Jump to content

Talk:Three Percenters

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.206.249.124 (talk) at 04:55, 3 October 2020 (→‎Name's Origin is Stupidly Inaccurate: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Inaccurate information

The III% is not a militia. It’s bylaws openly state it is not a militia. While any group my have an idiot that states their insanity is a mission of some organization, that does not make it fact. There is no firearms training required. There are no military type planned activities. There is no rank and file. By definition, referring to this group as a militia is completely inaccurate. SkipShaffer (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm certain you will be able to find a third party source that backs up your statement! It should be easy, if you're correct. We'll wait.--Jorm (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Jorm. We meet again. Let's see here, the source which cites the three percenters as a "Paramilitary" group is a book which, itself, cites this WebArchive source[1] that descirbes them as a paramilitary group. What is politicalresearch.org, anyway? I had never heard of it before. I did some casual glancing at their Mission statement[2] and, as it happens, it's a social justice think tank. Hardly a Reliable or NPOV source. As it stands, I am going to remove that citation of it being a Paramilitary force until you can find me a Reliable Source that accurately describes them as being Paramilitary. Krakaet (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take this issue up with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you feel the source is faulty. Until then, do not remove sourced content.--Jorm (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean...it's a self-described "fight-the-Right" political think tank which is characterizing an opposition group. I would think that it is common-sense that such a source should not be used if it is the only source. As per WP:ONUS[3] Just because it is written does not mean it should be included. What is the reason for inclusion of this commentary? And, if you do believe it should be included, shouldn't it be noted that this is how its opposition characterizes it? Or are you going to argue that a social justice think tank is WP:NPOV?
It's not for me to say! You feel strongly about it; take it to WP:RSN! That's pretty much all there is to say on the matter.--Jorm (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krakaet, [1] (cited five times in the article) states: Barbara Perry, a professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa Ont., who has studied the group says it is actually "a far-right 'prepper' militia movement that is actively arming and engaging in paramilitary training." Vexations (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking at the right source user:Krakaet? The source I see tagging the paramilitary statement[4] is not using webarchive. Furthermore, the citation (#47) in that book is using the Three Percenters "guide to being a Three Percenter" as its source material.[5] "...the movement has adopted a paramilitary structure outlined in its National Bylaws. It divides the country into operational areas, has a hierarchical system of command and control, and demands its followers take an oath similar to that sowrn by serving members of the military." The books also quotes from the guide about their training and "advanced tactic[s]/shooting" from the guide. Looking at the guide myself it also has leader, assistant leader, different officers, discussions about tactical gear, logistics, communications, camouflage, etc. That all seems consistent with the interpretation of paramilitary. A search on Google can find many more sources. MartinezMD (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am, indeed, looking at the right source. Did you look at that book and the statement in that book which describes it as paramilitary? That book is not making the claim, that book is citing another source, Citation #73 in the book which links to this politicalresearch.org think tank.Krakaet (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now, but regardless the book specifically names and cites the group's own material as I've quoted. That is more than sufficient to support the statement in this article. MartinezMD (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very biased. It should be edited to remove or at least reduce the bias. The article describes the group as as "American far-right militia movement and paramilitary group". It is an "American group", but the rest is rubbish. The groups by-laws and website clearly defines who they are. The group does advocate for gun rights (Second Amendment Rights), but that is not all. It also advocates for free speech and freedom of assembly (First Amendment Rights). The group is open to all creeds, races and religions. It is not an anti-government movement. Jmsiino (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is incredibly fair to the movement and borders on being too reflective of the group's own POV... Your concern in unfounded. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20171105005930/http://www.politicalresearch.org/2016/01/05/profiles-on-the-right-three-percenters/#sthash.6sVzrOUF.dpbs
  2. ^ https://politicalresearch.org/about/mission-history
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion
  4. ^ Mockaitis, T.R. (2019). Violent Extremists: Understanding the Domestic and International Terrorist Threat. Praeger Security International. ABC-CLIO. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-4408-5949-6. Retrieved 2020-07-01.
  5. ^ "The Three Percenters By-Laws old Pages 1 - 27 - Text Version". AnyFlip. 2017-11-21. Retrieved 2020-07-01.

The III%ers are not far-right.

They do not meet the criteria of either ethno-centric or nationalistic policy. They also have not aligned with nationalistic tendencies like those at the Charolottesville protests of 2016. https://www.thethreepercenters.org/single-post/2017/08/12/The-Three-Percenters-Official-Statement-Regarding-the-Violent-Protests-in-Charlottesville

Claiming the organization is far right is not correct in the fact that they are also anti federalist which is antithical to the fascist policies of other far -right organizations such as neonazis and the Brave Boys.

Despite some of their followers aligning with those beliefs the organization itself is not far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.117.20 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm certain you will be able to find a third party source that backs up your statement! It should be easy, if you're correct. We'll wait.--Jorm (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, guilty until proven innocent. Unless you can find a "reliable" third-party source claiming you are not a criminal, then the hive-mind at Wikipedia can feel free to label you as a criminal. You can't even provide your own published statements as evidence. Wow. 1984, here we are.Surakmath (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP is based on reliable information see WP:V and WP:RS. If you don't like it, you can publish your own blog. That's why WP is valuable. Although anyone can edit it, we only allow verifiable information to stand. MartinezMD (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're correct, you can't use your own statement as "evidence". The key point here is that you don't own an article about yourself. the 3per organization doesn't own the article. It belongs to Wikipedia as a whole. It's not here to make anyone's "case". Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided for labeling them as "far right" actually does not say they are far right at all. Never once does the NY Times article that is provided as the source call them that. So this article calling them far right is really along the lines of original research and thus, is biased. The term "far right" should be removed from the article if it wants to be viewed as non-biased. Here is the source that was provided btw - feel free to use the search function and search for "far right", it's not there. [1] 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:38A9:358E:7F55:28CE (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the NYT article as it's behind a paywall and I've used up my free article access this month. However, here are other reliable sources we can substitute if NYT isn't clear. These are reliable organizations, Guardian and LA Times are left of center, Fox right, and CSM and AP center.[2] Take your pick for a substitute. MartinezMD (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...associated with the Three Percenters, a far-right militia organization" - LA Times[3]
  • "Parts of the fragmenting “alt-right”...such as the Three Percenters encourage veterans to join their ranks" - The Guardian[4]
  • "Flag-waving members of the Proud Boys and Three Percenters militia group" - Fox News[5]
  • "Flag-waving members of the Proud Boys, Three Percenters militia group" - Christian Science Monitor[6]
  • "The upcoming rally is expected to attract far-right groups such as the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Three Percenters to Portland." - Associated Press[7]
The NYT article says "“Within the extreme right, many of Trump’s most passionate backers come from the militia movement,” said Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League. “The militia movement is overwhelmingly behind Trump’s candidacy.”" Doug Weller talk 13:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, does it say anything specific about the Three Percenters? MartinezMD (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the AP source to the article for the time being. MartinezMD (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now been able to read the NYT article. While I think anyone reading it can get the information from context, there is another issue. The article is about Georgia Security Force III% militia, a III percent group but not the national organization. For this reason, plus the paywall issue, I will remove the NYT source as not specific enough in either manner (not spelling out far-right, and discussing a local group instead of the larger national one). MartinezMD (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/us/a-militia-gets-battle-ready-for-a-gun-grabbing-clinton-presidency.html
  2. ^ "AllSides Media Bias Ratings". AllSides. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  3. ^ "Patriots kicker says he will remove tattoo associated with far-right militia group". Los Angeles Times. 2020-04-28. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  4. ^ Wilson, Jason (2019-01-27). "'We've dug ourselves a really deep hole' – David Neiwert on the rise of the far right". the Guardian. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  5. ^ Rambaran, Vandana (2019-08-17). "Portland mayor praises police after 'largely peaceful' day of far-right, far-left demonstrations". Fox News. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  6. ^ The Christian Science Monitor (2019-08-19). "Far-right and antifa groups both claim victory at Portland". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  7. ^ "US, state to assist Portland police during expected protest". AP NEWS. 2019-08-03. Retrieved 2020-05-28.

Turning into a news article

The Organization and activities section is starting to sound like a newspaper listing anything that had some sort of involvement by person(s) who may have an affiliation. Merely being covered in some media coverage doesn't mean it belongs here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was starting to think the same thing. I think the news mentions are important, but it's devolving to just a list of occurrences. It'll take a good rewrite to make it relevant but not lose useful information. MartinezMD (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest the opinion Slur Word "far right" be deleted

Since "far right" is a subjective pejorative expression (possibly vioating BLP for the persons in a group), I suggest that it be eliminated from the article and objective terms be used instead, like "proponents of laissez-faire economics," "monarchist," or whatever is objectively correct. If sources use that term, its use makes the source unreliable & opinionated at that point. Far right goes back to the horse shoe shaped French Parliament & where the representatives sat (as opposed to British, which is 2-sided). Instead of debating what far right means, I suggest we just be objective. (PeacePeace (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

No. It's not a slur word. It's a description of a political viewpoint, and it's well-sourced. MartinezMD (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? No, sorry. "Far-right" is not a slur, and it's ridiculous that you would say so.--Jorm (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Are you just trying to wind us up? Because this whole thread reads like a troll, like someone trying to make fun of the people who say "far right" is a slur. I can't tell. Poe's law strong here. If you're not trying to troll us, then I wonder about your competence.--Jorm (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not a slur word it is a slur expression. It is not well sourced. All as in every source comes back to the same marxist think tank. Three dozen different editors have explicitly posted as much to be denied by the articles two full time extreme leftist misinformation agents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C800:2260:2C8A:5850:62A:C728 (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided reliable sources. If you don't like it, provide a neutral reliable source that says otherwise. MartinezMD (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably pointless replying to this WP:SPA, quite likely a member. There's no way that someone with a world view so detached from reality. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I give a short policy reply so that others who read know it's been addressed. I don't expect to get through to someone who's (maybe?) read everything and still doesn't understand. MartinezMD (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sacha Baron Cohen

I heard of this 3% thing because comedian Sacha Baron Cohen s/trolled/performed at/ one of their events recently:

Don't know if it is worth mentioning in the article, or maybe the one about the WA chapter. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be a prank for Sacha's new season of Who Is America?. Interesting to see how in the aftermath videos a number of people at the event were upset with the racist, ignorant acts and the organizers were preaching about tolerance.
FunksBrother (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

Change: "The group's website states that it does not discriminate against anyone; however, in response to Black Lives Matter protests following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the Three Percenters' Facebook page featured numerous racist comments by supporters."

to: "The group's website states that it does not discriminate against anyone; however, in response to Black Lives Matter protests following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, some comments on the Three Percenters' Facebook page were allegedly racist."

because: The source provided does not support the claims made. First, comments are not "featured" on Facebook, they are just one part of the page. Next, the source quoted comments made on the group's Facebook page, but those comments are not prima facie racist. One may quibble that some person, somewhere, may think a comment is racist, but since the evidence is at best debatable, saying the comments are "allegedly racist" is a more accurate portrayal of the Facebook page than saying the "Facebook page featured numerous racist comments by supporters." Further, the source claims the posts in question were made by supporters but provides no evidence that the comments were actually made by supporters, rather than, e.g., mere passers-by. Finally, the source intimates group approval of the comments through a single, evidence-less assumption, which -- if the assumption is true -- would actually provide a non-racist reason for leaving the comments on the Facebook page (free expression), and if the assumption was false, doesn't prove anything, because there's more than one possibility for leaving comments on a Facebook page (e.g., neglect). Gwusmu (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source: The group's own Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ThreePercenters/

Response: If the source above is not enough to support my change, then in the alternative, I request the following change: "The group's website states that it does not discriminate against anyone; however, in response to Black Lives Matter protests following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, some comments on the Three Percenters' Facebook page have been described as racist."

Reason: This Wikipedia article states someone's opinion as a fact. Whether a comment is or isn't racist isn't always as cut and dry as, e.g., the atomic weight of helium. A more accurate portrayal would be to state that some have described comments listed on the group's Facebook page as racist.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also see WP:NOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again,  Not done. Facebook is not a reliable source for anything.--Jorm (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I requested a change because the source cited does not support the claims made (see above); a new source isn't needed to begin with. Second, the paragraph is specifically about comments on a Facebook page. If a Facebook page is not a reliable source for anything, and this entire paragraph's primary source is the Facebook page that you say is unreliable, then the entire paragraph needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwusmu (talk • contribs)
The source quotes some of the Facebook comments including "I think Black people resent having to obey laws", "Let the animals starve or kill each other", among others. "...the group claims that it does not discriminate against anyone but the posts on its Facebook page tell a different story" followed by the examples. Then "The Three Percenters might argue that they merely provide a forum for free expression, but they clearly make no effort to remove such comments from their Facebook page." So the source provides examples for it's assertions. MartinezMD (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Denied per above. Marking edit request as "answered". Please do not mark as unanswered again until you have reliable sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove sentence: "The group's website states that it does not discriminate against anyone; however, in response to Black Lives Matter protests following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the Three Percenters' Facebook page featured numerous racist comments by supporters.[3]"

This sentence is contained under the section "Foundation and membership". This is an accusation that is not supported - the references do not show any statements on Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdxtony (talk • contribs) 11:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the first paragraph under the "Organization and activities" section

The entire paragraph is unsupported by any references. To be fair to the organization I would want to see evidence for the following assertions: 

- The group's local chapters are structured hierarchically according to its National Bylaws
- chapters also engage in paramilitary activities such as marksmanship training
- Membership requires voting and opposing laws the group sees as unconstitutional
- Members take an oath similar to that of the U.S. armed forces
- Three Percenters who are also active military members are asked to swear an additional oath promising to disobey certain official orders, such as orders to disarm U.S. citizens.  (this assertion has a footnote [3], but this reference just discusses general extremists)
- The group's Facebook page mostly features posts supporting gun rights (this assertion has a footnote [6] which references a USA Today piece.  This piece does make the assertion as well but provides no evidence)

Pdxtony (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdxtony (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A news agency saying that it saw something and reports it is considered reliable. No different than when they report on crime or some policy event. Note 3 I can't see entirely as only a preview is available now on Google (I can see they are referencing the group's bylaws). For their structure, we have their bylaws referenced already in the Mockaitis citation. We can just carry over the same citation and also the bylaws directly. Tag the sections you want to add citations on and we can include them. MartinezMD (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Consensus Attempt to change Three Percenters characterization from 'far-right' to 'anti-government' in lede

I do not believe that the label 'far-right' is appropriate to characterize this organization with, in regards to the lede. I believe that the characterization 'anti-government' is far more suiting. As we are aware, to be anti-government does not automatically equate to being far-right, not if we used the same metric applied to groups like the Black Panthers and the such. With groups like the Oath Keepers for example it is undeniable that far-right politics is a central tenet of their organization, no matter how they try to deny that. However I just don't see with these people. The opinion of a few researchers and a characterization by APNews is insufficient in my eyes. Even the SPLC and the ADL do NOT refer to this group as far-right. I would like to garner consensus to change the characterization in the lede from 'far-right' to 'anti-government'. I say change the characterization. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any change you may want to make regarding this description needs to backed by reliable sources WP:RS. I do not think you have adequately researched your position as numerous sources, including right-wing biased outlets, have used the description "far-right" in their writing. This has already been partially addressed in the preceding discussion. Starting a new paragraph is not helpful. To help you, I have picked some articles from media outlets typically considered to have a right-leaning bias[1] that have describe the group as far-right:
  • Daily Mail "...of far right militia organization the Three Percenters..." [2]
  • New York Post "...were met by the far-right militia group the Three Percenters..."[3]
  • Washington Times referring to a III percenter tattoo "...bears the symbol of a far-right group..."[4]
  • Washington Examiner "...they are pro-gun and pro-police but not a part of the "3 percenters" far-right militia..."[5]
If you disagree, you can take it up with WP:RSN as they review the sources we typically use in WP. MartinezMD (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And before I forget, the ADL[6] and SPLC[7] (which includes them in their HateWatch section that "is a blog that monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right") do consider the group far-right. So I'm not sure where you came up with that. MartinezMD (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "AllSides Media Bias Ratings". AllSides. Retrieved 2020-10-01.
  2. ^ Fruen, Lauren (2020-06-09). "White cop investigated for wearing badges of far right militia organization and Gadsden flag". Daily Mail Online. Retrieved 2020-10-01.
  3. ^ "Injuries reported after armed militias clash in Louisville". nypost.com. 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-10-01.
  4. ^ Paras, Matthew (2020-04-28). "Patriots rookie kicker to get Three Percenters tattoo removed, apologizes: 'Shameful'". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2020-10-01.
  5. ^ Brest, Mike (2020-09-05). "Rival protesters demonstrate in Louisville in lead-up to Kentucky Derby". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2020-10-01.
  6. ^ "Three Percenters". Anti-Defamation League. 2018-08-23. Retrieved 2020-10-01. captured the attention of Three Percenters, as well as other far right extremists and conspiracy theorists
  7. ^ "Long-time Militia Leader Mike Vanderboegh Has Died". Southern Poverty Law Center. 2016-08-10. Retrieved 2020-10-01. that helped make him a national celebrity, of sorts, in far-right, antigovernment, pro-gun circles

Name's Origin is Stupidly Inaccurate

The group's name derives from the disputed claim that only three percent of American colonists took up arms against the Kingdom of Great Britain during the American Revolution.

Well, "sort of", but not really. The founding principal is the idea that, in times of trouble and danger, only 3% of any given population is willing to actually "do something". They phrase it various ways, i.e. "patriotism", etc... but the core principal is that only a very small minority of people are ever willing to voluntarily risk anything for their nation. The connection to the American Revolution is used as an illustrative example. It could be anything. So the idea that the percentage is "disputed" is stupidly misleading. First the Article misses the basic definition and origin of the group, and then it manufactures a controversy centered on the false narrative. When a person describes themselves as "the 3%", what they are saying is that they will answer the call when their country needs them. How that willingness to act can take any form, and this Article only mentions the most extreme and dangerous-sounding actions the "average person" might take.68.206.249.124 (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Three_Percenters&oldid=981574785"