to be, Oath Keepers officially denies it, and a Salon.com piece, among many others, appears to take that at face value.

Even if this bit of comedic performance art were acceptable as a source for something, it isn't for the claims made in the article. It's a straw man. Leon did not "[investigate] the claims of the organization", he announced what he felt they should have been, and "investigated" those. Anmccaff (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Same nonsense. Insults the journalist, has no logical argument to make. You've repeated this over and over, created multiple sections to pretend this dead horse hasn't been beaten to death already... Morty C-137 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Anmccaff started a section at my request, so it seems unhelpful to immediately attack them for doing so. I don't see that the "America's Scariest Police Chief" descriptor is particularly helpful to an understanding of the organizations membership or enforcement thereof and am fine with it being removed. VQuakr (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It would also seem a bit "unhelpful" to template-warn -before- commenting on talk, and after someone else has already reverted it... reverted it twice by the look of it. Odd you didn't drop a template there. Anmccaff (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the OP, per my previous reply I am fine with paring down the description of Kessler in the article. You may be confused about what verifiability means since you seem to be relying on your own analysis rather than whether the information is in the source cited. VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. The existing synthesis is the problem with the existing article. We have an admittedly inaccurate hatchet job treated as a worthwhile journalistic source; its central conceit, that surely Oath Keepers should have a vetting process, and that that process is flawed, is taken as fact in the Wiki article. OK doesn't seem to have any such process, and makes no distinction in raw numbers between members who are cops or firemen or soldiers and those who just kicked in a few bucks as "associates" or whatever term they use. (That, of course may be another legitimate criticism of them.)

It is trivial easy to find sources directly refuting that Kessler was an OK member; what does that say about the Leon source in the first place? If it's not good enough for that purpose, why is it good for another? Anmccaff (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What sources? The salon.com article just quotes OK saying that he "is not working with Oath Keepers". That doesn't mean he isn't a member, and certainly doesn't mean he never was a member. It doesn't appear to conflict with the rawstory article. Sythesis by secondary sources is fine, so I'm not sure what point you are tying to make in the upper paragraph here. VQuakr (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course that means he isn't a member, although it could, just barely, refer to someone who had quit. Anmccaff (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

He describes HIMSELF as one [17] but do continue with the whole No true Scotsman thing... Morty C-137 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that's a cite in which someone else claims, without evidence, that Kessler is a "self-described Oath Keeper". Your cite, true to the tile of the section, fails verification. Anmccaff (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a citation to a WP:RS showing that he describes himself as an Oath Keeper. You're once again misrepresenting things. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No. It would ordinarily be uncharitable to describe your words as anything else but a lie, but I think you've demonstrated there are other strong possibilities. The cite doesn't show anything. It claims it, without evidence. The same writer on the same website, in a context where it would be almost inevitable to make the same claim again, doesn't.

The Oath Keepers, an antigovernment group composed of military and police personnel, said it has nothing to do with Kessler, even though the chief sometimes wears clothing with the group’s logo on it and has been praised by the group in the past. “Chief Kessler is not working with the Oath Keepers, nor is the Oath Keepers working with him,” Elias Alias, who sits on the group’s board of directors, said in an E-mail to Salon.

If Mr Lenz had any actual evidence that Kessler claimed membership, he would have surely mentioned it here, only a week, roughly, later. Anmccaff (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Just because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't make the SPLC non-reliable. And the public No true Scotsman PR statment of the organization does not negate the fact that Kessler describes himself as an Oath Keeper. Also, his public exhortations for them to rally around him: [18]

Oh and OK is also kind of known for supporting someone until it's politically inconvenient to do so. As they've done in this case: After passage, Oathkeepers member Larry Liguori presented Chief Kessler with an Oathkeepers t-shirt. It seems that Kessler had begun activism as an American Patriot. By January 2013, Stewart Rhodes, of “Oathkeepers”, had Kessler as a guest and praised his efforts (link, 1 hr 16 min). [19] Morty C-137 (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I or anyone else (but you) don't like. We have an unsupported claim on a webpage, we have another, later webpage from the same author where the same claim should be found, and ain't, but material refuting it is. That looks a lot like how Breitbart, say, or any other number of polemicists might handle what a respectable publisher would print a retraction for. Anmccaff (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The timeline is pretty clear - Oath Keepers publicly supported Kessler and his claims of being a member, until he shot his mouth off once too often at which point they decided they needed to disavow him. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolute, complete bullshit; where is there any claim of Kessler's membership sourcing to OK? Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Has already been provided, the fact that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean it's not there. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Improve reference to Pat Buchanan's Blog Post

The following passage from the "Oath Keepers" article referring to Pat Buchanan's blog post "Alienated & Radicalized" should be rewritten to be more clear, less misleading. The following passage contained in angle brackets ("<<" and ">>") would be improved by the rewritten passage that follows.

FROM <<Quoting the Las Vegas Review-Journal, MSNBC political commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan said, "Oath Keepers, depending on where one stands, are either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia." Buchanan himself concluded that "America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right."[57][58]>>

TO: <<Alan Maimon in the Las Vegas Review-Journal writes "[Oath Keepers, depending on where one stands, are] either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia.” Pat Buchanan, MSNBC political commentator and former presidential candidate, in his blog post "Alienated & Radicalized", refers to Maimon's article and goes on to claim that the Oath Keepers are symptomatic of an alienation radicalizing increasing segments of America's white middle class. Buchanan further states that these alienated white Americans conclude "America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right."[57][58]>>

I'm sure with further editing this passage can be improved further. The sources are the same [57][58]. I apologize in advance for not formatting this suggested edit correctly. I would welcome a response to the email address below with instructions on how this suggestion could be better constructed.

71.168.89.76 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Improve reference to Pat Buchanan's Blog Post (continued)

The text referring to Pat Buchanan has reverted back to its prior state before the edits I made. While my edits were no doubt not the best (I haven't finish reading the Wikipedia Style Guidelines), the edits were an improvement. Firstly, Pat Buchanan did not say, "Oath Keepers, depending on where one stands, are either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia." Buchanan was referring to and paraphrasing Alan Maimon in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. In Buchanan's blog "Alienated & Radicalized", Buchanan makes this clear. Secondly, Buchanan's statement that "America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right," is not about the Oath Keepers specifically, but what Buchanan claims are alienated and radicalized white middle americans. Clearly, Buchanan believes that the Oath Keepers are a subset of this group of white middle americans. The recommended edits make clear the distinction between Maimon's quote, Buchanan's reference to that quote, and that Buchanan views Oath Keepers as a subset of alienated and radicalized white americans. These distinctions are non-trivial. The original passage is written to imply that Buchanan is making statements about the Oath keepers in particular, when Buchanan in fact never makes any statement about Oath Keepers. Buchanan's blog post has little to do with the Oath Keepers; it's about Buchanan's theme of alienated white middle americans. If the passage is not improved to make these distinctions clear, it would be better to remove it.

71.168.89.60 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Background checks?

/* Membership */ Does anyone actually believe most organizations of this type -and that's everything from political weirdeaux to Friends of the Library -do background checks? Anmccaff (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with our Oath Keepers article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Your Oath Keepers" article included a paragraph saying:

Journalist Harman Leon tested the group's application process and found that although the group claimed to restrict membership to servicemembers, there were no practical checks on membership, in a column exploring how "America's Scariest Police Chief" Mark Kessler was able to join the group. Leon discovered that the group does no actual background checks on applicants.

References

There are several problems, I'd think. with this. First, Harmon Leon may see himself primarily as a journalist, but I'd suggest he not quit his day job....as a comedian, apparently. Unlike, say, the Trib, Raw Story is not a mainstream source, and this isn't a serious investigative article. So, biased fluff from a lighter weight source, for starters.

The central problem, though, is that mentioned above. Most voluntary politcal, service, pressure, political...name it, most groups don't vet the membership. You or I could join Phrogboiz for Donald and Emos for Hillary on the same day. This is not serious journalism, but a perfectly predictable (considering the source) hatchet job. Anmccaff (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it customary to leave the stable version in place during the discussion in the BRD cycle? Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on how bad the "stable" version is...and let's face it, this one is pretty bad all around, and whether the reverter had had a chance to respond....and you've edited about 5 other things since, right? Anmccaff (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial is right. You're edit warring. Please stop and discuss. If you have a problem with some content, then you're free to tag it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: when determining whether to include coverage of a viewpoint, we looks at the relative coverage of that viewpoint in reliable sources. Your personal analysis about Phrogboiz, etc, is an irrelevant distraction. Raw Story seems borderline to me, both reliability and weight-wise for this particular viewpoint. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think @Anmccaff:'s analysis is entirely irrelevant. The argument is well-reasoned, and in the face of the borderline reliability and weight of the viewpoint, it seems appropriate to remove it from the article. Cjhard (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, the article is a republication from Alternet: [20]. As an advocacy journal, it is a reliable source only for uncontested facts and its own opinions. This claim about the vetting of membership seems to be an opinion dressed up as a fact. It appears that Leon took something which is common to political groups (the lack of vetting of members) and used that fact as a criticism of the Oath Keepers in particular. This has been repeated in the article. I support the removal of this material in its entirety. Cjhard (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It is in the "membership" section and is analysis of the group's claims about membership; it is not "criticism". VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I favor removal, for at least three reasons. First, the source does not support the content. The source says one person was not required to undergo meaningful vetting; that doesn't mean the group doesn't perform any background checks or have any practical checks on membership. Second, the source is of very borderline reliability. Third, this strikes me as not encyclopedic in nature. Seriously, who cares if the group performs background checks? Clearly this issue hasn't been picked up by the mainstream media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be undue to retain the group's unchallenged claim in the sentence above (that they accept only servicepeople for full membership) without including secondary analysis of that claim. How about adding a sentence to read (using existing sources):

The organization claims on its website that full membership is open to "currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, police, fire-fighters, other first responders (i.e. State Guard, Sheriff Posse/Auxiliary, Search & Rescue, EMT, other medical 1st responders, etc.) AND veterans/former members of those services," and that others who support the organization's mission can become associate members. The group's adherence to this policy was questioned by journalist Harmon Leon.

and remove the separate Harmon paragraph? VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's undue or misleading at all. A group doesn't have to conduct background checks in order to make a legitimate claim that it restricts its membership. Lots of groups have such membership policies without enforcing them in such an organized matter. And our article doesn't claim or suggest that OK does anything otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that this is a largely amateur journalist, cited in a source which was accused on Salon.com of creating fake news. Anmccaff (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to walk us through that. I don't see anything in that link about Harmon Leon. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

When I make reference to the reliability of the source, i.e. Rawstory.com, by writing "cited in a source" I think the route is already marked. Amateur journalist, amateurish publisher. Anmccaff (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I thought the link was offered to say something about Leon. Rather you were talking about RawStory.com in general. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it's clear Annmccaff isn't being forthright in her arguments here - when she claims it's "cited in a source which was accused on Salon.com", that's an incredibly bald-faced misrepresentation. She links to an opinion column (read: WP:NEWSBLOG) by one Glenn Greenwald, complaining about a specific different WP:NEWSBLOG hosted off of Raw Story, not about Raw Story journalism as such. And she's using this gross and ridiculous misrepresentation to illegitimately tar Raw Story's journalism, largely it appears because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's neither appropriate nor honest argumentation. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Your deeper confusion evidenced aside, that's a point against your argument; Rawstory has rather fluid ideas about where the blogging ends, and how much change can be made to borrowed work, and those are both Bad Things. Anmccaff (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Still attacking an WP:RS without any evidence to back up your claims, I see. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I don't think this content removal is appropriate. Given the way the Oath Keepers organization tries to market themselves with claims that they are "all" first-responders or police/military, a journalist checking into whether their claims can be substantiated and testing their registration system is important and relevant. Also, neither you nor Annmccaff have provided any evidence of your claim that "Lots of groups have such membership policies without enforcing them". And to quote Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Morty C-137 (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I thought we had consensus that this paragraph should be removed. Anmccaff, Newimpartial, VQuakr, Cjhard, could we please run a poll?

Survey - Background checks?

• Remove. My position, explained above, is that the source is of borderline reliability, portions of the content fail verification, and this material isn't sufficiently noteworthy. How an organization restricts its membership is generally important; what steps it takes to enforce those restrictions is generally not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Setting aside the sheer number of insults against the journalist by those arguing against (which have no place in a discussion and tend to undercut their point), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Oath Keepers claim that their membership is restricted; a journalist tested this and found that the membership is not and no background checking is done - the application can literally just be mailed in and as long as the money is good, the membership gets registered. Further, DrFleischman claims that "that doesn't mean the group doesn't perform any background checks" and further claims that "lots of groups have such membership policies without enforcing them", but provides no evidence to back up these fantastical assertions. In the absence of any evidence that OK's membership claims are legitimate AND the presence of evidence that said claims are BS... Morty C-137 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: As much as I appreciate your proclivity for Sagan quotes, I must disagree. You say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Note the use of "extraordinary". The Oath Keepers' claim that membership is open to members of law enforcement, the military, etc., etc. is not by any means extraordinary. Plenty of groups have policies like this. The claim that you can get in without those credentials isn't all that extraordinary either, but, being the challenging assertion (although it does not directly challenge the Oath Keepers' words), accepts the burden of proof. Since the only proof for it is far less than extraordinary, it really doesn't amount to much. As for the claim that plenty of groups have policies like this and don't conduct background checks, that's not too extraordinary. I think you might just be asking for extraordinary evidence for ordinary claims. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 16:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Remove. My position is outlined above. Cjhard (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Remove Again, as discussed above. Anmccaff (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm not sure about the propriety of this !vote, but anyway it seems clear to me that whether an organization enforces the membership criteria it purports is a question potentially of both public and encyclopaedic interest, and should be included in the article so long as RS exist. Contra several comments made above, many many voluntary organizations do in fact require background checks or otherwise maintain/enforce their stated requirements for membership or participation. Newimpartial (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could support this with some examples? I've been a member of several volunteer organization, professional groups, and so forth, many of which had stated membership requirements; I'm having a little trouble recalling if -any- did a "background check." Some examples, from your experince or knowledge, please. Anmccaff (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure this "vote" or whatever it is, is not placed with clean hands. The entire argument of the "remove" crowd seems to boil down to (a) let's insult the journalist/source and (b) WP:IDONTLIKEIT from an extreme-right individual just kind of spamming this page with that fallacious and invalid "argument" set to repeat. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the cleanliness of any hands, but I do find the arguments being fronted by the "remove" crowd both rather bludgeon-like and quite weak. VQuakr (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - I still would be fine with the tightened phrasing I proposed above. VQuakr (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Remove I'm obviously late to the party here, but I suppose I can still have a say. The way I see it, Anmccaff is right. It's content from an unreliable source (Alternet) republished in a probably-not-reliable source (Raw Story), making the content dubious at best. If the source was reliable, I'd be okay with keeping with reduced weight; something like a "this has been disputed" after the section on membership. However, since the source is no good, unless it gets picked up by more reliable sources, I'd say we leave it out for now. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 16:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion - Background checks?

Just to make it clear, the source isn't Raw Story. It was republished to Raw Story from Alternet. Alternet is not a reliable source. I'm not sure how that's a weak argument. Cjhard (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Quick note: "a. subpar english. b. that raw story is a reliable source is very questionable c. "discovered that" suggests wikipedia underwrites the validity of this person's argument". Whoever wants this in will have to do a better job, in a couple of different ways. As for Raw Story, I looked on WP:RSN but find mostly criticism. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Quick note on this quick note: I only now see this discussion and I'm not proud I made the edit before I read this, but I do stand by the edit. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Predicting now: nothing will get done until unprotection happens, and then the Oath Keepers protectors will declare that the removal is now "the stable version" because Drmies snuck in under the wire. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you please explain how Alternet is a reliable source? Cjhard (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137, I snuck nothing in. I took something out. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Rv POV push referenced to primary sources

Primary sources are perfectly adequate for describing a groups self view, and are also fine for areas left to the reader's judgement. Anmccaff (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, see the WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE sections on our neutrality policy. Secondary sources to establish due weight would be needed to consider inclusion, and we don't need a "balancing" statement appended to every paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you'll have to get past this stage where you hand-wave at a policy in order to better ignore it. A considerable amount of criticism has been given to the edges of SPLC writing, where research and fundraising overlap; their heft is not what it was 20 years ago. Anmccaff (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No one is saying everything needs balance. However, if someone is accused of holding a position which they dispute and provide evidence disputing, that conflict should be noted with evidence from each being cited. We do not want to give secondary commentary to stand alone when primary sources dispute the claims of said commentary. This is true with anything but is especially important when describing what a group thinks, as their thoughts cannot be proven or disproven. It is impossible to know the precise beliefs of a group because we cannot see into their mind. As the truth is unknowable, we should provide what generally credible sources say about them in addition to what they say about themselves. We should not only include the commentary and what others say they think they think. My apolagies if I formatted this wrong in any way, I haven't really done much on talk pages. Argentounge (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Argentounge: our policy on use of primary sources is WP:PRIMARY. Is specifically states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." WP:PRIMARYCARE points out that a primary source "is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions."

For example, using the mere mention of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership on OK's website as a counter-point to SPLC's assessment flouts this policy.

As editors we don't particularly care what an organization "thinks", but we do care much more about what sources say about a topic than we do about what a topic says about itself. VQuakr (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr: They do not just mention Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They support them and say they have associations with them. Though I could grant that one is more debatable, the other examples are less so. For example, that they actively promote African-Americans and say they accepts people of all color. That is a simple fact with out analysis, evaluation or interpretation. It is easy to verify and purely descriptive (describing the contents of their website) of facts. In the edits, primary sources were not used to analyze the company or its actions rather to describe its stated positions.

Much of the article is concerned with what they think. As the other sources already are addressing what they think, then the official positions (like the one of them coming in all different colors) becomes relevant, as the official position contradicts what a secondary source says so that it is in dispute should be noted (lacking a general consensus).

Discussion on meaning of a reference

The following citation was pulled from the opening lede:

Skocpol, Theda; Williamson, Vanessa (2012). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford University Press. p. 33. Retrieved 2016-12-01. Some anti-government extremists have unquestionably found their way into Tea Party groups--for example, members of the Oath Keepers, a group centered on current and former law enforcement officers.. Expecting the Obama Administration to declare martial law across the country and detain citizens en masse, Oath Keepers proclaim their readiness to engage in armed insurrection to counter this supposed threat from the federal government. ... The possibility of such a confrontation is not entirely rhetorical because members of the Oath Keepers have been tied to various militia groups.

This was used to cite the fact that Oath Keepers is an anti-government group. However, a close reading of this passage does not support that statement. It reads only that "Some anti-government extremists ...[have become] members of the Oath Keepers." While surely related, this statement is categorically different that what the lede sentence is proposing. It seems like a useful citation, I just don't feel it makes the same claim that the lede does. There are plenty of other citations that support that opening statement. Perhaps this citation can be used elsewhere in the article? Or am I missing something here? 192.88.255.9 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing, IP is that the source is that the Oath Keepers are cited in the article as an example of anti-government extremists. The citation is therefore relevant and valid. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The article opens with "Oath Keepers is a far-right, anti-government American organization ..." The other citations say as much, very clearly. This specific citation certainly speaks that there are anti-government extremists in the group, but does not label the entire group as such. Ergo, it doesn't apply to this specific statement. As mentioned above, I believe this to be true and that the citation is useful - my contention here is that it is merely misplaced and would be better suited elsewhere. 192.88.255.9 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read your source again; it characterizes Oath Keepers as extremists based on the group's agenda. Your reconstruction of the sentence above is inaccurate; the source is saying that some extremists (identifiable as such because they are Oath Keepers) have infiltrated Tea Party groups; it is not saying that only some Oath Keepers are extremists - not grammatically, and not semantically either. Newimpartial (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The contradiction that Oath Keepers are anti-government

Hello everyone,

I propose changing the introduction of this article as the opinion that the Oath Keepers are anti-government is in stark contradiction to their stated aim of upholding the US Constitution which is in fact the actual framework for government in the United States. For this article I would like to see a more objective, balanced approach based on evidence instead of opinion. Where has Oath Keepers ever taken an anti-government stance or action? Oath Keepers were explicitly formed to defend the Constitution. As stated earlier the US Constitution defines the framework of Federal Government within the United States and Oath Keepers defend citizen rights enshrined within that document. — NativeEarthC1tizen (talk) 20:07, 17th August 2017 (UTC)

Your tag of a reference is a misuse of the tag, we don't have to justify why a source says what it does. And there are armed militias that claim to be defending the constitution and claim that the government is breaking it. It's perfectly possible to be anti-government and claim to be defending the constitution, it all depends upon your understanding of the constitution. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay Doug, does that mean if I edit this article I don't have to justify why my source says what it does? I can find plenty of sources that say Oath Keepers are not anti-government but an organization that defends one of the original and most important frameworks for Government i.e. the US Constitution. In my opinion this article is a biased leftest propaganda piece. — NativeEarthC1tizen (talk) 21:44, 17th February 2017 (UTC)

You need to use cites of similar strength, or explicitly show faults in ones you feel are inaccurate. Pairing off a major newspaper vs. Joe's Blog and Grill ain't gonna cut it. Anmccaff (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources need to meet WP:RS. You won't like this, but that means that often you can't use Breitbart. It's rare that you can use the UK's Daily Mail. This is the result of discussions at WP:RSN which is where we discuss sources. What you seem to be saying is that you don't like the sources we use because they don't share your politics. That's not the way we work. Doug Weller talk 06:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The four sources following the "anti-government" claim are not linked to any evidence. They're nothing more than hearsay, opinion, or anecdotal evidence within those articles. However, the bylaws of the Oathkeepers (Here: https://www.oathkeepers.org/bylaws/) clearly states "No person who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal or informal, that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or the violation of the Constitution thereof, shall be entitled to be a member or associate member." Furthermore, "anti-government" insinuates that they are against any form of government. They support government, including the current form of government. They simply claim that they will uphold the constitution of the current government. 0306 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"Bylaws of the Oathkeepers"... yes yes and Pravda claimed it was real news. There's a reason that Wikipedia policy is so leery of first-party claims. Every white supremacist group claims they are "not racist", every tin pot fascist dictatorship calls itself a "people's republic", Skousen Cultists / Posse Comitatus white supremacist groups (many of which are also in the "Oath Keepers" group) claim they have the "real original constitution" when the Skousen edits are fraudulent... the list could go on for pages. Morty C-137 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that I posted several WP:RS for this from regional papers. For some reason regional papers and WaPo (which uses SPLC as a source) use different language. Basically all the regional papers do not adopt the SPLC's language. The decision to reject any WP:RS that contradict the current version of this introduction has not ever been justified based on policy and per the spirit of WP:NEWSORG an effort should be made to include these sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I am confused by your wording. Are you saying you posted as the IP that signed as "0306" earlier? Morty C-137 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Also addressing the IP/NativeEarthC1tizen/whoever-else's first misconception, describing a group in the USA as "anti-government" is not the same as describing them as "anarchist". Secessionist, Skousenist, Posse Comitatus (organization) or Sovereign citizen movement wackos like Cliven Bundy who claim things like "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing"[21], for existence, are anti-government even if similarly to the Oath Keepers wave a constitution around and claim they are supporting some mythical "real" version of government. The "Oath Keepers", having adopted most of those same conspiracy theory beliefs and acted on them, are anti-government. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- not a contradiction at all. The group is consistently described as anti-goverment in RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually I am inclined to agree to that anti-government (at least federal government) is a pretty unambiguous part of their rhetoric, though I would support adding "constitutionalist" to the description, because this is also supported by WP:RS Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"Constitutionalist" is supported by no actual RS. They like to make the claim, but their version of the "constitution" is a conspiracy theory. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

For my benefit and the sake of argument, can any editor link the RS's that support the argument that the article not refer to the Oathkeepers as anti-government?--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Sure, there are a lot of sources that describe the organization differently, these WP:RS are copied from my previous comments on this talk page:

• In May 2016, he was honored by the militant Patriot organization Oath Keepers with its second annual “Leadership Award”.

• "Heavily-armed members of a controversial right-wing "patriot" group added an extra dose of unease to protests in Ferguson, Missouri, early Tuesday."

• "Since the birth of the organization, Oath Keepers' members have found themselves subject to all manner of suspicion and labeling, and repeated criticism by the anti-Klan Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which cites the Oath Keepers as "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival." Responding to the SPLC report on the Lou Dobbs radio show, Rhodes said, "They think the word 'patriot' is a smear."

• "After Sheriff Finch's suspension, Mack organized a fundraiser in nearby Panama City and brought in Stewart Rhodes, head of the citizen militia group known as the Oath Keepers, the same group that made headlines last August for patrolling the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, with guns."

• "According to Santoro the Oath Keepers and other constitutionalist groups are protecting the rights of the White Hope Mine claimants."

• "Stewart Rhodes, head of the libertarian-constitutionalist rights group Oath Keepers, told Slate reporter Dave Weigel last week that imprisoned U.S. soldiers Bradley Manning, a hero to some on the left, and Terry Lakin, a hero to some on the right, should have been granted the same due process."

• "The Oath Keepers and other constitutionalist groups who came to support the miners -- in the form of legal help and an armed security detail -- say they will leave once a court date is set."

• "The constitutionalist group Oath Keepers is defending a mine that the Forest Service says is out of compliance."

• The Guardian "armed militias including the radical constitutionalist group the Oath Keepers"

• "III Percent Idaho and other constitutionalist groups in the so-called Patriot Movement have been front-and-center in media around the country since 2014, when their members traveled long distances to participate in an armed standoff between federal officers and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. In July, following a shooting at a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tenn., groups such as the Oath Keepers and III Percenters stationed themselves at similar recruitment sites throughout the nation in order to provide security for soldiers."

Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

In 2016 the Vrginia Oath Keepers claimed financial improprieties by the national organisation

Not a reliable source however but there may be reliable sources discussing this. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Relevant New Yorker aticle

"The Renegade Sheriffs and note the article I added as a see also. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2018

The article begins by describing oath keepers as "anti-government" and then uses negative opinion articles as sources to back up the description. Beginning an article with such obvious bias in the very first line goes against the philosophy of wikipedia. Wikipedia purports to be a reference source rather than an editorializing tabloid, therefore it is best to leave unsubstantiated opinions out of the defining sentence, especially if the group does not identify that way. Furthermore, you provide a link to their website and within this site they do not claim to be anti-government.

Change: I believe "anti-government" should be struck from the first sentence, as well as the associated references unless it is included in a separate criticism section of the article. Rsc209 (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

All sources in this article are from left wing biased organizations and there is no balance, or indication of the true purposes and activities of Oath Keepers. The bias goes beyond political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.11.94 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Provide concrete proposals based on reliable independent sources for changes. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What is the definition of an independent, unbiased source regarding this specific topic? Many of the sources for this entry are not independent and yet they are still protected. Silenteth (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Bias

This page is extremely biased. You should of taken the time to do actual research, and actually contact the organization for input on this page. Bigotry is unacceptable. JMillsNavyVet (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@JMillsNavyVet: Actually, the quality of articles is usually far better if they are written by independent editors without input from the subjects. Almost all subject will try to paint themselves in a positive light, and Wikipedia articles should have a balanced viewpoint, presenting positive and negative. —C.Fred (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

PeaceDog77 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC) @JMillsNavyVet is 100% correct. This article is incredibly biased, slanted and misleading. The Oath Keepers are 100% in support of our Constitutional Republic. Their fundamental premise is to adhere to the unifying laws of the land, the United States Constitution, and for all agents to adhere to those laws. There is nothing secretive about this group or the oaths they promote - https://oathkeepers.org/about, or their organizational structure - https://oathkeepers.org/bylaws.

To cite far-Left media articles as sources simply underscores the bias of this article. This is a mainstream, diverse American group lobbying for those elected and appointed to honor their own oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States. PeaceDog77 (talk) 12:05, 01 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any far-left sources by any mormal definition. The problem C.Fred states is a real one. People lie. People try to make their political positions look more acceptable to the average reader. And of course people interpret the Constitution in some very odd ways sometimes. And some officers of the law ignore the Constitution. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Article is extremely biased

The article is extremely biased and locked so it can't be edited with truthful statements The reason stated for locking the page is to protect it from vandalism. I believe that the page is locked because the author does not want any political views other than his to edit this page with true statments

His description depicts working and retired police officers and military members as anti-government and far right because they believe in The Constitution and Bill of Rights. Salute29 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

There have been 428 "authors" - we call them editors. Our articles are meant to be based on reliable sources as discussed at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. If you want to propose any specific changes and have sources that meet our criteria, please do. I will point out that you are mischaracterising what the article actually says. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

bigdnn this article doesn't allow for membership accounts of actions taken. Nor does it allow for first hand accounts of activities. Bigdnn (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2019

Change "prevent a vote on a cap-and-trade proposal that would dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to combat climate change" to "prevent a vote on a cap-and-trade proposal." The rest of the sentence is politically-motivated conjecture that lacks any citation or reference, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. Dgray321 (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done. I've changed it to "... a vote on a cap-and-trade proposal aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in order to combat climate change." Cap-and-trade can refer to pollutants other than just greenhouse gases, so a certain amount of elaboration is necessary here. Moreover, explaining the basic motivation of the legislation (to combat climate change) is pretty reasonable here. However, "dramatically" is vague and deserved to go, and saying the legislation would automatically have the desired effect (lowering greenhouse gas emissions) definitely was conjecture, so I nixed that implication as well, but left what was the intent of it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Request edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Deacon Vorbis, first off I have no clue how to make the fancy dancy text box you just did, so I'm replying here. Second, why do you continually try to shut down conversation on this topic? This is about coming to a conclusion on the facts, the very thing we do on talk pages. I haven't started a revert war, you say "take it up here", I take it up here, and you continually mark this as closed. Discuss the facts here. 1) You're requiring me to prove a negative, that is impossible. 2) I proposed a clear explanation based on fact, and you ignore it. 3) I have demonstrated at the bottom of this post that this article is so far from "unbiased" it should make even the most ardent opponent of Oath Keepers say "you know, you're right". Barwick (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia description of the Oath Keepers organization is factually incorrect. They are not anti-government, nor far-right. Please refer to the by-laws of the organization and contact the Board of Directors for further clarification of the position of those that swore an Oath when we entered military service, federal employment, state employment, county employment, entered law enforcement, or became a fire fighter. Those of us that took that oath believe in the Constitution, the Rule-of-Law, and if educated, understand that we are bound by that oath until death; no expiration date. Please seek out the Oath of Office for further clarification. I will be looking for an updated/edited description of the organization, or a response from the author as to why that will not occur.

Thank you,

Kurt Werner USN - Ret Fed Gov - Ret Life Member - Oath Keepers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krtwrnr42 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Spintendo  16:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I edited the page to clarify that it is not universally agreed upon that "Oath Keepers is an Anti-Government, Far-Right organization". Primary change to the article is here:

Paragraph 1, opening sentence, changed from "...is an anti-government..." to "...is an organization claimed by its opponents to be an anti-government..."

One other minor change, towards the end of the first paragraph, changed "not to obey orders which they believe violate the Constitution" to "not to obey orders which would violate the Constitution"

Both changes are rooted in facts, and no longer make a claim that is highly disputed. Barwick (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There are roughly nine references in the first line alone to support the status quo ante, to which I've reverted. You'll need to bring extensive sourcing to support your edit. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

So you can quote a bunch of media sources that blatantly despise this organization, and claim them as credible? 1) We can't prove a negative. There are no media articles out there saying "Oath Keepers is not an anti-government organization" because nboody bothers to discredit the false slander thrown at them, it's just that ridiculous. 2) How about rather we look at *facts* and not media slander? I could find umpteen media articles claiming you're an alien from Mars, and that won't make it true. Should we then publish that on Wikipedia as fact, despite the fact that we can take one look at you and "see" some basic facts (like your DNA) and determine it's not true.

You do remember that the SPLC is the same organization that classified Family Research Council as a "hate group", right? Causing Floyd Corkins to attempt a shooting rampage at their office. Very credible source, and we should definitely spread their view as fact. Barwick (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

See, here's the gig with that. Do you deny that the FRC has repeatedly demanded that LGBT Americans be denied basic civil rights, falsely smeared them as pedophiles, made false claims about AIDS, and paid to support activists in Uganda who proposed imposing the death penalty on LGBT people? What is a group that believes LGBT people should be second-class citizens unworthy of civil rights, except a hate group? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I really tire of the hoops I have to jump through to make a common sense change on Wikipedia. This is worse than the freaking American Bar Association

The fact of the matter with the Oath Keepers is that the *facts* in the matter are that their opponents make a claim about them being anti-government. That is fact. What is not fact is that they "are" anti-government. If they were to say they are anti-Government, then it would be a fact.

Similarly, you are asking me to prove a negative (prove they're not anti-government). As a computer scientist working for NASA, I'm well versed in logic, and I can tell you this, proving a negative is virtually impossible, and is an unfair bar to set for anything, even on Wikipedia. We've been trying for decades to prove that NP complete problems are in fact unsolvable with traditional computation in polynomial time. It's likely something that will never happen.

You're not asking me to do something that daunting, but it's a fairly simple assessment. No member of Oath Keepers would describe the *organization* as anti-government. Individuals may be, but then again, individuals of your high school graduating class were probably racist, that doesn't mean your high school graduating class was racist, nor you.

I suggest we stick to facts. My edits on the page are more factually correct than the previous version, and they should be retained.

Here are the changes of mine that were just reverted by yet another person. Simply shows the clear and true wording I proposed. If there is no logical discussion on this, then I propose we move forward with keeping the edits I made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oath_Keepers&oldid=prev&diff=911469458

Barwick (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't really care how members of Oath Keepers would describe the organization. Members of the Proud Boys probably wouldn't call themselves neo-fascists who promote political violence, but that's what they are, and that's how we describe them. How would you suggest we describe an organization that is defined by its declared opposition to legitimate governmental functions? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

On September 10, 2015, the Oath Keepers announced that they would travel to Rowan County, Kentucky to prevent Kim Davis from being arrested and jailed should she be held in contempt a second time for violating a court order prohibiting her from interfering with marriage licensing in her office.[37] The group aimed to block enforcement of contempt of court rulings against Davis. The Oath Keepers declared that they would interfere with enforcement of federal law and court decisions — that is the literal definition of anti-government. Many other examples are cited here, particularly with regards to attempts to thwart lawful management of public land by agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service (whose constitutionality under the Property Clause is indisputable). One can't pick and choose which parts of the oath to uphold the Constitution they're going to "keep." And that is why nobody takes the "Oath Keepers" seriously - they've already demonstrated that what they really believe in is authoritarian conservatism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Note: Re-closing edit request as  Not done per the apparent lack of consensus for this change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not "closed". Simply because an army of liberals (and those afraid to call themselves by that name) disagree with the truth I've brought up does not mean it is closed. You can't just say "well, majority wins" when it comes to facts. Well, I mean... you can apparently in Wikipedia, because truth doesn't matter, it's just what "reputable sources" say (despite those sources being blatantly biased), plus a majority of wolves deciding that they want to eat the sheep for lunch (but hey, we let the sheep vote too!)

To answer the question brought up by NorthBySouthBaranof: Kim Davis was fulfilling her duties in the State of Kentucky in compliance with the State's contract with the United States of America, known as "The Constitution". No law had (nor has since) been set in place by Congress in response to the blatantly wrong Supreme Court *opinion*, and Kim Davis was under no compulsion in her duties within the State of Kentucky to hand out marriage licenses to people who were not, in fact, by the well-established legal definition of the word "marriage", married. Was it a losing battle for her to refuse to hand out the licenses? Yes. Was it wise for her? Probably not. But forcing her to do so is a blatant shortcut in violation of the laws of this nation. The Oath Keepers knew this, and went (apparently) to attempt to stop Government officials from illegally enforcing an order that has no force of law behind it except in the court of public opinion.

Please tell me how standing for the Constitution of the United States in its strictest sense (not the shortcuts our politicians take), is "anti-Government"? Barwick (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

We're well within WP:NOTFORUM territory, but your description of the Supreme Court decision as "blatantly wrong" is an interesting opinion. Under our Constitutional system of government, the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution are binding on all lower courts and, hence, all institutions of government. Deciding that you are going to ignore a Supreme Court decision that you don't like is the literal opposite of keeping an oath to the Constitution.

The oath I swore contains no exceptions for my personal opinions, even when I think a Supreme Court decision was wrong (like, say, District of Columbia v. Heller). My oath binds me to support and defend the Constitution of the United States regardless. The Supreme Court has ruled the Constitution means there is a personal right to possess firearms - and until and unless overturned by another decision or superseded by amendment, then that is what it means, and I have sworn to support and defend that. Similarly, the Supreme Court has ruled the Constitution means there is a right to marry a person of the same sex - until and unless overturned by another decision or superseded by amendment, then that is what it means, and I have sworn to support and defend that.

Your claim that there was anything illegal or wrongful about the order to Kim Davis is quite simply nonsense; the order had the entire force of Constitutional law behind it. You can only reach the conclusion you reach by ignoring centuries of American Constitutional jurisprudence going back to Marbury v. Madison. You and the "Oath Keepers" are welcome to live in a fantasy world; the rest of us will keep living in the real one.

I am keeping my oath. In the case of Kim Davis and others noted here, the "Oath Keepers" are not. So yes, that's why they're a subject of mirth and derision. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the Supreme Courts decisions are not law. They never were intended to be law, nor do they inehrently bind other branches of Government to do their will. If you have any doubts about this, read the writings of our very founders, who had to defend the Constitution from those who (rightly so, because it's now happening de-facto today) feared that the Federal Government would overwhelm State Governments. Read Thomas Jefferson's letter to William Jarvis, dated 28 Sep, 1820, where he said that a judiciary with the power to make law was "dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." He went on to say "The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal".

I'm not taking this down a "forum" path, I'm pointing out clear facts that are not widely understood (as given by the general public's perception that the Supreme Court issues orders which have the force of law). This has led to the absolutely erroneous thinking that groups like Oath Keepers are "anti-government". Rather, they are the very ones who defend the rule of law and keep our society from descending into lawless chaos where "rule of law" has flown the coop. Barwick (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Tell you what... let's examine something here. Let's look at two pages on Wikipedia, and YOU tell me that Wikipedia isn't biased against conservatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) "The antifa movement is composed of left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist groups and individuals in the United States."

What in the crap is this saying? If you keep reading you can kinda somewhat figure it out ultimately, but even then it doesn't fully expose what this group ADMITTEDLY is... a violently militant anarchist group.

Now let's look at another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers Opening sentence: "'Oath Keepers is an anti-government American far-right organization associated with the patriot and militia movements.'"

I'll let you go back, eh, a decade. How many Oath Keepers have been arrested for destroying property? For beating people they disagree with? Assault? Death threats?

Now how many antifa members have been arrested for similar in, say, the last 3 years?

Don't go telling me that Wikipedia is unbiased. This is an absolute sham, and you all know it, but are afraid to admit it. Barwick (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed sources

I have removed two sources from the lead:[22] These sources are used to support a statement of fact(that Oath Keepers is anti-governmental and far-right, respectively). The anti-government part suffers from WP:citation overkill, too(5 sources...). The ADL is a political organization that opposes movements like this and is as such definitely biased against this organization. The Salon is not a good source for "far right"; it is known for exaggerations and liberal bias and that "far right" only appears in the eye-catching headline is a good reason to exclude it there.

The ADL is probably mostly a reliable source, and could be used with direct attribution("the ADL claims that...") but that's not necessary - there are other sources that can be used in the lead to support that statement.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The citation overkill is a consequence of regular drive-by removal of all citations and the lede in favor of a recitation from the organization's website; we just had another one a couple of days ago. I agree that Salon is probably not especially helpful and could go. The ADL should probably be attributed, as you note. Given the repetitive disruption, one or two of the best cites should probably stay at the top and the rest can be used as appropriate in the body. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oath Keepers is an anti-government[1][2][3][4][6] Oath Keepers are not anti-government. They are anti-tyrannical government. Also, they aren’t far right. They claim no political associations. Starbucks Rocks (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC) They have "reliable sources" characterizing the Oath Keepers as "heavily armed extremists with a conspiratorial and anti-government mindset looking for potential showdowns with the government" and "frightening." Nope, no bias there! We also have here the New York Times, the Guardian and Politico (which includes the article "Trump's Long Dalliance With Violent Rhetoric.") which are known Left-wing organizations. Nope, no bias there, either. Then there's the source from a book co-authored by Theda Skocpal...an excerpt from an interview with her concerning President Obama and his race: "Not so much because of his own skin color or cosmopolitan background, but because of the fierce and shameful stoking of racial fears and divisions that Obama’s political opponents have pursued. Social fears about new immigrants and about African-Americans—especially those with political power or who are considered “out of place”—persist among older and less-educated whites, a significant minority of the U.S. population. Younger Americans have largely moved to a new place on race, which is why Obama could be elected in the first place. But once he was, the ultraright media-political complex decided that stoking older and conservative whites’ racial fears and anger was a good tactic to pursue as part of an all-out effort to weaken Obama and block Democratic initiatives. To their shame, quite a few Establishment. GOP politicians and elected officeholders openly catered to the racial anger and fears about brown immigrants that helped to give the tea-party upsurge much of its popular emotional force." Yes, this lady is what some Wikipedia editors consider to be a "reliable source". New York Magazine couldn't even capitalize "tea-party". No bias evident here! The article is biased from the get-go. It should have started out with why and when it was formed, what they believe, etc. then a section could have been added for criticisms and negative characterizations of this organization (by "reliable sources" of course) as this group can definitely be considered controversial by enough big shots in academia and elsewhere to warrant such a section. What this article is, is mostly a hit piece against the Oath Keepers which includes characterizations by organizations such as the ADL and the SPLC who many (Who?...LOL) would characterize as being radical political organizations. BTW, I am not a member of the Oath KeepersRRskaReb talk 06:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Which is it, are they "anti-tyrannical government", or do they "claim no political associations"? It can't be both. Regardless, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not WP:OR. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, the Oath Keepers are not a particularly reliable source for their own position. Multiple reliable, independent sources describe them as both anti-government and far-right, and that's what matters here. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC) References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2019

@Ellis ac: I removed your complete regurgitation of the article, because it's not practical to find the changes you want made. Please be specific about the changes and about what reliable sources back them up. —C.Fred (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Request from Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers, to Correct Erroneous Statement about Oath Keepers on Wikipedia Page

Conversation copied from my talkpage:

Greetings, this is Stewart Rhodes, the Founder of Oath Keepers. The opening line of the Wikipedia entry on Oath Keepers makes several erroneous statements, but the most egregious is the false assertion that Oath Keepers is "associated with the white supremacy ... movement[s]"

"Oath Keepers is an anti-government[1][2][3][4][6] American far-right[5] organization associated with the white supremacy and militia movements.[7][8]"

The article that citation 7 links to doesn't even assert that Oath Keepers is associated with the white supremacy movement.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oath-keepers-at-ferguson-protests-who-are-they-and-why-are-they-allowed-to-carry-guns-10449395.html

That article merely describes us as white (even though we have black and Hispanic members and leaders, such as Greg McWhirter, who is a current serving sheriff deputy who is on our national Board of Directors). Here is what the article says:

"Oath Keepers: Who are white militia at Ferguson protests and why are they allowed to carry guns? At least three white members of the group were seen carrying assault rifles among protesters during demonstrations overnight. A group of white men armed with assault rifles have been filmed “patrolling” the streets of Ferguson during a fourth night of protests marking the anniversary of Michael Brown’s death."

The article doesn't assert that we are a white supremacist group, or associated with the white supremacy movement. And yet it is being cited as a reference for the entry describing Oath Keepers as "associated with the white supremacy ... movements."

That needs to be corrected ASAP. This is very damaging as well as false. We are overtly, strongly anti-racist, and do not allow anyone to be a member who discriminates against anyone for their race. Can you help get that edit done? I can be reached at <redacted email for privacy>.

Thank you very much!

Stewart Rhodes Founder of Oath Keepers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:50B0:4780:2838:B365:2DFA:D5CE (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The appropriate place to present this is at the article talkpage - Talk:Oath Keepers, where it can be discussed, and where you can provide or contest sources. Please go there, rather than contacting individual editors, it will be more productive and less effort. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing that specific reference, I don't see that it supports the "white supremacist" statement either, so I think you can make a reasonable case on the talkpage concerning the use of that reference with that term. Keep in mind that self-sourced statements are not given much weight - an example would be referencing Madge the manicurist that Palmolive dish soap is a skin care product because Madge claimed that "it softens hands while you do the dishes." The best could be said of that is the Colgate-Palmolive makes that claim, rather than a flat statement without attribution. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Copied here for transparency. I think the Independent reference is misapplied. I haven't reviewed others. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the "white supermacist" statement, as I don't find support for it in either reference - the Washington Post reference actually contradicts the claim fairly explicitly. I haven't done a comprehensive review of all sources in the article. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Dispute on the tone of this article

It appears to me that the tone of this article is not neutral. Leading off by calling the group anti-government is misleading and then followed up defining the group using mostly sources that are critical of the group seems very biased. This article should describe the organization: how it became founded, who supports it, who the members are, what they believe, what the group actually has said, etc. It seems to be out of order to discuss an opposing viewpoint, without actually explaining what the viewpoint is.

I'm not sure how to do this, but I'm going to request a review of this as we clearly have a dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonepilot (talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree that a wider discussion is needed at this time. However, for reference, the most relevant venue would seem to me to be the neutral POV noticeboard. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We do open with an accurate description of the organization by reliable sources. That you don't like that description is irrelevant. Our article on the Nazi Party does not say what the Nazi Party called itself - it says what reliable sources say about the Nazi Party. I'm sorry you don't like that reliable sources say the Oath Keepers are an anti-government far-right organization, but we can't fix that, and we won't deny what reliable sources say simply because it makes you sad. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your position, and where a relevant venue would be. You keep saying "reliable sources", can you explain that further, please? The Guardian article cited offered no evidence to suggest that this group is "anti-government", nor does it define what that even means. On the contrary, if the Oath Keepers group is anti-government, why would the make upholding the US Constitution (a government document) so central to their organization? The anti-government label charge appears to be invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonepilot (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources guideline discusses what is and isn't a reliable source, and by foundational policy, all Wikipedia content must be supported by a reliable source.

The "Oath Keepers" have attempted to thwart or supported attempts to thwart lawful processes of government; notably the cited Kim Davis and Bundy affairs. Or did you think the illegal seizure and occupation of a federal wildlife refuge was "pro-government"? Reliable sources extensively discuss these and other demonstrations of the group's actual ideologies. What the "Oath Keepers" proclaim themselves to be does not necessarily have anything to do with the truth. The Confederacy called themselves "freedom fighters" when the "freedom" they were fighting for was the "freedom" to keep other human beings as chattel slaves. That's why we rely on reliable sources and not self-definitions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

POV Disinfo

I corrected biased and unsupported claims in the intro. E.g. The citation says that there is a broad spectrum of members. The org is pro US Constitution, so saying that it is "anti-government" is very POV unless it is also pointed out that this is an opinion of detractors. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that anti-government is very POV. Citations offer no evidence that they are anti- government nor do they define the term. Stonepilot (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Anti-government characterization is opinion, not fact. This sort of editorial opinion (yours or others you cite) is quite harmful to this site's reputation. I am very disappointed. 24.245.25.108 (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

This page wrongly lists Oathkeepers as anti government. And as a right wing terrorist organization. I am a Oathkeeper and a veteran as well as a certified state officer. I support the law, the government of the people by the people and for the people. I would list it as a lawfully obedient organization of men and woman who swore the oath. Nothing more. 2601:344:100:1CA0:B9CB:82CA:DDDE:921D (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The article lists numerous sources and numerous examples of times when these "Oath Keepers" supported or advocated armed resistance to government - notably Kim Davis' violations of her oath and Constitutional law, and the illegal armed seizure and occupation of a federal wildlife refuge. That you don't like these facts is irrelevant to Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

First sentence on second paragraph: "Several groups that monitor domestic terrorism and hate groups describe the Oath Keepers as extremist or radical."

Suggested change: "Several groups that monitor domestic terrorism and hate groups describe the Oath Keepers as extremist or radical." IDeagle94 (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - Two of the groups are mentioned in that very paragraph, and are further discussed in the body text. The lede is a summary of the body and does not need to contain all of the details which would be found in the body text - that would defeat the purpose of a lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is filled with ultra biased opinions not backed up by facts. OathKeepers are not anti-government they are pro constitutional government. They are not on any labeled by the government as a hate group or extremist, only by very opinionated activist groups who are tied to Antifa which is recognized by the FBI as a terrorist group. The article claims Oath Keepers is a supremacy group despite the group being multiracial and non discriminatory and with a strong anti hate policy.

Far Right is a opinion based on where you are at in the political spectrum shouldn't be labeled arbitrary. You cant prove they are far right so that should be droped as the only purpose of applying it is to demonized the Oath Keepers. This entire article is onesided slander by activist groups, SPLC doesnt back up claims and should be dismissed as any authority in any subject.

How does wikipedia find it acceptable to lock articles to protect slander? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0tl0c (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There are numerous examples now of parts of the article written in the point of view of the Oathbreakers themselves. For instance in the paragraph regarding associate members it uses “our” to describe the POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B12B:5EED:BDDB:EF35:4FE8:A6C (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

just a little correction, NotLoc, "Antifa which is recognized by the FBI as a terrorist group" - no, they are not. Disinformation like this, stemming from wishful thinking, should not stand. 89.8.99.234 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

style in the lede

... association of current and former military, police, and first responders,... ... members – some of whom are current and former U.S. military and law enforcement officers –... just my 2 cents but is it really necessary to state two times in a row that law enforcement and military is among the members? I'd edit the second one out just for style. 89.8.161.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done - seems uncontroversial enough. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:

Gostaria de traduzir esse artigo de terror ancap? att 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:D539:5416:C1D:5618 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

Change the claim that the group is "far-right" to "right-wing". The term far-right is defined as white supremacism by Wiki. The citation does not prove this, but is rather just another writer using the term. This term is intentionally used to discredit organisations. Fixing weird bias (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now. It's an umbrella term that includes a number of related ideologies. Ideally, labels like this should be more robustly sourced when given in Wikipedia's voice, but as is, this has a reasonable source, and there are a couple more already in use in the article that could bolster this. Do you have a source that specifically refutes this characterization or that characterizes them differently? In any case, a change like this is likely going to need consensus to be implemented. Please discuss this first to see if it exists before making an edit request like this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"far right" and Oathkeepers

You need to review your definition of "far right", or change your categorization for these guys. They are definitely "out there" and controversial, but they are absolutely anti-authoritarian and their foundation story discusses how they would have liked to prevent the rise of Adolph Hitler. This does not gibe with your use of the term "far right." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8740:14F0:7DA1:3BC9:C01A:BDA1 (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Lol sure bro, whatever you say. Spymaster Cosades (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Still no mention of their involvement in the storming of the Capitol?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-right-oath-keepers-militia-went-all-in-before-the-capitol-riot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.220.12 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

Request change to the main paragraph of this listing. This is what it should read, maintaining context without using loaded words to misinform your readers: "Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial." 24.214.198.66 (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Seagull123 Φ 16:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

We would also need some good sources to support those claim before we can even discuss whether there is consensus. Also, it is not clearly indicated which section is to be replaced. If it's the lead, that can't be done because the lead summarizes the body of the article. The request should be specific. See WP:EDITXY Vexations (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Another reason not to include it as proposed is that is a a verbatim copy of the first paragraph of https://oathkeepers.org/about/ and using it would be a copyright violation. There is copyright notice on that page: All Rights Reserved. We'd be breaking the law. Vexations (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Several Thousand

The first paragraph of the article has this sentence, "The organization claims a membership of 35,000 as of 2016, though the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has estimated its membership at several thousand." The "though" in the sentence should pribably be an "and" because 35,000 is "several thousand". 2604:CB00:28E:4900:95E9:F414:957E:9E89 (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Several is "consisting of a number more than two but not very many". 35 is considerably more than two. Most people would read "several thousand" as about an order of magnitude smaller than 35,000. Vexations (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The word 'several' is ambiguous. Depending on the use, 35 can be thought as not very many, as well. It basically means "I don't know how many." I think the sentence is worded poorly and confusing. Changing one word would fix that. However, if the sentence is a direct quote from the source, I withdraw my complaint. 2604:CB00:28E:4900:7D79:405:A1BF:83A5 (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. This is from the original source.

The Oath Keepers have a more formal structure, including bylaws and dues. Although the organization has claimed to have around 35,000 members, the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks extremist groups, estimated several years ago that its membership is more like several thousand.

It's close enough, I guess. The original source certainly overuses the word 'several' (5 times in the original article). Wikipedia is not responsible when professional journalists are lazy writers. I suggest replacing that sentence with a direct quote. I withdraw my complaint. 2604:CB00:28E:4900:7D79:405:A1BF:83A5 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

I would remove Website oathkeepers.org as it is a promotional link and would be terrible for Wikipedia to promote the Oath Keepers who are some of the most ugly people in the world along with the terrible proud boys who are also ugly 71.254.12.170 (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I disagree that's it's "promotional", linking to the website of an organization is a common thing throughout Wikipedia, it wouldn't exactly conform to a neutral point of view to not link to the websites of organizations editors don't like. Regardless, this is something that would probably require discussion and consensus to change, rather than something that can be done through a simple edit request. As a side note, you might also find this RfC to be informative. Volteer1 (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

Opening text is brazenly partisan and completely subjective. Larry Elliott 47.187.106.99 (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead is sourced. If you'd like something changed please provide the exact text you'd like with reliably secondary sources supporting the text. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

ADL section

I Re-added sourced material sourced to the ADL, which is considered reliable. no spamming has happened at this article, and I don’t see a reason to remove properly sourced material. Mvbaron (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed diff: I don't see how it's relevant enough to the org's membership to be the introductory paragraph to the section. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you revert with a different rationale than you’re discussing here (off-topic vs misplaced?) If it is misplaced then you could’ve moved it further back in the text, but then again this is sourced content so deleting it with contradicting reasons is not convincing imo. Re “contested” - I exactly contested the deletion, because already that reason was unconvincing. Can we not edit-war please: There was a BOLD removal, it was REVERTED, but instead of DISCUSSING it, people keep edit warring the bold removal in... so, no, “contested” is not a valid reason to revert. I suggest you self-revert. Mvbaron (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Off topic and misplaced are synonyms to me. Where are you proposing it be added instead? I don't think it is relevant to the membership section at all. VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not? It directly contributes to the next paragraph, where the article talks about first responders and it is also properly sourced. Imo, it’s exactly not off-topic. I’m not proposing anything, I contest the deletion of good, sourced material. Mvbaron (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing isn't contested; that doesn't guarantee inclusion per WP:VNOT. How about moving the sentence to the "reception" section? It seems more relevant there. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

well yes, I know that we can't include ALL sourced content (while theoretically admirable, this is practically infeasible) :) Anyways, I disagree about moving it to reception, it is information relevant to the members of the OK. Mvbaron (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It, uh, isn't relevant to the members though. It is a third party assessment of whom the OK leadership targets with propaganda. It doesn't say that everyone it targets is there members, nor does it have anything to say specifically about the org's membership. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs between members and membership. In my opinion, what kind of members the OK target is relevant to a section called “membership”, if it’s such a problem though, then I propose moving it behind the paragraph that is left. (So that the article talks about what the OK at about membership and then there’s an assessment by the ADL). I won’t edit war about this, but I am still annoyed that BRD has been broken twice now - but in any case, I’ll not push this further (i have stated my reasons now enough times) and wait for other editor input. Mvbaron (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It might be possible to rephrase using this source to be relevant to members/membership, but as proposed the text just isn't relevant since it is about who the OK targets, not about who their members are. BRD is one optional approach to editing and not a great one for a binary include/exclude discussion like this. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How about [23]? VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this, I think this is a good start, and I apologize that I didn't do it myself earlier. I think the rest of the quote is also noteworthy though, but it might be expanded later. --Mvbaron (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! I still think that quote is more relevant to the reception section. I have no objection to using the ADL source more once place in the article. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

spamming

I can certainly see why it's not obvious at first sight, because the way in which their strategic corporate advocacy effort inserted their contents is that eight different accounts were used by employees of organization to promote their stuff. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy for further details. Graywalls (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mvbaron:, What I originally removed was a part of broader WP:CITESPAM corporate advocacy efforts by the ADL itself. It took me a while to realize they were multiple accounts being used, and it only became apparent to me they were using eight accounts. It's very likely a lot of watchers did not realize this. WP:RSP doesn't mean that representatives of publishers listed there are free to go into any articles they wish and insert "according to our publication ...". The burden for re-insertion for contents removed for a reason is always heavier than removal, per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD doesn't automatically override it. Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh my, what a mess! I see... So the content insterted was routinely removed, and my revert is seen as the BOLD edit, for which I then would need consensus. That's fair; I apologize for my grumpiness above, I have misjudged the situation. I still think the content was useful for the article, I'm glad VQuakr handled it gracefully, and it seems I need to learn much about all these guidelines. Mvbaron (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

2600:100E:B03C:8D9C:C155:750B:F255:A065 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

ALT RIGHT should be taken out. One of there commanders are a Democrat. So how is that alt right?

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

Remove the lies. 2600:1700:E420:2740:FC86:E7BD:4320:F596 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TGHL ↗ 🍁 23:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

For the sentence "Multiple members of the group participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, with three members pleading guilty to federal criminal offenses", it should be changed to "Multiple members of the group participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, with four members pleading guilty to federal criminal offenses" because a fourth Oath Keeper has pleaded guilty ([24]. 2603:6010:D307:98CA:F976:1365:1D8F:9CC6 (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done soibangla (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Police interest in joining Oath Keepers increased after Jan 6th

[25]. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Oath Keeper efforts to shape this entry

According to leaked data described in an October 8, 2021 article in Buzzfeed News, a New York City Oathkeeper wrote in March, "I am mustering a small army to work on the wikipedia article about Oath Keepers. There is an army of leftists and propaganda folk that put disinformation on wikipedia. We need to combat that." [26]

Current efforts to maintain NPOV should take this into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.124.33.97 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Oath Keepers membership hack

A Sept 13 2021 hack by Anonymous revealed at list of 38,000 email addresses for oath keepers members. Therefore the line that says " researchers estimate its actual membership as probably no higher than 5,000" is no longer in line with evidence and should be removed. A reference to the hack should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackGunn (talk • contribs) 23:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, I'll work on that. soibangla (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Just make sure you find good sourcing. A list of 38,000 emails doesn't necessarily mean 38,000 active members. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my two edits used "suggested" and "apparent." It could be their mailing list that includes prospective recruits. soibangla (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Reference Requested

Several organizations that monitor U.S. domestic terrorism and hate groups describe the group as extremist or radical. Which ones? Are Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center the only ones? Jokem (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Both of those are mentioned in the article cited. I believe that is enough. How many do you need? Myotus (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

subpoena

VQuakr, you don't think The organization was subpoenaed by the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack in November 2021 is leadworthy, especially in the context of the paragraph that precedes it? Really? soibangla (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, the lead summarizes the body. So it definitely doesn't get in the lead if it isn't mentioned in the body. I've no objection to a brief mention in the lead summarizing the body. Cites should go in the body not the lead. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Why didn't you simply include in the body and then also in the lead? If you're in a rush, include such updates in the body, ping me in summary and I'll propagate it to lead. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

VQuakr Rather than unnecessarily creating drama by falsely accusing me of edit warring, perhaps the better solution is WP:SOFIXIT. Easy! soibangla (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure is, and I'm talking about what you did on the article page and my Talk page. soibangla (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done and Done. (diff) Collaborative power in action! — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Modifications challenged on intro section

Bill Williams Do not continue to revert edits, instead please make your case for for your edits on this talk page on a case to case basis for each edit. The content you are modifying/deleting has been on the page with no issues. While you are taking issue with the content you are trying to change/delete you are being challenged on that. Any further reverts will be looked at as disruptive.Myotus (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead currently quotes various individuals instead of the organizations they represent. I was about to add that the ADL describes the Oath Keepers as "a large but loosely organized collection of anti-government extremists who are part of the broader anti-government Patriot movement" according to the SPLC, since currently the article quotes an individual and not the actual organization. The same goes for the SPLC, which I was going to add as stating the Oath Keepers are ""one of the largest far-right antigovernment groups in the U.S. today". The current text quotes an individual using vaguer wording than the organizations, as he said "really just... wild" while the organization actually used direct wording. Another description of the organization's founder as "frightening" is again just vague and unnecessary when the organization itself gave a specific description of the Oath Keepers. Lastly, "paramilitary" is unnecessary when the article describes specifically what kind of militia the Oath Keepers are, since paramilitary is misleading as it usually refers to government sponsored or affiliated organizations, which the Oath Keepers is obviously not. Bill Williams 05:28, 27 December 2021

Also, you reverted my edit[27] even though I was completely correct. The sources never state that the Oath Keepers are white supremacist/posse comitatus, only stating that certain recent murders were based on those beliefs. No where in the article does it call the Oath Keepers white supremacist, so doing so with sources cited that do not even refer to the Oath Keepers is false. Bill Williams 05:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The term "paramilitary" is used quite broadly. Many paramilitary groups are not "government sponsored or affiliated organizations" although such groups often try to imply or simulate governmental connections. More precision is called for. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I know it can be used more broadly, but it adds unnecessary vagueness to the article. The organization is already described as an armed, far-right militia with various beliefs, which is much more specific than a "paramilitary organization". Bill Williams 05:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The quote from Mark Pitcavage is from a ADL press release, written by the organization, not a comment on radio or an interview. It is in a sence a quote from the organization personified by Pitcavage, but more importantly by using Pitcavage's name it ties into his reputation as a historian and analyst of far-right wing groups.

SPLC has a lot more to say about the organization than it is just stats on its size. Why are do you want to add that and delete other statments?

As far as SPLC senior fellow Mark Potok's quote which was to a reporter and not a press release, however, it appears he was quoting from the organization's own literature.

If you disagreed with the quote it would have been better to replace his quote "really just an anti-government group who believe in a wild set of conspiracy theories" with a quote from SPLC such as "Oath Keepers organization is based on a set of baseless conspiracy theories about the federal government working to destroy Americans’ liberties."

You do not justify your deletion of the following which is made by the organization itself:

'The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists the group's founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes as a known extremist and describes his announced plans to create localized militia units as "frightening".' Myotus (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as your statement for the reason for deleting the portion on posse comitatus...

I think the statement Wikipedia article is accurate in what is conveyed in the SPLC article.

"According to the SPLC, the group espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen movement and the white supremacist posse comitatus movement"

However, reading over articles on the Oath Keepers it they appear to be to make statements they are not white nationalists but then their members adopt/make racist and xenophobic stances.

'"We’re not fucking white nationalists,” Rhodes said, pointing out that the Oath Keepers have disavowed the Proud Boys and that their vice president is Black. “That’s the new smear. Everybody on the right is a white nationalist. And when you have that drumbeat of demonization, then what are we supposed to think?”

Like Trump, Rhodes relentlessly demonizes Black Lives Matter activists as “Marxists”—a foreign enemy. And he dwells on imagined threats from undocumented immigrants and Muslims that fit his ideas about a globalist push to undermine Western values. His mother is from a family of Mexican migrant laborers; as a child, he spent summers picking fruit and vegetables alongside them. But he told me that his relatives were conservative Christians and that they—the key word—“assimilated.”'

I would say the article would benefit on a section on their views on race, immigration and religon. Both on what they say, what their leaders say, and what their actions are. Myotus (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

No where in the SPLC articles does it say it supports "the white supremacist posse comitatus movement". That is false information that I will once again remove from the article. As for the other parts, while they are direct quotes, they add absolutely nothing to a massive paragraph that is already too long. Calling an organization "frightening" and "wild" is not encyclopedic, just vague and unnecessary, and actual descriptions using technical terms are what I was trying to add to the article before you reverted me. Bill Williams 19:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This is about coming to a consensus not brut forcing your opinions by repeatedly re-adding your changes. I do have more to say about what you say but I cannot respond at this time. Please refrain from getting into a revert war.Myotus (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading readers into thinking the organization is white supremacist is your opinion, considering reliable sources do not state so, and it is no where in this article besides the one sentence in the lead. Stop misrepresenting what sources state to push your own POV. Lying about what a dangerous organization believes in only helps anger people even more. Bill Williams 05:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.

Please practice it and do not try to bully others into doing what you want. In the future please be more professional with your dealings.

I looked more into the sentence in question. It relates to both longtime board member Richard Mack support of Constitutional sheriff movement which is tied to the aims of white supremacists (See Nullification crisis and Brown v. Board of Education as a primer). In addition to the three article cites there are other articles on the internet that support the statement. Mack's views echo those of the Posse Comitatus, which believed that sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities in America.

However, a couple of things. The statement nowhere says the Oath Keepers are a white supremacist organization, only that posse comitatus is white supremacist. The term white supremacist is a qualifier for posse comitatus not for the Oath Keepers so the sentence is itself accurate. However, posse comitatus is also anti-Semitic and that qualifer is not used.

The discussions around the sentence does raise an issue with article - that it needs a section on the Oath Keepers attempts to appear and appeal to the mainstream while its leadership espouses radical ideologies and are connected or courting other extremist organizations. This should be a section in itself.

For the time being I propose changing the following sentence:

According to the SPLC, the group espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen movement and the white supremacist posse comitatus movement.

To this:

According to the SPLC, the group's leadership has ties to antigovernment, extremist groups and espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen movement and posse comitatus movement such as there is no legitimate form of government above that of the county level and no higher law authority than the county sheriff.

If you are agreeable to this I will make the change. Myotus (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention of "bullying" you or being "unprofessional", so I apologize if you believed me to be. I have simply stated that you are not following Wikipedia's guidelines. Your proposed addition is still undue, original research that should not be in the article. It should only state "According to the SPLC, the group's leadership has ties to antigovernment, extremist groups and espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen movement" with no mention of posse comitatus or sheriffs, as those are minor aspects of those sources and the sources never directly tie them to those claims. The article already specifically describes what their beliefs are, so linking them without sources to a vague, far-right movement that existed decades ago is unnecessary. Bill Williams 22:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

My addition is not original research. Here is a quote from the cited article.

"Mack's views echo those of the Posse Comitatus, which believed that sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities in America. "I pray for the day that a sheriff in this country will arrest an IRS agent for trespassing or attempting to victimize citizens in that particular sheriff's county," Mack said in a video he made for Oath Keepers."

Please point out what you believe to be original research?

I have rewritten it to include a direct quote from the article so there cannot be any accusation of creative interpretation.

"According to the SPLC, the group's leadership has ties to antigovernment, extremist groups and espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen movement and posse comitatus movement, chiefly, "that sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities in America."

Myotus (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It is also important to remember the sentence we are debating is about what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about the Oath Keepers not about what they say they are. Wikipedia is not a PR sheet. Because of that I believe this article also should be added to the citations as it reinforces what they say about the OathKeepers and how "taking the law into their own hands" has its roots with the Posse Comitatus organization. Myotus (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are all extremely minor babble about things that aren't even referencing the Oath Keepers. You are vaguely connecting the dots between the beliefs of one individual Oath Keeper and the organization as a whole. That is not sourced, but instead original research, and it must be removed from the article. Bill Williams 22:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to have three sentences from the SPLC describing the group, two of which are just vague babble about "frightening" and "wild" things that are already describes in other sentence by the SPLC, the FBI, and the ADL. Having two fluff sentences does not benefit the lead. Bill Williams 23:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof thank you for removing some fluff from the lead, but I still think "SPLC senior fellow Mark Potok describes the group as a whole as 'really just an anti-government group who believe in a wild set of conspiracy theories'" is just unnecessary fluff. The previous sentence mentions how the Oath Keepers support certain conspiracy theories, and the following sentence mentions how they are anti-government, so quoting the SPLC for the third sentence in a row with unprofessional language like "really just... a wild set" does not benefit the lead. Bill Williams 23:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

Information in this online enclopedia is wrong and not accurate. It shouldn't be protected unless they show proof which they do not. The oath keepers had nothing to with Jan 6th and they know it. They were not even there at the capital. We heard Trump speak and left. So whomever wrote this has no clue as to what they're talking about. If they would like the real truth we'd be glad to share it. Its documented by the airforce. Thank toy ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. -m guy

•  Not done Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If those sources are not being summarized accurately, please describe the specific passages and how they are in error. If the sources are being summarized accurately, but you disagree with what they say, you will need to take that up with the sources. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not claim that anything written here is the truth, see WP:TRUTH. Only you can decide what is true for you. Wikipedia only claims that it is possible to verify the information presented here. If you choose to disbelieve the video of thousands of people storming the US capitol, killing a police officer, and damaging property, that is up to you and nothing that is said here will change that. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Bill Williams Again another warning to stop bullying and using brute force with your opinions and changes to the page. Your changes and arguments increasingly appear to be less trying to reducing 'fluff' and more about a bias to keep the difficult history off the Oath Keeper page. While there is agreement the sentence in question needs improvement, your no consensus, lack of clear rational for your content decisions is increasingly troublesome. I will be putting in request for Third opinion to have others help come to a decision. Any further edits to the page may result in your being blocked from editing the page. Myotus (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources provided say absolutely nothing about the Oath Keepers supporting Posse Comitatus or Sheriffs supposedly being the highest authority in the land. That is just unsourced and undue information that you are shoving in the lead for no valid reason. Bill Williams 02:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Prominent members section cleanup

This is functionally an embedded list. I think we should make the inclusion criteria for that section be that the entry needs to have an article (either biographical or about an event that clearly focuses on the individual). Merely having a verifiable fact about an individual shouldn't warrant a subheading or make them "prominent". Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Logo should have web address removed

Organisation has been deemed a domestic terrorism organisation by US Department of Justice. Logo image should edit out website address to ensure article is factual and impartial while also not exposing users to radicalised content which is uncontrolled via their website. 94.0.237.211 (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. If they put their web address in their logo, there's not much we can do. Please link to where this organization was determined to be a terrorist organization by the Department of Justice. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

They are not listed as a terrorist organization by the DOJ. Silly to block the image of the website when we directly link the website in the infobox, anyways. WP:ELNEVER is intentionally very narrow. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

I request that the narrative of the Oath Keepers being an anti-government group be removed. Their stance is “as former military and law enforcement who swore an oath to protect the constitution, their duties don’t stop after they are no longer in service.”

Hence the Constitution is the basis of our government, that would lead they are trying to protect it and are not anti-government. 174.126.51.233 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. Please offer such sources that describe the group in this manner. The group and its supporters are free to describe it as they wish on their own website and social media. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I second the request that the narrative of the Oath Keepers being an anti-government group be removed. There is no evidence that they have engaged in any activity or distributed any material, nor made any statements that were expressly against the institution of the US government. Their mission statement for being pro-constitution is consistent with their actions thus far, pending the trial that some of the organization's leaders are facing. Until that particular trial concludes, it is erroneous to label them as anti-government extremists. The sources cited calling them anti-government have only ever been partisan interests lambasting them for not being of their particular party. The organization has also not offered any evidence that they have reinterpreted the constitution in any way, shape, or form. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is the US government, and there is a difference between the person and the position the person holds, and it's the responsibility of Wikipedia to be conscious of this difference. Predak45 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. Please offer such sources that describe the group in this manner. The group and its supporters are free to describe it as they wish on their own website and social media. VQuakr (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The CTC article in question erroneously claims that the January 6 protest was an insurrection when not a single individual has been convicted of such in the ongoing trials related to the incident. Insurrections are a very specific action, and the word has been carelessly thrown about in recent months. Until individuals from the group have been convicted of inciting or executing an insurrection no news agency or organization can correctly call it that. The Washington Post and the New York Times are also not reliable non-partisan sources by any stretch of the imagination. WaPo just recently had to settle for defamation of Nick Sandmann. The claim that this wiki page is using reliable sources to pull that the organization is anti-government is highly dubious. Predak45 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You can consult WP:RSP for the current consensus on the reliability of the New York Times and Washington Post. I believe they are widely considered to be reliable sources for content of this nature. You are welcome to provide alternative descriptions, if they are based on what other reliable sources report; your own arguments about what can and cannot be described as an insurrection are not relevant: as an encyclopedia, we aim to replicate what the best sources report, rather than trying to figure out what to call things for ourselves. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It was clearly demonstrated on January 6 that OK's ideology is not "anti-government" in any absolute sense. It and other "patriot movement" groups like the Constitutional Sheriffs and the Bundy bunch will turn out in support of a government or candidate that offers to advance their vision of the sort of government that should exist. Whether you consider the SPLC reliable or not, it is an organization with a political agenda, and there is a distinction between using it as a source and adopting its spin. "Militia" is sufficient. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to use force and mob rule to overturn the legitimate Constitutional process of certifying an election because you're devoted to a personality cult is literally the definition of "anti-government." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Whose definition? The patriot movement is based on a concept of government other than the one that exists. I wouldn't like it. You clearly don't like it, but it's presumptuous to deny that that they have one and then label them on that basis. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The definition used by mainstream reliable sources, which, by foundational policy, Wikipedia content is based upon. If you don't like that policy, you have two options: attempt to change the policy, or stop contributing to the project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"Anti-government" is judgmental (and as I've explained, inaccurate) language that the groups do not use themselves and is applied to them by detractors. It need not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. If I have made you so angry with only two comments that you demand that I stop contributing, then surely you will have no trouble getting an administrator to do something about it. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I added some references.[28] Hope that helps. soibangla (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No kill like overkill, huh? I reverted; it's cited already. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

VQuakr, I'd prefer you'd be more surgical rather than use a hatchet. soibangla (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I only removed the unnecessary cite adds. It's the lead; we normally need zero. Maybe one or two of these is suitable for the body, which the lead summarizes? VQuakr (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

VQuakr: Despite arguing MOS:LEADCITE, which says information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads, but this is controversial and you leave three lead cites anyway, contradicting your own reasoning for having zero cites. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, the status quo. Why do you think we need 10 sources? Why would they need to be added to the lead and not the body that the lead summarizes? VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I scaled it back to five sources which in my view provide more comprehensive sourcing for a contentious issue than do the three you kept (which weren't neatly bundled into one ref, I'd add.) soibangla (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sort of a catch-22 there. If you've got enough refs in the lead to bundle, you've got too many refs. VQuakr (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, especially regarding a contentious term that will lure IP editors to this page to complain until the end of time. Let's just get in front of it. soibangla (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

IP editors who disagree with our neutrality policy will always come here to complain. This isn't caused by (and won't be solved by) sourcing. Feel free to start a section and try to get consensus for your proposed change, though. VQuakr (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

One might be at least somewhat discouraged from challenging the term upon hovering over the bundle to see a wall o'sources in their face. soibangla (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not what sources are for, and we're (obviously) not putting a wall o' anything in the article. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a contentious matter. I would not have seriously challenged your first reversion, but your second reversion seems just plain unreasonable. Noted. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe more citations help. Other sources use the term "anti-government" because the SPLC has used it and promoted its use for decades. That term adopts a false narrative that "patriot" groups' politics are merely oppositional. Contrary to what NorthBySouthBaranof suggests, the OK were called "anti-government" long before they attempted to install a government over the results of an election. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Then you need to speak to the sources that use this terminology, not us. We just summarize. If you can get them to change or retract their claims, then we will. As Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, only that the information here can be verified, you are free to disagree with or outright reject what is said here. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a persistent belief that if sources exist that describe a subject in particular language, then Wikipedia is obligated to repeat that language even when it reflects a particular POV and other information places it in doubt. I don't believe there is such a policy. Wikipedia can attribute, or omit, language that is inconsistent with NPOV. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not a NPOV issue to report how sources describe this group, as long as that is done in the voice of the source, not Wikipedia's voice. Again, if you disagree with that reporting, tell them, not us. If you wish to challenge that a particular source is not a reliable source due to its point of view, the proper forum to do that is the reliable sources noticeboard. I also suggest that you review WP:NPOV. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"as long as that is done in the voice of the source, not Wikipedia's voice." It's done in Wikipedia's voice here. That's my point. That's what I've said. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It's also not an NPOV issue to use Wikipedia's voice when reliable sources are virtually unanimous. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. It is uncontested and uncontroversial among reliable sources that the Oath Keepers are an anti-government group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

67.180, it only seems like that because- as NorthBySouthBaranof said quite ably- no sources in the article say differently. If you have independent reliable sources that use different terminology to describe this group(not your own opinion based on original research) please offer them. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation warring

I cannot help but notice the edit warring going on. I do feel that Soibangla is correct in the need for the additional citations. While it is quality rather than quantity of citations that is important, my own experience of even solid citations being disputed lead me to believe at least on this article it is better to have several citations to challenge the naysayers. However, I do believe VQuakr is correct in their observation that citations are not used in the lead. The problem here is not the citation but rather the need to move much of the lead content into the article itself and summarize it in the lead. Much of what is in the lead is commentary on government and nongovernment organizations take on them being an far-right extremist anti-government militia. Can this be put in its own section and summarized in the lead? Myotus (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call two different contested bold edits warring and it doesn't seem to be ongoing. Rather than a new section, prose could be added to the start of the existing section "Antigovernment activities", which currently only contains subsections. VQuakr (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Source says precisely what it says

Contrary to Bill Williams' claim, the cited SPLC source explicitly supports the statement about sheriffs being "the highest law enforcement authority in the land." While it is not clear what will become of the movement in the aftermath of Congress’ failure to pass gun control legislation in April, the sheriffs’ uprising does represent the notable return of an ideology popularized by the racist, anti-Semitic movement known as the Posse Comitatus — that the county sheriff is the pinnacle of legal authority, charged with protecting American citizens from their own federal government. I have thus restored the statement and the quote. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The source never connects that to the Oath Keepers, so it is completely false to put it in the lead of this article. It doesn't say they "chiefly" believe that, not that they believe that at all. Please provide an SPLC article stating that the Oath Keepers support the movement. Bill Williams 23:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the language in question (or at least the salient portion): According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the group's leadership has ties to antigovernment, extremist groups and espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen movement and posse comitatus movement, chiefly, that sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities in the United States. It's important to note that it says the group's leadership, not the group. And given how many of the leaders have their own subsections here, the fact that any of the leaders has the ties referenced here makes the entire statement true. I support @NorthBySouthBaranof:'s restoration of the edit. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see below. We know what the WP article text says. That the leaders supported it is actually not directly supported by the SPLC article, which states that the 2A pledge was supported by a "Liberty Coalition" that included groups like OK. (That would contradict the WP article if, for example, Rhodes didn't support it but the board of directors (if it exists) did). I don't follow the logic of your statement regarding leaders having articles. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I must be reading a different article than you, because the sources listed support the statements made in the article IMO. ...your statement regarding leaders having articles. I never said anything like that. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation synth and news dumping

An edit war is starting over whether SPLC sources affirm that "the group's leadership has ties to antigovernment, extremist groups and espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen movement and posse comitatus movement." For specifically the latter two movements, there is only one source of the four cited that even mentions them. The article says the OK among others (including sheriffs) endorsed the pro-2A pledge. As far as I can tell this is the only association that is made – that OK signed Richard Mack's (posse comitatus guy) pro-gun pledge. We don't know if the pledge even uses the words "sovereign citizen" or "posse comitatus", but the two aren't synonymous with "come and take them" gun activists. The deletion of this WP:SYNTH content is appropriate.

I am also unsure about the rather low standards of recent addition of news regarding January 6. There are pending legal cases and the House committee is only now revealing its findings, which means news will be constantly changing, and so will the narrative. An article about what is currently happening in an ongoing investigation, such as "person gives evidence to FBI" is something that easily becomes nothing when it comes to prosecution. Also worth asking is does this particular news article (e.g. talking to the FBI) become worth mentioning relative to what will be in the article in, say, a year, or even a few months? This is why WP:NOTNEWS is a thing. Also, the connection with some of these articles to OK as an organization is also often rather tenuous, and perhaps would fit better in the 2021 United States Capitol attack article. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

An edit war is starting over ... No, an edit war was not starting. You linked to an edit from over a month ago. Long term revert warring is not the same as an "edit war". There is discussion about this in the section directly above. If you'd like to say something new, I suggest you say it there. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Will someone, anyone, please make a comment on the substance of the edits in question? SamuelRiv (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, so it is going to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with you. Have fun talking to yourself, you can't say I didn't try. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I can understand the concern. But the one source does include them, Richard Mack is mentioned in all four and he is a strong supporter of the posse comitatus movement. If the direct statement really is synth we just adjust it mentioning Mack in relationship to the group and his support. As for sovereign citizens, see this.

As an aside, interesting statement here about Oath Keepers having "effectively infiltrated police forces and the Republican Party." Doug Weller talk 11:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Your Guardian article refers only to the "Oath Enforcers", a completely different internet "group". It never looks good to sign a crazy pledge/petition or sign one written by some nut or prankster (or to do both), but that definitely doesn't associate one with the ideology of the creator of the pledge. Political activists are usually served with at least a side of crazy, so agreeing with one on one issue shouldn't be an endorsement of the whole baggage train. Otherwise congressmen would be even more scared of being seen talking to constituents than they are now.

And in general, what's the point in the article reaching for these associations? Why risk accusation of this just being another hit piece? Just let the explicit facts speak for themselves. Does the article on Jeffrey Dahmer list every case of suspected jaywalking? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv Where in the world did you get “Oath Enforcers”? It says “ The Oath Keepers, one of the largest anti-government militias, have effectively infiltrated police forces and the Republican Party.” And we don’t restrict our articles to “explicit facts” let alone the problem of determining what is a fact. I’m sure you’ve heard of fake news. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article is about Enforcers and sovereign citizens. The FP article mentions OK infiltrating the GOP and police (which incidentally is about as antithetical to the sovereign citizen movement as it gets). As an aside to future editors: that FP article can't be used to source that claim because an extreme claim like infiltration needs a source explicitly addressing that subject, not just making a passing mention. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Still like to know why you said “oath enforcers”. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A single member of the Oath Keepers supporting the things mentioned in the disputed sentence cannot be used to state that the Oath Keepers support it, it's a misleading sentence and should be removed. Bill Williams 05:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)