Talk:Boogaloo movement

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Unreasonable far-right label

Is far-right really a fair description of the Boogaloo movement? The linked entry states that this ideology is "further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and nativist ideologies and tendencies" featuring "aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views" leading to "oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or ultraconservative traditional social institutions." Terjen (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

1. While the movement is frequently labeled "far-right", they're generally not far-right as described in the linked Wikipedia entry. We can resolve this discrepancy by recognizing the label with a quoted mention, avoiding using the term as if the Wikipedia definition is an objective description of the movement. Terjen (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Your personal disagreement with this recent Request for Comment is irrelevant. There is conclusive and overwhelming consensus to label this as a far-right movement. You are welcome to start a new discussion in the hopes of changing that consensus, but you not free to unilaterally reject this consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC

I don't disagree with the finding from the RfC that many reliable sources use the far-right label. Usually, this would substantiate using the term in wikivoice. However, the sources seem to use the term differently than we define far-right here on Wikipedia, making our lead construct a meaning not supported by the sources.Terjen (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The shoe doesn't fit: It is objectively false to claim the Boogaloo movement is further on the right than the standard political right in terms of being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, nativist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary, as in the WP definition of far-right. Terjen (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That the "standard political right" is, in your view, far-right doesn't mean the Boogaloo are not also far-right. "Far right" is not defined relative to the contemporary (not the same as "standard") right's positions. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not my view or opinion: The relative definition of far-right as being "further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right" is from the lead of our own entry on the term. Terjen (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the Boogaloo movement is not aligned with the "standard political right." Case in point, they largely opposed Donald Trump. Terjen (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

2. There isn't a consensus to use the label among reliable sources, with substantial experts on extremists explicitly avoiding categorizing them as far-right. We should stop using this misleading label in wikivoice. Terjen (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You have one choice available to you if you want to change the existing wording: Open a new RFC and get a new consensus. Otherwise, you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. It is disruptive to apply a "disputed" template to a tern which has clear and unambiguous community consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus from the RfC established that many reliable sources use the far-right label, which is not searched overturned. What is disputed is our use of the label "far-right" in wikivoice, creating a false synthesis. Do you have any objections beyond an insistence on using the questionable label? Terjen (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not questionable, the RfC is unequivocal - Firm consensus to describe Boogaloo movememnt as far-right as per overwhelming majority of reliable sources - and you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK or risk being topic-banned for tendentious editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Far-right is a contentious label, which per MOS:LABEL is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Terjen (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policy, and may be expressly overriden by community consensus. Again, in this case, there is an express and formally-determined community consensus to use the term without attribution. Again, your place to make this argument would be a new RfC, should you wish to start one. You cannot unilaterally overturn a formal RfC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Many sources mention far-right, some sources also mentioning civil war accelerationism (you think that's not enough for the description to be defining and important)? Since WP:NPOV is about properly representing sources, not WP:GEVAL, it's WP:DUE and not even contentious. For WP:ATTRIBUTE, it would be relevant for op-eds, blogs or sometimes for activist organizations. —PaleoNeonate – 05:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely. This recent Al Jazeera article is worth a read for everyone who is genuinely interested in this subject. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

4. There are WP:BLP concerns as the entry names adherents of the Boogaloo movement, who by association are smeared with the far-right label as being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and nativist having chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views. Terjen (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, agreed. Neo-Nazi would be much closer. Feel free to change it. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Reliable sources label them far-right, not neo-nazi. Terjen (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, I am happy with far-right. Neo-Nazi is more accurate but far-right is fine. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Why do you think neo-nazi is more accurate? Terjen (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, because that's the term we normally use for groups of fascist thugs who dress alike. Like Atomwaffen, this group started out at Iron March. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree there are way too many negative traits attached by Wikipedia to the "far-right politics" article to link it to this one by definition, absent RS saying the boogaloos are each of those individual associated slurs. Or at least two thirds of such nasty labels. Fine to attribute the opinion that boogaloos are inherently and inextricably "far-right" to people who say that's the case, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"there are way too many negative traits attached by Wikipedia to the "far-right politics" article to link it to this one by definition" - as I'm sure you already know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, we base content on reliable sources, not what other Wikipedia articles say. Bacondrum 21:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• they are a far-right group, few sources refer to them as anything else. It doesn't matter what individual editors think of this group, we follow reliable sources of which there is an interminable number that refer to this subject as far-right explicitly. There has been a RFC which overwhelmingly supported the inclusion of this claim. Bacondrum 21:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum recently said that "far-right is very well defined, it's not subjective" so I asked for their definition of "far-right". I have inserted the answer in full below:

Terjen "What is the definition of "far-right" then?" I think this articles lede sums it up fairly well: "Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism, are politics further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and having nativist ideologies and tendencies.

Historically used to describe the experiences of fascism and Nazism, today far-right politics includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views." Otherwise feel free to read the relevant literature for yourself - when learning about the far-right, Cas Mudde is always a good start. Regardless we are now thoroughly in WP:NOTFORUM territory.

Now you're just being obnoxious. Bacondrum 22:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I just went through the sourcing, 22 reliable sources cited in this article refer to the group explicitly as far-right. This debate is laughable. 22 reliable sources, FFS!! American politics in the post truth era? Bacondrum 07:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Some experts (e.g., Sara Diamond, see terms such as far right to be pejorative. However, unlike other ideological groups such as conservatism, socialism and liberalism, there is no other agreed term. Personally I prefer it to fascist, except in cases where groups have links to historical Fascism. TFD (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Boogaloo movement has nothing to do with Bogaloo Boogaloo is a freestyle, improvisational street dance movement of soulful steps and robotic movements which make up the foundations of popping dance and turfing; boogaloo can incorporate illusions, restriction of muscles, stops, robot and/or wiggling.[1] The style also incorporates foundational popping techniques, which were initially referred to as "Posing Hard".[2][3] It is related to the later electric boogaloo dance.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iflester (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are suggesting this be added to the article. This article is pretty clear about where the name came from, and I don't think there's much risk that people are going to think this is a dance group. Furthermore, please see WP:NODISCLAIMERS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Is 1RR still necessary?

I happened to be going through the arbitration enforcement log looking at my entries and I saw that I had placed this article under WP:1RR indefinitely. Since indefinite doesn't necessarily mean permanently, I thought I would check-in with the editors here to see if this restriction is still helpful or whether it could be relaxed (or repealed). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts? If there are no thoughts I am inclined to drop the DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, unfortunately. I believe this article will be back to non-stop edit wars and other disruptive behavior if it is removed. Recent edit warring by Terjen is sufficient to evidence this. Bacondrum 21:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. It is unsubstantiated to suggest that I will participate in "non-stop edit wars" should there be no 1RR, a policy I strongly support. In contrast, NorthBySouthBaranof was officially warned by admins about their edit warring just last month. Terjen (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• For the record, it is NorthBySouthBaranof that recently initiated edit-warring, violating the spirit of 1RR on April 20 with the second of these two reversals: [1][2]. I reinserted the tag on April 26 [3] after new postings in the linked discussion. Let's keep 1RR in place and curb disruptive editors. Terjen (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

don’t call other editors “activist editors” as you did in your edit summary. It implies other editors are acting in bad faith. You have been edit warring, this is clear from the articles history. Bacondrum 06:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Bacondrum and NorthbySouthBaranof. @Terjen: you're awfully close to a topic ban. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I am aware. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and never before been in arbitration. Now a few editors here are calling for me being permanently banned from editing entries on U.S. politics. Terjen (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: Well, I'm glad to hear you know there is an arbitration enforcement request concerning you. I was beginning to worry you'd missed the message, since you've been active on the project but not yet commented there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Don't worry, I just haven't been in arbitration before, thus have to catch up on its intricacies and related complexities. Just give me a little time and you'll have your response. Terjen (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I had no idea that to "curb disruption by activist editors" is controversial. I also apologize for my related statement that we should "curb disruptive editors". How do you suggest it is rephrased to avoid any implication of bad faith? Terjen (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you should probably just pull back from attacking other editors and edit warring, and not be disruptive yourself. Bacondrum 08:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: These are serious accusations, with "pull back" suggesting that I am continuously attacking other editors, edit warring, and being disruptive. I am not. Terjen (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what you've been doing, actually. You're not doing yourself any favours. Bacondrum 22:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I haven't made a single edit on any entry page since we entered into arbitration, so there is obviously no edit warring or disruption to "pull back" from. I am sorry if you or anybody else feel attacked, it is certainly not my intent, but I have no idea what concretely you are referring to. Terjen (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell who you're supposedly attacking, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk this:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boogaloo_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1020091255 "Yes, to curb disruption by activist editors" referring to other editors as activist editors, edit warring, being generally uncivil. Bacondrum 07:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia does aim to curb activists. Also edit warriors, assholes, vandals, liars and trolls. If he'd called a particular editor one of those things, I could see a personal attack rather than an overall precaution InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait, called NBSB an edit warrior, pretty much. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your words, not mine. NorthBySouthBaranof was officially warned by admins about their edit warring just last month. Terjen (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What does a dispute at Tim Pool have to do with this dispute? Nothing. If NBSB has not edit warred at this page, don't call them an edit warrior in this dispute. Simple as. "If the editor is no longer violating any policy, it is against Wikipedia policy to keep reminding them of past misdeeds to malign their current actions." GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I finally discovered the WP:ACTIVIST essay, but it doesn't give me much clarity on rephrasing. Rather, it seems to be using similar language, presumedly not in bad faith. One of its sections says: "Activists don't want any other editors taking their articles off message. So, activists will try to drive editors they don't approve of, away. The method used to accomplish this is usually to make the other editors feel very unwelcome in the activists' articles." Terjen (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing a "disputed" label from wording that was established in an RfC, which has not been challenged via a new RfC, is not "activism", it's standard Wikipedia practice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen I can't stop you from pressing your luck. Bacondrum 21:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am not suggesting removing a disputed label is "activism". Terjen (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have no particular interest in this article, but from the outside, it appears Terjen violated WP:BRD by reverting NorthBySouthBaranof's edit. The correct course of action by Terjen should have been to come to article Talk to seek consensus (which is clear now, was already achieved). Blaming NorthBySouthBaranof for violating WP:1RR for reverting after WP:BRD is a non-starter, IMO.  — sbb (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sbb: WP:BRD is a method for reaching consensus thus not something you "violate". My first reinsert of the tag can be recognized as a bold-revert-revert per the alternative WP:BRB method, explaining that the tag was "bringing attention to ongoing discussion about mislabeling", linking to the open discussion on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof then violated the spirit of WP:1RR with their next revert three minutes later. Terjen (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[

@Terjen: Your position seems tenditious. WP:BRD is pretty standard, and something that when "violated", raises attention and invites scrutiny. But you are hanging your argument on a tangential "WP:BRB". You exhibit all the signs and appearances of WP:WIKILAWYERING, and appear to be outside the norm in this instance. I'm not declaring consensus in the argument, but seriously, you are swimming strongly against the current here.  — sbb (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sbb: The reference to WP:BRB is in response to your argument, and only tangential to mine. I already had an ongoing discussion going on the talk page, referenced from the tag. As the issue is in arbitration, attention to WP:Policy obviously plays a role. By necessity, I am turning into quite a policy wonk. I don't mind swimming against the current and hope I will ultimately persuade you and others about the merit of my proposal. Terjen (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Anti-defamation League's self-promoting corporate advocacy efforts

It has been identified that a minimum of eight accounts are being used by the aforementioned publisher employees under apparent direction of the publisher with express intent of inserting their own contents into articles. This article is one of their self promoting edit. ADL's self promotion edits are being current being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"to keep it out of reach of American law enforcement surveillance"

@Sbb: I believe my change (from "The website had been hosted on servers located in Montreal since September 2020 to keep it out of reach of American law enforcement surveillance" to "The website had been hosted on servers located in Montreal since September 2020 to keep it out of reach of American law enforcement") is supported by the given citation. The source says "While the site was still live, Tree of Liberty suggested to its users that they could evade law enforcement surveillance because the website is hosted outside of the U.S." but then two paragraphs later says "The moderator sought to assure him, saying the site is 'hosted outside of the DHS's data jurisdiction,' adding, 'This is a safe place.'" GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. My only concern, which I obliquely mentioned in my edit commit, is that "law enforcement" will just lead to being edited to "police". In this particular case, as noted in the quotation you cite, is that "DHS's jurisdiction" is not equivalent to "police". I won't object to a change to "law enforcement" (sans "surveillance"), as long as it's not changed to "police". Thanks for the discussion. Happy editing.  — sbb (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this instance should not be changed to "police". I've also reverted some of the changes from "law enforcement" to "police" where either the sources do not specify if they are speaking about police or some other law enforcement, or when the source specifically is talking about a specific group like the FBI. It's kind of a squares/rectangles issue -- all police are law enforcement, but not all law enforcement are police. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

100% agreed. The superset isn't identical to the subset. Good edit.  — sbb (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If we know the specific police/law enforcement agency, by all means, use its name. But in cases where it's vague, "police" is simply the twice as concise, more natural synonym. Who enforces laws without policing people? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"police" ≠ "law enforcement". The FBI generally isn't referred to as "police", nor are the various attorneys general and district attorneys, but they are all part of, participate in, or at the minimum are adjunct to "law enforcement". In the cited example, "police" wasn't in the sourced statement, but "law enforcement" was. The law enforcement could have been (who knows? speculation) some 3-letter agency, or police department(s). But the source didn't state, so why infer?  — sbb (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Per law enforcement, you're right that it includes "courts and corrections". The FBI investigates crimes and arrests suspects, they're police, just federal. If referring to a judge, warden or whatnot, specifying is as good as for police. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not hardcore on this, but in general we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. I don't object to every single instance of "police", but I do generally object to replacing all instances of "law enforcement" with "police" as you did several edits ago, if for no other reason than to reduce monotony of the word (i.e., readability copyediting).  — sbb (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've edited to include who thought they were immune (a mod), and from what (Department of Homeland Security); is that OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not fond of your edit. "a moderator"? Moderator of what? (I know, mod of the website, but it reads weirdly in the context). "beyond DHS' influence" also reads weirdly. DHS wasn't trying to "influence" the site, it was trying to surveil the site's users. The 3 words from the source, "DHS data jursidiction", would be much better used here. Clear, concise, no interpretation or synthesis of source information.  — sbb (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A moderator of the website in question, clearly, as you say. I tried not to use "surveillance", per above removal. But yes, beats "influence"...what about "scope"? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with "beyond DHS data jurisdiction"? That's exactly what the site mods/owners were trying to escape: jurisdiction.  — sbb (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As with GorillaWarfare, thanks for the discussion, I truly trust in your good-faith efforts. Happy editing. =)  — sbb (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)