Talk:Oath Keepers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oath Keepers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States C‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Orders Oath Keepers will not obey

This is central to oath keeper ideology but I don't see it specified anywhere, I think it can further illustrate their opposition to things like immigration.

We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state.
We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control." 
We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

From the ADL report on the OathKeepers: https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/combating-hate/The-Oath-Keepers-ADL-Report.pdf

-- 219.88.235.157 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We generally avoid including extended mission statements like this for the reasoning outlined in WP:MISSION. It being mentioned by the ADL isn't adequate reason to go against this. VQuakr (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but the inclusion, even if only on the talk page, may be useful to people trying to understand the ideology of the group. While we're at it, somebody needs to include something about Rhodes "We The People" tattoo and it's increasing popularity among law enforcement officers - It's showing up in news video with alarming frequency. How would you feel if you called for police assistance and all the officers showed up sporting fascist tattoos? You certainly will want to have enough knowledge to avoid becoming an unwitting victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:49 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far-Right

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Conservative Alabamian (talk · contribs · block log)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

I don’t know why we insist on explaining basic policies to people who will never actually listen because their very username is a POV statement Dronebogus (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how one source can judge a page such as this as “far-right.” There are many people and organizations who should be labeled as “far-left,” but are not labeled as such. I’m not going to name names, but I think if we should be open-minded and not bias one way or the other, I think it would be best to those who read Wikipedia on a daily or recent basis to know the facts and not experience political bias while reading articles. If we disagree, we disagree. I have my beliefs, you may have yours. I just want to make this page better and more understandable. -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I advised CA on my talkpage, that the lede has references at all is in part because people keep stopping at the first paragraph and removing "far right" without getting to the sourced content that the lede summarizes. Neither Wikipedia nor political science in general are obliged to assert a false symmetry because of a societal skew that has seen a proliferation of extremist groups on one side of the political spectrum. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think you are still incorrect in saying that. -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Conservative Alabamian Which of our guidelines and policies make you think Acroterion is incorrect? Doug Weller talk 07:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Alabamian Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as everyone has biases. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves in determining what to believe. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, which is different. If you have multiple independent reliable sources that use the far-left label on an organization, please offer them on the associated article talk pages. The sources in this article currently support the far-right label; if you have independent sources that use other terminology, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Alabamian is now User:HistoryGuy94 and pinging their old username doesn't work - and I think the software should be fixed so it does. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New ADL report

[1]. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change his name to Elmer Stewart Rhodes or give me access. Thank you. Dreed503 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "change his name", and what is your source for this? 331dot (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜 melecie talk - 01:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Stewart Rhodes

should there be a separate article on Elmer Stewart Rhodes, as an individual Patbahn (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might get redirected (again), but stub at Stewart Rhodes ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declutter the lead

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Oath Keepers. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

The first paragraph could probably be better at summarizing. I propose:

In November 2022, Rhodes and another leader of the organization were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their actions around the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Along with three other leaders, they were also convicted of obstruction and other felonies. [4]

Is changed to: In November 2022, Rhodes and other leaders of the organization were convicted of various crimes, including seditious conspiracy, for their actions around the January 6 United States Capitol attack. [4]

166.205.97.48 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]