Talk:Oath Keepers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Addition of material, discussion of Tags

I have aded a couple of cites from both CNN and the Nevada SOS to the article, and done some minor rearrangement to get the ball rolling. I think is is critical to review to wording to remove and POV material and hold onto relevant information that conforms to NPOV. Your thoughts?

Major Edit: Rewrite under Wikipedia Wikiproject Conservatism

Completed rewrite of this article under Wikipedia WikiProject_Conservatism.

• task: removed 1 dead link
• added additional cites from major sources
• added additional news items, one each from FOX and USA today
• added conservative report from commentator Pat Buchanan to balance existing Southern poverty law center's report
• added new section titled 'historical justifications', which documents some examples of what oath keepers view as justification for the organization to exist.
• added new section referencing 'constitutional bases' for the organization's oath
• added new section 'similar organizations' to be inclusive of the ACLU's efforts in protecting the Constitution and citizens rights
• removed uncited POV material
• removed category 'far-right politics' as no documentation could be found that indicates the organization espouses genocide

Awolnetdiva (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Don't believe the dangerous hateful left wing media. Here is the truth. Oath Keepers is an educational outreach group composed of active military, law enforcement officers, veterans, fire fighters and first responders. We have taken an Oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States just like the president, all federal officers and politicians have. The organization is non-sectarian, non-partisan, non-violent and our mission is simply to remind our men and women in uniform of the Oath that they have taken and their obligation to obey it. We absolutely do not advocate hate, racism, revolution or violence of any kind. Such information about the Oath Keepers is misleading and false. We do not consider president Obama or any other politican to be an enemy of the state. All we expect is for him to follow the oath of office that he took. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am so glad... this is such a horrible group and I am so happy to see wikipedia has uncovered them. They are a very racist group and are making a private army... isn't it interesting that only the army are in the Oath keepers? They all have guns. I hope the poverty center arrests them or something before they do real serious harm to our country. It is horrible that people from the army are getting together and talking about a revolution and scary. How is that legal? I have two kids to worry about and I'm worried that their future is in jeopardy because of anti-Obama anti-government gun wielding groups like this. It has to be tracked so we know. Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelnee1984 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you have been misinformed by this wikipedia article. It is not only the army who are members. Police, firefighters also make up a large portion of the Oath Keepers membership, and citizens such as yourself are members. Women are members. Mothers are members. I would actually suggest your follow some of the links at the bottom of the article and read up about the organization yourself. We are only advocating that our members stand down when given unlawful orders. Please see the Oath Keepers website for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oatz Keeprz (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yah, like disobeying orders for the suppression of secession.69.155.45.150 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also: "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' " -President Thomas Jefferson --82.181.195.240 (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope the poverty center arrests them or something I don't usually come to wiki seeking comedy relief but this time I'm pleasantly surprised. They all have guns!...I have two kids to worry about and I'm worried that their future is in jeopardy because of anti-Obama anti-government gun wielding groups like this. Support your political figure or your kids are in peril?Batvette (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The last time I looked, the Southern Poverty Law Center did not have arrest powers. In fact, anyone who detains another without said powers may find himself facing charges of kidnapping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a notation of who Larry Keller is, (a writer for the SPLC), to remove article ambiguity over who he is or why he should make a quote for the SPLC regarding the oathkeepers. 174.59.248.113 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should stay neutral and not use hate groups such as SPLC for sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants to maintain even the smallest essence of fairness and non-partisanship then organizations such as this one should at the very least be allowed to add a rebuttal to the section on the Southern Poverty Law Center. If not, then why stop at the Southern Poverty Law Center? If the idea is to add sections for organizations that disagree with the agenda of a group, then add a section for EVERY organization that disagrees with them, instead of showing favoritism for a single one. What does the Socialist Party think about them? Do the Black Panthers have an opinion on this group? Is the Southern Poverty Law Center such a pinnacle of perfection that it, and it alone is worthy of having it's thoughts added to this page? And if this is going to be the standard, then the Wikipedia page on the Southern Poverty Law Center should ALSO have sections for every organization that disagrees with them. The Wikipedia page for the Southern Poverty Law center does not have so much as a single sentence concerning groups that disagree with them. The only reference to "Criticism" is THEIR criticism of named individuals. JohannMoser (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is not for your rants, but it is revealing that you have as little regard for the rules of Wikipedia as you do for the laws and sovereignty of the U.S. -- 96.247.231.243 (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To say "public safety" or "law enforcement" personnel?

Which is more neutral language? In The Los Angeles Times they say "public safety personnel" but in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle they say "law enforcement personnel." Varks Spira (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Both sound pretty neutral, in my opinion. --darolew (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although I'd point out that there's a subtle difference between the two. "Public safety personnel" would include non-police personnel, such as firefighters and EMT's, where "law enforcement personnel" wouldn't. --DarthBinky (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Buchanan

Pat just wrote an article on this subject. Good for sources: http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/091019_alienated.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

False information on Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers is no longer teamed up with the liberty summit and the post has been taken off the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.152.197 (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oath Keepers wants journalism that deals in FACTS NOT OPINIONS!! The UK's Independent spewed opinions that had no basis in fact and quoted nobody from the Oath Keeper organization. Factual information and quotes are welcomed to truly represent what Oath Keepers is about!!

Here at Wikipedia, we have criteria for the sources we use - see our guideline on reliable sources. So if you have any specific links or sources to share, please post them, rather than simply saying that something is wrong. The

As for the association of the Oath Keepers with the Liberty Summit, according to this blog posting, the Oath Keepers are still very much involved. Again, if things have changed, please cite a source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Now blog postings are reliable sources? Wikipedia is becoming less reliable for information with each passing day - not that it was ever a "reliable source" to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information

"The organization says that it is non-partisan, but has worked with the conservative 9-12 Project to promote the National Liberty Unity Summit." Conservative is not a party. One can work with the a conservative group without being Republican. The founder is in fact a pretty staunch libertarian as far as I am aware, and is highly critical of much of the Republican Party over the last decade. Gtbob12 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Oath That Is Kept

Oath Keepers ... a movement whose members "believe their duty is to the constitution, not to elected politicians"

The U.S. Soldier's Oath is: I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegence to the same; and obey the lawful orders of the commander-in-chief and the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In UMCJ class I was taught that obeying unlawful orders that violate the Constitution/regulations/UMCJ is a violation of the Oath: "just following orders" died as an excuse at the Nuremberg Trials; and Hugh Thompson, Jr. by countermanding Lt William Calley's orders at the My Lai Massacre did the right thing.

It is not an oath of loyalty to a person, a party, a government, or "elected officials". It is loyalty to the principles this country was founded on, when too many people have loyalty to no principle, or blind faith in a person, a party or a government. That some have expressed the feeling this is scary or subversive is scary. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

IIRC from my time in the Navy watching Congressional Representatives stumble around getting in our way sightseeing while underway on the USS Coral Sea, elected officials like that don't have any positions of authority in the chain of command. However the role they do have, budgetary decision makers of huge defense contracts, may be worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.229.63 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not found any reliable evidence that demonstrates the Oath Keepers standing up for the constitution - rather, only portions of it that many conservatives and libertarians cling to. For example, the Oath Keepers' list of orders they won't obey only contains orders regarding disarming of citizens, blockading American cities, confiscation of property from citizens, confining citizens to detention camps, etc. Where and when, for instance, have the Oath Keepers stood up to infringements on religious freedoms and the entirety of the first amendment (rather than just the part about speech)? I cannot find any examples of the Oath Keepers standing up to states' attempts at injecting creationism or intelligent design aspects into science curriculums. Some of the key personnel of the organization, such as its founder, Stewart Rhodes, and that Sheriff Richard Mack, have mentioned the IRS in various YouTube videos where they talk about the Oath Keepers and standing up to the IRS. Court decisions have long ruled "the IRS is unconstitutional" arguments to be legally frivolous... so really, I don't see enough of a base on which we can say that the Oath Keepers keep the oath as it is written. In this article, we can really only speak of the oath from a perspective of "this is what the Oath Keepers organization states as its underlying principle" - however, as for standing up for all of the portions of the constitution, rather than the portions of the constitution favored by particular political ideologies, I don't see much in the way of reliable evidence that can use to say the organization does actually back the oath. John Shandy` • talk 17:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(O: Have you looked for any? I see no reliable evidence that you have any valuable information to add to the subject matter or debate. Stewart Rhodes has not mentioned the IRS..and Richard Mack's definition of the powers of a Sheriff predate his affiliation with Oath Keepers, and have nada to do with the IRS's constitutionality. We're not about looking for unconstitutional things..we are about supporting an oath and refusing unconstitutional orders. There is no IRS constitutionality argument integrated into the organization or any of its positions. You aren't looking for any evidence. YouTube videos? Gonna base your doctorate on that research source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.47.88 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

^_- When soldiers are called to impede the voting rights of 18 year old citizens or to arrest paleontology classes, perhaps that viewpoint will gain some reasoned merit. In fact I would actually glean, that many of the oaths already in their list could pose problems with those such actions as well. Which leads to a key point, the purpose of the organization is pertaining to possible, reasonably likely, and controversial actions that could be insisted upon soldiers and law enforcement from their government. That again, is the purpose of the organization, their oaths, why they seem to have been formed, and why they function. The organization and it's intents, are intended for those particular demographic's situation particular in mind. Not with intent, to nitpick upon other aspects of the constitution, or of arguably very much less likely hypothetical situations involving them, which have clearly not been deemed rational nor likely concerns for members for which to expressly state or touch upon. It has been decided by them, that violations of the second and forth amendment for example, of foreign enforcement of law upon the public , or the concerns of detaining or restricting the mobility of citizens, are of a much higher likelyhood and concern than other hypotheticals. Some would argue, with a dash of unclouded reason, with a genuine motive, and sensible ingenuity to reach that conclusion and emphasis upon those expressly stated particular situations.

As far as the two member's position toward the IRS, I see no more than a position of a closely shared opinion among the two of them on the particular topic. Perhaps their oath would also prevent them from fulfilling the duties of tax collector. Victor Grey (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-violent?

There are several passages from the 'Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey' section of their website that seem to contradict their stated non-violent methods of Resistance; 'Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war. We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.'

and...

'The above list is not exhaustive but we do consider them to be clear tripwires – they form our “line in the sand,” and if we receive such orders, we will not obey them. Further, we will know that the time for another American Revolution is nigh. If you the people decide that you have no recourse, and such a revolution comes, at that time, not only will we NOT fire upon our fellow Americans who righteously resist such egregious violations of their God given rights, we will join them in fighting against those who dare attempt to enslave them.'

These are implied threats of violence. Should their methods really be referred to as non-violent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.65.122 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(O: No they are not. They clearly imply a resistance to violence imposed.. by simple disobedience to orders to participate by the boots on the ground necessary for any successful usurpation of rights or the constitution.

Interesting point. In the article, "stated objective is to resist, non-violently, those actions taken by the U.S. Government that it believes oversteps Constitutional boundaries.", The "non-violently" seems inserted, and this phrasing does not, significantly, appear in the group's actual mission statement, though there is a statement on the same web-page where the mission statement is found amongst their bylaws, that very carefully states: "We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution." Parsing this, it rather clearly implies the legal necessity to avoid being definable as hate speech by any *specific* incitement to violence against specific organizations, groups, or individuals, but does not reach to the extent of stating that any deemed-necessary resistance will be non-violent in any way. Such "defense" will be unarmed or armed, and so potentially violent. Thus, in expanding this quite precise statement to include the phrase "defend the Constitution" it is clear that the general threat of implied violence is kept in reserve despite the distance to be kept from specific threats. It is rather difficult to characterize such a group as violent or non-violent. To be characterized as violent, in all fairness it should be shown that there is a real history of actual violent acts or direct threats of violence rather than just the carefully crafted implied violence that is on display. However, an ostensible statement of non-violent intent like that I just discussed should not be enough, especially in its disclaimer-like specificity, to outweigh the clearly implied and generally pervasive threat of violence in their language and in their emphasis of a certain interpretation (and interpretation the Supreme Court seems to be in agreement with) of the 2nd amendment which in their view pertains wholly to unrestricted personal arsenals. Members of the oathkeepers are clearly generally very well-armed and there is a demonstrable readiness to violent resistance in their language, so ultimately I don't think the insertion of "non-violently" to qualify the verb "resist" truly reflects the group's stated objectives with respect to such resistance. There is a very real sense in the group that if it comes to the various conspiracy theories that they fear, violence --all arguments about justifiability wholly aside--, will certainly *not* be off the table for them. Vacchagotta (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(O: " *not* be off the table for them". Oh Pooh. Refusing to participate in unlawful activity or to follow unlawful orders is non-violent, by rational definition. Your false flavored characterizations and assumptions not with standing; that is the mission and purpose of the organization. I know of no poll to count arms among members; and find it impossible that you hold such information, or can reference a credible source. It is simply not available. Support for the existence of a militia and legal militias..on constitutional grounds... does not make the supporter either armed or militia. Oath Keepers are not a militia, not organized as one, and are incapable of functioning as one. There is no legal parsing on their side, that is an incredible stretching excuse to relabel to your political preferences and canned up front prejudices. There is much wishful thinking in comments here..all tied up with SPLC reports, and absolutely no facts. I would know..I am an Oath Keeper. The bare bones initial article is off, but more objective than some of the the comments in here. How can willingness to stand by an oath taken to support and defend the US Constitution be "hate speech"? How? There is none there, but you find them "parsing" or "inserting" or "phrasing" to avoid the label? Perhaps you are trying a wee bit too hard to find places to hang the label? Show me the hate speech you think we wish to sanitize by "phrasing"? If you can't: then your start point is prejudiced conjecture and about as scientific as a game of spin the bottle among 6 twelve year old's. Maybe they are parsing/phrasing/inserting to make it harder for you to falsely depict them and their mission? There are lots of them.. one is talking to you..they are not hard to find..there is no historical mystery or fossil fragment begging for conjecture from dusty archives and confused pedants...they exist and they grow daily, in no danger of extinction. Ask if you really want information..Stewart Rhodes will talk to you..as will many of his members. If you want to write fiction..or circuitously find enemies for unknown political positions, personally held.. then drive on with this exercise in truth bending.

OK USA) The Oathkeepers are not Constitutional lawyers, their goal isn't to defend all cases in which the Constitution is not properly followed. These are men and women who have taken an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Their mission is to keep America aware and ready in the case of unlawful orders being given to police and military. It is illegal for a serviceman to obey an Unconstitutional order, to suggest that this means they are a violent group is bold faced attempt to smear a group of people who fight and die for you daily. Also to clarify, you do not have to be a former Law Enforcement or Military Personnel to join. Anyone who is invited to join can, provided you take the oath to "Preserve and Defend the Constitution of the United States." Mike197788 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

The last section of the article is not NPOV. Quoting two ultra-liberal sources to condemn a right-wing political group is not neutral. They're not neutral. The Independent article is not a respected source, because the information is not factual, it's opinion. You need peer-reviewed literature for those sort of things. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Josh

This entire article is NPOV. Using Mother Jones and SPLC for a majority of its content is telling. The opening paragraph needs to be changed. Taking a left wing extremist blog as a source for setting the tone of the article is wrong. NPOV tag needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.200.81 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that it isn't true that members promise "to disobey any orders they believe violate the Constitution of the United States"? Doug Weller (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section needs attention

Southern Poverty Law Center is not a reliable source.

So long as it is cited, it is. This has been discussed more than once at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

AFD - Notability and POV

1) This organization is not notable, 2) Liberal Blogs are not reliable sources. 3) SPLC is not a reliable source, they call all conservative organizations hate groups. This article fails to meet even the most basic of Wikipedia's standards. It is so biased, poorly written and poorly sourced, that it is not salvageable and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC2D:A090:3547:9104:7718:66D3 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan reference

Looking at the references, it lists MSNBC in the work field of the reference, but the link is to Buchanans' own website. Why is MSNBC then listed?Autarch (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

To the "keepers of the covenant" (ie the cardinals of BS)

Whoever the owners are on this page (LOL the number one editor has already been banned as a sock puppet) should get their butts over to the pages on the SS, Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale or the one on the Kempeitai. Because on reading the jaundiced piffle in this article, it only seems fair they should do their "thang" and make these other organisations sound respectable too. After all they were established for protecting their countries from all enemies "both foreign and domestic".

This article is a classic example of why Wikipedia is a total and abject failure to be anything more than a platform for opinion and not a real encyclopedia. There is absolutely no criticism in this article challenging this organization or its politics. In fact this article makes these "oath takers" sound like a charity group that is highlighting a lack of appreciation for the spirit and views of the USA's founding fathers. Yet like the patent elephant in the room to anyone who isn't wearing camo fatigues and body armour with four or five spare clips on their chest, is that these "oath takers" are acting like right wing dingbats with automatic weapons who are using the ambiguous wording within the American constitution to further their own extreme views of the world.

If taking words literally means anything it means: fundamentalist. But does this article make this point? Of course not, instead it takes an almost whimsical, minimalist approach to the whole subject. Like a leaf blowing in the wind, a gentle brush passed and nothing more. Gone with a piff. However it's not a leaf it's a bunch of "dem federal government out to get me" preppers armed with Adam Lanza specials.

But you know what? It's sad that I find it so easy to mock Wikipedia and its self-appointed, self-indentured editors. But what should one expect when presented with article's like this? Subject treatment like this demonstrates there is no editorial standard on this site; just page-by-page POV battles. Because...why not apply the tone of this article to other articles where "consensus" is not an issue? I mean I don't remember anything so limited in scope on page's concerning other fascist organizations (see the articles at the top of the page)!? But due to it all happening now I can see how personal all of this is, which hardly makes for a balanced or accurate article! 81.129.127.168 (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Washington Post Did Not Champion the Oath Keepers

A note about the first paragraph. The reference provided is for the Washington Post article. The Washington Post article most certainly did NOT describe them as fearless defenders of the Constitution compromised of the nation's heroes that the first paragraph makes this right-wing extremist group sound like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.234.175 (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

the lead is ridiculous now. It not only says that this very partisan organisation is non-partisan but repeats the membership criteria twice and makes it appear that all members are military or first responders, although in fact they may be a minority's. Doug Weller (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

M-15s

I'm not sure what's up with the type of guns the group in Ferguson was reported as carrying (M-15s) and why this keeps being altered in the article? Is it time to request semi-protection? No idea whether these are (majority) good faith edits or what... Uenuku (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Uenuku: an M15 rifle is a quite unusual variant of assault rifle. The only source provided for the claim was a throwaway comment, on the fly, from someone asking a question on an internet video. This is not an adequate source for such a surprising claim. VQuakr (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That was a mistake. Multiple sources say the Oathkeepers planned to arm blacks with AR-15s. The Oath Keepers site itself mentions them a number of times and runs AR-15 build classes.[1]. Doug Weller (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Non -partisan?

That's simply untrue. But I can see we are going to have problems with IPs and SPAs here due to the publicity, so it may need semi-protection which I can't do as I'm involved. Doug Weller (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that their mission statement does not belong in the lede. Their describing themselves as non-partisan probably should be in the article body somewhere, though. Does anyone object to the last sentence of the lede (as of this version) being moved to the body somewhere? VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Further reading section

Why is there a further reading section containing two references? The article needs body discussion which is supported by these references, with use of said references inline. It would appear that the main point of the first reference is the assertion that this organization differs in no substantial way from the ACLU except for its interpretation of the second amendment of the Constitution. It would appear the second reference has something to do with sheriffs who have apprehension about enforcing certain Federal laws. The first reference appears to be more substantial than the second, which appears to be merely a story written to sell to the news outlet. I'm also uncertain how the second reference relates to the article subject except as a tangent to illustrate the writer's point of view. In no way are these general references, nor do they really help the article stuck down there in further reading. Remember the principles found in WP:LINKFARM. If they add to the article they should be used and if they don't they should go away. Thank you.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Changed these two to ELs. You've misread the Reason.com source, I think. In any case, one organisation makes its point by carrying guns, the other uses the law. It also is basically an interview by a Libertarian with the groups leader, and thus reflects his pov. Both links are clearly relevant - the second gives a lot of context. Doug Weller (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Assault rifles

For most people in the world 'rifles' on its own will convey the idea these are something like hunting rifles rather than the semi-automatic rifles they are. We haven't added that they had pistols and armored vests, but we should not leave readers thinking these are 'ordinary' rifles. I've restored with a 2nd source. Doug Weller (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe there is a better choice of wording that conveys that they "look military" but is still accurate? Many hunting rifles are semi-auto as well, BTW. General-interest news sources are not an appropriate source for the "assault rifle" claim as they do not have the technical background necessary to make that assessment, so the number of sources provided does not address the issue. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two alternatives I've seen on Wikipedia. First would be to wrap quotes as in "assault rifles", which is a bit ambiguous in purpose depending on the subject. Better is to use the word (sic). Personally I like the the template {{sic}} which displays as assault [sic] rifles and gives a direct link to the dictionary definition. This tags the mistake as one in the original source and not caused by the Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia can recognize our sources as being mistaken but still include their mistakes for the purpose of prose flow. Trilobitealive (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditto for the M15 mistake if the source for it was acceptable and not just sensationalist press.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not hearing any support for retaining the dubious "M-15" claim so I think this is just about the "assault rifle" statement. Maybe "...armed with semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15 variants, incorrectly described by some media sources as assault rifles." VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is 'incorrectly described' is original research. What we can do is say "described as assault rifles" )and/or semi-automatic if we have sources. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that an AR-15 variant is so obviously semi-automatic that no source is needed. Per WP:REDFLAG's requirement for high-quality sources for exceptional claims we needn't say that these folks were walking around with Title II weapons just because some reporters called them assault rifles. If what we are trying to communicate is that the firearms were scary-looking and may have been meant to intimidate (which has been widely reported), then we should just say that instead. VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Doug Weller.Uenuku (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. What do you agree with, and why? VQuakr (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol, really. I agree with: 'What we can do is say "described as assault rifles" )and/or semi-automatic if we have sources.' Reasons: WP:REF / WP:CS (though I'm not normally inclined to write with abbreviations.) Uenuku (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source that quotes St. Louis police (who are more likely to know the subject than random reporter X) describing their firearms as semi-automatic. VQuakr (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

We should not be adding [sic] in the middle of "assault rifles". It's original research and bad form. Both sources unambiguously refer to them as "assault rifles". - MrX 15:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added direct quotes to the citations. We cannot say that "some sources say..." unless there are third-party sources that actually say that. In other words, we can not add expressions of doubt. I have no objection to adding "semi-automatic" in front of "assault rifles" as one of the sources did. - MrX 16:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@98TJames: Why did you change this passage to "... during protests and unrest in the city, and during which its members were armed with semi-automatic and asserted to be a far-right militia group."? It doesn't make grammatical sense.- MrX 16:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the grammar. Unfortunately, you have added original research which you are not allowed to do. - MrX 16:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: did you see the third party source I linked above? Juxtaposing the mutually exclusive terms "semi-automatic" with "assault rifle" is an exercise in demonstration of ignorance that we definitely do not want to replicate. VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The SPLC page that says "Sorry, we couldn’t find the page you’re looking for"? Help me out. - MrX 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: weird, it works for me. If this doesn't work, try Googling '"Oath Keepers Ordered to Stop Providing Security for Ferguson Businesses" SPLC'. VQuakr (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I see it now. I also found a Newsweek article that support "semi-automatic rifle", but the majority of sources seem to use "assault rifles". - MrX 21:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain what the "majority" of sources has to do with anything at the semi-parallel portion of the discussion below in this thread? VQuakr (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The term "Assault Rife" when used in reference to a semi-automatic rifle is erroneous and even the Wikipedia Page on Assault Rifles references this. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Assault_rifle. The media picked up on the military term for whatever reason but either way it is not correct. Historians agree the first true Assault Rifle was the Sturmgewehr 44. Many confuse the AR-15 platform of rifles with the M16 or M4 and they are very different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98TJames (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be deciding which term is correct, and certainly not that it is accepted that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle, see [2] and [3] - looks like a number of sources refer to the AR-15 as an assault rifle. Or have Imissed something? We could say "variously referred to as assult or semi-automatic rifles", which would have the considerable virtue of following what our sources say. Doug Weller (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I was unable to view the first link; it says the max views were met. The second link you posted is to the 1958 version of the AR-15, which was what ArmaLite called the specific product that became the M-16 military assault rifle. It is the historical ancestor of the semi-automatic rifle family generically referred to as "AR-15" today. Applying the term to civilian-model rifles of recent manufacture is unambiguously wrong. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This argument is over semantics. Can we please just quote whatever the majority of the most reliable sources say? There is no need for us to add our own views as to the gun classification(s). Uenuku (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not a discussion about semantics, and the only competing views about the definitions of technical words with precise meanings are the erroneous ones. Sources are not a democracy. We should use the best sources. I linked above the SPLC quoting St. Louis Police (neither of which are remotely supporters of this group) describing their weapons as semi-automatic. A law enforcement agency is much more qualified to make this assessment than MSNBC or the LA Times. "Semi-automatic" and "assault rifle" are mutually exclusive; any source that juxtaposes the terms is not reliable for technical assessment of firearms. While it is technically true that some title II, select-fire AR-15 parts exist and can be legally purchased (for ~$25k, a federal background check, special license, and excise tax) by a citizen if they were manufactured before 1986, that is an atypical case. It also is not possible to tell if a firearm falls into this category from its cosmetic appearance; a person would need to look up the serial number, test fire the rifle, or dismantle it and inspect the parts. Identifying when a source gets something clearly wrong, and rejecting that source (for this specific information) as a result and instead using the best sources available is completely in line with WP:RS. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a law enforcement agency that refutes that Oath keeper had assault weapons in Ferguson, then the problem can be solved by including \something along the lines of what Doug Weller proposed above. Alternatively, semi-automatic assault rifles would seem to work. If those are not acceptable, then please produce a source that supports your assertion. - MrX 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: "assault weapon" or "assault rifle"? Wildly different things. VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I also had a look at the Newsweek source you presented; again, like most generalist media sources it is not reliable for technical assessments of firearms. The M4s it says they carried are in fact assault rifles, and cannot be legally carried by a civilian due to their post-1986 manufacture. Would you be willing to self-revert? VQuakr (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Is there any source out there that knows what they're talking about?- MrX 21:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The St Louis Police was the best I have seen. I tried to go bigger-picture in this reply, which might simultaneously make for a better article while addressing the accuracy issues. What are your thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

By definition, an assault rifle is select-fire (capable of multiple shots per trigger pull), not semi-automatic (only capable of one shot per trigger pull). Thus "semi-automatic assault rifles" cannot work because it is a contradiction. Given that real legal assault rifles are very expensive, rare, and highly controlled, the claim of civilians walking around with legally-owned assault rifles would be quite exceptional, which according to Wikipedia rules requires "multiple high-quality sources." News outlets are not high-quality sources for proper identification of firearms. Leave it as it is. QuilaBird (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Semi-automatic assault rifle" is a phrase that is simultaneously nonsensical and demonstrative of ignorance of the subject. It is not an option in my opinion. Context and content both matter when evaluating sources; MSNBC is a perfectly reliable source for this group's social impact and activities but not for the technical aspects of their armament - a topic in which generalist news sources consistently fall short. This is reflected in our policy at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

So what's the Wiki rule on using terms that are commonly understood to mean something, but technically mean something else?Uenuku (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, how "commonly understood" is this? Plenty of editors here are quite clear in the definition, which is one of the very few bright-line gun definitions recognized by the federal authorities in the United States. WP:STYLE says to be consistent and precise. As I noted much earlier, what the news really means here is that the guns "look scary" - their presence is being used to intimidate and to present a "military" feel. I think we should just say that (sourced to generalist news sources with a good reputation for balanced reporting) and move the detailed, technical part "semi-automatic rifles" out of the lede, while maintaining our accuracy throughout. VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Description - viewed by many as backing a right-wing conspiracy theorist perspective

"Non-profit" is IMHO a bit pathetic and pointless. And although we can only say that it is described as such, a number of sources call it right-wing or far-right,(eg NBC[4], the UK's The Telegraph newspaper[5] and some mention their backing for conspiracy theories (which I guess is why they are so happy about the forthcoming film). See G. Edward Griffin and [6]. Elias Alias, one of the authors on their website and on James Jaeger's site, is another right-wing conspiracy theorist.[7], [8] Doug Weller (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we're missing a beat by not labelling this group as right-wing or extreme right-wing. They don't claim to be right-wing, but their views fit well within this framework. The blog posts currently on their website reflect anti-marriage equality views, an anti-Obama stance, anti-gun control, anti-"progressive" media, and pro-Fox news. Uenuku (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Upstate groups want to secede from New York: "More than a dozen groups in support of gun rights and hydraulic fracturing are organizing a rally Sunday to build support for turning upstate New York into a separate state... The groups organizing Sunday's event include Americans for Restoring the Constitution, Deposit Gas Group, Divide New York State Caucus, FundamentalHumanRights.org, Landowner Advocates of New York, New Yorkers United for Kids, NY2A, Oath Keepers, Red Dragon, Sapbush Road Group, Shooters Committee on Public Education, Tri-County Tea Party, Upstate New York Towns Association and We the People of New York." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/25/upstate-new-york-secede/32359423/ Uenuku (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the classification of this group as right-wing contested by anyone? What exactly is the dispute here? VQuakr (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Every time "right-wing" is added to the lede it is deleted.Uenuku (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"Far right" is in the lede now. Are they not synonyms? VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It says "asserted to be" which - apart from being grammatically suspect - implies that the descriptor is up for debate or erroneous. It also refers to a specific time period. Uenuku (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As near as I can tell the group presents itself as non-partisan, and basically everyone else considers it somewhere from right-leaning to extreme right. We should report that; there is no reason to call it "right wing" in Wikipedia's voice if that is what you are proposing. VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not? It's already categorised this way on Wikipedia: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Far-right_politics_in_the_United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uenuku (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems a very circular argument. Any other reasons? VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

List of sources that associate the group with the political right

• http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.3188556/heavily-armed-citizen-militia-group-the-oath-keepers-returns-to-ferguson-1.3188562 'The far-right anti-government activists, largely consists of past and present members of the military, first responders and police officers.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uenuku (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11797696/Oath-Keepers-bearing-assault-rifles-patrol-Ferguson-riots.html 'Four members of right-wing militia group arrive heavily armed in Ferguson, Missouri'
• http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html?pagewa 'Oath Keepers, which has been recruiting at Tea Party events around the country and forging informal ties with militia groups, has an enthusiastic following in Friends for Liberty. “A lot of my people are Oath Keepers,” Mr. Stevens said. “I’m an honorary Oath Keeper myself.”'
• http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/oath-keepers-offers-kentuckys-kim-davis-security-detail 'As right-wing groups go, the Oath Keepers organization is more alarming than most.'
• http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-company-elected-officials-keep 'Even among right-wing groups, the Oath Keepers organization is a pretty alarming bunch.'
• http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/heavily-armed-oath-keepers-inject-new-unease-in-ferguson-1.2313480 'Right-wing militia members arrive at protest dressed in military fatigues'
• http://www.politicalresearch.org/tag/dan-page/#sthash.NMupOU0T.dpbs 'Page has since been suspended after video of his speech to a right-wing militia group, Oath Keepers of St. Louis and St. Charles, was brought to the attention of his superiors.'
• http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/oath-keepers-turn-michael-brown-protests-ferguson-missouri-n407696 'Heavily-armed members of a controversial right-wing "patriot" group added an extra dose of unease to protests in Ferguson, Missouri, early Tuesday.'
• http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers: 'His belief that that day is imminent has led Pray to a group called Oath Keepers, one of the fastest-growing "patriot" organizations on the right.'
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rep-hit-meeting-extreme-conservatives-article-1.2281013 'Long Island Rep. Lee Zeldin is one of nine Republicans facing Democratic attacks for meeting with an extremist conservative group. A Zeldin spokeswoman acknowledges that last month he addressed the Long Island chapter of Oath Keepers...'

• The Backlash: Right-wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama by Will Bunch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uenuku (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Right Wing Resurgence: How a Domestic Terrorist Threat is Being Ignored by Daryl Johnson
• The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism by Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson Uenuku (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mosques

See[9]. Doug Weller (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified tags

None of those are justified. This article is better written than most I'd say, and a complete rewrite is clearly not required. 41 references is plenty, and if there are any unreliable sources we can discuss them here or at RSN. I note that the editor tagging this article thinks the ADL and SPLC, Salon, etc are far left & I'm not convinced these tags are in good faith (AGF is not a suicide pact). As I've said in my edit summary, the editor should go to those rticles and try to get them categorised as far-left first. Doug Weller (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; if there are concerns about a specific source it should be individually pointed out rather than tagging the entire article. VQuakr (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. Uenuku (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

well, some sources are not adequately identified, neither in the article prose (as opinions of detractors) nor in the footnote (with author, publication and date). Of course you can cite the ADL etc., but to my eye it is obvious that an ADL or SPLC is a partisan primary source in this, representing one pole in the polarisation of American politics these days (idk if this makes them "far left", only if the Oath Keepers are "far right", I suppose, these are just attack terms used by primary sources to discredit each other and a neutral account should be above them).

At present, the article uses a piece on the SPLC website to say, in Wikipedia's voice, in the lead section "The group espouses a number of false conspiracy theories and scam legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen movement and the white supremacist posse comitatus movement's Richard Mack"

now, while it is fair to cite critical pieces by political opponents, you need to take extra care to stick close to the objective facts. I would summarize the same reference as "Ryan Lenz in an article at SPLC drew attention to the "Northwest Patriots and Self Reliance Rally" hosted by the Oath Keepers in Farragut State Park, Idaho, in 2013 including seminars on various conspiracy theories". This may not sound as juicy, but that's kind of the point. Saying that the group "espouses" conspiracy theory (the terms "false" or "scam" aren't even in the linked article) suggests that they explicitly does so, in statements sanctioned by the group itself. What seems to be the factual case is that the group tolerates such views among its members, not that it actively "espouses" them.

I realize this is difficult to see when you are yourself party to a politically polarized landscape, but the fact that this outfit will attract white supremacists is perfectly unremarkable, i.e. not any more remarkable that if you find out that black supremacists voted for Obama. Of course your political opponents are going to focus on things like that, and obviously for every left-wing attack piece "discovering" white supremacism you are going to find a right-wing attack piece "discovering" black supremacism, the point is that Wikipedia is to treat both genres as primary sources.

Even the SPLC article admits that the movement's founder "was no conspiracy theorist" (strangely, this bit didn't make it into the Wikipedia's voice summary). The fact that this kind of movement is going to attract nutters is real, but also trivial, and indeed mostly a problem for the people supporting the movement (while it is free ammunition for their detractors). The idea that US federal politics has moved away from the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution is perfectly sane, as is the idea to appeal to the oath taken on the Constitution as something to be taken seriously. This doesn't make the movement a "radical" one in any way, nor is it "anti-government", as far as I can see it self-describes as actually pro-government in the sense that they do want a stable government dedicated to upholding the constitution. Nothing of this is to deny that no matter how sane their foundational principles, they then go on to attract all kinds of nutters and radicals, and it is perfectly fair to cover that, as long as it is done explicitly and neutrally.

--dab (𒁳) 06:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

I'm about to add Template:Refimprove to the article, because I see some references that I'm unhappy with. @Hontogaichiban: I'd be grateful for your involvement in this discussion. Stroller (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've addressed this. Please add a list/specific examples where the citations are not up to standard. Uenuku (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, WP:BB :) Uenuku (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to start addressing some of these issues, however I find that the article should be tagged since there are insufficient reliable sources. Additionally the article text is not congruent with sources cited. There is also a problem with the sentence structure and writing style. Trilobitealive (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources

The Membership section of the page (members must be current or former plod, military &c; they can't be racist) currently only cites the group's own website. I believe this violates Wikipedia:PRIMARY - we need to cite a good newspaper stating this. Notably I think I've seen the BBC say recently that the Oath Keepers claim this. That's not the same thing.

Alex Jones

I don't think Alex Jones's YouTube is a independent source. He is widely described as "right wing" and "a conspiracy theorist" (see here. Let's find the BBC or the New York Times saying the same thing and cite them.

Also, I'm pretty sure that YouTube videos aren't archived. I find it easier to verify text articles.

I meant to say in my original edit that, when searching for a pic to accompany the article yesterday, I found a photo of Alex Jones photographed with the Oath Keepers' founder. And, I just learned that Infowars is a website run by Jones. In the light of this pally relationship, the claim that the Oath Keepers were protecting Infowars journalists does look a bit like the Oath Keepers' mate backing them up, so again another solid source would be good. Stroller (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Rhodes has also appeared on news programs with hosts that were hostile toward him. Appearing on a show does NOT mean some sort of alliance exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:4101:1B3:DD31:C1DE:423:14D6 (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia documentation on reliable sources

• WP:VERIFY
• WP:RELIABLE
• WP:RSN

Southern Poverty Law Center and other older discussions

I have just archived most of this talk page, spanning 2010 - 2014. I'm leaving the below, because The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps coming up. If you want to discuss The Southern Poverty Law Center, put it here.

Criticism section needs attention

Southern Poverty Law Center is not a reliable source.

So long as it is cited, it is. This has been discussed more than once at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

AFD - Notability and POV

1) This organization is not notable, 2) Liberal Blogs are not reliable sources. 3) SPLC is not a reliable source, they call all conservative organizations hate groups. This article fails to meet even the most basic of Wikipedia's standards. It is so biased, poorly written and poorly sourced, that it is not salvageable and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC2D:A090:3547:9104:7718:66D3 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan reference

Looking at the references, it lists MSNBC in the work field of the reference, but the link is to Buchanans' own website. Why is MSNBC then listed?Autarch (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Oath Keepers, UK tabloid opinion pieces and POV

Reposting this from my talk page Uenuku (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I had just posted this reference Entity details and was setting up this one Johnson testimony and you popped in and in one fell swoop deleted all my edits. An article about a US political topic needs sources other than UK tabloids. Trilobitealive (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues related to style, content and sourcing so I'm tagging it as such.Trilobitealive (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to The Telegraph, it's a British right-leaning broadsheet, not a tabloid. NBC is American, and not a tabloid. The other reference is a well-researched and reviewed book. Don't delete well-referenced content just because you don't like what it says. Uenuku (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The book? I will purchase a paper copy and see, however from the reviews it would appear opinion about it to be heavily divided. (From what I have read of his work in the past I think he won his Pulitzer by appealing to the popular sensationalism in us all.) In general for good reliability one seeks objective sources. Reliable sources for an article where sources are so heavily polarized should ideally be reports of congressional reviews, academic analyses and the like. You will not achieve good article status by citing numerous half truths published by publicists pro and con.

However, critiquing the references and writing style is one thing, getting involved in what appears to be a long term editing dispute is another. So rather than posting very much on the article I may from time to time drop you or one of the other editors a new reference. Trilobitealive (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You can post all this stuff on the article talk page. This is my user talk page.Uenuku (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How can the Oath Keepers themselves (National Leadership) Edit this page to correct some misinformation.

Hello,

I am the National Media Director of Oath Keepers National and I am looking into what it would take to try and correct some of the inaccuracies regarding our organization. If I am understanding things correctly I need to be a registered user for 4 days and have made a number of edits. Once I do this will I and other members of Oath Keepers Leadership be able to directly edit this article? I am new to creating content here on Wikipedia and would appreciate the input. We are only looking to have leadership of Oath Keepers plug in and be a part of the process here so we might be more accurately portrayed.

thanks,

Jason Van Tatenhove National Media Director / Associate Editor, Oath Keepers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonvantat (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jason, and welcome! It is nigh-on-impossible for editors to write neutrally about a subject with which they have a close connection, which is why editing an article with which you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. The guideline I just linked includes the following advice:

• You are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles.
• You may propose changes by using the {{request edit}} template on talk pages.
• You may propose changes on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard.
• Your proposals may or may not be acted upon.
• If you are being paid to edit, please respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise; see PAYTALK.

Regards! VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League

Is there any reason for the Anti-Defamation League to be mentioned in the introduction? It's the only quote about the Oath Keepers' reception as a group in the introduction and there's no previous mention relating to the ADL or semites in general, so it seems somewhat unusual to put what the Anti-Defamation League thinks in the introduction. Somewhere else, maybe, but I don't really think it belongs there. Rasimmons (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus was reached on this point already some time ago. It may have been archived from the talk page.Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking through the current talk page and the archive, I see one mention (besides mine) of the ADL, and it isn't really specific to the lead quote. A general sentiment towards polarised statements, bias, objectivity, etc. in articles does not consensus make. The particular talk post was never even responded to by another editor, so I don't think consensus was reached in that case. I think that the ADL quote should be moved from the lead to another section of this article (such as this one, not removed altogether. Would that be an acceptable change for everyone? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 15:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Without the ADL quote, the lede suffers from WP:UNDUE whitewashing if we leave in the group's highly dishonest self-description. And the ADL is a highly respected nonpartisan organization constituting a good source. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be a violation of WP:Undue to include only the ADL's position when providing examples of negative opinions in the lead. Maybe we could include more sources so it doesn't lend undue weight to the ADL in relation to the subject? I doubt they're the only group that's made a public statement of opinion on the group. And as for the reliability and integrity of the ADL, I don't dislike them particularly, but I've always found them biased and I'm sure I'm not alone (see third paragraph). R. A. Simmons ^Talk 23:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to add what the SPLC says about them, that their founder is an "extremist" and that they are " an anti-government group who believe in a wild set of conspiracy theories", per the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. [10] Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, but in that case, I think it would make sense to make the statements more general by just mentioning the commonalities in the sentiments of the ADL, SPLC, and so forth. In the interest of concision, I just think it would become unwieldy to include all of the statements specifically. I think that would be fair, and I have no contention with including any viewpoints at all as long as we include adequate sources that it is at least semi-common (so adding the SPLC to the ADL's position shifts the weight more reasonably). R. A. Simmons ^Talk 14:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide some wording that would work for you? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly "The Oath keepers have been described by other groups as "extremist", "anti-government" conspiracy theorists", or something like that. I'm sure you could improve the wording. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 12:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that's an improvement. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 14:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested Semiprotection

Given an apparently "slow burn" POV-pushing/vandalism attack on this page following expiration of the previous semiprotection and the apparent desire of Oath Keepers members (if the previous conversation in fact was from the person it claims to be from), I have submitted a Request For Page Protection here:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Oath_Keepers

I don't do it lightly but the vandalism resumed almost immediately after the initial semiprotection expired and we have repeated instances of IP address and throwaway accounts associated in some way or other with the "Oath Keepers" attacking the article (Example: this [11] vandal edit filled with Sovereign citizen movement jargon). Feel free to comment on the request if needed. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is this article (semi) protected? Not s lot of problems here situ IPs or non-confirmed editors, no evident need for any kind of protection so far as I can see. Doug Weller talk 21:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: per the first post in this section: because of a (2nd in a week; the first was declined) request at RPP. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Scare quotes

I removed what looked like scare quotes from the word protect, having checked the article first. They've been returned with no real explanation, and they definitely look like scare quotes. What gives? Doug Weller talk 20:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. "Protect" is not a word that is unusual in the context it was written. Emphasizing it tends to make it an expression of doubt.- MrX 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved it to a full quote and provided proper context then that their claim to be "protecting" her was Sovereign Citizen / conspiracy theorist jargon and that they were directly attacking the judge in the case. This isn't "scare quote" stuff, they're deliberately misusing and redefining the term "protect" from a conspiracy theorist standpoint as per the source.Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Emphasizing that you disagree with their use of the word "protect" by putting it in quotes is precisely what the term "scare quotes" means. Drop the stick; no one agrees with you on this. VQuakr (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2016

Remove Anti-government, this is a lie. Don't be a contributor to a lying rhetoric. Thanks Tommyarogers (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Anti-government is sourced; your request is your opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hat note

Is the GoT episode Oathkeeper sufficiently ambiguous to merit the hat note in this article? Per WP:NAMB I think not. VQuakr (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any ambiguity necessitating a hatnote.- MrX 21:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oath Keepers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091119003612/http://www.cnn.com/video/ to http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/11/18/am.acosta.militia.oathkeepers.cnn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Daily Beast in first sentence

Any objections to removal of the Daily Beast article from the first sentence? It seems out of place where it is, and I don't see anywhere where it is needed as a source - it doesn't seem to offer anything unique. VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is there because the word "radical" had been challenged in the first sentence, and the article provides some support for that description. At one point it says there are "Questions over whether Rhodes is simply a lawyer with a devotion to civil liberties or the leader of a radical fringe group". That doesn't outright say "this is a radical fringe group". But later it says "According to Senior SPLC Fellow Mark Potok, the latest announcement that the Oath Keepers are “going operational” is further proof of the group’s radicalization." I consider this article to be necessary documentation for the otherwise unacceptable description of the group as "radical".--MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that seems a reasonable argument. The connection wasn't immediately obvious to me; what do you think of moving the citation callout to immediately after the word "radical"? How about replacing the source with an additional instance of this SPLC article, which is already used in the article (#11 as of this writing) and more explicitly labels the group as "radical"? VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of those suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Malheur

Should the OK's peripheral involvement with the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge be mentioned in this article? They were involved with some of the early Hammond protests and released lots of press material about the occupation, but seem to have discouraged their members from actually participating. I could see it being considered not relevant to mention, or important to a more current understanding of the subject. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Because it got so much press, I think it is appropriate to mention it. It doesn't appear to be there currently, unless I missed it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Richard Mack and Posse Comitatus

Someone removed language concerning Richard Mack's association with the Posse Comitatus movement. See reference here. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/02/richard-mack-pitches-classic-posse-comitatus-theory-foxs-lou-dobbs-tonight Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Also see this source already referenced in the article, showing that Mack is promoting Posse Comitatus theories as well. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/evidence-grows-far-right-militia-resurgence Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

See also this source referencing Mack as "Richard Mack, the former sheriff and “posse comitatus” figure..." http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/right-wing-radicals-plot-takeover-of-rural-arizona-county-to-test-nutty-political-theories/ Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Richard Mack and Posse Comitatus are both mentioned in the article, though the latter (problematically) appears in the lede but not the body. What changes are your proposing to the article? VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked the three sources in the article (all three from SPLC). None of them says anything to justify putting Richard Mack into the lead as if he was part of Posse Comitatus. Two of the articles do not link him with them at all. The third, also mentioned above, says "Mack's views echo those of the Posse Comitatus," which is a far cry from saying he is part of the group. Of the new articles listed above, the first one (SPLC) says Mack promotes a theory that was first promoted by "the old far-right Posse Comitatus movement"; it does not say he is a member of Posse Comitatus. The Raw Story link given above describes Richard Mack as a "posse comitatus figure"; that is the only source that actually says he is part of Posse Comitatus, and it's hard to trust the accuracy or neutrality of an article whose headline talks about "nutty political theories." Richard Mack's Wikipedia article does not mention Posse Comitatus. Bottom line, Mack says many of the same things that Posse Comitatus said or originated; that does not justify referring him to as "the posse comitatus movement's Richard Mack". I believe Richard Mack's name should be deleted from the lead and it should just say "associated with the sovereign citizen movement and the white supremacist posse comitatus movement." --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I seem to be the second person to reach this conclusion. A few days ago User:Rasimmons removed this language from the sentence, saying "I couldn't find any evidence at all that Richard Mack is tied to the Posse". I couldn't either, and I think his name should be removed. Rasimmons also removed "white supremacist" and I agree that it should be removed also, partly because it is redundant, and partly because it's irrelevant, a kind of guilt by association. The "conspiracy and legal theories" that Mack supports do not include the white supremacist and antisemitic elements of the Posse's philosophy; he focuses on its anti-government, county-first, sheriff-above-all elements. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This should be done immediately per WP:BLPREMOVE, no? VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that makes three of us agreeing that we should remove the claim that Mack is part of Posse Comitatus from the lead. And there is a BLP issue. So I will do that now. That leaves the question about the wording "white supremacist posse comitatus movement", being discussed below.--MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, Mack is a white supremacist who works directly with other white supremacists. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/former-arizona-sheriff-richard-mack-seeks-%E2%80%98army%E2%80%99-sheriffs-resist-federal-authority

"It so happens, though, that these worlds often intersect with the racist and xenophobic groups that see the nation as divinely created for white people. For example, on Sept. 8, Mack appeared on “The Political Cesspool,” a wildly racist radio show that has promoted the views of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, antigovernment conspiracy theorists and other extremists. He told host James Edwards, “We do have a solution for what’s going on in Washington, D.C. We can make the federal government irrelevant.”

Mack also has been a longtime supporter of white supremacist Randy Weaver. In 2003, he wrote the forward to Weaver’s book, Vicki, Sam and America: How the Government Killed All Three. It had been 11 years since the deadly siege of the Weavers’ cabin in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, an event that helped fuel the militia movement of the 1990s, but Mack treated the event with fresh indignation. He chastised the federal government for inflicting an “unimaginable hell” on the Weavers and defended the family’s racist ties under the guise of “restor[ing] America as a country dedicated to freedom and liberty.”"

• http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/10/meet-richard-mack-the-oath-keeper-runnin
• http://www.mhrn.org/publications/specialresearchreports/AdvisoryonMack.pdf
• https://www.hcn.org/issues/46.13/the-tea-party-loses-one-in-colorado
• Book Reference - Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right By David Neiwert https://books.google.com/books?id=RdlqCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
• NAACP REPORT http://naacp.3cdn.net/36b2014e1dddfe3c81_v7m6bls07.pdf

Can we PLEASE stop playing games of trying to pretend people aren't what they are in the face of the evidence? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And I assume this is all pointed out in Mack's article. OK, Mack hobnobs with white supremacists. But we are removing his name from the lead (per consensus above) so that's kind of irrelevant to the lead. Why exactly we have to identify the posse comitatus movement as white supremacist in the lead - more importantly than any other of the many (hateful) things the group stood for? --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Richard Mack's Wikipedia article does not mention Posse Comitatus." - MelanieN, I have left a note on the talk page indicating that the article needs to be updating and linking this discussion since I have provided numerous sources here. I can copy the sources to that discussion for talk if need be. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you linked to this discussion, so that people from that article can come here and see that a consensus here did not accept your sources as evidence that he is affiliated with Posse Comitatus (as opposed to echoing many of their ideas). --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"A consensus" meaning you acting unilaterally, ignoring sources. Your actions are premature and reverted as such.Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As Melanie noted, three editors - that is not unilateral. As I noted above, BLP policy requires that poorly-sourced contentious claims about living people be removed immediately. Finding a source that states that Mack has been on the same radio show as, talked with, or in any way associated with members of PC doesn't support the claim that he represents the movement. It is particularly questionable in this article, which is about neither Mack nor the PC. VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly; consensus was three to one against including him. And I did not "ignore" the sources; in fact I analyzed each one in detail[12] - and found that they do not support linking Mack with the PC. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The lede

Right now, the Posse Comitatus is mentioned in the lede but not the body. That needs correction, since the lede should summarize the body. Should the PC association be a separate section in the body, or just a sentence somewhere? Is the association relevant enough to the subject of the article to merit its mention in the lede at all? VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Racism allegations subchapter

I noticed the following statement used as an argument supporting a racist nature to the promise keepers:

"In August 2015, John Karriman, a teacher at Missouri Southern State University's Police Academy and head of the Missouri chapter of the Oath Keepers used the term “mulatto” to describe U.S. President Barack Obama on CBC Radio’s As It Happens program."

Given that this is a (somewhat obvious) verifiable statement of fact (i.e. President Barack Hussein Obama is known to be of mixed-race lineage), I fail to see why it should be included as evidence, any more than statements like "Water is wet," "It's dark at night" or "Fire is hot" should be. It is also slanderous against John Karriman--we're insinuating by inclusion some racist opinions upon his part, without any justification for doing so. Also, if Mr. Karriman were racist, it would be more likely he would use an inflammatory synonym for "mulatto." (I don't believe I need to give an example thereof, right?) By using (AFAIK) a value-neutral word, it at least implies a lack of racist intent.

Any objections to removal? 108.32.28.147 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Objection to removal - The term "mulatto" in this day and age is considered a racial slur (see Mulatto, it is "archaic" and "pejorative"), especially when used against people who do not self-identify by the term. The sentence is appropriate and well sourced to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a well respected Reliable Source per the policy. The fact that the head of an Oath Keepers state chapter used a racial slur in his official capacity while representing his group to the media is notable and appropriate for our mention. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Followup: we're actually being KIND to Karriman by limiting the phrasing. Karriman has also gone a lot further in news interviews/conferences, echoing racist right-wing screeds about Kenya in relation to Barack Obama while referencing him as "our mulatto president." [13] Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, are you sure you linked the right source there? I can't seem to find any statements relating to that in the source you've linked. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 11:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Pasted wrong link. See here. [14]

"Somehow, the questions allowed Karriman to spiral off into well-charted right-wing territory: abortion, a tyrannical Justice Department, something about Kenya, and “our mulatto president.”"

Also available here [15]

"John Karriman, who told 2015 protesters that he thought President Barack Obama was a Muslim from Kenya, was there. Photos taken at the time showed him sporting two high-powered assault weapons from a nearby rooftop."

Hope that helps you RASimmons. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The first one absolutely makes your point, I think. The second one is kind of irrelevant, in my opinion. Thinking Obama is a Kenyan Muslim is entirely incorrect, but I don't think it's comparable to calling him an outright racial slur. But I still object to removal on the basis of the "mulatto" statement. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 15:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The repetition of birther conspiracy theories is generally considered racist, and the fact that he includes them in his speeches where he refers to the POTUS as "our mulatto president" seems contradictory to the drive-by IP's claim that the man does not mean it in a racist manner. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the IP. I just don't think that the birther theories make him intrinsically racist. The "mulatto" comment is the damning issue here. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 16:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Object I have to agree with Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz on this one. "Mulatto" comes across as ignorant and insensitive at the very least, and often as racist outright. Seeing as the figure in question has direct association with the Oath Keepers and made the statement in a professional capacity, I think it's relevant and obviously not slanderous. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 04:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Are there any sources that have characterized Karriman's statements as racist and stated that they are representative of the group? Or are we making that synthesizing that position? VQuakr (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake. He used a racial slur on a public radio program while representing the organization. If he'd used the word "N****r" we'd not be having this discussion, and I can't believe anyone is giving credence to a drive-by IP clearly a member of the Oath Keepers organization trying to claim that the word used isn't just as much of a racial slur. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We are not discussing use of the n-word, and our own article on the term in question describes it as "archaic", not "racist." The sentence being discussed is in a section titled "accusations of racism"; who is making the accusation of racism in this specific example? VQuakr (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't really think we need to cite a source to know that the word "mulatto" is racist. Our own article, which you cited, immediatly after "archaic" adds "and may be taken as pejorative, especially in the United States." Further, the section is question doesn't claim that such talk is representative of the group - only that some members talk that way. That does seem relevant to the earlier mention, in that section, of bylaws that claim no bigots are allowed. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Either way, I think that the term is poorly-regarded to the point of insensitivity, and comes off as bigoted, especially in a public forum. I agree with MelanieN (and her support) on this. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 23:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we rename the section then? A section titled "allegations of racism" should contain, allegations by secondary sources, not examples of primary sources that we as editors think are racist. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually see your point, VQuakr. I think that we can all agree that it's easily interpreted as a racist/ignorant statement, but that isn't up to us as editors. While the current sources describe it as controversial, none actually call it racist. If we can't find sources that do call it racist outright, maybe we could rename the section or remove the header and move the information elsewhere in the article. I'll try to find some sources, but I'm pretty busy today. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 13:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It actually didn't take long to find some sources that allege racism, but mostly regarding the Dan Page incident, rather than John Karriman's statements. What I did find on Karriman seems to provide some support for your side (although it isn't really a secondary source). As for Dan Page, Mother Jones always seems to have the dirt on the Oath Keepers, and the title of this article alone alleges racism. It's definitely one-sided, but it doesn't seem very editorial. This one is almost a carbon copy of the Mother Jones article, but with a lot more editorial, it would seem. Here's an alright one from the Guardian, which describes the remarks as "racist and derogatory". As for allegations unrelated to the Page incident, this one is pretty interesting, and I'm surprised that it isn't mentioned here already. It details the comments of a former Oath Keepers member: "Andrews stated that the group’s decision to not stand up for the constitutional rights of the citizens of Ferguson was largely related to race". Could I get everyone's opinion on adding those to the section in question? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 14:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding them to the section. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Propose renaming the section "Incidences and accusations of racism" Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't really agree with that proposal, as it goes further than "allegations" into implying that the racism exists, and obviously that's contentious among the editors here. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 14:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need a separate section name for this? Could it simply be included under "membership"? It's only two paragraphs (and doesn't deserve more; I don't agree with piling on allegation after allegation, only allegations that received significant attention). Or if there is consensus for a separate section, could it simply be titled "Controversy" as is done in most Wikipedia articles? I certainly don't agree with using "Incidents of..." in the title, that would be a value judgment in Wikipedia's voice. Maybe "Allegations of racism" would be best if a separate title is desired. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

1. It probably shouldn't be a subheading of the "Membership" section but separated completely.
2. The content should remain, and as more incidences happen and are notable enough for mainstream media attention, should be reflected accordingly.
3. I'm open to suggestions on the section name, "Controversy" or "Controversies" would probably be fine for now until it expands enough to need subheadings. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Man, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, sounds like you've really written the Oath Keepers off. Anyway, I agree with a "Controversy" section name, as it is broad enough to contain any controversies that have/may occur, but does not imply that racists fall under the "Membership". I definitely think the accusations subheading should be moved out of that section, regardless. So, all in favor of moving the allegations subheading under "Controversy"? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 20:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree and I think it should be placed just above the "Reception" section. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Another item for membership

Oath Keepers "official" membership guidelines say that they do not allow felons.

However, one of their own has been convicted of gun trafficking, and the Oath Keepers are instead supportive and gathering money for his legal bills.

http://delmarvapublicradio.net/post/former-gop-senate-candidate-pleads-guilty-illegal-gun-dealing#stream/0 http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/gun-loving-tea-party-candidate-in-delaware-to-plead-guilty-to-federal-firearms-charges/ https://www.oathkeepers.org/oath-keeper-in-delaware-arrested-for-selling-guns/

Should we have a mention of this? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Be careful regarding BLP. He didn't plead guilty to "gun trafficking" but one count of "unlawful dealing in firearms". It doesn't seem particularly relevant to the subject of this article. VQuakr (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

From the 2nd source "The head of the Oath Keepers gun militia group, which claimed Opaliski as a member, complained that the state’s Republican Party was insufficiently supportive. “Looks like the Republican party there is more than happy to throw him under the bus if it is in ‘the best interest of the party first and foremost,'” said Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers founder." - Indicates his membership and organization support. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that he is a member of OK. That doesn't make it particularly relevant to OK itself in my opinion. What do others think? VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't be relevant if he were merely a member - it's relevant because the OK have been actively speaking out to support him and raising money for him. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say, do not include this. Yes, he is a member of Oath Keepers. Yes, he had some kind of gun related conviction. But putting them together - "look, they say they don't allow felons but here's a felon who's a member!" - is original research / synthesis. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Also he was a member first, plea bargain afterwards. Not sure if that matters. Has any reliable source identified the charge he pled to as a felony? VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not only does this appear to be original research/information synthesis, it is seemingly incorrect original research/information synthesis. It is obvious that Opaliski plead guilty to the crime long after the fund was started. I'd like to point out that legally, there's really no point in raising funds for a defense if someone pleads guilty. It seems that the Oath Keepers lent their support when there was still a reasonable presumption that he was innocent. Now that he made a guilty plea, he can be presumed guilty, but the Oath Keepers article and the campaign both appeared before the plea. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 21:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check after recent vandalism

In case anyone has evidence to contribute, I opened an SPI case after the most recent round of recurring vandalism. I suspect that there are some sleeper sockpuppets lying around. It's also very possible that this is being organized or prompted by one of the Oath Keepers' various members-only internet forums, especially since the IP vandalism and throwaway account issues increased following the throwaway account purporting to be from Oath Keeper leadership that posted previously in this talk page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

I must admit, I'm beginning to see a bit of a trend on this article. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 20:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rasimmons: always a concern on contentious articles. Looking at the last ~2 months, though, I don't really see anything super-objectionable being added and retained. Or does it go back further that that? Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: It seems to me as if there's a bias in this article, strongly against the Oath Keepers an an organisation/ideology, and that some editors are willing to ignore various policy guidelines in order to push a POV. Frankly, I don't care for the group or dislike them, but there seems to be an issue regarding neutrality in general here. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 01:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? For example, in the "reception" section we quote SPLC, ADL, Fox News, and MSNBC. That seems like a pretty reasonable spread to me. Are there different, similarly-reliable sources with a different opinion? That could be in indication that the sources used were (whether intentionally or not) cherry-picked. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: There's this Mother Jones article, which is unusually balanced for how far-left Mother Jones sometimes is, and it isn't referenced here. Also, this Rolling Stone article on Oath Keeper activity is pretty good and addresses some of the issues with this page directly. I'm not a huge fan of Gawker, frankly, but this one here talks about Ferguson and more clearly explains the situation than what is currently in this article, I think. Further, it just seems to me that a lot of the language in this article is intentionally slanted against the Oath Keepers, attempting to identify it with people it specifically distances itself from (or people who distance themselves from it) and unrelated movements with the aim of smearing the group. Maybe my criticisms are totally unfounded. I don't know. I'd like to hear some other editors' opinions. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 02:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Mother Jones article is pretty negative; I think pulling a "positive" quote out of that source would border on cherry picking. VQuakr (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we're reading the same article. It seems to be, at the very worst, skeptical. Compared to this article, it reads like pro-Oath Keeper propaganda and I think that even if we considered it negative, anything reliable that can add balance here is a plus. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 01:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I just removed some of the loaded and POV language - "radical", "false", "scam" - from the lead paragraph. I only came here to evaluate the article for possible page protection, and I am still evaluating that. But we can't allow this kind of non-neutral (and poorly sourced or unsourced) language at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

We can if it's attributed. However some wasn't in the sSPLC source, although it certainly mentions some seriously weird stuff. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Good. I was afraid that I was the only person who thought some of that language was unreasonable. With regard to the SPLC source, they seem to be taking an unreasonably negative stance towards the Oath Keepers without much reasoning, but they're still a source, and still an example of criticism, which is necessary. However, it seems as if this article is/was using statements from detractors with undue weight and provides almost no pro-Oath Keepers secondary sources (I'm quite sure that they exist) which seems a bit like editing contrary to WP:NPOV. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 22:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with some things but MelanieN is inappropriate removing sourced language and claiming that the SPLC does not qualify as an NPOV source, that's been done to death already in the appropriate discussion areas. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, but the language I removed was NOT sourced, and the SPLC is fine as a source as long as it is identified as the source (as is done in the second paragraph of the lead). As for the content, I have two problems with you restoring the material I deleted. First, you restored the word "radical" in the first sentence, where it was used as a primary identifying word much as we might use "political" or "American" or "nonprofit". That sentence has two footnotes, but as far as I can see, neither of them uses the word "radical" as an identifier; the SPLC calls it "the far-right Oath Keepers", and the Daily Beast op-ed does not use any primary identifier for the group that I can see. Please explain why "radical" should not be deleted from the lead sentence, or replaced with a sourced identifier such as "right-wing". Second, you restored the sentence about "false conspiracy theories and scam legal theories", putting it in the second paragraph instead of the first. I can't find any justification for the words "false" and "scam"; IMO they are judgmental, POV, OR, and not in the sources. Since the sentence is now in a paragraph that attributes the information to the SLPC, I would be OK with keeping it as "The group espouses a number of conspiracy theories and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen movement and the white supremacist posse comitatus movement's Richard Mack." Are you OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have converted the phrase "scam legal theories" to "discredited legal theories" to be more neutral, and added more explicit sourcing for the rest. Please let me know if you still have issues - WITHOUT going to harassment tactics like VQuakr is doing. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

False accusation of harassment is a serious thing, but let's keep the behavioral stuff off of article talk space. I see you are proposing cracked.com as a source now; I do not think it is reliable. What do others think? Think it is appropriate to keep "radical" in the lead sentence? VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is appropriate to describe the group as radical in the lead [16][17]. No, Cracked is not a reliable source nor is Mad Magazine.- MrX 18:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, there seem to be some reliable sources describing them that way, but I agree that Cracked is not a reliable source. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 15:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also find the harassment allegation illegitimate here. It seems to me that User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is engaging in article ownership, especially with "please let me know if you still have issues". Statements like that are pretty symptomatic of iffy editing practices, in my opinion. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 15:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Prostetnic, I see that you have once again inserted the POV/OR word "false" in front of "conspiracy theories" in the lead. This is not only POV/OR, it is unnecessary and redundant. Calling something a "conspiracy theory" almost automatically implies that it is false. I am going to remove it again, and I want to see you specifically defend that word, here at Talk, before adding it again. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The sentence immediately preceding that one quotes the SPLC about "a wild set of conspiracy theories"; isn't that good enough for you, without saying again in the very next sentence, in Wikipedia's voice, that the conspiracy theories are false? --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

There you go with uncivil threats MelanieN. Would it cost you so much to treat people with respect?

The SPLC regularly uses the phrase FALSE conspiracy theories. See https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/margins-mainstream. The article covers the Oath Keepers and other associated groups. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: I don't think anyone here is arguing that the "FEMA concentration camp" theory has merit (if they did, your SPLC link above might be relevant). Speaking of repecting other editors, can you explain why you reverted this edit? And this and this and this? VQuakr (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Until such time as I see an apology from you for your uncivil harassment and trolling, VQuakr, I'm not responding to you any further. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPYES. Should I interpret the response above to mean that you do not object to that content's inclusion? VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It means as long as you continue your harassment tactics, bad faith trolling, and uncivil conduct you will get no response from me regarding content whatsoever. Go away until you can be civil, I will not be trolled. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Prostetnic, since you somehow managed to perceive lack of respect and "uncivil threats" in my message above, I will not argue with you. (You also somehow discover "harrassment" and "trolling" and "uncivil conduct" in the perfectly civil comments from VQuakr.) I will just ask the other people on this page what they think, so we can develop a WP:CONSENSUS. Here's the issue: in the last paragraph of the lead section, the next -to-last sentence describes the group as "really just an anti-government group who believe in a wild set of conspiracy theories." That is followed immediately by a sentence which says, "The group espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen movement..." The question is, should we insert "false" in front of "conspiracy theories" in that sentence, or not? I think we probably all agree that the conspiracy theories in question are false; the question is whether to say so in Wikipedia's voice, and whether it is even necessary to say it again, since the group had just been described as believing in "a wild set of conspiracy theories." Comments, anyone? --MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You also somehow discover "harrassment" and "trolling" and "uncivil conduct" in the perfectly civil comments from VQuakr. - No, he's being a harassing troll by leaving uncivil threats and randomly throwing "messageboard reports" about me around.

Now if you will READ the previous discussions, people previously objected to having only the SPLC reports listed as sources, which is why I went out in good faith (which has not been reciprocated by others here) to find other WP:RS Reliable Sources on the topic. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Uncivil threats", like the ones you supposedly found in my comment? Anyhow, I am not going to argue with you. I am waiting to hear what others think about the word "false". --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with all of this discussion about uncivility, given what I've seen. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, if what you say about VQuakr is true, I'd like to see some evidence and then I'd certainly agree with you. Besides that, I am against inserting "false" into the lead section where it has been proposed. It is rather redundant. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 12:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Just got into this page. I'd like to review it for any NPOV concerns. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

In the lead I would say the source used to describe the group as "radical" is not a good one. Not to say there aren't other sources that would be better. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I could be wrong here, but I generally would not assume Southern Poverty Law Center as reliable. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also contend there is too much weight in the lead about the groups critics and those who accuse it of being an "extremist hate group". That borders on a Coatrack. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: what is your concern with SPLC? By any chance, have you reviewed the previous discussions about it as a source? VQuakr (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears at the time this came up, DaltonCastle had neither had the chance to look over the discussion history nor a chance to review the sourcing properly. Also, the SPLC is a reliable source regarding hate groups. Checking against [RS Criteria], SPLC has a strong reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair, but this is not a hate group. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, reliable sourcing aside, weight and attribution is still a concern. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's an extremist group, which similarly the SPLC has a long history of reliable, scholarly tracking of. And editors on this page have done quite a bit of work to try to balance the article, which makes it all the more difficult when people come in with the same arguments over and over again right after the article gets unprotected.

Following assume good faith I am going to assume you are merely trying to do the "right thing" by looking at things you believe the IP vandals and throwaway sockpuppets are concerned with, but I will point out at this point - we've now done this dance many, many times before. It's now the FIFTH time that the article has had to be protected due to organized Oath Keepers attempts to overwhelm it. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, and not a problem. I've been embattled with plenty of sock puppets myself. The problem is that you start to view everything they are doing as wrong, due to their tactics to get it done. You lose sight of what their concerns were, or what problem might be there on the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

To respond to that:

• Their concerns have been diligently addressed over and over again, including an incredibly careful and diligent round of work on the sentences of the lede, sourcing of wording to make sure that someone can't complain "the source doesn't use that word" to a paraphrasing, and even discussion of WHERE in a sentence the source should be linked in order to maximally signal which source is provided for which word that has been argued over.
• This has been gone round and round and round and round on for months now. The problem isn't the wording on the page, or anything else; the problem is a right-wing extremist group (Source: Anti-Defamation League) that's engaging in what appears to be an organized off-wiki sockpuppet/meatpuppet coordination campaign (refer to on the SPI investigation).

So, there's where I stand. The "what their concerns are" has been done to death by now, and this isn't a case of any legitimate concerns remaining. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Kharne45991 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)I agree, this is obviously full of biased sources, and a complete mockery of unbiased knowledge. The ADL has a clear agenda, and this needs to be fixed.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

Using the term "radical" in describing the Oathkeepers purpose and membership is wrong and slanderous as a member I demand this be changed.

Michael Griffin

Deepblue1947 (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2016 (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. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Kharne45991 (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)I agree with Mr. Griffin, and request for the first sentence in on this page to be changed. The use of the word radical is slanderous, and primes an otherwise unbiased reader to view the organization in a negative way before any facts are presented. I request that the sentence;

X: "Oath Keepers is an American radical[1] organization associated with the anti-government patriot movement."

be changed to;

Y: "Oath Keepers are a group of American Constitutional Conservatives that have been associated with the anti-government Patriot Movement."

Again, I request that the first sentence, denoted by X:, be changed to what I have provided above, denoted by Y:.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharne45991 (talk • contribs) 

 Not done: Content is properly sourced. GAB^gab 23:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - The language you propose is not reflective of sources like this one: this one. If you wish for this change to be made, you need to provide sources that support your change and seek consensus on this talk page.- MrX 23:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The ADL, and SPLC are no longer credible sources to cite. The FBI removed them from their page as partners.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/26/fbi-severs-ties-with-liberal-domestic-terrorism-inspiring-southern-poverty-law-center/

But I will provide sources to cite for the change that I have requested.Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 23:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a follow up request for the first sentence in on this page to be changed, but with a source to cite for the description. The use of the word "radical" is slanderous, and primes an otherwise unbiased reader to view the organization in a negative way before any facts are presented. I request that the sentence;

X: "Oath Keepers is an American radical[1] organization associated with the anti-government patriot movement."

be changed to;

Y: "Oath Keepers are an association of current and former U.S. soldiers and police who aim to protect the U.S. Constitution."

Again, I request that the first sentence, denoted by X:, be changed to what I have provided above, denoted by Y:. I have provided a source to cite for the change that is a description not given by the group themselves.

Below is the quote that I have taken from the article.

"Reuters describes them as "an association of current and former U.S. soldiers and police who aim to protect the U.S. Constitution,""

Below is the link to the description that I have provided:

http://www.newsweek.com/oath-keepers-infowars-joe-biggs-ferguson-riot-blacklivesmatter-361967

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharne45991 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That Newsweek article just references [18] this Reuters article, which makes clear that the statement you propose is the group's own "mission statement." We care much less about what an entity has to say about itself than what reliable sources have to say about said group, which is why we use ADL and SPLC. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

On my iPadso not replying in detail, but I'm tired of the lie about the FBI removing the SPLC & ADL as partners.[19]. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

And to be clear it is not only incorrect, but also totally irrelevant to a discussion about whether they are reliable sources for use on Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Article is repleat with false information

Reason for the following change: The Wikipedia article about Oathkeepers is repleat with politically biased and false descriptions about the Oathkeepers organization. This language has clear political intones, is patently false, and severely diminishes the credibility of the source. Please change the following entry to the suggested entry.

The following statement should be stricken: "Oath Keepers is an American radical[1] organization."

The replacement statement should accurately be: "Oath Keepers is an organization with a stated purpose of assuring that members of American law enforcement and American military organizations will be reminded of the constitutional limits of these organizations within the borders of the United States of America. Oath Keepers membership is voluntary, and is based on a shared ideology of enumerated powers of the US government, as outlined in the US Constitution and as described by the Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers and other public discourses during the founding of the United States. Oath Keepers objectives are based on an as-written interpretation of the US Constitution."

Reason for the following change: The movement referred to as "patriot movement" is not oriented toward being so-called "anti-government" and has never collectively stated itself to be against the existence of the government. The patriot movement is an ideologically oriented voluntary group of individuals who are united in constraining the US government and government organizations to adherence to the enumerated powers that described in the US constitution. Please change the following entry to the suggested entry.

The following statement should be stricken: "associated with the anti-government patriot movement."

The replacement statement should accurately be: "loosely associated with the commonly called patriot movement, which supports constitutional restraints on government powers."

Signed: Cruiser0416 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Cruiser0416 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Declined. This is your uncited opinion, or is the words of the Oath Keepers themselves. The descriptions you object to are cited to third-party sources. The word "radical" was discussed extensively above; that's why there is a citation next to it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cruiser0416: consider having a look at WP:MISSION. That essay summarizes a common viewpoint, which is that as an encyclopedia we are much less interested in what an organization has to say about itself, than what independent sources have to say about an organization. VQuakr (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The attribution you refer to is filled with either liberal progressive editorial or false linkages. For example, the Bundy standoff was initiated by Bundy, not by the oranization Oath Keepers. If members of Oath Keepers may have been present to observe, that is no different from a Washington Post reporter being present to observe. It does not establish a causal or associative relationship. Each of these referenced articles mentions Oath Keepers, however they do not establish that Oath Keepers follows the agenda that the Wikipedia article says that they do. Pursuing adherence to the US Constitution can hardly be called "radical" except in places such as totalitarian and repressive regimes. Please inform us of how supporting the US Constitution amounts to being "radical." Are you stating that strict interpretation of the constitution is generally radical? If so, then you have to contend with about 150 million fellow Americans who disagree with you. If you want counterbalancing articles which dispute the Washington Post type articles, please tell us how many you want - because I can produce as many as you need. As long as you have not already blocked out any sources that you disagree with. Again, this article is a political liberal progressive editorial and not up to the standards of being an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is diminished severely by the Oath Keeper article and by disparaging the so-called "patriot" movement. signed: Cruiser0416 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Our policy on reliable sourcing is here. If you have questions or concerns about a specific statement and its sourcing consider using the reliable sources noticeboard. VQuakr (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Cruiser0416, this article is filled with partisan disinformation and blatant propaganda. It should be completely rewritten or deleted. For example, it includes statements by the hate group SPLC in the article. The SPLC definitely does not fit the definition of a reliable source. Britcom 21:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think the John Birch Society is a goo source? Anyway, past discussions at WP:RSN disagree with you, as does the FBI. Doug Weller talk 05:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I'm just now noticing that a lot of the information in the "Controversy" section is not sourced with any third-party sources that describe a controversy. Certainly, the events and actions should be subjects of controversy, but they do not become controversial until there is some disagreement about them - per the definition of controversy. Where there are sources, the events are described more than the controversy surrounding them, it seems. Could we find some sources linking these events to controversy about them? Something that even makes the events notable? Maybe we could change it around to more effectively meet WP:CSECTION? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 03:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Second Paragraph of Lead

I remember consensus being reached regarding the WP:UNDUE quotations in the second paragraph of the lead. I think they were removed. I don't know why they've been put back in, as they're simply editorials from individuals not representative of reliable experts. Am I confused or did this get added back in against consensus? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Poking around the diffs in the history I don't see where they were actually removed. But the paragraph does need improvement, both to meet WP:DUE and so that it better summarizes the body. As a first step I suggest moving most of the quotes to the "reception" section. VQuakr (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Totally undue. These quotes can all be summarized in the lead with a single sentence. Specifics can be moved to the body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll move the quotes and add a summary to the lead when I have the time—possibly later today. If one of you guys wants to go ahead and do it first, though, be my guest. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 18:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

Please remove the word "RADICAL" from this posting.

Broxtop (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done term is sourced, and its use has been extensively discussed here before. The discussion archive is here. VQuakr (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr, I'm not sure if you remember me, but I was somewhat involved in the discussions regarding neutrality (including the use of "radical" in the lede). Could you point out where in the discussion archives consensus was reached on the use of "radical"? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 20:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rasimmons: hi, yes I remember you and hope you are well. I was thinking of the discussions here and here, but upon review I find the first discussion isn't really "extensive" and the second (in which you were involved) had issues with drama getting in the way of civil discussion. Do you think this should be revisited? VQuakr (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I think that the way I've changed it isn't bad, and it doesn't necessarily need revisiting in this condition, but if it's objectionable to anyone, I'm open to a discussion. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 15:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem with "radical" without attribution was that the SPLC isn't a reliable source. Discussions across Wikipedia have led to a general consensus that the SPLC can be cited for these sorts of determinations, but only with in-text attribution. What is an easier case is that various reliable sources have called Oath Keepers "far-right" or "extremist." These belong in the first sentence and do not require in-text attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: can you link to a RSN discussion in which SPLC was found to be unreliable, in a broad context and by a clear consensus? VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but please see WP:BURDEN. You can also find relevant discussions in places such as the archives of Talk:Stop Islamization of America. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN doesn't say anything about evaluation of sources as reliable, just that challenged statements should be sourced. SPLC is broadly cited and reliable, and your link to some other random local consensus is irrelevant. If you haven't bothered to research the source enough to know if it's been discussed at RSN, you should probably hold off on bold statements-of-fact about reliability. VQuakr (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Establishing reliability requires more than saying "it's reliable." Prove it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that this argument is pretty much a non-sequitur. My edit changed the structure and wording to remove the undue weight on a single SPLC contributor's opinion. I think the current form doesn't assume that the SPLC is correct, or even reliable, but simply says that the SPLC has referred to the group as radical. I think it's pretty fair. However if we can determine that the SPLC is unreliable, then it would make sense to just remove the piece altogether, I suppose. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 18:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It really doesn't matter if the SPLC is reliable or not. Any noteworthy opinion should be included, and the SPLC is certainly a notable organization whose views are regularly cited. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

Please remove "anti-government" from the first sentence and add "While it is listed as being anti-government by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the official position of the Oath Keepers does not advocate or promote any anti-government activity" (Without quotes)

References

Demodax (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC) (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. The reliable sources commonly describe the group as being anti-government, and moreover this is a key distinguishing characteristic of the group. The description as "anti-government" is not limited to the SPLC; many other reliable sources directly describe it as "anti-government," such as Theda Skocpol & Vanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 33, and Alan Feuer, "Standoff in Oregon Attracts Supporters Bearing Disparate Grievances," New York Times (January 16, 2016). Neutrality^talk 18:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Constitution is Not the same as Anti-Government

The references to anti-government should be removed from this article. The Oath Keepers organization appears to be a proponent of the government following the constitution more than it appears to be strictly anti-government. A good source for this argument is that other people within government have publicly supported the idea that illegal orders should not be followed. While disobeying orders itself is illegal, disobeying the illegal order is more important than following an illegal order. This is not anti-government, this is something that is required when tyranny abounds or a tyrannical leader issues illegal orders that cause grave harm. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/28/former-cia-director-military-may-refuse-to-follow-trumps-orders-if-he-becomes-president/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaccountforme1 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

If the sources say the group is anti-government, then we say the group is anti-government. That's the way Wikipedia works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, after quickly doing a text-search, the only sources here that use the term "anti-government" are the ADL and SPLC, neither of which claim to attempt a neutral or minimal-bias view in their reports, unlike the newspapers cited for the term "far-right." And I think I don't need to tell you that readers in the U.S. at this time need their coffee served at room temperature with each bean inspected to be free of holes before trusting it not to be poisoned. How are you liking my metaphors? SamuelRiv (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The ADL and the SPLC are respected authorities on extremism, frequently cited not only by the news media, but also by scholars. (A quick search of a scholarly database would confirm this).

But, leaving that aside, the group is unquestionably anti-government and is directly cited as such in an array of journalistic and academic sources; e.g.:

• Lois Beckett & Oliver Laughland, Specter of election day violence looms as Trump spurs vigilante poll watchers, The Guardian (November 5, 2016): "One of America's largest anti-government armed militia groups, the Oath Keepers."
• Theda Skocpol & Vanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 33: "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."
• Alan Feuer, "Standoff in Oregon Attracts Supporters Bearing Disparate Grievances," New York Times (January 16, 2016): "members of the so-called Patriot movement, an umbrella effort of antigovernment activists that includes groups like the Oath Keepers, an organization of law enforcement officers and military veterans."
• Michael Crowley, Trump's long dalliance with violent rhetoric, Politico (August 10, 2016): "the popular anti-government group Oath Keepers"

I have added these cites to the article. Neutrality^talk 05:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine, thank you for finding these, and these are called additions – You should have enough experience to know why you should NOT use the revert button so carelessly: In addition to re-positioning a term that had only been placed in the first sentence last month and has just as soon caused controversy, my edit also corrected errors in the previous citations and gave a bit more meat to the statement on Ferguson in the lead, all of which you ended up deleting. I am going to restore these things and use actual effort to keep your work in tact while doing so, and in addition, to help allay future controversy over the term, I will move citations affiliated with actual news outlets and strictly-scoped academic work (i.e. not Skocpol & Williamson) directly in front of the controversial term. Oh, and template your stuff! At your level this all should be obvious – why am I so angry? – because you (again, an experienced editor) being sloppy and lazy like this means that I have to finish a half-hour edit just to see my effort reformatting and checking sources wiped away because someone couldn't be bothered to wait a couple minutes to check the Talk Page first. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

So as Neutrality points out, we have a variety of reliable sources saying the group is antigovernment. Can we please add this adjective into the first sentence with the "has been described as" language? Please see our verifiability policy. Oh, and by the way, I sense a lot of snark and vitriol in this discussion. Please, let's try to work together constructively without that sort of stuff. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We also have a variety of reliable sources saying , e.g.,North Korea is crazy in one way or another, and virtually none arguing otherwise, yet that article doesn't mention anything politically charged in the first graf. Let me put it another way: you can interview OK members and have many agree with the statement that it's right-wing or even far-right; many would agree with the association with the patriot and militia movements. None have ever (or likely will ever without leaving) say they are anti-government – the principal membership have all been part of the Executive Branch and the organization explicitly reminds them of this. This sentence should be obvious: the group as a whole and as individuals disagree with the characterization of being anti-government. When we're collaborating, this is grounds enough to not put this in the first sentence. Now, I am also saying that editorially, since the group is still active and there is definitely not any consensus in the academic or journalistic community on the anti-government label, we should also explicitly attribute it in text, e.g. "has been called/characterized as anti-government." From my own brief survey of articles of the past year it seems "anti-government" needs this qualification more than even "extremist." (As for vitriol, no editor likes their considerable effort on, say, templates and citations, being summarily axed, as happens when revert is used on large edits over multiple grafs.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you please point to policies and/or guidelines supporting these arguments? They strike me as directly contrary to those on verifiability, neutrality, and reliability of sources. In a nutshell, if a single reliable source (such as any Neutrality listed above) says the group is anti-government, and no reliable source contradicts that assessment, then it can be added to the article without in-text attribution or qualification. The key word there is contradict--just because a source doesn't use the word "anti-government" doesn't it's saying the group isn't anti-government. An organization can be anti-government, far-right, extremist, and radical all at the same time; these labels aren't mutually exclusive.

You argument that our content should be influenced in any way by how individual members of Oath Keepers would describe their organization is completely against the purpose and spirit of Wikipedia and would be grounds for whitewashing the entire encyclopedia.

Finally, your analogy to North Korea inapplicable for two reasons. First, there are lots and lots of reliable sources saying North Korea isn't crazy at all. I've heard lots of interviews of experts who explained that Korea has acted totally rationally. Second, the behavior of North Korea's government isn't anything close to a characteristic of the country so central that it warrants a mention in the first sentence. On the other hand, a descriptor of a political advocacy group's ideology is central to that organization. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

For this reply I won't do the counter-sources because I want to focus on the concept of editorial judgement. We're not deciding whether content should go in but where it should go. Is it editorially wise to label OK "anti-governement" in the 5th word of the article, before more background is given? Not if you take their own statements – honoring their Executive Branch oath – on its face. A certain expansion is needed first for that to make contextual sense and again, be useful. Can we at least agree to that as far as what editorial judgement is about? (And WP policy mentions editorial judgement all over the place – if you want more info on how that works in practice you can attend the dozens of conferences that I did, and maybe win the national award in editorial journalism that I did. Sorry for pulling out RL credentials but this is kinda obvious stuff here.) SamuelRiv (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

When we're talking about placement, these sorts of decisions are generally based on the relative significance of the content, not on whether the content might be disputed by members of the subject organization. You are effectively saying the content should be demoted because members of OK don't like or wouldn't agree with it. That may be an exercise of editorial judgment, but it's not a neutral exercise of editorial judgment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is completely biased and the group is shown as a "radical patriot" group on the front page

When did upholding the constitutional rights of the American people become "radical" .....What country am I living in? Because it's beginning to look alot like N.Korea.74.74.92.168 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ask the reputable news outlets that have described the Oath Keepers as such. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "reputable" according to those who agree with them. The opening paragraph is not a balanced representation of of the organization. Also, it is fairly common to refer to neo-Nazis and the KKK as "far-right" thus making it easy to lump any conservative group in with truly objectionable groups. Dynasteria (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have concerns about core Wikipedia policies such as our verifiability policy, then the place to address them is at WP:VPP. If your concerns are the about reliability of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is known across the spectrum as one of the most trusted sources of information about extremist groups, then express your concerns here; please try to ground your arguments in our guideline on identifying reliable sources. If your concerns are something else, then please specify. We are here to improve the encyclopedia, not to engage in broad-brush bashing of the unspecified people and sources we happen disagree with. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Article Makes Unsubstantiated Claims About Political Motives

As clearly stated on the website of this organization, the Oath Keepers are a non-partisan movement. Regardless of the statements of news sources with potentially ulterior motivations, movements which state themselves to be nonpartisan and don't actively refuse people of either party must be recognized as such. If your goal is to display that a general consensus has been made in the media that the movement is right-wing, feel free to write that "sources such as [yada yada yada] have described the movement as far-right", but pushing these as verifiable fact is illegitimate. 184.54.173.22 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please review our verifiability policy. Determinations of this sort by reputably mainstream news sources will always trump conflicting statements by organizations themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

Please remove the section where the oath keepers are referred to as a Right-Wing extremist group (the first sentence). This is a very biased and not neutral viewpoint that has no place on Wikipedia. The sources are simply biased news articles. This should be replaced with nothing; it should simply state "a group" or "an organization". Thank you Allseriousness (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed here before. There are enough Reliable Sources that describe the group in this way that we have a consensus to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please review our policy on neutrality. Neutrality is not assessed in a vacuum; rather, it requires us to reflect the reliable sources. In this case, we are citing 4 reliable sources calling the group far-right and 1 reliable source calling the group extremist (with in-text attribution, as is typically done for the SPLC). This is neutral treatment. If you are aware of other reliable sources indicating that OK is not far-right or not extremist, then please provide links and changes will be made accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy of Political View Points

All credible research indicates that this is a non-partisan group. The Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League claim the Oath Keepers are right-wing, but cite no sources. Several news articles claim they are right-wing, but either cite the SPLC, the ADL or cite no sources at all. In my edits, I did not remove references to what SPLC and ADL are claiming. Instead, I included additional information to allow the reads to make their own decisions.Mary Wilkes (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the existing consensus to describe the group in the way we do. The group may be technically "non-partisan", i.e. not affiiliated with any political party, but it is far-right and anti-government according to all Reliable Sources. And we certainly can't have a POV, argumentative lede as suggested by Mary Wilkes. (Here's one hint: do not use words like "erroneously" and "mistakenly" to characterize information you disagree with.) But I do think our lede section is bad. It is poorly organized - for one thing I think the group's self-description deserves to be in the lede paragraph along with the description by outside sources - and the SPLC's description is scattered around in several places. I did a little work on it and I propose to rewrite the lede as follows. This keeps all of the original information and all the existing references, but IMO has a more logical and better balanced order.

Oath Keepers is a far-right,[1][2][3][4] anti-government[5][a] American organization associated with the patriot movement and militia movement. 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."[10] 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. It claims a membership of 35,000. It claims a membership of up to 30,000.[9] (This is what the source actually says.)

Several groups that monitor domestic terrorism and hate groups describe the Oath Keepers as extremist or radical. Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) describes the group as "heavily armed extremists with a conspiratorial and anti-government mindset looking for potential showdowns with the government".[11] They are listed in the ADL's section on domestic extremism & terrorism.[12] The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes the group as extremist or radical.[6] It lists the group's founder as a known extremist and terms his announced plans to create localized militia units "frightening". 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.[6][14][15] 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."[13]

Oath Keepers had a controversial presence in Ferguson, Missouri during the 2014[1] and 2015[4] protests and unrest in the city, when members armed with semi-automatic rifles patrolled streets and rooftops.[7][8]

Is it OK with everybody if I go ahead and make this change? Also, we can look at any additional references that Mary Wilkes thinks we should include. Some of her points, such as the contrast between this group and the Patriots and Posse (if that contrast is sourced to an independent source and not WP:OR), and the founder's explicit disavowal of white supremacy, could be incorporated into the text of the article if they aren't there already. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-partisan is meaningless here, it simply means not affiliating with or supporting a political party in this context, and no one has suggested anything else so far as I know. I'm happy with your suggestion although other comments would be useful. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Doug & Melanie - Thank you for your feedback. I have done some extensive research on this subject, and was even given the opportunity to speak with quit a few Oath Keepers when they were at the Sugar Pine Mine in Oregon. I was very struck by the difference in the way they presented themselves and the way they are portrayed in the media. I edited the article because I felt that it gave an inaccurate impression of the Oath Keepers.

Doug - You say that the term "non-partisan" is meaningless, but I would respectfully submit that it is not meaningless to the Oath Keepers. In one of the interviews I saw (I will find the reference and provide, I just don't have it right now) the reporter asked Stewart Rhodes, the founder, if he saw a member of the Antifa being beaten, would he intervene. Rhodes responded with an immediate and emphatic "Absolutely." In another speech, Rhodes stated "Our oath is the Constitute, not to any politician, not to Bush, not to Obama, not to Trump."

I further believe that characterization of the Oath Keepers as "anti-government" is very inaccurate. They are against governmental CORRUPTION, not against the government themselves. They are made of police and military, which as a group is pretty pro-government.

I just really believe that stating that they are "right-wing" or "anti-government" is inaccurate. I understand that certain groups have called them that, and I think that should be in the article so the reader has the information and can decide for themselves. But that was not my impression from speaking with them. It is not my impression from their written material. It is not my impression from the speeches they give. All the references the say they are "right-wing" and "anti-government" either cite SPCL, ADL or no cite no references at all. And neither SPCL nor ADL cite their sources.Mary Wilkes (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is the source were Rhodes says he would defend Antifa: https://www.oathkeepers.org/l-times-interviews-oath-keepers-founder-president-stewart-rhodes/ at 0:14 Rhodes: "We offered to protect Coulter ... It's not really about her. It's about the right of the American free speech." At 2:35 Reporter: "If you had seen a member of Antifa being kicked to death, would you have defended them?" Rhodes: "Yes, I would. Absolutely, because that's not right."Mary Wilkes (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Mary, there are two problems here. The first is that while this discussion was underway, you went ahead and added your version to the article for a third time, thus violating WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS in addition to the violations of WP:NPOV that have been pointed out in your contribution. DO NOT add this a fourth time. (That's assuming someone is going to remove it again; I could do it, but I will wait a bit to see if we may get a third opinion that it is inappropriate.) The second problem is that you can't edit Wikipedia based on your own experience, your own research, your own opinion. That is WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis and it is not how this place works. This is an encyclopedia, and everything we publish here has to be based on published, independent sources. I think some of your material could potentially be added to the article, but only in a neutral manner (no commentary like "erroneously" and "mistakenly") and based on information from independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

hatting unhelpful comment, per WP:NOTFORUM. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hell yeah, "sure he would", like this: "Yes. We bullied Antifa. We punched them in the face." Not much credibility here.--TMCk (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

TMCk - If you read that article, it was posted by a person from the "Men of the West." He states in his posting that he is not an Oath Keeper.Mary Wilkes (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Mary's concerns are based on original research, not on reliable sources, and that's strictly against policy. It doesn't matter what is meaningful to the Oath Keepers, what matters is what's meaningful to readers (or more precisely, what's encyclopedic). That said, I think that OK's description of itself as nonpartisan adds some encyclopedic value and should be included. All in all I think Melanie's proposed language is solid all around. I support its immediate adoption, and if there are smaller changes to be made (e.g. removal of the reference to "nonpartisan") then those can be addressed by subsequent edits. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I put the reorganized lede into the article. As Dr. Fleischman says, it is open to editing and adjustment. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I support your reorganization - it does read better. Neutrality^talk 00:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: overall an improvement, but I do not think it is great to have a mission statement in the 2nd sentence of the lead. It should be a 2nd or 3rd paragraph item after a summary of what independent sources say. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Melaine, I apologize for posting after the discussion page was started. I did not realize that was against protocol. Melaine & Dr. Fleischman - Thank you for your comments. My initial interest WAS based on personal experience. But that was only what got me interested in the topic. When I said that I had researched it, I meant online ... reading articles. I clicked on the link in Dr. Fleischman's comment on "reliable source." Based on that, and in conjunction with Melaine's comment I understand now that part of the problem was that I was citing "self published sources." Here are twenty 3rd-party sources that cite the Oath Keepers as non-partisan. These sources include Fobes and the New York Times. I found the last article reference of particular interest, as it discusses what Potok of the SPLC cites as his source for his opinions regarding the Oathkeepers. It states:

" “They say that they are merely upholding the Constitution and re-pledging their oaths to defend it,” Potok [of the Southern Poverty Law Center] said. “We say the reality is [that] they are animated by very specific conspiratorial fears which are absolutely groundless. I think that’s obvious.”

"Potok claimed that proof of this lies in the language of Oath Keepers’ ten orders. Aside from this, he was not able to specify any further evidence." https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/05/24/oath-keepers-to-protest-killing-of-jose-guerena/#3ac2a5dc17e3 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/maryland-police-officer-suspended-over-oath-keeper/ http://bgindependentmedia.org/oath-keepers-gathering-rallies-survivalists-in-bg/ http://www.guns.com/2016/11/05/oath-keepers-teach-survival-tips-in-case-of-post-election-unrest/ https://www.rescue-essentials.com/oath-keepers-cpt-ifak/ http://wholepatriot.com/oath-keepers/ http://www.am-tea.org/oathkeep.html http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/32094927/local-oath-keepers-honor-soldiers-on-85 http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/07/an-interview-with-stewart-rhod/singlepage http://www.dailyinterlake.com/archive/article-e3e48c72-4acf-11e0-87e8-001cc4c002e0.html http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/local/Vigilant-Oath-Keepers-want-safety-measures-in-place-for-local-recruitment-center http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/20/crowd-roused-for-gun-rights/ http://www.chronline.com/oath-keepers-member-runs-for-sheriff/article_274d8c12-d6e0-11e3-abc5-001a4bcf887a.html http://kjzz.org/content/390334/questions-build-over-line-between-fraud-prevention-voter-intimidation-polls-arizona https://www.infowars.com/why-oath-keepers-is-dangerous/ http://www.saratogian.com/article/ST/20151108/NEWS/151109701 http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/libertys-line-in-the-sand-sheriffs-peace-officers-oath-keepers/ http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-oath-keepers-is-dangerous.html http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/14/oath-keepers-founder-stewart-rhodes-we-know-its-not-over/ http://augustafreepress.com/oath-keepers-plan-clean-up-of-hite-hollow-gun-range/ https://bearingarms.com/ddelong/2011/08/16/the-truth-about-the-oath-keepers/ Mary Wilkes (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with keeping "nonpartisan". I don't think there is any evidence that they are aligned with a political party. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose. It is literally correct for the definition "unaffiliated with a political party"; less so if defined as "unbiased and neutral".

@Mary Wilkes: with sources, "quality over quantity" is a good motto. The Forbes site you mention is a hosted blog from 2011 by a video game reviewer that doesn't support your claim ("non-partisan" appears in the comments section, not in the body of the blog); I do not see a New York Times article linked; and many of the others are totally unusable due to reliability issues. Rather than expecting us to check 20 sources, what are the best two? VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I can answer that, I think: There is one Reliable Source which says "nonpartisan" in its own voice. That is the News-Sentinel. Of the others, Forbes is a Reliable Source but the Forbes article does not say "nonpartisan"; that word occurs in a reader's comment on the article. Most of the others are blogs or POV organizations - wholepatriot.com, bearingarms.com, am-tea.org, guns.com, americasfreedomfighters.com - inadmissible sources that do not qualify as either independent or reliable. Even the Washington Times, generally considered too inaccurate to be a Reliable Source, does not say "nonpartisan" in its own voice; it says "The organization considers itself nonpartisan". Note that this analysis does not change my opinion that the article is correct to say "the group describes itself as a nonpartisan organization..." --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Spokesman-Review source also reliably supports the claim, I think. Photo captions are typically fact-checked prior to publication. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Mary, thanks for your good faith effort to provide sources. You do need some practice, though, in recognizing independent reliable sources, and in making sure they say what you think they say. Don't feel bad; that's a learned skill and it takes a while to learn how to analyze a source. If you like, I'll give you a short lesson on the subject and analysis of your sources on your talk page, so as not to clutter up this one. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Melanie - My citation were hastily done. Admittedly not my best work, but I felt it was important to respond quickly. I would respectfully submit that the issues that you mention regarding my citations is the same issue that I have with the citations currently being used in the Wikipedia article. Specifically:

Regarding the citations for "far-right."

Source 1: It says the "Media reports have characterized the group as right-wing" It does not say that they ARE right wing.

Source 2: It does not say the Oath Keepers are right-wing at all. It says, "Formed by a former US Army paratrooper, members pledge to fulfill the oath taken by the country’s military and police to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, even if that means defying other laws and orders."

Source 3 is Salon.com. I'm not sure where that falls on the reliability scale. It cites the SPCL as its source, which is discussed later in the article.

Source 4: Is the Chicago Tribune. I'm not sure where that falls on the reliability scale. There is picture is accredited to Roberson of the AP. The caption on the article calls them "far-right" but the article itself does not. It implies that Police Chief Belmar considers them right-wing, but that is all. The author does not cite his source, but he is not likely an expert on the Oath Keepers. His source likely traces back to either ADL or SPCL and therefore is not independent from the ADL/SPCL.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources states " Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field" and then list a handful of criteria for the cite that I believe Oathkeeper.com easily meets.

Given the problems with the cited sources and the fact that the group has consistently and repeatedly stated for years that it is non-partisan, I feel it is misleading to open the Wikipedia article with "The Oath Keepers is a far-right, anti-government American Organization, as though it were an undisputed fact. I agree that what ADL and SPCL say should be in the article. I just don't feel their opinion should be the introduction to the group.

Regarding the citations for "anti-government."

Source 5:

a) The Guardian Article calls them "neo-nazis" following a "bizarre set of instructions." That does not sound neutral.

b) The ADL. I never disputed the fact the ADL called them "anti-government." That is addressed later in the article.

c) The book, "The Tea Party ...", only makes a passing reference to the Oath Keepers. It references http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers, which in turn references ADL and SPLC

d) New York Time article "Some are members of the so-called Patriot movement, an umbrella effort of antigovernment activists that includes groups like the Oath Keepers, an organization of law enforcement officers and military veterans," If you follow the link it references the Oath Keepers' own website for Oath Keepers, which clearly states the Oath Keepers are prohibited from associating with anyone trying to overthrow the government. https://www.oathkeepers.org/oath-keepers-code-of-conduct/

e) Politico Article: I'm pretty sure Politico is not considered either neutral or reliable. The author does not cite his source, but it is doubtful that it is independent.

(a) The final source is Source 4 above. Mary Wilkes (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it OK with everybody, if, for the reasons stated above that I change the opening line from " Oath Keepers is a far-right, anti-government American organization associated with the patriot movement and militia movement." to " 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. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details."? As mentioned above, Wikipedia guidelines say, " Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves,"Mary Wilkes (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. First, we don't need neutral sources. I'm not sure why you think we do. Our articles reflect what reliable (see WP:RS sources say about a subject. Yes, we take a WP:Neutral point of view but that's not the same as neutral. It means " representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Many of these might criticise the subject. If most do, then our article will reflect that. Your version of the first sentence only reflects what the organisation itself states, and in a non-neutral way. That whole bit about "such as orders..." is pretty much propaganda suggesting that those issues actually are confronted regularly. We would also never write "See the... whatever". This is an encyclopedia, remember. Politico is a reliable source. See for instance a comment here. So is the Chicago Tribune, etc. So no, the first sentence you propose isn't acceptable. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have put the "nonpartisan" label in our own voice and provided reliable sources, per this discussion. I agree with the consensus here that the rest of Mary's concerns are not supported by our verifiability and neutrality policies. In line with Doug's comment above, I urge Mary to pay particularly close attention to WP:BIASED. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverted your bold edit. Per my objections above, I do not think we have consensus to include this description in the first paragraph, let alone the lede sentence in WP's voice. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am OK with calling them both "non-partisan" and "far right" in the lede sentence as Dr. Fleischman suggested. Both terms are supported by sources. They are far right, but they are not affiliated with any particular political party, and as far as I can see they do not participate in elections as the Oath Keepers. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If we are debating whether the Oath Keepers are right-wing or left-wing, I would submit that their ideology espouse some left-wing and some right-wing ideologies. They are fundamentally constitutionalist. They believe in the right to bear arms, which is traditionally right-wing. But they also sided with the Black Lives Matter Protestors at Ferguson, believing police had acted unconstitutional, which is arguable left. There have been many cases of reliable, verifiable sources that referenced the Oath Keeper as right-winged. But these article (at least the ones I have seen) all seem to reference back to the same two sources (ADL & SPLC) and the articles have made the statement as almost an off-hand reference. None of these were meant to be in-depth discussions of the Oath Keepers ideology. The following article is an in-depth discussion or the political ideologies that lead to the Oregon Standoff. It in-depth how the left and right have been polarized, how "the mainstream center-left and the more radical hard left have made a largely incorrect assessment of the Oregon standoff. Their attitudes towards the milieu (this includes the Oath Keepers) which supports the Oregon standoff have been largely negative" in other words "right-wing." And if you go on to read the whole article it talks about how, when the Oath Keepers support Bundy at the Oregon Standoff and the Black Lives Matter protesters at Ferguson, they were supporting left-wing ideals. As this article is an indepth dissertation of the exact question at hand, I feel it should be weighted more heavily than the other articles that merely made passing references to the subject at hand. http://katehon.com/article/american-political-schizophrenia-and-oregon-standoff Mary Wilkes (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Katehon!? Good lord. VQuakr (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Mary, you really need to re-read at least the intros of our core policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPV) before proceeding. If there are differences between what the reliable sources are saying and what your own personal conclusions are, as there inevitably are for everyone from time to time, then like it or not, you must focus on the former and set aside the latter when you edit at Wikipedia. Your original research and personal conclusions belong on your blog, in social media, in a letter to your newspaper editor, etc. etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman Thank you for your efforts (and those of Melanie earlier) to keep this discussions on topic and adhering to the Wikipedia guidelines. I think could get out of hand quickly without these influences. I respectfully submit, however, that https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research specfically states at the end of the first paragraph. "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Wilkes (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Given the fact that there are multiple references that meet all the Wikipedia criteria for citation in an article that state that the Oath Keepers are non-partisan (I can summarize these if need be. I presented them earlier, but being somewhat new to this, I don't feel I presented them cohesively or well.) and given that they stood with the Black Lives Matters protesters at Ferguson (arguably a left-wing group), I believe it highly biased the Wikipedia article states they are a far-right organization, as if it were an undisputed fact, in the very first line of the article. I do not dispute at all that the fact that ADL and SPLC consider them right-wing should be in the article. That being said is it OK with everyone if we change the first sentence to "Oath Keepers is an American organization associated with the patriot movement and militia movement."? Mary Wilkes (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

We've established that OK has no party affiliation. That doesn't mean that it is not far-right. To answer your question, no I am not in agreement with your proposed phrasing. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr The fact that they stood with the Black Lives Matter movement at Ferguson means that they are not far-right. I am not saying unequivocally whether they are right, left or center. I am merely saying that the matter is in dispute, and as such should not be presented in opening statement as though it were an undisputed fact. I am not alone in my impression that they are not far-right. I read the previous threads, and I am the fourth person to raise this issue. I again submit that, in order to present a non-biased article, the term "far-right" should be removed form the introductory statement, and presented instead in the body of there article. Mary Wilkes (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Nonpartisan

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.

---

Should Oath Keepers be described as nonpartisan? Here are some reliable sources using that term: [20], [21]. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No, although my feelings are not super strong either way. It is nonpartisan in the sense that it's not affiliated with any political party, but I don't think it's an important descriptor relative to other, more important descriptors. The broad sweep sources also generally don't bother to describe it as such. Note that of the two links that are given as sources using this term, one is in a photo caption (not mentioned at all in the text) and the other one (a fairly small, although reliable, local paper) seems to attribute the descriptor to a member of the group and says "according to its website..." Those two sources don't exactly scream out, "Put me in the lead." Also, the descriptor is kind of obvious here - if we don't say they are affiliated with a political party the reader will correctly infer that they are not. If this is to be mentioned anywhere, it should likely be in the body of the article. Neutrality^talk 22:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

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.

Dispute resolution

Note: there is a discussion about this article at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Oath Keepers. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Far-right vs hard right

During the DRN discussion I proposed a rephrased lead paragraph here. Amongst the changes was a switch from far-right to hard right in the lead sentence for the reasons I mentioned in this diff. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Support. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Needs clarification - how about "far right or hard right? the "hard right" article is basically a joke containing almost nothing of substance currently, that would make the change a detriment to this article. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)I certainly have not disclosed any such information.

Linking directly to Patriot movement would be better, but we can use the term hard right in the text to not confuse readers who may not know patriot refers to a specific ideology. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr, I don't understand. The cited sources say far right, not hard right. Why would be depart from the cited sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Two things: 1) The SPLC refers to the group as the "far right patriot movement" in some of its materials - both terms are used in press sources. This would avoid confusion with other far right ideologies, without obscuring that OK is widely regarded as a right wing group. 2)If we reach consensus to de-link far right we should include a brief note about why it has been de-linked for other editors. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources are available for either phrasing. To the average reader the two terms are synonymns, but our internal link to hard right seems to match the description in our article and the sources better than our internal link to far-right. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hard right does not seem like the correct words to use for this article. It sounds like a neologism. We should simply describe them the same way they are described in the most reliable sources.- MrX 13:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is there is no consistency in the WP:RS - there are sufficient WP:RS to support far right, but also Patriot movement, constitutionalist and libertarian. There does not seem to be any clear consensus - not enough to definitively choose one label over the others without compromising NPOV. There are also problems with linking to our "far right" article, or using the term far right generally, without being more specific because it would be misleading for casual readers.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There are accusations that they are a hate group, this has been repeated by some of our editors during the discussion here. There is not enough evidence for this. We should not repeat a rumor like this on Wikipedia ,if it is not supported by clear and overwhelming evidence. WaPo is not especially reliable for this because many of these articles were published in the context of an election where WaPo was noted for its bias. In the previous 7 years since its founding, how many articles has WaPo run on Oath Keepers? Zero? A number of sources have noted that Oath Keepers is a complex organization that means different things to different people. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Simple Google news and Google book searches show that far right in far more more prevalent (about 10 fold) than hard right in association with Oath Keepers. I don't know what you mean by "rumor" in this context.- MrX 16:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I am really starting to wonder where Seraphim is coming from - stuff like "WaPo was noted for its bias" (false) and "because WaPo has recently decided to swiftboat them" really make me think that Seraphim is more interested in a very particular POV and has an axe to grind against any journalistic outlet that they disagree with, despite the stellar reputation for fact-checking, detailed investigation and journalistic standards that the Washington Post holds. This is a very common thing among far-right persons who get a steady diet of less reputable outlets like talk radio and Breitbart/Fox: the entire goal of those outlets is to poison the well with inaccurate and false accusations against more centrist and reliable sources. https://www.autostraddle.com/this-is-how-fox-news-brainwashes-its-viewers-our-in-depth-investigation-of-the-propaganda-cycle-297107/ Morty C-137 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, this - the issue of living in an alternate world where "liberal media is lying to you" is a drumbeat https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/18/15646098/right-wing-media-collective-memories Morty C-137 (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to the recent study from Harvard Kennedy school which found a significant bias in press coverage of this election more here. No this is not an "alternate world" and I did not say anything about the "liberal media" so please don't put things in quotation marks that I did not say. Media sources are not academic sources. You are making up a lot about journalistic standards that has nothing to do with how we treat them under our policies. The issue is not whether I agree or disagree with individual media reports - WaPo ran a lot of articles about Oath Keepers, notably in the context of their involvement in this election. That is unbalancing our article - this organization has been around for 7 years - but they were involved in the Ron Paul campaign, which was another election issue where the media was noted for bias in coverage - unsurprisingly Oath Keepers was not covered by WaPo at this time. There is significant media coverage that supports different views on Oath Keepers - the fact that the WP:RS say different things is not a personal view of mine, and its pretty lame to try to characterize it as such. You don't know if I am far-right, and it might surprise you to learn that I have never used Breitbart as a source in a Wikipedia article. I prefer academic sources, but there are none available for this article. I am asking you once again to focus your comments on content-based consensus discussion

I should also add WP:FORUM here - I think we have devoted enough space in this discussion to understanding one another's views. It seems to me that you are ignoring any sources that don't support your view. WaPo has also said Media reports have characterized the group as right-wing and deeply conspiratorial in outlook, but that doesn’t quite get at the complex forces and anxieties driving it. Oath Keepers take inspiration from both the far right and the far left- what I am looking for is input from editors about how to craft the first sentence so it is NPOV and balanced given the different language used in sources, which changes from article to article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I would propose this wording, which I think is more neutral:

Oath Keepers is a group of former military and law enforcement officers. It was founded in 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, a Yale law school graduate and Ron Paul supporter who has been described as a libertarian and constitutionalist. The SPLC believes that the organization's right wing ideology is most closely aligned with the "Patriot" movement and the militia movement. Oath Keepers has been described as far right, anti-government, constitutionalist and libertarian in various media reports. 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." 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 organization claims a membership of up to 30,000.

References

Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No way on that 1st sentence. Per the wikipedia article even, their membership is open. 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.' Morty C-137 (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Same things with the 2nd sentence. You're deliberately trying to write POV in order to butter up Rhodes - he's "been described as" far more than the 2 Oath Keeper weasel words you're using. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please limit your comments to the content. No, I am not deliberately trying to write POV. This comment is not constructive, it is combative and unproductive. If you want to propose additions, or changes based on sources, do that. Otherwise, your "no way" has been noted. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that Rhodes spent the past couple years referring to a prominent politician as "Hitlery", the idea that he's nonpartisan is laughable. http://heavy.com/news/2015/08/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-leader-yale-ron-paul-racist/ Morty C-137 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh and there's also the way Rhodes' people treat anyone who actually - even if misguidedly - want to do "outreach" to nonwhites.Of course, being armed to directly confront authorities is precisely what the Oath Keepers had done at the Bundy ranch and Sugar Pine. In Rhodes' notes, Andrews said he sensed a racist double standard. A few days later, when Rhodes and other leaders conclusively rejected the idea of the march, tempers ran high and Andrews angrily hung up on Steve Homan during a conference call. "I asked him, 'How dark does your skin have to be before you don't have Second Amendment rights?'" Andrews says. It was at that point that Andrews got an email from John Karriman, a former cop who runs the Oath Keepers' chapter in Missouri. Karriman wrote that the march had been scotched because the board "perceived it as pitting the Blacks against the police." He added that while it was still possible for Andrews, who had showed some promise as an Oath Keeper, to repair his relations with the national organization, that would only happen if he gave up his "abrasiveness" and quit "doing MLK impressions." Face it: the group - with some minor outlying exceptions - is racist. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-oath-keeper-who-wants-to-arm-black-lives-matter-20160103 Morty C-137 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you think I'm defending Rhodes, I'm not. I know members of the organization have parted ways recently over differences in the direction the organization is heading in. That said the organization has been around for 7 years - its basically like saying "Those 7 years don't count because WaPo has recently decided to swiftboat them." - No, those 7 years do count. The organization may have changed, it may be changing, it may change again, but those 7 years and the Ron Paul campaign were crystal - I don't think we can just whitewash the post-Iraq years like they weren't notable, because of WP:RECENT events. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"because WaPo has recently decided to swiftboat them" - Seriously, WTF? This goes back years. The organization has always been what it is. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/evidence-grows-far-right-militia-resurgence "The Oath Keepers site soon began hawking T-shirts with slogans like "I'm a Right Wing Extremist and Damn Proud of It!"" Morty C-137 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

For example, since you have a penchant for Orwellian language, consider the WaPo phrase "dispute over mining rights on federal land." read this - its complicated, so if the mine company is non compliant maybe the BLM burns down miners cabins? I can see the logic - the article suggests that the miners believe their rights can be violated ("a history of acting first and justifying later.") One Tom Gorey from Washington D.C. says they are just paranoid. "basically homesteading" and the cabins used to get burned down, but not so often anymore. So these guys show up armed to protect the miners and every paper out west (the same papers that cover things like water contamination, MTM, cancer rates in Kentucky, reclamation enforcement) call them constitutionalists. Legitimate difference of opinion ... maybe the best way to maintain NPOV is to avoid labeling OK in the first sentence. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"its complicated, so if the mine company is non compliant maybe the BLM burns down miners cabins?" - The tinfoil hat stuff isn't likely to make me have any respect for your misconception of a neutral point of view. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to stop with the personal attacks. If you read the article, which you haven't, that is what the mining families said they were worried about. They were worried about it, perhaps "unreasonably" in your view, because the federal government has a long history of burning down cabins in region. They also have a long history of not enforcing other regulations, like federal reclamation rules. It sounds like they were scared that this noncompliance issue would be used as an excuse to burn down the cabins, and they would not have an opportunity to use legal processes to stop the damage from occurring. WaPo makes it sound like Oath Keepers became involved to protect the mining company during a compliance dispute. Vice spoke to the people involved, and found out that is not what happened. NPOV involves balancing biased sources - which is all we have here. Peer-reviewed scholars and high-quality books at least note where other scholars have published views that differ from their own. All we have here are media sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I cannot support the switch from "far right" to "hard right" without seeing, at a minimum, both (1) evidence that more reliable sources describe OK as hard right than far right, and (2) reliable sources indicating that hard right and far right mean different things. Regarding the latter, I don't care what Hard right says. The first sentence distinguishing "hard right" from "far right" appears to be totally unsourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Far Right in the United States" redirects to neofascism - a standalone article at "Far right in the United States" should probably exist and would resolve the issue here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The correct article is Radical right (United States). Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I edit primarily in articles relating to American conservatism and this comes up over and over again: "Far-right politics is about fascism, and Organization X isn't fascism, so therefore we shouldn't describe it as far right." No, that's incorrect. If the reliable sources call Organization X far right, then we call it far right. Far-right politics is explicit in that it includes more than just fascists. If that article doesn't reflect the way the term is used by the reliable sources, then that article should change, not this one. Go to Talk:Far-right politics and suggest a change. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I also oppose a switch from "far right" to "hard right". The term "far right" is far more commonly used by sources, and far better understood by the reader. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

per DrFleischman and MelanieN I would support pausing discussions on changing the lead in this article and attempting to revise our Far right article - a link that is used so often in articles as varied as Hamas, Albert Speer, Gestapo and the Ku Klux Klan could at least use expansion. There is also the possibility of simply piping to Far right in the United States which might be more on topic. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• oppose I do not think the switch would be good for the article. I've explained thoroughly above. Morty C-137 (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the reasons stated above. Reliable sources commonly and consistently use "Far right" - that is clear and straightforward. Neutrality^talk 22:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Conservative

Is OK verifiably conservative? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. The sources don't seem to describe it as such. They are radical right but not conservative. Neutrality^talk 04:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of terrorism accusations in this article

Here is one such claim that should be removed:

"Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) describes the group as "heavily armed extremists with a conspiratorial and anti-government mindset looking for potential showdowns with the government",and they are listed in the ADL's section on domestic extremism & terrorism."

This was discussed in detail at the DRN, which was a closed by the moderator a few hours ago because of back and forth by the OP. This has been denied by the organization's founder in at least one published interview with Reason magazine. While it is not an article about one living person - this is a statement about many living people - U.S. veterans and law enforcement. The ADL claim that they are violent and domestic terrorists should be excluded from the article - it is a rumor, there is no evidence for it - it is an extraordinary claim that American law enforcement officials are involved in domestic terrorism - the U.S. government has not supported this view, to the best of my knowledge, and it comes from only two advocacy organizations (who have been quoted in several press publications). Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League is just fine as a source. The quote is attributed.

I am fine, though, with removing the last clause and they are listed in the ADL's section on domestic extremism & terrorism. "Extremist" is not the same as "terrorist" and how the ADL website is organized shouldn't cast aspersions of one on the other in the ADL's voice. Your claim that BLP is somehow being violated here seems quite the stretch, though. VQuakr (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with VQuakr - remove that last clause, but keep the (noteworthy and attributed) quotation. (The ADL is a respected authority on extremism, so saying they are simple an "advocacy group" is, in my view, reductionist.) Neutrality^talk 05:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The ADL is fine is as a source (as is any advocacy group), but the way it is used in this article is not. Secondary sources provide citations for their analysis, that is what makes them secondary source. I read the ADL report that the press release references, it does not cite any sources. That makes this particular report not very good as a source, and a quote from the ADL's own press release about the report is even weaker as a source. Considering how extraordinary the claim is, attributed or not, it should be removed as undue and in keeping with the spirit of BLP, which is not to lean towards not posting controversial rumors about living persons. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If we are looking for a secondary source, how about this Washington Post piece, already cited in the article for a different point: "Pitcavage ... lists the group as an 'antigovernment extremist' organization" + this separate Washington Post article: Pitcavage regards Oath Keeper activity as part of "a rising number of cases of extremists seeking out confrontations with the government." Neutrality^talk 05:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, we would have to add balancing information from news publications, which has been left out. I posted several examples of such articles at the DRN. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI, given that all three of us agree that the second half of the sentence ("listed in the ADL's section on domestic extremism & terrorism") doesn't belong, I removed it. Neutrality^talk 05:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Thank you. Regarding ADL. it is a 501(c)(3) organization involved in lobbying - yes, it is an advocacy group. I don't share the view that acknowledging this is "reductionist." In their own words We advocate for a safe and secure democratic Jewish State of Israel and combat efforts to delegitimize it. I don't really see the point of trying to deny this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

They are an advocacy group, but not merely an advocacy group: they are also a respected source of information and an authority on extremism, militancy, antisemitism, etc. (See, e.g., Chalmers, 2003, p. 188 (ADL is one of the "prime source[s] of reliable published information" on right-wing extremism in the U.S.); Blakeslee, 2000, p. 89: "Recent ADL research has included monographs on militia groups, pro-Nazi enclaves, the religious right, and Holocaust denial. ADL titles include: ... [list]. The ADL thus maintains a scholarly commitment to the study of prejudice, antisemitism, and the Holocaust, as well as tracking antisemitism and hate crimes in this country ... The recent surge in activity among far-right-wing groups and radical militia groups came as no surprise to the ADL. They had hung onto those historical files, and they provided useful in understanding the motivate and psychology of these latest hate groups."). Neutrality^talk 05:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree - with advocacy groups there is a WP:UNDUE issue. Some advocacy groups are routinely cited by secondary sources - there is nothing wrong with using these groups as sources in articles. Other groups that are not cited may be considered WP:UNDUE for their primary opinions under our policies. The issue we have in this article is that ADL does have a bias against "far-right" organizations and "militia groups" - in this case they are roping in an organization that has often been described as "libertarian leaning" - there are press sources that describe them this way, and also their own founders who were involved in Ron Paul's campaign. Libertarianism has some important differences from other right-wing ideologies and this has been noted in the press sources I posted at DRN. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to studies of extremism, the best sources are usually those who oppose extremism - and that's perfectly fine, assuming that the source is otherwise professional or scholarly -- i.e., reliable. (See also WP:NPOV: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"). This is in the same vein as experts on suicide who desire to prevent suicides, or experts on crime who want to prevent crime, or experts on authoritarianism who oppose authoritarianism, etc.

But leaving that aside: do you have specific proposed language? I was not involved in the DRN, so I haven't seen. Neutrality^talk 05:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

First, I would point out that our policy about linking is that links in articles should provide background information that is relevant to the article. Our Far right article is about authoritarian right-wing ideologies like fascism. There is no evidence that this applies to Oathkeepers. The ADL is an expert source on hate groups, not libertarianism or far right ideologies in general - here there is conflict with other specialized expert sources, like Reason. On the other hand a link to Right-libertarianism is supported, by press sources, the organization's history and published statements by the organization's founders. We were discussing changing far right to hard right before the close of DRN. I would suggest "hard right constitutionalists" or some variation on this, as there seems to be support for this press sources Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(1) The ADL has expertise in the American far-right; (2) I would oppose "constitutionalists" because it is a vague neologism with no clear meaning, is promotional in tone, and is not used by the vast majority of reliable sources; (3) if you have sources that indicate that the Oath Keepers are "right-libertarian," I'd be interested to see them. Neutrality^talk 06:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

We have an article on it here Constitutional militia movement - this term is used by several press sources. It is more supported then "Right Libertarian" which is an academic philosophical term (to distinguish from left libertarian ideology) it is not used by the press (which describes them as libertarian) Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have actual links to sources describing Oath Keepers in any of these terms? My impression is that descriptions of the Oath Keepers as far-right, right-wing, or militia-movement-linked (or some combination) are far, far more common than other descriptions of it. Neutrality^talk 06:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"far right" may not be incorrect technically, but we shouldn't link to an article about fascist authoritarian ideologies because that is not even remotely supported by the sources. It would be inappropriate to use links to push a position that is not supported by any sources. I have several articles describing them as constitutionalist, but they behind paywall on HighBeam. We have an article on what is means here Constitutionalist - most of these "anti-government" hate groups do not support the Constitution, this goes back to the American Civil War and the KKK. There is an ideological difference between not supporting a government that you believe is enforcing the Constitution, and not supporting the government when you believe they are violating the Constitution. Constitutionalist is more supported then "Right Libertarian" which is an academic philosophical term (to distinguish from left libertarian ideology) it is not used by the press - there are sources that describe them as "libertarian" and "libertarian leaning" and there are also sources about their involvement in Ron Paul's campaign (one of the founders was a delegate for Ron Paul at the 2012 convention) Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you give the citations for the articles you're referring to, with what the descriptor of the Oath Keepers is used in each? Neutrality^talk 06:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

sure can:

• "Oath Keepers was founded in 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, a Yale Law School graduate and a former staffer for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Rhodes, 44, considers himself a constitutionalist and a libertarian. His organization's mission: to persuade America's soldiers and cops to refuse to carry out orders that violate the Constitution." author link
• Jesse Walker article in Reason critical of SPLC 1. "The SPLC acknowledges that not all the groups on its list "advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities." But its spokespeople regularly suggest that there's a slippery slope at work. The ubiquitous Mark Potok, for example, has told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he wouldn't accuse any member of the Oath Keepers, a group whose chapters take up 53 spots on the watch list, "of being Timothy McVeigh." But the organization is spreading paranoia, he continued, and "these kinds of conspiracy theories are what drive a small number of people to criminal violence." 2. "The Oath Keepers have distanced themselves from violent-minded supporters, and the whole point of the organization is to persuade the government's agents to refuse orders the group considers unconstitutional, a central tactic not of terrorism but of nonviolent civil resistance."
• "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 standoffbetween 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."
• 1) "The Oath Keepers are a large but loosely organized collection of anti-government extremists who are part of the broader anti-government “Patriot” movement" 2) "The ideology of the Oath Keepers most closely resembles that of the militia movement, whose adherents believe that the United States is collaborating with a one-world tyrannical conspiracy called the New World Order to strip Americans of their rights—starting with their right to keep and bear arms." - our ADL link, though ADL does not show a shred of evidence for its description of militia ideology, and connecting constitutionalism to ZOG (essentially) is extremely suspect and has been discussed in more detail by other expert sources elsewhere.

I'm going to save, but I will add more in a moment. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• "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."
• "Clearly their intent is to eventually put all of you ‘dangerous’ veterans, patriots and constitutionalists on such watch lists, designate you as someone who is barred from owning guns, and then use that to disarm you, one at a time.” (quote from Rhodes)
• "armed militias including the radical constitutionalist group the Oath Keepers"

Another poosibility "militant Patriot organization"

• In May 2016, he was honored by the militant Patriot organization Oath Keepers with its second annual “Leadership Award”. source: SPLC
• "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist." (source: SPLC)

• "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." Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

it is an extraordinary claim that American law enforcement officials are involved in domestic terrorism - nonsense, especially when it comes to white supremacist groups. White supremacist terrorist groups have a long history of infiltrating law enforcement in the USA. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/10/11/yesterdays-ku-klux-klan-members-are-todays-police-officers-councilwoman-says/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement/ Morty C-137 (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think a fundamental problem is trying to whitewash the "patriot movement", which itself is an orwellian naming issue - they could name themselves the "society against kicking puppies" just as easily and just as (in)accurately, as the various "patriot movement" groups have nothing to do with actual patriotism. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Oath Keepers is not a white-supremacist group. They have African-American members. The evidence against the KKK is overwhelming , but it does not make the claim less extraordinary, it just means that we have the sources to back it up. It not what they have named themselves, as you can see most local papers in the U.S. have not picked up the national press language. This is interesting - why is there such disparity between papers in Idaho, Washington State, Montana and the national press? The Guardian has also used the term consititutionalist, and has not used the term far right. There has also been serious criticism by libertarians of attempts to smear this organization as an extremist group. They have denied it (yes, this is important for BLP, as the founder of the group has denied it and presumably these statements do apply to him, as well as his members.) It is not white washing anything - hate groups are not Constitutionalist, they are anti-government in the sense that they oppose the Constitution as it is written in the post Civil War era (13th amendment, 14th amendment, 15th amendment) - constitutionalists pledge not to follow illegal orders from the government. The SPLC may believe that the fears are far-fetched, but every single one of them is grounded in an actual thing that is written in the Constitution. There is nothing about "Illegal orders to free the slaves" or any nonsense like that. Do you not see how these two things are different? Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Tokenism is not a defense, when a movement is widely connected to white supremacist ideology. You can even find some bizarre african-american people afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome who will swear up and down that slavery either didn't exist, or that they have some noble attachment to the Confederacy - it doesn't contradict the fact that the movement itself is white supremacist in origin. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You say " They have denied it" - the KKK denies being white supremacist or racist as well. The denials mean little in the face of evidence. Given that they keep a white supremacist (Richard Mack) associated with another white supremacist group (Posse Comitatus group "constitutional sheriffs and peace officers") on their board of directors... Morty C-137 (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"constitutionalists pledge not to follow illegal orders from the government" - Same problem. When one declares that, one then must analyze (a) what supposed orders those would be, (b) why they think such orders would be given, and (c) what the mentality is that brings them to this. In the case of "Oath Keepers", it's the same old Posse Comitatus or "constitutional sheriffs" stuff, which is white supremacist in origin. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but Oath Keepers is not "widely connected" to white supremacist ideology. It is not connected to white supremacist ideology at all, not even by SPLC. SPLC has presented an opinion that the militia movement is becoming more racialized, where it has not been in the past. That may be true, but so far, that opinion is far from widely held and they have been strongly criticized for it in Reason magazine by writers with top-notch credentials. As for the KKK, maybe there have been denials, but they have also said "Our goal is the advancement of the white race." Where do you see that in Oath Keepers ideology? There is a tremendous amount of evidence that the KKK has a racial ideology. To say otherwise would be a fringe view. The opinion of two organizations does not even come close to the kind of evidence we have about the KKK's activities and history, the comparison between the two organizations is entirely baseless and ludicrous. Maybe more scholarly work will be available in the future that supports the SPLC's opinion, but it is not available now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"and they have been strongly criticized for it in Reason magazine" - I think I see your problem, you've confused the orwellian-named "Reason Magazine" with actual journalism that has standards for factual reporting. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I looked into the journalists who wrote these specific articles for Reason before using them as sources, and they are published authors who have written books and who have been published in WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Forbes, and other publications. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Please stop using the word Orwellian like its a synonym for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT - "The word ‘Orwellian’ refers to totalitarian control of the individual by the use of propaganda, surveillance and violence. It is nothing to do with having to put your recycling out." Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I should call it "ferengi-like", groups like that are never afraid to lie and mislabel themselves. :P Morty C-137 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone takes the ADL seriously anymore since they started listing memes as hate crimes. Please just keep that in mind while picking sources. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

References