Jump to content

Talk:Lion Guard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:387:3:805::67 (talk) at 14:33, 18 October 2017 (→Tags added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Scranton Times article

Over the past year, I've asked the Scranton Times twice if they ran a story on this group in the summer of 2016, which they stated that they did. While I do not have a copy of the article, I was e-mailed key points of it which pretty much match the material in this article. I've seen that a "dubious" tag keeps getting added to this material and removal of the tag has been reverted twice. I'm hoping we can resolve this situation since there was an article which did speak about the fascist undertones of the lion image and how this group was using it in the same manner. Thoughts? -O.R.Comms 14:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most glaring problem here is that our article claims that Lion Guard was condemned by "most mainstream political activist groups." The word "most" seems unlikely to be verifiable. There are thousands of mainstream political activist groups; did the Scranton Times source really say that more half of them condemned Lion Guard? I highly doubt it. On top of that, we have claims that the NAACP and CAIR condemned Lion Guard for using fascist imagery. Those are extraordinary claims, and I could find nothing to corroborate them.
I think the appropriate way to resolve this issue would be to find the source and include the relevant quote. I find it very odd that the source doesn't appear in the Scranton Times-Tribune's June 13, 2016 archive. Has the Times-Tribune confirmed the date, author, and headline? If so, my suggestion would be to use the resources listed in WP:Find your source, including asking for help at WP:RD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think its important to somehow stress in their decline that no one supported them. The source from Scranton Times appears to be faulty. We should remove it while still keeping the general gist of the statement that this was a fringe group which mainstream activists avoided. -O.R.Comms 15:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you propose some edits? Remember that all content must be verifiable, i.e. expressly supported by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far right

OberRanks, regarding this edit summary -- I'd be glad to support including the "far right" descriptor, if I can find it in a reliable source. What is this source you're referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe its referenced in one way or another in the sources already given. There was also a press release from the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office, North Carolina, dated March 12th 2016, which referred to the group as a "far right extremist organization". I agree, by the way, this article needs works and more sources. Its not at the top of my list but perhaps another enthusiastic editor will come in and do the research we need to turn this into a much better piece of work. -O.R.Comms 13:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OberRanks, please provide a link or citation here that supports the claim that the group is far right. You referred in your edit summary to a specific reference, so this should be very quick and easy for you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Take your pick [1] -O.R.Comms 16:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PoliticusUSA

I've started a discussion at WP:RSN#PoliticusUSA regarding whether this cited source is reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI Editing

I'm at the limit of my knowledge about articles on current events (I write very few of these). I asked on a noticeboard for others to chime in here since no one other than me has really contributed here. I'm okay if we take out unsourced or dubious material, but its going a bit too far accusing other editors of making up sources or removing obvious factual material like when the website went inactive (something easily verified). Also, now its my turn to ask a question. Why all the passion about aggressively removing material from this article? Do you have some involvement with them? If so, might need to consider WP:COI issues. I'm not saying that this is the case, only your editing pattern indicates someone with a determined mission to keep certain things out of this article. -O.R.Comms 01:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My "passion" is boosting Wikipedia's utility and reputation, and in aid of that goal I generally try to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While that might be your passion, your editing pattern is indicative of someone with a vested interest in this group. The group is clearly a real, far right, organization, which existed in 2016 and did in fact do the many things that are in this article. The zeal at which you are pursuing keeping the information out of the article strikes strongly of WP:COI. On the flip side, challenging sources is okay, but removing legitimate sourced material, and then suggesting other editors are adding false sources, is not okay. Speaking of okay, this is really it. I am off this page. -O.R.Comms 16:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article sources

Transcribed from user talk page
Ok, if you're going to keep working on the article then I'd like you to explain with specificity how you are coming up with your sources. In particular, you repeatedly added the following source over my objection: McDermott, J. "Trump’s Brownshirts? Militia vows to 'protect' Donald Trump", Arizona Republic, 13 June 2016. Seriously, where did this come from, and did you ever actually read the source? Neither I nor the helpful people at WP:RX could find any evidence that it ever existed, despite searching the subscription services. One editor said it was probably made up. I'm trying to assume good faith here. Please help me out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the original sources for that article were forwarded to me by a contact at the Maryland Republic Party. That was also some time ago [2]. If the citations are questionable, they can and should be removed. -O.R.Comms 00:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What did the Maryland Republican Party send you? A citation, the actual article, or something else? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OberRanks, are you planning to answer this question? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I don't have a copy of the 2016 e-mail from the Maryland Republican Party. To my memory, it was just a list of online articles about the Lion Guard which i used to originally write the article. Also, please don't remove the notice tags from the Lion Guard article. They have been legitimately added in order to draw attention to the many issues with that article. You yourself have brought up some of the issues, mainly that it needs better sourcing. -O.R.Comms 18:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OberRanks, please explain how you added content based on a list of articles that don't exist (and therefore there was no way for you to read). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the links to those source articles are on-line still and listed in the article reference section. I think the ones you found which were questionable were removed, which is as it should be, and were references to paper articles to which I had used a provided summary. Can I suggest something? Lets move away from these sources added over a year ago which were found to be problematic and move forward with the article. The questionable sources have all been removed and now the article now needs better secondary sources and also needs more editors involved. I myself have no further source material to offer on this group, so we need others to chime in. -O.R.Comms 20:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like someone took this blog post, which has a similar title and similar content, and fudged the citation to make it look like it came from a reputable newspaper. Perhaps you can explain what I'm getting wrong here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of posts of that nature around the Internet, mostly because nothing in hardcopy has been published about this and other similar groups. I imagine when Trump leaves offices, and people start publishing material about his campaigns and the groups that followed him, there will be more to go on. -00:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
No, there are no other pages on the web of that nature. Just that blog post, which cites an RT.com article. The RT.com article's title isn't similar to the citation you added, like the blog post's title is. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found plenty of a similar nature using various search phrases on the Internet [3] -O.R.Comms 15:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tags added

I added three tags to get higher visibility on the article, especially due to its lack of citations, questions about the sourcing, and also the conversational nature of the group and a tendency towards breaking WP:NPOV. I don't plan to edit the article any more myself, but it needs more editors to get involved as its only been edited thus far by two people. -O.R.Comms 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These tags seem inappropriate to me. The content lacking sources has already been tagged at the inline level; the next step to address the problem would be to remove the unverifiable content. The accuracy and bias tags are not appropriate unless you or another editor identifies how our article doesn't conform to the reliable sources and/or how its language is non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you're removing non-controversial items, such as the group's website being run by Domains by Proxy, and removing an undisputed reference that the Secret Service stated there were no gun carrying groups at the RNC (something widely reported and easily verifiable by the SS's own report - which was also removed as a source) it appears that you are simply trying to remove every source of the article under the statement "failed verification" for whatever reason. The tags in my view are thus extremely appropriate, as we appear to have a single user who is gutting the article and removing every statement that portrays this group in any sort of negative light. The reason why I have not attempted to revert these changes are because 1) there has already been an attempt at edit warring 2) the massive gutting of the article is suspected as possibly paid or COI editing (that's been advised to me by off-Wiki sources and I believe them) and 3) There is evidence of an almost war path mentality here, accompanied by statements which violate WP:AGF, as well as threats to take matters to administrator noticeboards when questions are not answered quickly and to one's liking. I won't revert a tag removal, but I would hope others might (I've spread the word to noticeboards and I hope others will come to contribute here). I've done about all I intend to at this point as my attempt was to draw notice to this article so that others would come and help fix it. Off the watchlist once again. -O.R.Comms 03:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This comment has little to nothing to do with the tags you added. No explanation of how the content does not reflect the reliable sources. Can you identify any content I deleted--even a single word--that was verifiable and therefore should not have deleted? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, an uninvolved editor should make the eventual decision when and if to remove the tags. By the edit history of the article, you have been heavily involved with removing nearly all of the material, some legitimately but also some I think out of anger even restoring previous versions with syntax and grammar errors. [4]. Regardless of who removes the tags, it should not be either you or I. -O.R.Comms 14:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question: Can you identify any content I deleted--even a single word--that was verifiable and therefore should not have deleted? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is obviously a target of paid editing. I met some members of this group up in Pennsylvania and they are a racist right wing bunch of jerks. Why thus Dr. F-man wants to keep that out of the article is obvious. He's either a member or was one or is connected to them. Just look at the articles this dude edits and it's clear there is an agenda. -2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:67 (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina uniform drive

OberRanks, as you surely know by now, one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is verifiability, which doesn't just mean that something is true, but that readers can verify the content via reliable sources. However I cannot find two of the sources you recently added due to insufficient information:

  • www.inspectlet.com, "Record Session ip 96.10.36.220 - Mar-Apr2016" (Retrieved 13Aug17)
  • Sheriff's Department Press Release, Cumberland County Government Record, Issue 4, Vol 23, Pgs 23-57 (16 Mar 2016)

No offense but do these actually exist? I have my doubts. Please provide links. These involve an alleged "press release" by a government agency. We are in the 21st Century in which no one issues a "press release" without posting it online. I also reviewed the blog coverage of this subject matter and no one is referring to such a source. I also don't know what "inspectlet.com" is, but sounds like something online, so please provide a complete link. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they exist. Cumberland County Sheriff's Department is in North Carolina, they have an address for press inquiries which is where the release came from. The other one is a web tracking service [5] which subscribers can obtain traffic data on former and current webpages. The information from those sources I obtained from the Maryland Republican Party which has done a fair amount of research on this group. -O.R.Comms 17:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does traffic data have to do with the content you added? And the paragraph refers repeatedly to a press release. Please provide a link, or this content must be removed. An address for press inquiries isn't the same thing as a press release. We require published sources. Not unpublished data provided privately to you by a political party. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a different way to answer my question. What specific steps would a reader take the verify the content you added? Would they have to go to inspectlet.com and enter certain information? If so, what information? Would they have to contact the Maryland Republican Party? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of my knowledge on this topic came from the Maryland Republican Party. One of the problems here is that this is such a recent topic and I don't have that much experience writing articles of this nature. I asked on a noticeboard for others to join in. Meanwhile, I'm taking this off the watch list for awhile. If you want to gut it and take out information it can be readded in a year or so when more published material comes out about this group. I'm also sure after Trump's term is up, a plethora of material about these radical right groups will start appearing in publications. For now, "I leave this in the hands of younger men". -O.R.Comms 01:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Press Release

I don't expect much right now from this article, as I think its been swamped down by COI editing, but here at least is the press release which caused such a stir. This is from an e-mail from the Cumberland County government and was apparently copied from the original release back in 2016 which was e-mailed to various agencies, reporters, and interested parities. No, its not on-line. Cumberland County is a small North Carolina community and doesn't maintain digital records of that nature, at least as far as I can tell.[6]

"A Twitter group called “The Lion’s Guard” has called on supporters of the GOP front-runner to join a make-shift militia.
"Do you want to provide security protection to innocent people who are subject to harassment and assault by Far-left agitators?” Lion’s Guard asked in a call to action.
“If so, you are welcome to join. That’s the mission — to protect innocents who can’t hire their own security guards.”
Lion’s Guard said that their members would be unarmed, “but willing to forcefully protect people if need be.”
The account reportedly has over 500 followers, and members were asking for “uniform suggestions.”

-O.R.Comms 14:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts whether Cumberland County in fact issued any such press release, as they do in fact keep an archive of such press releases and I couldn't find this one there. That being said, this is essentially beside the point, (1) unpublished e-mails are not reliable sources, and (2) the content was clearly lifted from this Rawstory article, which we already cite. I believe the Rawstory article is reliable, which makes this a moot issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lion_Guard&oldid=805924781"