Talk:Redneck Revolt

No evidence to support the following statement "Redneck Revolt organizes predominantly among white working-class people"

Until credible and trustworthy evidence to support such a claim can be cited this statement ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk • contribs) 2018-08-07 21:23:13 (UTC)

Please read the article before you make such claims. Sources don't have to be in the lead. They are in the body of the article. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read my comment before making such comments. The sources provided do not constitute "Credible and trustworthy" evidence to support the claim that "Redneck Revolt organises predominantly among white working-class people" therefore the aforementioned statement ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2018‎

I count five sources scattered throughout the article which specifically support that this organization focuses on working class people. You will have to explain why those sources, which include major, reputable newspapers and magazines, are not reliable. Merely saying they are not credible is not sufficient. edit warring will not work out well for you. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"Edit warring will not work out well for you" Is that some sort of thinly veiled threat? Please clarify. Merely saying they are "Reputable newspapers and magazines" does not make them credible or trustworthy. I have read a number of the source articles referenced but please could you reference the specific sources that I should critique if I wish to demonstrate why the aforementioned statement is not sufficiently sourced and ought to be removed. I will pick a source that is referenced, an article form the Guardian. This article provides no evidence to demonstrate the Redneck Revolt organise predominantly among white-working class people, so this article is of course no evidence to the claim "Redneck Revolt organizes predominantly among white working-class people". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It really seems like your complaint is more with some fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines than it is with this article. For Wikipedia's purposes, being published in a reputable newspaper or magazine pretty much does make a source reliable. See Wikipedia: Verifiability and Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources. It would be very difficult to write an encyclopaedia any other way – we can't exactly call up the Guardian and ask to see their reporters' notebooks, much less so when we're dealing with decades-old sources, as we often do. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding edit warring, you can interpret that as a threat if you really want to, but it was intended to be a warning. See WP:EW. Edit warring is disruptive and likely will, eventually, lead to being blocked from editing. The way to resolve this is through continued discussion here on the talk page.

Regarding The Guardian, sources are not required to cite sources, nor are they required to "show their work". Expecting proof from every source for every statement would be completely untenable. The Guardian has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking called for by WP:RS. Regardless, this article does support its claims. It says Redneck Revolt is a nationwide organization of armed political activists from rural, working-class backgrounds who strive to reclaim the term “redneck” and promote active anti-racism. This, alone, would be sufficient to support the "working-class" description, but the rest of the article documents the organizations history as well. It discusses its formation as a counterpoint to the "working-class" Tea Party movement, its similarities to the Young Patriots Organization, it's overlap with the Oath Keepers, it's Appalachian roots, and so on. The source is the evidence. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason for why I am so concerned about the content of this Wiki page on Redneck Revolt, is that Wikipedia are considered very credible and trustworthy. There is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate the social economic class of those organised by Redneck Revolt. With many political organisations some basic information provided by their membership can provide sufficient data to demonstrate the social economic class of the organisation's membership or at least provide a measurable indication of it, we have no such information for Redneck Revolt. If Wikipedia consider the Guardian to be reliable and trustworthy then well, I really am disappointed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2018‎

If you want to discuss why The Guardian is unreliable for this article, please do so here. If you want to discuss why it's unreliable in general, well... Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines have been developed over almost two decades. The reason Wikipedia is considered very credible and trustworthy is because of these guidelines. You can discuss this at WP:RSN if you'd like additional opinions. I'm personal skeptical of this going anywhere, but I've been wrong about this kind of thing in the past, so...

Regardless, Guardian isn't the only source covering this point. I don't know why you assume this organization isn't working class, but if you start by assuming Redneck Revolt cannot be working class from personal experience, and then look for reasons sources saying it is must be wrong, you're trying to add your own research into the article. Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. This is another one of those policies which have built Wikipedia's credibility and trustworthiness. So, if you have a source saying it isn't working-class, let's see it. Otherwise I don't know what to tell you. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian is a Liberal organisation and an overtly classist organisation. I hope that as more people become aware of the nature of Redneck Revolt that Redneck Revolt will be reported on more accurately and that this Wikipedia page can be amended accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2018‎

Even if that's true, which is obviously debatable, neither of those qualities would make the Guardian inherently unreliable. Again, "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" is what we're interested in. Any source with this reputation which discusses Redneck Revolt is potentially useful here. Sources which lack this reputation, regardless of their ideological bent, are unlikely to be useful. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Far-Left

I have added some information concerning their political stance, along with sources.2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'm afraid I've undone the changes you made to the article. My feeling is that "far-left" reads like a value judgement or a criticism of the group, and so it falls short of Wikipedia's standards of encyclopaedic writing and neutrality. Good encyclopaedic writing also tends to require that any claim made in the lead section of the article also be mentioned in the article body – the lead should summarise the article and shouldn't make any claims that don't appear elsewhere. The claims you added to the infobox were also unsourced, so I removed them too (the other claims in that section of the infobox are all mentioned and sourced elsewhere in the article). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Old thread, but @Arms & Hearts: frankly what you wrote is nonsensical. Wikipedia can, and does in thousands of articles, label political groups with descriptions that appear in RS. Currently the "anti-capitalist, anti-racist and anti-fascist" is sourced to Shadowproof which isn't even a reliable source. Reliable sources like ABC Online [1] describe it as the far-left group Redneck Revolt, Daily Progress Redneck Revolt and the other far-left group...[2] and the Guardian which explores the group in detail in the context of what is different in the far-right and the the far-left.[3]. It is an odd concern that far-left would be a criticism or value judgment of a group that itself says advocates the "right of militant resistance" and "revolution". --Pudeo (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a remarkable quality, being able to write a coherent and sensible reply to something you find to be nonsensical. Perhaps you meant to just say that you disagree with my comment, but couldn't resist the hyperbole? It's a fair point though, perhaps "far-left" doesn't always read like a value judgement or criticism (though given that the editor above also wanted to put "property destruction" in the methods section of the infobox, it did read that way to me in that context). Perhaps a better argument against that phrasing would be its redundancy: does the lede sentence "Redneck Revolt is a far-left American anti-capitalist, anti-racist and anti-fascist group" tell us anything that "Redneck Revolt is an American anti-capitalist, anti-racist and anti-fascist group" does not? Isn't it just an imprecise way to refer to what's already dealt with more precisely in the same sentence? Especially given that "far-left" has such a broad array of reference points: it's used to refer to everyone from Pol Pot to Hillary Clinton ("What she represents ... is out-of-touch far-left liberal positions"). (I also disagree that Shadowproof isn't a reliable source: biased sources are not prohibited, and I see no reason to doubt it "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking".) I hope you're able to make sense of this comment! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are all oppositions: they are anti this and that, but nothing themselves? Pretty curious way to write a lead. The rest is rather useless forum talk: the same way klansmen who lynch blacks and people who oppose Angela Merkel's immigration policies are both far-right, yet that doesn't mean the term shouldn't be used when there are reliable sources for it. I've modified the lead accordingly. I also found it relevant to say it's an "armed group" in the first sentence, as it is described as such in the sources and it's what makes it different from other groups. --Pudeo (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with oppositions in this context: certain groups and political orientations simply are defined in terms of what they oppose. The African National Congress was for decades defined by being anti-apartheid; groups from Anti-Fascist Action and Anti-Racist Action to Unite Against Fascism and SOS Racisme are defined by being anti-racist or anti-fascist; Frack Off or Climate Rush or Plane Stupid are defined by being opposed to various practices contributing to climate change, and so on and so forth. It's all well and good to want to phrase things positively, but it strikes me as more of a PR strategy than an encyclopaedic approach to the topics. It's also contrary to the group's description of itself, as described in reliable sources and repeated in the article: "Redneck Revolt doesn't self-identify as 'left,'", and a member says that it comprises "folks that are Libertarian, Republican, communists, anarchists". (Self-definitions are not the be-all and end-all and don't necessarily trump other sources, but you've introduced an obvious contradiction between the lede and the Views section which ought to be rectified one way or the other.)

On the separate matter of "armed group," I have similar concerns about its vagueness and what it might be thought to imply. An "armed group", to my mind, is one that actually uses arms with some regularity, while the sources see quite clear that Redneck Revolt's association with guns extends to holding training events, attending protests armed and sometimes propagandising at gun shows. I think this association is captured quite well by the sentence that was already in the lede: "The group supports gun rights and members often openly carry firearms."

In short, I think your changes to the lede have had the effect of obfuscating or oversimplifying quite complex positions, and have removed useful information and replaced it with less precise and more confusing alternatives that in at least one case contradicts the article body. I don't think, however, that we're going to resolve this between ourselves (unless you can think of some reasonable compromise position?), so I'm especially interested in hearing what others might think ought and ought not to be in the lede. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, being "armed" is exactly what the Guardian piece highlights in the title, as well as the ABC one. They also signed the decree on ceasing paramilitary activity in Charlottesville. I mean, yeah "armed group" could also bring stuff like guerrilla fighters to mind, which is inapproriate for this. But having guns really is a defining thing for Redneck Revolt. So one way or other it should be there. I don't like edit-warring either, so third opinions are welcome. --Pudeo (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've had a go at reworking the lede; let me know what you think. I've removed "armed," but the gun politics aspect is foregrounded, as I agree it should be, to the extent that the second sentence of the article is given over to it. I've left the "far-left" bit in place for the time being, pending input from other editors. (And I've removed the number of local chapters, which doesn't seem vitally important, and clarified the tense in the sentence about protests in 2017.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It's OK. --Pudeo (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately in the 10 weeks or so since my last comment above no one's weighed in on this question. I'm still fairly committed to the original wording (i.e. using "anti-capitalist, anti-racist and anti-fascist" rather than "far-left") and would be interested in seeking a consensus or compromise by other means. Options include: requesting opinions from editors who've edited the article and/or posted at this talk page in the past; a non-binding third opinion; or a request for comment. Pudeo, what do you think? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: It's my way or no way! Just kidding. I think I care less than I did last time, but I still don't like describing something only through negations (anti X, anti Y). If you want, you could swap it so that the anti-racist etc. stuff comes in the first sentence and far-left later (either in the lead, or in the background section). But RfC would probably be a waste of anyone's time. --Pudeo (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Far-left to me is left of the Communist Party, although our article on Far-left politics says "communism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism". Today's American Communist party isn't far-left. I'm not an RS, so just saying. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an RS either, but you're way out there. This is an article about an American political group. In American politics, the Democratic party overall is center-left, progressive/liberal Democrats are left, socialism is far-left, communism is farthest-left, and anything beyond that is virtually undefined in the vanishing left tail. 104.225.246.142 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is any mention of Dwayne Dixon?

Dwayne Dixon is a Redneck Revolt-ing academic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0dgg9dXLm0 who has been at some high profile events https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz9mKPiDrv4 and been arrested for bringing guns to protests https://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article169819572.html I mean, if his opinions and behavior are mainstream Redeck Revolt, that ought to be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.192.88 (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If there's something that you think ought to be in the article, then be bold and add it! You should be aware, though, that calling someone "Revolt-ing" could be seen as defamatory, and that Youtube videos are generally not considered reliable sources. The news article you linked is a reliable source, but it doesn't seem to mention Redneck Revolt so probably shouldn't be used in this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There are some. Eg[4],[5] looks better but you'd have to get it at Resource requests as it's paywalled. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look at the Chronicle of Higher Education article and added some material cited to it, including a sentence on Dixon. I don't know if he absolutely has to be mentioned, but there's been a certain amount of coverage so a single sentence doesn't seem unreasonable. The biggest issue is WP:BLPCRIME, given that – aside from being playing a role in some conspiracy theories – he's significant only for having been arrested for something but never convicted. I think by emphasising that he was found not guilty we avoid "suggest[ing] the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead description again

I wonder if this edit, which added "radical" (and a reference to this Independent article) to the lead section, might provide an occasion to return to the question of the description in the first sentence. My feeling is that "radical" is even worse than "far-left" as far as being vague and tabloidish: if there is a radical right, a radical left and a radical centre then what can the word possible tell us about the group's politics? The conjunction of "radical" and "far-left" also strikes me as concerning on WP:NPOV grounds: there's nothing intrinsically biased about either word on its own but the combination seems a bit like a breathless right-wing talking point (this is just a gut feeling, really, although it's interesting that the first page of Google results for the phrase "radical far-left" shows me Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, Tommy Robinson, Sean Hannity and the Republican Governors Association). (My suspicion is that the desire to put words like these in lead sections like this one comes from an undue fidelity to reliable sources' headlines, which provide brief eye-catching summaries of complex topics, at the expense of their content. I think well-meaning editors sometimes see that a word is used in a headline and conclude that it must therefore be vitally important and need to be in the lead section of our article on a given topic. In fact, we have no need to provide simplified versions of complex concepts, and no need to come up with phrasing that will guarantee clicks and advertising revenue, so there's no reason to adopt this sort of language.) As I outlined above, my preference is for the first sentence to be something like: "Redneck Revolt is an American anti-capitalist, anti-racist and anti-fascist group", which I think avoids any problems of vagueness, buzzwordiness, non-neutrality, etc. (Tagging Pudeo and Doug Weller who participated in the earlier discussion.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

We should never, ever use headlines. I used to write them myself - they are not written by the reporter and often are more - eye-catching? provocative? then the story. I've reverted with the same rationale as you mention above, but would prefer to expand it as you suggest, perhaps adding left-wing. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There's an additional problem with "left-wing" or "far-left", though, which I mentioned in the other discussion: the article also says "The group does not identify itself as part of the political left" (#Views, citing Vice), so by making the claim that the group belongs to the left we're introducing a contradiction. As I mentioned before, self-definition shouldn't be given too much weight (we have lots of articles about people and organisations wouldn't describe themselves as "far-right" that nonetheless use that phrase), but I don't see the need to introduce an apparent contradiction when the description I've proposed is both supported by reliable sources and reflects the group's own account of its views. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It's probably not needed in any cse as your suggestion includes "anti-capitalist" - and is a lot more specific then any kind of "left". Doug Weller talk 17:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist group

Is the term terrorist group reasonable in this article? Given that similar groups across the political spectrum aren’t described as such, it doesn’t seem correct. zer0^talk 08:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's very clearly inaccurate, non-neutral and unsupported by any reliable sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

2022 Dallas events

@Snokalok: While I appreciate you adding material about these events to this article, it's not clear to me from the sources I was able to access that the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club is part of, or otherwise associated with, Redneck Revolt. While branches of RR are/were referred to as John Brown Gun Clubs, there are also groups with that name that are independent, e.g. Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club. I wasn't able to access the New York Times or Dallas Morning News articles though – do either of them mention Redneck Revolt? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts no and it’s annoying that the cites don’t state their sources. I’m removing this. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

New page for John Brown Gun Club

JBGC has had an explosion of growth and attention within the past year or two to the point of exceeding the bounds of a stub page for a near-defunct organization it sprung out of 2601:18D:8901:CD70:6CD9:8EEE:6060:E9C4 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There isn't just one.[https://www.counterextremism.com/supremacy/john-brown-gun-club] Doug Weller talk 12:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It's vaguely possible that an article on JBGCs could exist that would describe the groups as a whole, but we'd need sources that describe them in those terms too. I'm not aware of any such sources but if 2601 could point to any it would surely be useful. The IP editor also seems to be referring to the fact that John Brown Gun Club redirects here; if that's no longer appropriate (for example if Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club is the primary topic) then they or someone else might want to start a discussion at WP:RFD. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

"include Republicans"

Well that's quite a departure from what the source says. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This article doesn't contain the phrase "include Republicans", so it isn't clear what you're talking about. Feel free to explain your concern more coherently. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts "The website also argues for the necessity of revolution. A spokesperson for the Phoenix, Arizona John Brown Gun Club said in April 2017 that the group includes anarchists, communists, libertarians and Republicans." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The source quotes a RR spokesperson as saying: “We have folks that are Libertarian, Republican, communists, anarchists,” she claimed. “It’s a melting pot of ideologies ... I would say the people we have the least of are liberals.” The paraphrase in the article doesn't strike me as a departure. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts I think the spokesperson is talking about the target audience to be "converted" later to socialist ("despite this melange of beliefs, she conceded that most people would regard the group as being on the left of the political spectrum"). I am not aware that there is a socialist caucus in the GOP, or at any rate socialist Republicans - at least that the source did not confuse with republicans in the sense of supporters of republicanism. There is no doubt that the statement is controversial. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence immediately preceding the above-quoted sentence is She said their 35 or so members train with their guns weekly and represent a range of viewpoints. Read in context, it's very clear that the sentence is referring to members, not prospective members. Note also that the statement in this article doesn't endorse (i.e. present as fact) the claim that RR includes Republicans; it merely says that a spokesperson said it did. If you're still unconvinced that the wording misrepresents the source (a different matter from whether the spokesperson's claim is accurate) you're welcome to request a third opinion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with A&H's interpretation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Shadowproof

Heavy use of [[this article in Shadowproof . But is it reliable? Should we attribute? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's a particular reliability issue. Shadowproof lists its staff and contributors and its guidelines for freelance submissions; it has a fairly clear editorial line that could probably be described as left-liberal, rather than fringe; and I'm not aware of anything that would call into question its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On the other hand, it looks as though most of the citations are in places where multiple sources are cited to support a single claim, so we could probably use it less or not at all without losing much content. (I suppose I must have added them all in 2017, but can't remember what my thought process was at the time.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! On review, it's not used for anything contentious and as you say mostly for things with multiple sources. I think it's fine as it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)