| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oath Keepers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Allegiance to Trump?
editWhat is the basis on their allegiance to Trump? 2003:E5:701:ADF7:8874:639E:EC9A:9C1A (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the info-box? There isn't one, so I shall remove it. TFD (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Oath Keepers definition is wrong.the following definition is correct. -Oath Keepers
Pro government. Constitutional service organization. 2600:1014:B08E:261B:80A6:25FA:22DF:B50F (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is incoherent. Girth Summit (blether) 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The Blaze
editI'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.
https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1746974003317579834
SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
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. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)- WP:RSP is useful for checking the reliability of sources. In this case it says "Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts." JaggedHamster (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)