Talk:Oath Keepers

Neutrality of source.

It has also been described as extremist or radical by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[6]

The SPLC literally call anyone who isn't an extreme Marxist a radical 'extremist' group. I'm a socialist and even I'm 'right wing' by their standards. I don't think using them as a source is providing a fair, neutral, or honest representation of the group in question and their inclusion makes me hesitant to the quality and integrity of the rest of the article. I would remove it pending discussion, but this article appears to be protected - which makes me think it's neutrality is even more in question if it's being guarded by a watch group of editors. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source since it has an excellent reputation for fact checking and accuracy, as reflected by the fact that it is almost universally cited by reliable news sources as the authority on hate and extremist groups. Reliable sources need not be unbiased. (Every source has some bias; if we excluded all biased sources, we wouldn't have any articles.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In the past they've reported at least one fake group listed on a parody website as a real group. If they're very reliable, I'm Santa Claus and I'd like to sell you some land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.160.57 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2017‎

There is broad consensus across Wikipedia that SPLC is reliable for these sorts of claims. But, if you want to contend that they've made those sorts of mistakes, then you should provide links to reliable sources addressing them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably virtually all the sources we consider reliable have made a mistake, maybe more than one, at some time. And it's completely untrue that they "literally call anyone who isn't an extreme Marxist a radical "extremeist " group. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 16 June 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.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/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)

Nonpartisan

This is an outgrowth of the previous discussion, but I'm creating a new topic to keep this separate from Mary Wilkes' other concerns. Can we please see if there's a consensus to put the "nonpartisan" label in our own voice, per this edit? We have multiple reliable sources supporting it, and we routinely include labels like this in the first sentence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a thread. I note that both the proposed references [1], [2] juxtapose the "nonpartisan" terminology with mission statements - the underlying source still appears to be the subject itself. Whether that should inform a decision about how to use the term, I do not know.

More importantly, the term is rather ambiguous. Our own bluelink starts with a definition that closely matches the dictionary: "Nonpartisanism is a lack of bias and lack of affiliation with a political party." OK verifiably meets the "lack of party affiliation" part of the definition, the "lack of bias" portion seems an antonym of "right wing".

WP:LEADSENTENCE suggests that we should neutrally define the organization in the first sentence. I do not see the org's lack of party affiliation as being so defining that it needs to be mentioned immediately. Given the ambiguity of the term, I do not think the sources provided are adequate to use the term in Wikipedia's voice anywhere in the article, and I do not think the adjective is of adequate importance to warrant mention in the first paragraph of the lead. I have no objection, however, to noting the lack of party affiliation in unambiguous terms and in Wikipedia's voice in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm with VQuakr here. It may say that it's non-partisan, and it doesn't seem party affiliated, but I definitely don't think we can suggest that it isn't biased, which we'd be doing if we stated this in Wikipedia's voice. I also don't see its being non-partisan as a defining characteristic, many political groups have no party affiliations and this is a political group. (Even if you argued it isn't, that doesn't make the lack of party affiliation particularly relevant). Yes, we can say it has no party affiliation the way VQakr suggests. And whatever it says, it's a partisan group. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources saying in their own voices that the group is nonpartisan, and we haven't found any conflicting reliable sources. So insisting the group is partisan without sources is contrary to our to our verifiability policy. No offense but that's Wikipedia 101. (I just rediscovered that you're on ArbCom. The fact that you would be bucking policy so blatantly without invoking WP:IAR is troubling, to put it mildly.) Also, saying that a group is nonpartisan doesn't necessarily imply that it's unbiased. Lots of organizations have explicit ideologies and are still described as nonpartisan, both in the news media and in Wikipedia. To put it another way, OK is verifiably nonpartisan, whatever that means. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Who is suggesting that the article say the group is partisan? Despite your unwarranted criticism of me, that is not what I was suggesting. Oddly, depending on your definition, a group could be partisan and nonpartisan. But whatever we write, we need sources. Your comment about me is wrong and not conducive to good dialogue. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "it's a partisan group" even though we have two reliable sources saying it's a nonpartisan group. Pardon me for thinking that your statement that the group could be both partisan and nonpartisan is wordplay. By that logic, your argument that the group is partisan should have no bearing on the decision of whether to describe it as nonpartisan. Take a step back and look at what you're saying. You look an awful lot like someone who is trying to keep reliably sourced content out of an article. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I made a personal observation here, original research, which is allowed on talk pages. As you can see below, VQakr agrees with me. I have not asked to keep reliably sourced content out of the article. I am trying to discuss how we should word the use of the word "nonpartisan" and arguing we should not use it in Wikipedia's own voice. It is a confusing word has it has two meanings. Somehow we have to make it clear that when this group says they are non-partisan this means that they are not affiliated to any one party. They are of course partisan to a specific cause which they say is obedience to the constitution. I don't understand these continued personal comments, as you know about "good faith". Doug Weller talk 11:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't share this concern, but since you do, do you have any counter-proposals that would solve the problem? VQuakr proposes using "a different word or phrase to convey the non-contentious definition." I don't know what that word would be, or how it would satisfy WP:V. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I can think of at least two wordings that I would find acceptable. One would be, '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."' That's the phrasing currently in the article as written by MelanieN though as I said before, as a mission statement I think it should be at best 3rd-paragraph lede stuff, not 1st.

Alternatively, we could say something like, "The group is not affiliated with any political party." That's a non-contentious, unambiguous statement of fact that can be presented in Wikipedia's voice. I still don't think it's relevant enough to be in the 1st paragraph, but I could be convinced of any editorially favorable location for that or a similar sentence.

Either phrasing is easily verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I could probably live with one of these. It's frustrating that there aren't more experienced editors here. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It is verifiably nonpartisan in one sense of the word, and verifiably partisan in another sense. So, we should select a different word or phrase to convey the non-contentious definition. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Does everyone concur with Dr. Fleischman's assessment, that they are verifiably nonpartisan? Mary Wilkes (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: no one disagrees with the statement that the group has no party affiliation. But we also have multiple reliable sources that point out that the group is right-wing, which is the antonym of one of the definitions of the term "non-partisan" (and fitting of the term "partisan"). So saying "we haven't found any conflicting reliable sources" isn't particularly accurate, and hence my opinion that we should use an unambiguous term instead. I haven't seen any argument presented for having this in the first sentence of the article, either. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Doug, you say they are right-wing partisan. And I can see why you would believe that. But here are published videos that I think show otherwise. The first one is of Rhodes (founder/president of Oath Keepers) in Berkeley on 4/15 giving a speech. At 3:18 in the video, he states, "We will be here anytime any American of any color, of any ideology is under threat of violence [for exercising their freedom of speech] ... Our Oath is not to a president, not to Bush, not to Obama, not to Trump. Our Oath is the Constitution." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI8eKV8JCl8

The second video is of an LA Times interview of Rhodes at Berkeley on 4/27 at the recent Ann Coulter event that was ultimately canceled. At 0:20 Rhodes states, "It's not about her, its about the American right free speech and assemble." At 2:39 the report asks, "If you say a member of the Antifa was being kicked to death in the streets [would you defend him?]" to which Rhodes replies, "Yes, I would. Absolutely. At 6:20, Rhodes states, "If [Antifa] were only beating up Richard Spenser, I really would not care. ... But they are not. They are calling everyone a Nazi who is not them, and beating them up." (Richard Spencer is a white supremacist) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XNdBVPXybk&feature=youtu.be

The 3rd video of interview of Sam Andrews, who was in charge of the most recent Oath Keepers Ferguson operations. At 0:30, Andrews states, "Black lives matter, and anyone who says different is full of it." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vrzZR0PBOI Mary Wilkes (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

None of that shows that they aren't right-wing. Their actions certainly don't. But let's stick to the sources. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mary, you are conducting original research, and I would like to keep this discussion focused on "nonpartisan" please. If you want to talk more about "right-wing" or "far-right" the place for that is the preceding discussion, or start a new one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I support calling them both "right-wing" and "non-partisan", as Dr. Fleischman suggested. I would say it is pretty well accepted in American that "partisan" and "non-partisan" refer to party politics. The idea that non-partisan means "lack of bias", independent of politics, is well outside of current American usage IMO. (Note that Partisanship redirects to Partisan (political).) There are many, many organizations that feel passionately about particular issues but are nevertheless nonpartisan. As for "free of bias": Where is your evidence that the Oath Keepers are biased? --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr's contention that "right-wing" and "partisan" are antonyms is undercut by the fact that a multitude of undisputably reliable news outlets have described various organizations as "right-wing nonpartisan," "right-leaning nonpartisan," "conservative nonpartisan," "left-leaning nonpartisan," "progressive nonpartisan," etc. etc. It would be tedious for me to gather examples, but go to Google News and check for yourselves. We're talking about media outlets like Reuters, McClatchy, the L.A. Times, etc. etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you could provide examples, but that wouldn't change the connotation of the word or demonstrate that it is either unambiguous English or common. FYI, I get 11 GHits (web, not just news) for the string "right-leaning nonpartisan" and 2 for "right-wing nonpartisan" so the phrases may not be as common as you believe. "conservative nonpartisan" gets thousands of hits on web and 20 on news, but at a glance many of those include qualifiers such as "self-described" that would rather nullify your theory. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Off topic. Like I said, this thread is devoted solely to the issue of "nonpartisan" (and any proposed alternatives). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I added a reference that discusses right-wing vs. left-wing regarding the Oath Keepers. Per Dr Fleischman's request, I have added it to the previous thread. May I suggest that the opening paragraph read: Oath Keepers is an American organization that 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."[6] 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 Southern Poverty Law Center describes the group as "an anti-government right-wing fringe organization." The organization claims a membership of up to 30,000.[7] Mary Wilkes (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC) That is much too focused on how the organization describes itself as opposed to how reliable, secondary sources describe it. The Wiki-essay WP:MISSION summarizes why this is not ideal. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have changed my opinion. They are not nonpartisan - not even under my preferred, narrow description of "partisan" as meaning affiliated with a political party. The link provided by Dr. Fleischman below, and similar articles, show that the Oath Keepers specifically tried to intervene in the recent election on the side of the Republicans. Here they are in their own words, telling their members how to poll-watch: [3] The instructions are entirely from a Republican viewpoint: "we have seen blatant unlawful voter intimidation this year, in the form of numerous physical attacks on Trump supporters, the fire-bombing of a Republican Party campaign headquarters in North Carolina, with a nearby building spray painted with the message “Nazi Republicans leave town or else,” and the vandalism of several homes located across the street from the home of Sen. Pat Toomey in Zionsville, Pa. with threatening anti-GOP graffiti spray painted in red, such as “Nazi, Slavers, Rapists, Cross Worshippers = GOP,” “Look Out Toomey And You Neo Nazi Republicans,” and “#Americans Against The Republican Party.” " "There were also some incidents of assaults against anti-Trump protesters at Trump campaign rallies, but as the Project Veritas hidden videos show, many if not all of them were orchestrated by Clinton operatives." This group is not nonpartisan, even thought they claim to be, and we should probably add some of this material to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The simple fact there are left wing members and centrist members in significant proportions would indicate that they aren't partisan. But keep in mind there was a landslide move to oppose legacy politicians born of the purple in the last election too. But you're definitely right we should be adding in the fire bombings and attacks and faked 'hate crime' campaign. That's significant notable stuff that the Oathkeepers became first responders at and provided aid and relief at. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 05:51, 26 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: [4], [5]. --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)

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

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)

Listing by SPLC

Hey Neutrality, I think I need to object to this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oath_Keepers&type=revision&diff=781598835&oldid=781595855

It reduces the description, it also is inconsistent with other groups that are listed by the SPLC as I have gone looking around. Pages on this list generally have a description in their page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups Morty C-137 (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit is about the ADL list. I would suggest reading the discussion, before objecting. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion again, I still think that an ADL listing is notable and should be included, even if Wikipedia doesn't keep a mirror of their listings. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: introducing the term "terrorism" as a descriptor of an organization is the sort of thing that needs to be well-sourced. The source provided groups OK on the ADL website under the section "extremism, terrorism, & bigotry" but the source provided doesn't say, "OK is a bunch of extremist, terrorist bigots." We need to be cautious in our attribution of contentious labels in a case like this. The diff you linked doesn't have anything to do with SPLC. VQuakr (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the term "terrorism" is so fraught that we would need really strong sourcing (for example, being identified as terrorist by an official government source) to apply it to any group. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN on this. We are normally very cautious about using the word. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Libertarian" and "veterans" categories

Is OK verifiably libertarian? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not that I could find. Some sources have wording to indicate that Rhodes self-identifies as libertarian sometimes, but not the group. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman, Morty C-137 - I agree and have removed both the "libertarian" category and the "veterans" categories - I simply think they don't apply.

As to the "libertarian" - the only sources cited by Seraphim System that indicate "libertarian" are this opinion piece, in the Colorado Independent; this opinion blog post by a master's degree student at the Huffington Post; this Mother Jones piece (which calls Rhodes "a libertarian" but says nothing about the group); and this opinion piece in Reason by Radley Balko (who calls Rhodes "libertarian" and asserts that "Most of [the Oath Keepers] members are conservative or libertarian" but never ascribes any label to the group). None of these sources (three of which are opinion pieces, and the fourth of which doesn't verify the claim) are sufficient for is to categorize the group as libertarian. And even if there were some isolated, non-opinion, reliable sources that did identify it as such (there's none that I can see), it still wouldn't be a suitable category because it's not WP:DEFINING: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having").

As to the "Veterans' organization" categories, that's just as contentious. There's no evidence that the group's membership is primarily made up of veterans, nor that the group verifies claims of veteran status by would-be members. No does the group advocate for veterans - they are a political organization. It's undisputed that some members of the group are veterans, but that doesn't make it a "veterans' organization." Again, categories should be limited to when they are an appropriately WP:DEFINING characteristic.

Neutrality^talk 22:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the group's membership is primarily made up of veterans, nor that the group verifies claims of veteran status by would-be members. - And further there's evidence that at least one journalist created a fake identity and got in, to affirmatively show that the group does not verify claims. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Libertarian is at least as defining as "militia movement" which is only supported by SPLC, and denied by the founders of the organization. Does anyone have any sources, independent of SPLC, that support it? It's only media organizations that are using SPLC as a source. I think Vice has high standards for independent and investigative journalism and they have called them "libertarian leaning" - their stories probably have been more in-depth and used different language, because they do real investigative journalism (which is rare these days). Most news organizations do little more then copy and paste press statements, which is why all the articles sound exactly the same, and can be followed back to one source - which we are not supposed to be treating as multiple sources under our policies - Since when is it irrelevant that the two founding members on the Board of Directors are libertarian, or that they supported a libertarian candidate in 2012, one of them even serving as a delegate at the Republican convention. We don't usually disregard the statements an organization makes about itself entirely, in favor of one advocacy source that has been repeated by multiple news sources - I need a break from this article, but I think the WP:RS in this article need to be checked for adherence to WP:NEWSORGS and outside WP:RS from the same wire service can not be allowed as adding weight in future discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

[6][7][8][9][10][11].- MrX 00:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System: As MrX has posted, it simply wrong to say that no other sources identify it as linked to the militia movement - that characterization appears in many, many reliable sources, up to and including university-press-published books. As for "libertarian," you've still not shown me any reliable, non-opinion sources that clearly identify the group as libertarian. No, we can't do original research and label a group on the basis of what some members of the Board did or were. Neutrality^talk 02:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Yes, it would be wrong to say that, which is why I didn't say that - I asked if anyone had sources, which User:MrX posted. Good, we can move on. I have posted many sources that identified them as constitutionalist - which you ignored. I also posted a number of sources at the DRN, which you have also ignored - including Vice, which identified them as "libertarian leaning" - the fact that they have been covered by Libertarian sources - including Reason, also supports that they are libertarian leaning. It is not WP:OR to say that a group whose founders are libertarian, who was involved in Ron Paul's campaign, is a libertarian organization - they are non-partisan in the sense that they have open membership but that is being rejected also. In fact, any source that disputes the ADL/SPLC account is being ignored. To the extent that this means we are denying veteran's their own voice, and also discounting any sources that may be supportive of them, in favor of sources that are unfavorable of them is something that I can't support. Maybe my personal feelings are getting in the way here, but I definitely need to at least take a pause from this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC) @Neutrality: 5 of the Board Members are veterans, that does make it a veteran's organization, though more properly a veteran-run organization, to distinguish it from veteran service organizations. It may also fall into other categories. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"5 of the Board Members are veterans, that does make it a veteran's organization" - I think that's "Original Research", not to mention fallacious logic. By that logic, any organization that happens to have a couple of women on its board is instantly a "women's organization." Morty C-137 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR - it's a primary source, but that doesn't immediately make it WP:OR - when looking at organizations like these, we make sure that the primary source material isn't overly promotional or favorable, but we don't completely disregard it. This is because of your subjective opinion that the group can not be used as WP:RS - if that is the issue, you should post it on RS/n. It's not a "couple" of veterans - it's five. If women were the most represented group on a board, and if both founders of the company were women, I would have no objection to calling the organization an "organization that was founded by women" Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If OK explicitly describes themselves as a "veteran's organization", then we can say that "Oath keepers describe themselves as a veteran's organization" somewhere in the article. In no way is such a self-description adequate for categorization unless multiple reliable sources confirm its factuality. Policy forbids us from concluding that they are a veteran's organization on the basis of their membership, as explained quite clearly by Neutrality and Morty C-137.- MrX 12:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is already covered in the Membership section - I wasn't trying to add anything to the article, only the category, including veteran's organizations against the war in Iraq. This is not the IRS defined Veteran's Organizations - it was started in 2009 at a time when vets had just returned from the war and it was part of the Ron Paul "conservative backlash" - Ron Paul himself being very critical of the war and policies of the Bush administration. I don't think this can be a decent encyclopedia article as long as editors continue to willfully discount the (many) news articles that have tried to present more balanced views on the organization - this seems to be the consensus for the time being. The SPLC's view seems to be that all pro-second amendment organizations are extremist groups - in fact, this seems to be part of their definition for extremist group. That is not a widely held view - there are general academic criticisms, but those sources don't mention every organization this applies to by name, so we are stuck with this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"The SPLC's view seems to be that all pro-second amendment organizations are extremist groups " - Bovine Fecal Matter. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: You are a new editor, but you have already been warned about inappropriate comments and WP:FORUM by an editor other then myself. I have also mentioned this to you several times. I would advise you to read WP:FORUM and heed that warning. We are not interested in comments like the one above. Here is a Routledge source that supports what I said: you are wrong. - yes, opposition to gun control and a strong belief in the second amendment is actually part of how the SPLC define the "militia movement" and then call these groups "extremist." They are anti-2nd amendment and are pushing for surveillance of American citizens who are legal gun owners - they have done legitimate work opposing hate groups who actually have been involved in violent crimes, but that does not excuse riding on their reputation to push for adding lawful American citizens to federal watchlists for having non-violent ideological views that they oppose (and claim "could" become violent in the future). It is ironic that they suggest Americans should be added to federal watch lists because they oppose gun control, while denigrating persons who believe the federal government would take such an action as paranoid. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, you misrepresented the source you cited for your claim that the SPLC is anti-second amendment. Not only does the article not say that, the author actually writes "I support the right to own guns, but we don’t need 30 rounds in a semi-automatic weapon — or a well-armed militia — to bag a deer. I draw the line when my fellow citizens turn their homes into armories and begin training for insurrection. We used to call that treason." In fact, you also misrepresented the SPLC when you wrote "pushing for surveillance of American citizens who are legal gun owners"- MrX 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too happy about the gaslighting comment they left on my talk page demanding that I not respond to them or quote their words when they say something ridiculous, and claiming they told me repeatedly not to respond to them. Demanding that someone not respond when they say things that need challenging is not how dialogue works, such a demand is just demagoguery. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

We may disagree about interpretation and that's fine but here is what I see However, I am against vigilantes and those, like the NRA leaders, who encourage them. - so saying "I support the right to own guns, but we don't need 30 rounds" seems like a reference to the Assault Rifle ban, which has been one of the most discussed issues recently - and despite the claim to "support the right to own guns" the author uses the term "vigilantes" (presumably referring to those who oppose the Assault Rifle Ban because they are plotting a violent overthrow of the government), then he tells an anecdotal and entirely irrelevant story about the KKK, follows up with "proliferation of armed hate groups" and then mystically connects this to the militia movement, then goes back to hate groups (with the hopes that the reader did not notice) and then makes a statement about the Second Amendment that the SPLC is, frankly, not qualified to make (and they do so without citing a single case.) They thus conclude that anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of a constitutional amendment is part of an armed hate group, on their own authority (which no one cares about). I've studied law - from where I'm standing, they are way out of line. And they follow this pattern in article after article about this particular subject. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's calm down and stick to what we know. They do encourage veterans to join, but they are not a veterans' organization. They do encourage current and former peace officers and first responders to join, but they are not a peace officers' organization. They, or their founder, supported a libertarian candidate in 2012 and urged members to act in support of the Republicans in 2016; that does not make them libertarian or Republican (although it does indicate they are not nonpartisan). I don't see any evidence that they are "conservative" in any well-understood sense, and I don't see Reliable Sources using that term. They do encourage their members to show up, armed and highly visible, in situations where there are or may be confrontations between protesters and government agents; that may meet the definition of "vigilante" but we would need good sourcing to describe them that way. A group (like the SLPC) which wants to have controls on certain types of guns or ammunition (bazookas, anyone?) is not "anti-Second Amendment"; that is just an NRA talking point. "Far right" and "anti-government" are supported by many reliable sources as well as by their actions so it is appropriate to use those definitions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: No, not bazookas :) - but I think it is more then an NRA talking point. They are making claims about some of the most complex and controversial areas of Constitutional Law, like sedition, and they are doing this without citing any cases or legal authorities for the claims. In large part, their advocacy and definition regarding the militia movement, in particular, is based on their own interpretation of the Constitution. When we talk about articles for specific organizations that the SPLC has been very vocal about, where other secondary sources are sparse - the effect is problematic. The fact that we have very few sources beyond SPLC for this organization essentially makes this article a platform for advocacy for the SPLC's view because we can not introduce critical views about SPLC like this encyclopedia article - this is not good. I could get into the details more, but I don't think it's necessary? Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This comes up over and over again on groups described by the SPLC. There's broad consensus that the SPLC is a reliable source but that its assessments can't be cited without in-text attribution. We can't possibly neutrally describe SPLC's controversies in the articles in which it's cited without creating a coatrack problem. The solution is to provide a wikilink to Southern Poverty Law Center so that curious readers can learn more. This is how we handle pretty much all reliable but controversial sources. I believe this is off-topic. We are discussing the libertarian and veterans categories. If you wish to have the militia group category removed then please start a new discussion about that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Militia movement is ok, and sourced to several books. Per MelanieN, going with what we know, maybe an add that the two founders are libertarians who supported Ron Paul in 2012 in the lede (one worked for Paul's campaign and the other was a delegate for Paul at the Convention.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem lead-worthy to me, but I could see it going into #Organizational history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree with adding it to the history section, which needs expansion. In fact it only mentions one founder. Seraphim, what do you mean by two founders? And although they supported the libertarian candidate in 2012, they supported the Republican viewpoint in 2016, so I don't think we can say that they "are" either libertarian or Republican. But we can show the history. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we can say Rhodes is libertarian, at least - Rhodes is identified as such by a the majority of WP:RS and the truth is, we don't know who he voted for, and even if we did - it wouldn't matter because we are not here to argue over whether you lose your libertarianism by voting for Trump. The sources say he is a libertarian - that should be enough. Jim Ayala was a delegate for Ron Paul in 2012, but that is all the sources say about it. I haven't seen any sources that discuss his ideology more in depth, or any published quotes from him about it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:00, 27 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)

Kim Davis: Criticism or threat?

Rather than continue to revert each other over these two alternative terms, I suggest that we actually discuss them. To me, the quotation in question, "this judge needs to be put on notice that his behavior is not going to be accepted and we’ll be there to stop it and intercede ourselves if we have to" is clearly a threat to intercede. Others have termed this "criticism", although I don't know any other context in which a group saying "needs to be put on notice ... we'll be there to stop it" would be termed "criticism". Please discuss. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly not criticism, it's stating that action is going to be taken if the judge does or doesn't do certain things. That's a threat. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's POV, it doesn't say what action is going to be taken. Writing it up like this is sensationalist tabloid style writing, it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. For all you know they are all going to hold hands in a circle around Kim Davis and sing Kumbaya. "Threat" has a very specific meaning and it is not that "action will be taken" — you need only look it up in the dictionary to confirm this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a threat. An armed militia group telling a judge "his behavior is not going to be accepted and we’ll be there to stop it and intercede ourselves if we have to" is nothing short of a threat of violence. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The source doesn't say threat and I'm not even convinced the source we currently have for this is WP:RS, it seems to be an opinion blog. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: The discussion has only been open for 20 minutes or so, please do not resume your old pattern of disruptive editing and edit warring. I am going either going to post this to NPOV/N or start and RfC if the regular editors here insist on continuing this pattern of POV editing, WP:UNDUE representation of advocacy group source opinions, etc. It's been an ongoing problem on this article and I've had enough of it. This consensus discussion is not closed and the stable version should stay up until there is an RfC. Another reason is we don't have a clear alternate proposal yet, so the discussion should be left open for a while until we have something specific for RfC. Should the RfC be limited only to the use of the word threat, or should we include Morty's unattributed SPLC primary also? (My position on SPLC is if it has not been widely reported by secondary sources, it should not be included.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, User:Seraphim System, the stable version was "threat", until yesterday. So could you revert to that, please? Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert back to it because 1)There are BLP issues. I have seen an MSBC source attributing the quote to Rhodes, personally, so BLP applies. None of the sources say "threat" they clearly speculate on what it may mean using language like "perhaps" — this is not appropriate for BLP. 2) DrFleischman has since changed it to "said" and has noted WP:SYNTH isues in the discussion below, which I agree with. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Which is fine, but then don't pretend you are preserving (or reverting to) a "stable version". Your statement was disingenuous. Newimpartial (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I will strike out, I didn't notice that it had only recently been changed. My main point was that 20 minutes is not long enough to declare that consensus has been reached (see below), and I didn't want this to turn into an edit war. At this point we have pretty much agreed that "threat" should be removed as a BLP issue and have also pretty much agreed on including the "they'll do it" quote. My main concern was unsupported use of a negative-POV term like threat (especially in a BLP context), so I don't really want to keep going back and forth about this ad nauseum now that this seems to be resolved Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You can cut the passive-aggressive BS. You came in to reinsert language by an IP sockpuppet, your habit of POV-pushing on pages like this. And we all know you have right wing POV issues and a hate bordering on irrational for the SPLC despite their being a well respected WP:RS. if the regular editors here insist on continuing this pattern of POV editing? - It's pretty clear that you are far outside the consensus, which is the whole problem. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It hasnt been that long since you were blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing, keep it up and you will only find yourself back at AN/I. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh good, threats. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to file a complaint, but if you continue like this, someone else will. There are admins who have noted it already. Obviously you are under more scrutiny coming off a recent block, I suggest you tone it down. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that you just went to an admin and demanded that I be "indef'ed"? Morty C-137 (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Glass houses and all. Let's move on please, leave the conduct disputes on user talk and focus here on content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Neither a criticism nor a threat against the judge. This is not a criticism because there was no critique; simply saying the ruling was "unacceptable" is not pointing out any problems with the ruling. And this is not a threat against the judge because the OK were not suggesting they would go to the federal courthouse and hurt the judge; rather, they seem to have been suggesting that they would stop the police (federal marshals?) from arresting Davis, presumably at her work (Rowan County clerk's office) or home. How OK would do that is unclear; it could have been by peaceful protest, handcuffing themselves to Davis, etc. Whatever the means, that cannot be called threatening the judge. My suggestion is that stop trying to interpret this ambiguous language and simply say, "The Oath Keepers also said..." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree that it wasn't a threat against the judge, but it was certainly a threat to take extra-legal action of one kind or another. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. When a group known for armed and violent confrontations says they are going to "be there to stop" something or that "he's still going to be held accountable", there's no question that it is a threat of violence if they don't get what they want. The entire purpose of marching around like weekend-wacko militias with guns is to intimidate and threaten. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be correct, but this is classic improper synthesis. You are combining the source with your prior understanding OK (based on other sources) and suggesting we express a conclusion not made by any of them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither threat nor critiscm should be used because those words are not in the source. Threat certainly should not be used in a BLP situation, which this is because the quote does not come from the organization, it comes from a Sheriff according to the source. The source does not even say the Sheriff is a member of Oathkeepers, only that they posted the video online so that quote should probably not be included in this article at all. The only thing I could see in the source about the organization is that they would put "boots on the ground" to protect her from being arrested. Let me know if I missed something, I am on my mobile which is not ideal for thoroughly searching an article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't use threat, but there's no BLP violation in using just the quote as long as we get it right who said it. Rhodes clearly said the bit about "then we'll do it", I've linked to the video and transcript below and checked the video. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This MSBC source (using rightwingwatch as their source) attributes the quote to Rhodes so I think we can this article as the secondary source for the quote [12] Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This wording is clearly a threat. "boots on the ground" is a military term for an active conflict. Use of that term is a threat of violence. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/boots_on_the_ground Morty C-137 (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, "boots on the ground" does not necessarily mean military action. It is often used by peaceful protester groups. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Source, DrFleischman? Morty at least provided a source. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Really? Come on, easy to verify. Amnesty International doesn't advocate for military action; nor did the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters; nor did the January Women's March protesters. There are many more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you just made my point for me. The AI post? Bangladesh protests that turned into mass arrests. Dakota Pipeline protests? They came in expecting and planning for violence - and violence was had, even extending to attacks on journalists. Women's March? They knew full well that police brutality was coming. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a cheeky straw man argument, totally irrelevant. The question is whether the statement was a threat of violence. Peaceful protests anticipating a violent response (not even implied by the term, feel free to lift a finger and look for more references) are not threats of violence. You know this; hence this discussion is no longer constructive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"It is often used by peaceful protester groups"... who are expecting to get into a confrontation involving violence, such as provoking arrests. And again, that would be assuming that one could somehow pigeonhole the OK's into the category of "peaceful protester groups", which can't be done given that they literally show up with guns to threaten government officials and police. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps DrFleishman means peaceful black bloc protesters. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong both. Please don't play dumb, and don't speculate on what I meant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear the term "boot" refers to a person, so it literally means nothing more then they will show up. They can resist passively, they can hold hands, they can handcuff themselves to her, etc. You can't assume they are threatening violence and if they were it would be a crime so we certainly can't assume it and write it into the article without much stronger secondary source evidence. It's been used by CBS to refer to protestors at Occupy Wall Street [13], democratic voters [14] we can't assume it means a threat of violence. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So, Seraphim, you literally just cited business writer Alain Sherter, and Heritage Action for America CEO Tim Chapman, in documenting that "boots on the ground" can reference peaceful protesters holding hands. This is an interesting perspective on what counts as a WP:RS. I think the Urban Dictionary fares better lol. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Reliability has nothing to do with it. The question is what OK meant by "boots on the ground," and evidence from both reliable and unreliable sources indicates that they could have meant any number of things. Please cut the snark. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If all of the contextually-reliable sources treat "boots on the ground" as referring to situations carrying the potential for violence, then I think that has everything to do with it. No snark. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

...except they don't. Even if you don't want to do a little research, you could at least click through the links that were provided in this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If I hadn't clicked the links, how could I have called out the actual "authorities" behind Seraphim's two examples? I have also clicked through all of yours, and I don't see how an Amnesty International facebook post endorsing a local "direct action" protest says anything meaningful about the kind of conflicts "boots on the ground" references. "Direct action" carries the potential for violence (as seen at Standing Rock, another of your examples) and I see no justification in any source you or Seraphim have produced for an alternative context. I'm not sure what frame of reference you are bringing to this, but to me it seems bizarre. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Boots on the ground" is a military turn of phrase representing deployment that has been co-opted by any number of organizations, such as [15]. That being said, we are talking about a militia movement and in this context "boots on the ground" can be seen as representing an actual deployment of manpower akin to a military operation.SamHolt6 (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure it can be seen that way, but it can also be seen another way too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Under WP:NPF, Rhodes is not a public figure, if every newspaper said "threatened", under our policy we probably still aren't supposed to add it to the article. But in this case, it is even worse because we would not be repeating what the newspapers have published, because none of the media sources have used the phrase "threatened the judge."Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The idea that Rhodes is "not a public figure" is laughable. Quick check: 12,600,000 results on Google for his name, 53,300 if you restrict it just to the News category. And he meets ALL the qualifications of a High Profile Individual.

• Seeks media attention? Both online and radio/tv? CHECK.
• Voluntarily participates in self-promotion "such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee: CHECK.
• "Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage. May have produced publications (books, DVDs, etc.) or events that at least in part are designed (successfully or not) to self-promote and to attract favorable public attention. CHECK.
• "Has sought or holds a position of preeminence, power or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere or other area of human endeavor, usually at more than a locally-significant level. - Running a high-profile militia operation, and claiming to be a "constitutional expert" in his TV appearances again: CHECK.
• As of the writing (or review/editing) of the article (or as of the article subject's death) is (or was) engaged in high-profile activity, as described above, with or without a lifelong history of such activities. CHECK.

Rhodes does not fall under WP:NPF, he is clearly a high-profile individual. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You can try to Wikilawyer this, but these things usually come down to common sense and if it is even borderline we have to err on the side of caution because the policy here is very strict and for good reason. This policy is in place to protect the encyclopedia. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to discuss the facts or not? Morty C-137 (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say no, he is not a public figure. I think this checklist is here to give guidence for very clear cases, about which there would not be much argument like the CEO of Coca Cola — he is not a household name, I don't know his name, but I am confident that he would be considered a public figure. But for someone like Rhodes, this checklist can be misleading because it's not particularly meaningful without the cases in front of me. Am I going to look those up? No. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You have asserted he is not. One need not be "a household name" to be a public figure by the policy: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.". I have gone down the checklist: THAT is the policy on who is, and is not, a public figure (e.g. a "high profile" or "low profile" individual), linked directly from WP:NPF. Please discuss without throwing around insults like "wikilawyer" when people are addressing the facts. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I looked it over again and all I see copy and pasted guidelines with check written in bold caps lock next to each one. Is Rhodes preeminent? No. Preeminent sounds serious. Is his significance national? I would say mostly local. Oathkeepers is a big group, a lot of people are involved. I've never seen any evidence that Rhodes has national significance. Promotional? Well, there may be money involved, but it is a non-profit so I'm not 100℅ sure this promotion, if there is promotion it is for the organization, so I'm not sure it is self-promotion. I have never seen any articles about Stewart Rhodes, not one, in mainstream media that I would consider promotional. In fact I havent seen any articles about him at all, only about the orgabization. So I do think this is Wikilawyering, using caplocks and bold and citing the policy without explaining why check. Please dont consider it an insult, it is a word I use very rarely. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So your argument is basically "I didn't hear that"? Morty C-137 (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Rhodes is a HPF. Even if he were the language can not be sourced to media sources, so we are responsible for the particular language. I think there is currently rough consensus to exclude the statement, both because of the WP:BLP implications, and because there are no sources supporting inclusion. I have only returned to this discussion because I saw an unsourced negative-POV language that implicates BLP. As soon as this issue is resolved, whether through RfC or reaching a stable consensus through discussion here, I will step away from this article again. It is not very high on my priority list. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Even if he were the language can not be sourced to media sources" - Persons other than myself have offered Reliable Sources, so this claim does not pass the fact check. Also, demanding "media sources" is an inappropriate way to try to change the criteria. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• My !vote is to remove these two quotes entirely. They put undue emphasis on this subject and are redundant with the first sentence. Both quotes essentially say OK said it would interfere with enforcement of the contempt order, which is what the first sentence says. We effectively have 3 sentences all saying the same thing in different ways. We should stick to the one that adequately tells the story in our own voice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• My !vote would be retain both quotes and the intro sentence. Together they tell the story as well as it can be told, while establishing WP:NPOV, which has tended - on this page - to be lost the more editors paraphrase. I believe the current discussion shows this amply. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest keeping just one quote, the "then we'll do it" quote that Doug Weller and I are discussing above, since we have an MSBC source for it that tells us Rhodes said it and Doug Weller has checked and confirmed the video source for the quote, as well. I think two quotes about the same relatively minor point would cross the line to WP:UNDUE. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with including that quote, as it's not summarized by the first sentence, as long as we explain what the speaker was talking about when they referred to "just because they let her out." It's confusing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Watching tv, haven't read it all, but I don't think of "boots on the ground" as automatically meaning anything aggressive. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Both quotes should be kept - SPLC is clearly a WP:RS. The fact that the SPLC coverage was removed is getting lost here, when it absolutely is notable. It's also less than honest for anyone to claim that Peyman is unassociated with the OK's or is "just a sheriff" when: "Rhodes on Wednesday broadcast a conversation he had with his “boots on the ground” in Kentucky – notably, a “constitutionalist” sheriff named Denny Peyman from Jackson County, KY...Peyman sounded a threatening note in Bunning’s direction: “I think the judge still needs to know that he’s not out of the woods just because they let her out. He’s still going to be held accountable.”"[16] Morty C-137 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Recap

There is a lot of back and forth above; can someone do a brief, neutral recap on what is still in dispute? VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, earlier today there was no DS warning on this page. Now there is...but I don't want to restore what I think is a BLP violation unless there is consensus and then I would not object to another editor changing it to the consensus language. The language "threatened the judge" was recently added by Morty C-137. The language is not supported by any WP:RS. It used to say "attacked the judge". This was changed to "criticized" then to "threatened." None of this language can be sourced to WP:RS as far as I know. Doug Weller and I figured out it was Rhodes who said it, and I think we are agreed to keep the quote and simply say "Stewart Rhodes said [quote here]." I think BLP violations are exempted from revert restrictions anyway, but my entire interest in this page is addressing the BLP issue, so if we could get clear consensus on this, that would be enough for me. I don't think anything else is still in dispute. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I would not revert to the "threatened" language again (I reverted it once before opening this section), and I don't think there is more than one editor who would bring the verb back. The current reliance on direct quotation in this section seems preferable to me than some of the weasel language that had been inserted earlier.

Also, it seems to me that the main outstanding issue is whether to re-introduce into the article some of the critical commentary sourced from the SPLC and other sources that were removed in a previous bout of enthusiasm. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim is leaving out that the SPLC has more in depth reporting, including text direct from a video Rhodes published with one of his lieutenants that uses stronger threat language. I worked to include that, but Seraphim removed it from the article due to a... "novel"... viewpoint regarding the SPLC and a bizarre claim that the "splc viewpoint is covered enough already" and that their coverage of the public declarations by Rhodes and his lieutentant somehow becomes "undue". Seraphim is also claiming that Rhodes somehow qualifies as not being a public figure, despite Rhodes meeting all the criteria of a "high-profile individual" according to Wikipedia policy. Morty C-137 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh and when Seraphim claims that the word "threatened" isn't supported by "any RS", we're back to that bizarre claim that the SPLC are somehow not an RS - which goes against the consensus here and elsewhere. When you search the history on this page we show clearly that SPLC are WP:RS. It seems to be only Seraphim that believes otherwise (as well as occasionally casting aspersions on them with edit summaries like "...it has been publicly denied by the founders of the group and repeating these rumors started by ADL and SPLC is a BLP violation". In reality, "Not only are the ADL & SPLC respected authorities on extremist groups,...", as stated by @Neutrality:. I also suspect that Seraphim is either seriously misrepresenting or misreading the WP:BLP policy, since multiple reliable sources cover the incident even if they have some difference in coverage focus (which is natural given different reporters), and "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Morty C-137 (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NPF I will defer to Doug Weller, since he is on the Arbitration Committee and presumably would knows these policies more in depth then the average editor. When it comes to making poetntially actionable negative/defamatory statements about a graduate of Yale Law School I advise restraint, which is what our policy asks of us as well. Not a legal threat, I'm not affiliated with the organization, I'm not affiliated with WMF and I have no personal interest in the outcome here. I'm just stating what my understanding of our WP:NPF policy is―I have already expended more energy on this then can be reasonably expected from a volunteer editor, no? I'm not affiliated with WMF, I'm not affiliated with Oath Keepers, and I have other things I would like to do tonight. I feel I have made this point sufficiently and will leave it to other editors to decide what is best. If no one else thinks it is a problem, then by all means, restore it. Regarding SPLC, I don't think our articles are meant to be written as attack pieces with WP:UNDUE emphasis on the viewpoint of one advocacy organization. I'm not sure what is bizarre about WP:UNDUE it is a fairly standard policy, the SPLC content should be cited in secondary sources. There have been many attempts here to explain WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Maybe other editors will have more luck here. I am concerned about the pattern of editing on this article, but I'm not its guardian. I have done all I can and it's up to the community now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparently Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. is a thing ("limited-purpose public figures"). According to my research from the Digital media law foundation a Playboy playmate for purpose of a parody is a public figure, but a Penthouse Pet for purposes of a parody is not. This is more or less what I expected. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The WP:NPF question seems an excellent simple query for WP:BLPN. I think that if there is still disagreement on that front, BLPN would be the way to go. As for "threating", from the SPLC source linked above, [17] I see 'Peyman sounded a threatening note in Bunning’s direction: “I think the judge still needs to know that he’s not out of the woods just because they let her out. He’s still going to be held accountable.”' For a contentious claim I do not think paraphrasing this quote as "The Oath Keepers also threatened the judge" is the best we can do. Direct quotes of the Oath Keepers' statements or quotes from secondary sources analyzing those statements would be much better if there is consensus to include. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Since the SPLC might actually be sued for defamation soon, shouldn't we maybe wait for the outcome of that before continuing to use them as WP:RS for possible WP:NPF or for statements that have not been published in the news? I think non-profits can sue as well, btw, though the rules may be different for statements published by journalists (or reliance on them). I don't know―I'm not an expert on defamation laws, but the potential damages can be huge, like astronomical. Anyway, I know the SPLC lawsuit hasn't been filed yet, but WP:NPF policy is pretty clear about this―maybe I will post to BLP/N, I think we need to discuss this as a community instead of on different talk pages. Seraphim System ^(talk)

No, I do not think the status of any pending (or current, if that occurs) litigation against SPLC would or should directly affect how we use them as a source. Also, I'd let WMF worry about legal risks to the foundation; if they have a concern here or in similar locations they they can ignore consensus. I do agree that your "big picture" concerns seem better suited for a noticeboard or village pump. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I just posted there. I assume, at this point, if it is an issue, someone will bring it to WMF's attention. That concludes my participation in this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Judge still needs to hear... then we'll do it

The Miami Herald is a reliable source and has the same quote[18] from the video.about 2:30 minutes in. The video is partially transcribed at which includes the threat/criticism/whatever, is at The Daily Kos. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm commenting on text that was removed. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What a left/center-left group describes as "far right" might not be seen that way by others.

Right now, the article describes the group as "far right", in Wiki's voice first thing in the lead, based on at least some assessments by groups that are nearly as far to the other extreme (at least in USAnian terms.) A neutral lead would note directly examples of who makes the claim, and might position that somewhere other than the first sentence. Anmccaff (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed. Maybe we should add a FAQ? VQuakr (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Discussed" is not the same as "settled." What is seen as far left or far right changes constantly depending on what is taken as the center point. Pitcavage's ideas from twenty years ago, for instance, might not be the best guide to 2017. Anmccaff (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There is broad consensus across Wikipedia that Slate, and Chicago Tribune, are reliable sources. The alleged political bias of a site doesn't disqualify it as a reliable source. This is built right into our reliable sources guideline. I don't see any problem with the current sourcing for "far-right." I'm going to "demote" the article-level POV tag to an in-line tag to reflect the stated concern. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" here is, of course, a wikish term of art, not something that is necessarily "reliable" in common parlance. WP:RS sources can, an often do, disagree with each other, sometimes quite radically. The fact that Wiki considers something RS is a starting point, not a destination. Noting that a source guideline mentions something but ignoring it in practice looks a bit like lip-service and Sunday truths. WP:BIASED says Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...", which would seem a better way of using the sources here. Finally, the POV tag was for the article; a single in-line tag on a set of references isn't "demotion", it's more like "gelding." Anmccaff (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You've lost me. I don't understand your point about how you see Wikipedia working. I see it as, if reliable sources say something, then we can generally say it as well. Of course reliable sources sometimes disagree; in this case they do not, do they? As for your tag concern, article-level tags are for article-level concerns. You only raised a concern about a single word. If you have article-level concerns, then please articulate them (preferably in a separate thread to facilitate resolution). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources universally state something as fact, sure. Looking at the Trib, out of a dozen or so articles, it seems to say "right", "alt-right", and "far right," or " ". (The most common approach appears to be leaving the space on the political question unchecked.) Now, "right", "alt-right", and "far right," all kinda suggest we ain't talking about Trotsky here, but they aren't the same thing at all. The Trib doesn't even agree, exactly, with itself on this...and there is nothing very remarkable about that. Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, what terms do you believe we should use in this case, "online hipster magazine Slate says", or "according to the stodgy Chicago Tribune"? Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Has been described as Bleah, al-bleah, New-Bleah...by So-and-so, and as Blerg and Antidisblergh by Suchandsuch. For Slate and the Trib, I don't think belaboring their places on the political spectrum is needed. Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I have my doubts about the reliability of Slate for these sorts of political labels. But ChiTri is untouchable. It's one of the most-read, mainstream, repuable newspapers in the country and it has been making these sorts of assessments for decades. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So why was Slate used for this? Why Raw Story? Why the multiple cites all centering on SPLC..i.e. incestuously circular? Why a consistent pattern of inaccurate use of cites? Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea. You'd have to search through the contribution history and figure out who added what, and then ask them. Wikipedia isn't some monolithic big brother organization. We are volunteers from all around the world, just like you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Or, we could look at the end result, agree its a bit of a hatchet job, and label it as such, yep. Anmccaff (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There's an app for that. VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right is a trendy term, but it doesn't appear to be the most broadly used WRT this organization. I generally care very little about hyphenation, so I suppose I'm fine with either far-right or far right. Anyone have a preference between those two? VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources tend to use "far-right" when using it as an adjective (as it is here) and "far right" when using it as a known (e.g. "so-and-so is a member of the far right"). "Alt-right" does not appear to follow this pattern and always uses the hyphen, probably because "alt" is not a word. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Background checks?

/* Membership */ Does anyone actually believe most organizations of this type -and that's everything from political weirdeaux to Friends of the Library -do background checks? Anmccaff (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with our Oath Keepers article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Your Oath Keepers" article included a paragraph saying:

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.

References

There are several problems, I'd think. with this. First, Harmon Leon may see himself primarily as a journalist, but I'd suggest he not quit his day job....as a comedian, apparently. Unlike, say, the Trib, Raw Story is not a mainstream source, and this isn't a serious investigative article. So, biased fluff from a lighter weight source, for starters.

The central problem, though, is that mentioned above. Most voluntary politcal, service, pressure, political...name it, most groups don't vet the membership. You or I could join Phrogboiz for Donald and Emos for Hillary on the same day. This is not serious journalism, but a perfectly predictable (considering the source) hatchet job. Anmccaff (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it customary to leave the stable version in place during the discussion in the BRD cycle? Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on how bad the "stable" version is...and let's face it, this one is pretty bad all around, and whether the reverter had had a chance to respond....and you've edited about 5 other things since, right? Anmccaff (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial is right. You're edit warring. Please stop and discuss. If you have a problem with some content, then you're free to tag it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: when determining whether to include coverage of a viewpoint, we looks at the relative coverage of that viewpoint in reliable sources. Your personal analysis about Phrogboiz, etc, is an irrelevant distraction. Raw Story seems borderline to me, both reliability and weight-wise for this particular viewpoint. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think @Anmccaff:'s analysis is entirely irrelevant. The argument is well-reasoned, and in the face of the borderline reliability and weight of the viewpoint, it seems appropriate to remove it from the article. Cjhard (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, the article is a republication from Alternet: [19]. As an advocacy journal, it is a reliable source only for uncontested facts and its own opinions. This claim about the vetting of membership seems to be an opinion dressed up as a fact. It appears that Leon took something which is common to political groups (the lack of vetting of members) and used that fact as a criticism of the Oath Keepers in particular. This has been repeated in the article. I support the removal of this material in its entirety. Cjhard (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It is in the "membership" section and is analysis of the group's claims about membership; it is not "criticism". VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I favor removal, for at least three reasons. First, the source does not support the content. The source says one person was not required to undergo meaningful vetting; that doesn't mean the group doesn't perform any background checks or have any practical checks on membership. Second, the source is of very borderline reliability. Third, this strikes me as not encyclopedic in nature. Seriously, who cares if the group performs background checks? Clearly this issue hasn't been picked up by the mainstream media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be undue to retain the group's unchallenged claim in the sentence above (that they accept only servicepeople for full membership) without including secondary analysis of that claim. How about adding a sentence to read (using existing sources):

The organization claims on its website that full membership is open to "currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, police, fire-fighters, other first responders (i.e. State Guard, Sheriff Posse/Auxiliary, Search & Rescue, EMT, other medical 1st responders, etc.) AND veterans/former members of those services," and that others who support the organization's mission can become associate members. The group's adherence to this policy was questioned by journalist Harmon Leon.

and remove the separate Harmon paragraph? VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's undue or misleading at all. A group doesn't have to conduct background checks in order to make a legitimate claim that it restricts its membership. Lots of groups have such membership policies without enforcing them in such an organized matter. And our article doesn't claim or suggest that OK does anything otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that this is a largely amateur journalist, cited in a source which was accused on Salon.com of creating fake news. Anmccaff (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to walk us through that. I don't see anything in that link about Harmon Leon. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

When I make reference to the reliability of the source, i.e. Rawstory.com, by writing "cited in a source" I think the route is already marked. Amateur journalist, amateurish publisher. Anmccaff (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I thought the link was offered to say something about Leon. Rather you were talking about RawStory.com in general. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I don't think this content removal is appropriate. Given the way the Oath Keepers organization tries to market themselves with claims that they are "all" first-responders or police/military, a journalist checking into whether their claims can be substantiated and testing their registration system is important and relevant. Also, neither you nor Annmccaff have provided any evidence of your claim that "Lots of groups have such membership policies without enforcing them". And to quote Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Morty C-137 (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)