| Revision as of 12:54, 4 June 2023 edit93.45.229.98 (talk) →Include sources in the template: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:17, 16 September 2024 edit undo24.113.220.5 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
| (42 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Nevada|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Organizations |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi | date = 11 August 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Oath Keepers}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi | date = 11 August 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Oath Keepers}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
| ⚫ |
{{Ds/talk notice|ap|long}} |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Nevada|importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|long}} |
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Declutter the lead == |
|
== Allegiance to Trump? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the basis on their allegiance to Trump? ] (]) 18:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|Oath Keepers|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Are you referring to the info-box? There isn't one, so I shall remove it. ] (]) 01:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
The first paragraph could probably be better at summarizing. I propose: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 == |
|
In November 2022, Rhodes and another leader of the organization were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their actions around the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Along with three other leaders, they were also convicted of obstruction and other felonies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|Oath Keepers|answered=yes}} |
|
Is changed to: |
|
|
|
The Oath Keepers definition is wrong.the following definition is correct. |
|
In November 2022, Rhodes and other leaders of the organization were convicted of various crimes, including seditious conspiracy, for their actions around the January 6 United States Capitol attack. |
|
|
|
-Oath Keepers |
|
|
|
|
] (]) 21:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
Pro government. Constitutional service organization. ] (]) 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is incoherent. ]] 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Disagree. Because seditious conspiracy is an extremely serious offense and the text should be clear on which persons were convicted. Right-wing extremists get convicted of violent crimes is a bit like dog bites man. It happens every day. ] (]) 12:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Claim that Oath Keepers support "Sovereign Citizens" and "Posse Comitatus" == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Acroterion}} Instead of just reverting without justification, please provide a single quote from the sources that actually states this, or the notion that they think sheriffs are the highest authorities of the land. I read through the entirety of the sources and never do they specifically state that the Oath Keepers' leadership or most of their members support these views. Do they not obsess over Donald Trump, someone who certainly isn't a sheriff, and attacked the capital in support of him? I'm confused where that even comes from the sources. ] 15:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Prior discussion at ]. I'm also not sure where you're getting anything about "most of their members". ] (] / ]) 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's an article about the Oath Keepers, this claim is relating to the Oath Keeper leadership, and there is nothing in the sources that ever claims the Oath Keeper leadership supports any of this. My point is that there is no source stating that the majority of Oath Keepers support this either, so if neither the leadership nor a majority of Oath Keepers believes this then why is it in the lead? ] 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Additionally if you look through the past discussion, as I have repeatedly stated none of the sources ever specifically connect the Oath Keepers to the claims that are in the lead of this article, the sources just mention the Oath Keepers in one part of their article and then mention some other people who support Sovereign Citizens/Posse Comitatus in a different part of the article, never claiming they are Oath keepers. ] 16:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you read through the sources, the most any of them say relating to this claim is that "one Oath Keeper" has views that "echo those of the Posse Comitatus," never claiming he is leadership or that even a substantial portion of the group agrees with this, while another source states that again "one member" of a different group that is "sovereign citizens" went to a speech given by an Oath Keeper. This does not support the claim expressed in the lead of this Misplaced Pages article, and it completely violates WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE because "sovereign citizen" and "posse comitatus" isn't even mentioned anywhere in the entire body of this article, just the one sentence in the lead. ] 16:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The first and third references specifically state what you say they don't, that OK are part of the PC and sovcit extremistspectrum and share some of their beliefs. We don't accept self-referencing from within an organization's ranks, and in fact we discourage it. The other two sources are in my view over-citing, but they generally support the "constitutional sheriff" ideology, which is a core belief of the organization. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Instead of claiming the sources "specifically state" what I am contesting, can you please quote the part where they actually state this? I specifically quoted the only portions of the sources that ever relates to the claim, and it never proves the claim at all. This has nothing to do with "self-referencing," the sources literally do not claim that the leadership of the Oath Keepers supports sovereign citizens, Posse Comitatus, or the random nonsense about sheriffs. ] 17:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I've removed the word "leadershp." I believe that addresses your concern. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:<outdent>As for the referencing, the whole lede is overcited, which is commonplace in articles about extremist groups, where there are many attempts to water down content to something anodyne. Please remember that the lede is a summary of the sourced body of the article, and doesn't stand on its won. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::You still have yet to do the one thing that I have asked, which is to provide a single quote that connects the Oath Keepers to anything in the lead. "The group has ties" is not an actual claim by the SPLC and it is false to place this in the lead, all the SPLC did is state that a single person out of an estimated 5,000 members supported something, while a different article states that a single person from a different group went to a single speech and tried to recruit some Oath Keepers to support something. Pretending like that is notable for a substantial portion of the lead, when once again '''it is not even in the body of this article''' because you cannot provide a single quote that actually claims the group has any significant ties to any of this. It is WP:OR to paint one person in the Oath Keepers or one person outside of the Oath Keepers as showing the movement has "ties" to anything. The second source doesn't even mention the term "posse comitatus" or "sovereign citizen" a single time in the entire source, so that shouldn't be included as a source in the lead. ] 17:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And I'm not going to, because I'm not keen on editors who make such demands when they can read the references themselves, and who jump into contentious articles to demand that other editors accommodate them, when the ] rests with them. All of the references (which are too many) discuss the mingling of OK, PC and sovcit philosophies, and the first one explicitly discusses the convergence of the PC idea with Oath Keepers concerning the idea that sheriffs are the highest authorities. See para 8, and the end of the third reference. You appear to be trying to make a narrow case that such ideas represent the views of single individuals, which in the context of the articles is nonsense. The articles discuss movements, not individuals. However, I think the "chiefly" might place too much emphasis on that single element, when the thrust of the paragraph and the sources simply covers the mingling of philosophies. |
|
|
:::Personally, I think that part of the lede should be a section of the article, which can then be summarized into a shorter lede, and that the discussion should more fully emphasize the convergence of ideas rather than specific elements like the sheriff supremacy idea, although that is all but explicit in the OK's "Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey," which are shaded toward rejection of federal and state authority in favor of local authority. However, I would caution you that there should be a consensus found first for such a change. In any case, please suggest specific wording, rather than tag-bombing sources when your concern primarily appears to rest with article content. |
|
|
:::I think the article is starting to show its age, based on my reading of the voluminous material from Stanford, which shows a drift into overt political involvement rather than passive resistance to state and local authority. |
|
|
* |
|
|
'''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 01:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::You can't even provide a single quote from any of the sources that backs up what is currently in the lead, even though I have repeatedly asked you to do so. Once again, the sources don't actually back up what is in the lead, and the lead currently implies that "sovereign citizen" and "posse comitatus" leadership controls the Oath Keepers when no evidence for this exists. They are a dangerous movement and misrepresenting their views doesn't benefit anyone. ] 12:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I still await a single quote of anything that says "the group... espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen and Posse Comitatus movements, chiefly, that sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities in the United States" when only two of the four citations even relates to this at all, and they simply state that a single Oath Keeper believes this, literally one person and never stating that the group as a whole believes this. I think misleading readers about the beliefs of a dangerous group is a bad idea, and see no reason why this content belongs in the lead; it is completely UNDUE and has '''zero sentences in the body''' which violates the concept of the lead summarizing the body. ] 23:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As I've stated, the body should incorporate the material referenced in the lede, and the lede should be condensed. As for your interpretation concerning the sources assertion of collective philosophy, I've already given you an answer. That you disagree is not my concern, you still need to find consensus for any changes of that kind, including your extremely narrow interpretation of the article's emphasis. Illustrative interviews are not grounds for a narrow attribution to the individual being quoted. The SPLC is the source that makes the strongest link between sovcit and OK, and is quoted widely in other coverage. The statement in the article is correctly attributed to the SPLC, rather than making a broad statement. The lede should probably be more focused on OK as part of a conspiratist and anti-government continuum, and the SPLC statement should be moved down into the article body. |
|
|
::::However, since you keep bringing it up, here are more sources that concern the convergence or overlap of OK and sovcit: from Middlebury College Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, , from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and from Oregon Public Broadcasting. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 01:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Not to mention a lengthy discussion of the links between and historical continuity between OK, PC, CSPOA and sovcits in this ''Rolling Stone'' article '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Considering you just quoted none of the four sources currently cited in the lead, are you admitting that they contain none of the supposed content that they are citing? I believe if you add your sources with their content to the body then it's fine to keep it in the lead, my objection was to using completely irrelevant sources to include this information in the lead. ] 18:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You might want to stop treating discussions as personal contests for some form of winning. This is a discussion page for article improvement. I've explained at length what I think about your demands, how the articles interpret the statements, and have provided additional sources to back up the assertions int he SPLC articles that you are trying to interpret as statements of individual opinion rather than the broader context that is supported by all sources. You are trying to apply an individual interpretation to a standard journalistic technique of making a statement and backing it up with quotes. In any case, I trust that we've settled the matter of the continuum between the groups and ideologies mentioned. I still think the article needs reorganization adnd updating. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 20:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A previous religious affiliated organization? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to remember a previous organization named (iirc) "Oath Keepers" (I don't think it is related to this organization). |
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC, I ran into the organization at various church functions, and, iiuc, their focus was on father's fulfilling their fatherhood (my choice of words). |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anybody remember that organization? Did I get the name wrong? Does it still exist? Is it related or somehow a predecessor of this organization? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Blaze == |
|
Thanks for any information! I'm sorry if this entry doesn't meet the criteria for appearing on a talk page -- hmm, but if there is another organization with the same name, I think it should be mentioned (and "disambiguated" somewhere (if not related to this organization)). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how reliable the Blaze is, and I'm hoping that more reliable sources will report on this claim to see if it's true or false. Anyway, the Blaze is claiming that video from January 6 proves that one of the witnesses who testified in the Oath Keepers trial lied under oath. The video has been made public, so it should not be hard for other sources to investigate the claim by the Blaze. |
|
] (]) 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:]. At the top of this article there is a "not to be confused with" cross-link. They are unrelated except for the similar name. ] (]) 17:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.theblaze.com/news/just-released-jan-6-videos-show-capitol-police-officer-lied-in-oath-keepers-trial-blaze-media-investigative-journalist-says |
|
Thanks! I was (indeed) confused. ] (]) 19:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1746974003317579834 |
|
== Include sources in the template == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Ideology" and "Allegiance" need source and notes. ] (]) 12:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{tq|Your direct support ensures that the stores that matter most, those buried by Big Tech and the mainstream media narratives, will be brought to light.}} Yeah, no way. ] (]) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] is useful for checking the reliability of sources. In this case it says "Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts." ] (]) 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
The Oath Keepers definition is wrong.the following definition is correct.
-Oath Keepers
I'm not sure how reliable the Blaze is, and I'm hoping that more reliable sources will report on this claim to see if it's true or false. Anyway, the Blaze is claiming that video from January 6 proves that one of the witnesses who testified in the Oath Keepers trial lied under oath. The video has been made public, so it should not be hard for other sources to investigate the claim by the Blaze.
