| Revision as of 17:00, 7 August 2023 edit93.45.229.98 (talk) →Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2023: new section← 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 |
| (19 intermediate revisions by 16 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}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Allegiance to Trump? == |
|
== 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
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)). |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
] (]) 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! I was (indeed) confused. ] (]) 19:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Include sources in the template == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Ideology" and "Allegiance" need source and notes. ] (]) 12:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
What is the basis on their allegiance to Trump? ] (]) 18:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Are you referring to the info-box? There isn't one, so I shall remove it. ] (]) 01:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 == |
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Oath Keepers|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Adding sources for the ideology parameter. ] (]) 15:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]/]) 17:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] |
|
|
::These ideologies in the infobox need sources: |
|
|
::American nationalism |
|
|
::Conservatism |
|
|
::Right-libertarianism |
|
|
::White supremacy (alleged, denied by the organization) |
|
|
::Trumpism ] (]) 06:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] Edit requests are not for asking other people to do work for you. ] (]/]) 11:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] I can't edit the article there is a block, so I made an edit request. ] (]) 13:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::] Yes, but it's your obligation to provide sources, not the person answering your edit request. Please review ] and ], provide ], and then reopen your edit request per the ER instructions. ] (]/]) 13:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::@] No, maybe I wasn't clear. In the infobox, the ideology parameter has no source to support the ideologies (see ]). If there are no sources please remove it (this is the edit request). ] (]) 13:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Reliable sources have described the organization's politics as all of those things, as reflected in the article. There doesn't need to be a citation for every point in the infobox. ] (]/]) 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::@] In the article the terms "right-libertarianism," "white supremacy," etc. appear only in the infobox (and in the infobox there are no sources). ] (]) 11:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::A quick google search uncovers that describes the Oath Keepers using those (and other) terms. ] instead of pushing to delete things where ]. ] (]/]) 12:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::@] Firstly, the sources must be cited in the article (not simply exist outside Misplaced Pages), secondly I can only make editing requests (because the article is protected), and third none of the sources you quoted describe Oath Keepers as "white supremacist." |
|
|
::::::::::In the first source "white supremacist group" refers to the Proud Boys; in the second source '']'' - article speaks of distinct groups KKK or neo-Nazi skinheads (white supremacists) and Three Percenters and Oath Keepers (]); ] article mentions ] and ] which is different from ]. |
|
|
::::::::::The only source I found - similar to white supremacism - is in '']'' in an article by a scholar ergo ]. |
|
|
::::::::::As I said it would be a case of putting sources for the rest of the ideologies as well. ] (]) 15:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023 == |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Oath Keepers|answered=yes}} |
|
|
The Oath Keepers definition is wrong.the following definition is correct. |
|
|
-Oath Keepers |
|
|
Pro government. Constitutional service organization. ] (]) 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is incoherent. ]] 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Blaze == |
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Oath Keepers|answered=yes}} |
|
|
I was a juror in the trial of Rhodes, Meggs, Caldwell, Watkins and Harrelson. This topic isn't covered well so there isn't much to edit, but, one thing that is wrong in the Oathkeepers post is that Thomas Caldwell, was not an Oathkeeper, he just knew them and supported them, but if I put on a Ravens Jersey and go to a game, it doesn't mean I'm a Baltimore Raven. Thomas Caldwell met them at a rally in Virginia and allowed them to camp at his farm in Berryville. His only other connection was staying at the same hotel with them and wearing a shirt for a picture on the morning on Jan 6. For the hotel part, he made a reservation there as he lived locally and gave advice to others that it was a good place to stay and those from Florida and Ohio, made a reservation at the same Comfort Inn, he didn't store his weapon with theirs, which according to him was an antique rifle that he brought only to show Ranger Doug. The Oathkeepers have a formal process to join their organization and Thomas Caldwell didn't complete it, he never should have been grouped as a "leader of the organization" and tried with them. I wish we could have found him not guilty of everything but he did go "out of bounds" on capitol grounds so we found him guilty of obstruction of a procedure and he deleted a bunch of Facebook messages the day that Jessica Watkins was contacted by the FBI so we found him guilty of destruction of evidence as from that point he reasonably could have assumed that he was going to be investigated. ] (]) 14:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 16:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
== WP:NOR: Crypto-fascism == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.theblaze.com/news/just-released-jan-6-videos-show-capitol-police-officer-lied-in-oath-keepers-trial-blaze-media-investigative-journalist-says |
|
It is yet another ideology that is inserted without any source. ] (]) 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1746974003317579834 |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
] (]) 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Oath Keepers|answered=no}} |
|
|
|
:{{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) |
|
Remove crypto-fascism per no sources. ] (]) 17:00, 7 August 2023 (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.
